After four days of hearings and the filing of post-hearing briefs, as well as reply briefs, the City of New Haven prevailed in a matter before the State Board of Labor Relations (SBLR). The complaint filed by the New Haven Fire Union (IAFF AFL-CIO, Local 825) against the City of New Haven alleged discrimination against a union official, failure to bargain in good faith, and interference with the administration of the Union. The critical question was whether the transfer of a senior firefighter was an act of retaliation for his union activities.
Based on the facts and analysis provided by the SBLR, the conclusion was that the City of New Haven did not retaliate against the senior firefighter for engaging in protected union activities. The SBLR dismissed the complaint because the Union did not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of discrimination or anti-union animus.
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the complainant must provide proof that:
1) the employee engaged in protected, concerted activities;
2) the employer had knowledge of those activities; and
3) the employer harbored anti-union animus.”
New Britain Board of Education, Decision No. 4290.
The Union does not need to provide direct evidence of improper motive to prove anti-union animus. Connecticut Yankee Catering Co., Decision No. 1601 (1977). Rather, the Labor Board will consider indirect evidence of anti-union bias, including the timing of an employer’s decision in relation to the protected activity. Town of East Haven, Decision No. 2830 (1990).
Once a prima facie case is established, the SBLR will then address whether the employer has established an affirmative defense which may include proof that the employer would have pursued its course of conduct regardless of any anti-union motivation. City of Hartford, Decision No. 3785 (2000);
However, the evidence presented by the Union was insufficient to establish these points, and the Board determined that the employee’s transfer was not linked to any anti-union bias or retaliatory intent. Additionally, the Board found that the Fire chief’s remarks regarding union relations did not constitute a threat of reprisal or a sign of animus toward the Union.
The Board also clarified that personal animus between individuals, where one is in management and one is a union official, does not amount to anti-union animus.
Employers, if you are facing a labor board charge for a routine personnel matter, please contact a Berchem Moses attorney to discuss your case.