Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Alders Lawsuit

    Caricato da

    Helen Bennett
    553 visualizzazioni34 pagine
    New Haven Alders Lawsuit Source: Connecticut Judicial Branch

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    New Haven Alders Lawsuit Source: Connecticut Judicial Branch

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    553 visualizzazioni34 pagine

    Alders Lawsuit

    Caricato da

    Helen Bennett
    New Haven Alders Lawsuit Source: Connecticut Judicial Branch

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 34
    RETURN DATE: BOARD OF ALDERS SUPERIOR COURT vs. J.D. OF NEW HAVEN CITY OF NEW HAVEN, JUSTIN ELICKER, MAYOR, LOCAL 825, IAFF, AFL-CIO FRANK RICCI CHRISTINE T. RICCI METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY JUNE 29, 2020 VERIFIED COMPLAL FIRST COUNT 1, Plaintiff, the Board of Alders is the legislative body of the City of New Haven (“City” or “New Haven”) as required by C.G.S. §7-193(a)(1) and as sct forth in Article IV of the Charter of the City of New Haven, inter alia, (the “Charter”). 2. Defendant City of New Haven is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut and charged with the responsibilities as set forth in Title 7 of the General Statutes, as well as the Charter and Ordinances of the City (inter alia), (Defendant City o City). 3. Defendant, Justin Elicker is the Mayor of the City and, as such, is the chief executive official of the City as required by C.G.S. §7-193(a)(1) and as set forth in Article UI of the Charter (“Defendant Mayor” or “Mayor”). 4. Defendant, Local 825, IAFF, AFL-CIO is an employee organization under C.G.8. §7-467(1) of the Municipal Employee Relations Act and the collective bargaining representative of the firefighters of the City (“Defendant Union” or “Local 825"). 5, Defendant, Frank Ricci is the President of Local 825 and is the initial beneficiary of a benefit negotiated on his behalf by representatives of the Mayor and Fire Union (“Defendant Ricci” or “Union President 6. Defendant, Christine T. Ricci, is the spouse and designated survivor of Defendant Ricci with the respect to the benefit negotiated by Local 825 on her bebalf (Defendant Christina Ricci”). 7. Defendant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is the administrator of Annuity #002366, which administers the annuity negotiated by Local 825 and the City on behalf of the Defendants Ricci and Christine Ricci (“Defendant, Met Life”). 8. On or about May 7, 2020 Settlement Agreement MPP 33,973 (“May 2020 Agreement”) (a) Defendant Ricci accepted a modified remedy emanating from an earlier agreement from May of 2019 (MPP 33,599) and which incorporated an agreement dated July 18, 2006 (“2006 Agreement”); (b) Defendant Ricei shall retire effective July 4, 2020 in accord with terms of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) applicable to Local 825 and the City, including an entitlement to accrued sick leave for the purpose of purchasing pension credits under the CBA; (©) Defendant Ricci shall receive “an annual annuity based upon the calculation set forth in Schedule 1 as full settlement of the dispute regarding the July 18, 2006 Agreement.” Likewise, Defendant Christine Ricci ....his spouse shall be entitled to a survivor's benefit of 65% under Article XXXII of the CBA (Monthly benefit = $1,076; annual benefit = $12,914) | | | (@) Defendant Union agreed to withdraw the complaint with prejudice and Defendant Ricci agreed to sign a General Release of all claims against the City and the Pension Board; (©) The parties agreement that the settlement or the terms would not set a precedent with respect to any other member of Local 825, nor shall it establish a past practice, 9. Onor about May 13, 2020 in accordance with the May 2020 Agreement a mutual release was executed by a representative of the City and Defendant Ricci 10. Onorabout May 14, 2020 the City received a “quote” from the Defendant Met Life in which the City would purchase the annuity for the amount of $386,659.92 in order to provide Defendant Ricci with monthly income of $1,076.20 and Defendant Christine Ricci with survivor income in the amount of $699.53 (“Annuity Agreement”). 11, Onor about May 28, 2020 the Defendants Ricci and Christine T. Ricci, signed an application with the Defendant Met Life for the annuity funded in its entirety by Defendant City. 12, Onor about June 12, 2020, the Mayor of Defendant City notified the leadership of the Plaintiff Board of Alders about the May 2020 Agreement. Prior to that date, the Plaintiff Board of Alders had no notification of such agreement in spite of the fact that the leaders of said Board conducted daily meetings with the Mayor. 13, During the month of June 2020, the Defendant City tendered payment to Defendant Met Life, in the amount of $386,659.92 from an account in the General Fund entitled “Agency 805 — Employee Benefits ~ Object Code $1890 Res lump sum sick leave”. I | 14. Upon information and belief the Reserve Lump Sum Sick Leave account (51890) contains funds reserved for separation pay and employee buyback deposits due to retirement/resignation, 16, Sec. 2-376 of the Code of Ordinances of the City requires, as follows: “The board of aldermen’ s prior approval is necessary for any city contract that does not, g0 to bid that costs more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). 17, ‘The May 2020 Agreement between the City and Defendants Ricci and Local 825 for the sole benefit of Defendants Ricci and Christine Ricci required an expenditure on the part of the City in excess of $100,000.00, to wit: $386,659.92. 18. The Annuity Agreement, funded by the Defendant City for the sole benefit of Defendants Ricci and Christine Ricci in the amount of $386,659.92, was in excess of the $100,000.00 threshold in the ordinance, 19. Upon information and belief there is no record of any bid process by which the Defendant City selected Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to provide this service to the City, 20. The legal authority of the Defendant City is based upon compliance with and adherence to the laws set forth in Title 7 of the General Statutes, the Charter and Ordinances. 21. ‘The Plaintiff, Board of Alders is the legislative body of the City, as set forth in Article IV, Sec. 1.A of the Charter, and, as such it has the power and authority to adopt the annual budget, adopt, amend and repeal ordinances subject to any limitations imposed by the general statutes or by the charter. Among these authorities is the power to make contracts on behalf of the municipality rests in the legislative body. Moreover, no officer or board, other than the legislative body, has power to bind the City by contract, unless duly empowered by statute, the charter, or authority conferred by the common council, where the latter may so delegate its powers..." Among their duties are: a. To exercise “all powers conferred upon said City except as otherwise provided” with the approval of the Mayor or over the Mayor’s veto, as set forth in Article IV, Sec. L.A(1) of the Charter, b. The “power to carry into effect and operation, by appropriate Ordinances with the approval of the Mayor, or over said Mayor's veto as provided in this Charter, all powers of the City as provided in this Charter” as set forth in Article IV, Sec. 1.A(2) of the Charter; c. The authority to enact Ordinances and other Legislative Measures as set forth in Article IV, Sec. 3 of the Charter. 4. appropriate Ordinances with the approval of the Mayor, or over said Mayor's veto as provided in this Charter, all powers of the City as provided in this Charter. 22. The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the City. Among his duties are the following: | a. “To cause this Charter, the Ordinances and laws to be executed and enforced, and to conserve the peace within the City. The Mayor shall be responsible for the good order and efficient government of the City” as set forth in Article III, Sec 2.B(1) of the Charter; b. “To sign together with the City Treasurer all bonds and other instruments evidencing City indebtedness, and by himself, all deeds and all written contracts of the City approved by the Board of Alders, except as otherwise provided in this Charter, or any Department, Board or Commission of the City in accordance with authority conferred upon them by this Charter or by the Ordinances, or otherwise by Lav; provided, the facsimile signature of the Mayor is authorized on all bonds issued by the City” as set forth in Article UL, Sec. 2.B(3) of the Charter; c. “To see that all contracts and agreements with the City are faithfully kept and performed “as set forth in Article III, Sec, 2.B.(4) of the Charter; and, Gd. “To submit to the Board of Alders in writing at its first meeting in February | i | | of each year a complete report of the affairs of the City for the preceding year including the activities of each Department” as set forth in Article III, Sec. 2.B.5 of the Charter. 23. The Defendant, Local 825 and Rieci regularly conduct business with the Defendant City; as such, they are charged with notice of the extent of the powers of municipal officers and agents with whom they contract and the Charter and ordinances of the municipality. 24. Defendants City, Local 825 and Ricci knew or should have known the powers and authority of municipal officials as well as the laws and decisions that authorize the actions of the | municipality, as follows: | a. Onor about December 27, 2018, the Board of New Haven Policemen’s & Firemen’s Pension (“Pension Fund”) repudiated the underlying terms of the 2006 Agreement pertaining to pension enhancements (“2018 Pension Fund Action”). b. Onorabout March 13,2019 following the 2018 Pension Fund Action, Local 825 filed a complaint with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations (MPP 33,599) for the purpose of requiring the City to bargain over the proposed impact of the rejection of the enhanced pension benefit, contained in the 2006 Agreement, on Defendant Ricci’s «,,.wages, hours, and/or working conditions” on the basis of the City’s refusal to comply with a grievous settlement or arbitration settlement in accord with C.G.S. §7-472. c. In spite of the 2018 Pension Fund Action, on or about May 30, 2019, the Defendants City and Ricci, again reaffirmed the 2006 Settlement for an enhanced pension benefit by, inter alia, altering the terms to allow the benefits to go to the current President (Defendant, Ricci) and Viee President, thereby rendering the 2006 Settlement “null and void” for “any and all other individuals;” and reaffirming that the agreement would not set fa procedent with respect to any other Local 825 bargaining unit member nor shall it constitute any form of a past practice on wither party (“2019 Agreement”), 4 On or about July 26, 2019, the Pension Fund adopted a Resolution prohibiting the Pension Administrator or staff from implementing the payment of any “Enhanced Pension Benefits,” in accord with the 2018 Pension Fund Action. ©. Commencing on January 30 and February 25, 2020, the Pension Fund conducted as series of meetings to discuss the 2019 Agreement and a legal opinion regarding whether Defendant Rieci’s pension would be calculated in accordance with that agreement. On both occasions, the items were continued at the request of the Mayor on both dates. f Onor about March 26, 2020, the Pension Fund conducted a third meeting on the 2019 Agreement under Old Business as Item 9. 3/26/2020, at which time it wes indicated that the parties were going fo discuss an alternate settlement, such as an annuity in recognition of the issues raised by the Pension Fund. 2. Onor about May 7, 2020, the parties entered the May 2020 Agreement ‘where they contrived a remedy that would provide the same benefit; however, avoid the pension enhancement, 25, In pite of the 2018 Pension Fund Action, the resolution adopted by the fund, the opinion of Pension Fund counsel and the ordinances of the City, the Defendants, City, Local 825 and Ricei, proceeded with the May 2020 Agreement in contravention of law. 26. The conduct of the defendants as aforesaid is in violation of the law and described herein, and the City and its Mayor have neglected and reused to submit the said May 2020 Agreement and annuity contract to the plaintiffs for their review and approval. 27. Pursuant to Conn. Gen Stats, 52-471 et. seq., the plaintiff seeks a temporary and permanent injunction SECOND COUNT (Mandamus) Paragraphs 1-26 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference into the Second Count, as paragraphs 1-26, the same as if fully pleaded herein. 28. The Plaintiff seeks an order of mandamus pursuant to Conn, Gen Stats. 52-485 us requiring the defendant City and its Mayor to submit the Ricci May 2020 and annuity contract to the Board of Aldermen for its approval and review as required by law. 29. The plaintiff has a clear legal right to review the contract funded and approved by the City on behalf of Frank Ricci; 30. Submitting the said contract to the Board of Alders as required by law is the performance of a ministerial act requiring no exercise of a public officer’s discretion; 31. The plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. THIRD COUNT (Declaratory Judgment) Paragraphs 1-26 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference into the Second Count, as paragraphs 1-26, the same as if fully pleaded herein, 27, The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to Conn, Gen Stats. 52-29 and Connecticut P.B. 17-54 et. seq. that the Rieei May 2020 Agreement and the annuity contract in question requires the prior approval of the Board of Alde1 28. The plaintiff has an interest as elected representatives of the City, both legal and equitable, g the City and the Mayor follow the Charter and the Code of Ordnances in administering the law on behalf of the public. 29, The legal issue raised here presents an actual bona fide and substantial question of law in dispute which requires settlement between the parties. 30. There is a sufficient practical need for a determination of the question in dispute. 31, All parties having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint are parties to the action and will be given reason notice of this proceeding, WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff claims: 1. A temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting the City of New Haven and Justin Elicker as its Mayor from funding the pension to the defendant Frank Ricci pursuant (o an annuity with the prior of approval of the plaintiff Board of Alders. ‘A temporary and permanent mandamus required the defendant Justin Elicker as Mayor of the City of New Haven to submit the proposed annuity for Frank Ricci to the Board of Alders as required by law. A declaratory judgment determining that the City and the Mayor are required to submit the May 2020 Agreement and the annuity contract in question to the Board of Alders, Please enter our appearances for the plaintiff. and ‘THE PLAINTIFF INwe ee BY. /\ \] JONATHAN J! EINHORN 129 WHITNEY AVENUE NEW HAVEN, CT 06510 FINHORNL AWOEFICH@GMAIL COM 203-777-3777 203-782-1721 JURIS NO. 017962 STEVEN MEDNICK 142 TEMPLE STREET, 2 floor NEW HAVEN, CT. 06510 SMEDNICKOI@SNET.NET 203-752-9198 JURIS NO. 102843 RETURN DATE: BOARD OF ALDERS SUPERIOR COURT vs. LD. OF NEW HAVEN CITY OF NEW HAVEN, JUSTIN ELICKER, MAYOR LOCAL 825, IAFF, AFL-CIO, FRANK RICCI, CHRISTINE T. RICCI, and I METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY JUNE 29, 2020 STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY The plaintiff in the above-entitled matter hereby claim damages in excess of t $15,000.00. THE PLAINTIFF EINHORNLAWOFFICE@GMAIL.COM 203-777-3777 203-782-1721 JURIS NO, 017962 Beet STATE OF CONNECTICUT i LABOR DEPARTMENT | CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS I tee matin of | Chey ot New Hives | (aspordent) | nore CASE NO. MPP-SSEBE +s ! NEW HAVEN FIRE UNION, LOCAL 325, IAPY, AFL-CIO imma | Pesan Seton 7471) of th Mal lon Reco foto mae ser, os Sees! ‘Respect bat enqpge ia ex! i engaging i otaedpractons wit do namaey of Scton 7-570 (Pim prove clew eal concn Sergio of th acs wich we chained w conus probed pce facing mo 1. The City of New Haven (the “City” is a Municip Employer within the meaning ofthe Act; 2 New Hevea Fibe Union, Local #25, IAFP, AFL-CIO (the “Usion") is en Employes Orgeniestion ‘within the mening of the Act; 3 ee ea comer ceerre 4. The Usion recent, for collective buegaining purposes, ol mifomned end investigaiory positions within the Depertuent of Fire Service, except tht ofthe Chief ens the Department Executive Offer. 5. On ar abuxt Joly 18,2006 the City andthe Union eared into mn agreecen tht provided a sexncol peuain benefit for coc Union ofio= (President or Sourety Trees). 6 Once sboet January 2, 2019 the City provided tha Union President, who bs elected to puraue the ‘eohenced pension benefit in ancondance with the July 2006 sgreemisat, a pension escalation preview thet id not include the cahmneed benefit. 7. Moreover, the City has informed the Union President tht they will not hour the July 2006 | greement. | 8. Inthe past, the Cty end the Union bave settled snt-onion cases with the stiptation tha the City ‘will not engage in at-anion animes or habor a bias ngnst union officials. RECEIY 9% The City has violated Section 7-470(6)(4) (2 Count) of the Act by failing to bargain coetively MAR Ts id wees eae : 6420.78 ES Heciin siboutcblank : Sa good fith with the Usion, ea weil 7-470((6) refusing to comply with a grievance wotlenent, | co atittation stiement, o ¢ valid ward or decision of ex hition panel cr mrbitaor enersd | ‘necnadance with the provisions of section 7-472. | ade requiing tho City to ergain wits he union the impact its propesed change ay have oe the bergsiniag unit menber’s wages, Bours, nor working cantitons. 2, Order roqiting the City to cense and desiet 3. Orie reguing the City so make ail afacted peti while, 4. —-Paynnnt of tbe Union's coma and atoatey's fees, 5. Such other nliaf as doomed eppompritn by the Bowed. Cartified MaitNo. Jp 17 Ob4D DORE b a T. Sega, ated pin ee | (NEW HAVEN FIRE UNION, LOCAL $25, t 4 TAFE, AFL-CO 1 -rais B ay | ee — | Sepa, Has. | ‘New Haven Fire Union, Local S25 i 33 Cobos ed i deomatts Fagerid ‘Haetiord, CT | Metcxy Abie Saen: marehalieweenieeal cate | ‘itey Conseriasicn i (Meay 31, 0S CERTINICATION O¥ SERVICE | ney cry Et ps etn 7471.20 fe Cost Car apis py fe sin wa ae | ibe Lponta yeti ma I | | 6 rm Fieion bout biank, CITY OF NEW HAVEN : CASENO, MPP.33,599 AND LOCAL 825, IAFF, AFL-CIO May 30,2019 ‘SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT {mn fill end finel settlement of Prohibitive Practice Complaint MPP 33,599 between the City of New Haven (hereinaiter “City") and Local 825, IAFF, AFL-C1O (hereinafter, Union”), the ‘parties hereto do herchy stipulate and agree: ‘The current President and Vice President shall be the only individuals to benefit from the stacked agreement dated July 18, 2006. The tached ayrecment eall boom tll and void for aay and all athe individnals effective upon the signing of ths Seitlement Agresmest. Tho parties grec that though the attached egresment will capire it all not foreclose the right ofthe partes to negotiate future benefit of this type 2. The current President agrees thal be will rtite no earlier then Jamuary |, 2020. 3. The current Vice President shell have halftime release from duty for union business. it Half time release sean rciease from daytime sbift duty, but shall work night shift uty, This release will only be for this current incumbent ana will expire on March 1, 2028, 4, ‘The City agrees that it will answer all currently filed overtne grievances at Step Ore by June 30, 2019, I 5. tnemidentin of shove he Union with he how ited compa wih | prejudice. 6. Neither this setdemest agreement nor the terms of this settlement agreement shail set precedent with respect to any other Local £25 bargaining unit member nor shall i cconstitate any for of a past practice on ether pasty. (CITY OF NEW HAVEN: ‘LOCAL 825, IAFF, AFL-CIO KE l ae | ‘Thomas McCarthy Frank President | | Director of Labo Kations Local £25, IAFF, AFL-CIO KAGENS25 Settlement Agrecments\MPP-13,599 Settlement.doc ae 652n aN z City of New Haven, RE: Pension: Union Officers Aad C Local 825 * LARE, | uty 18, 2006 MEM OF UNDERSTANDING ‘WHEREAS, The City of New Haven (hereinafter the “City”) and Local 825, LAP. (heteinafter the “Union”) ate parties have recently entered into a tentative successor collective bargaining agreement; WHEREAS, The parties have been negotiating surrounding the issues of pensions for Local 825 bargaining unit members; and WHEREAS, The parties have agreed to pension changes for Union Officers. ‘NOW, THEREFORE, the following shall be applicable pension language for Union Officers as it pertains to pension: 1. The Union President and Secretary/Treasurer shall have the ability to engage in the sick leave buyback regardless of the any of the limitation language stated in Article 32 Subsection 32.16 (4). Any individual eligible for this benefit shall be required to hold office for @ minimum of at east four (4) consecutive years. @ 2. Any individual serving in the capacity of Union President for a period of at least 7 (Geven) years shall have his/her pension calculated at as if his/her salary is equivalent to the highest budgeted salary of any Local 825 member. 3. Any individual eligible for the benefit in paragraph two (2) of this Agreement shall be required to hold the office of President continuously for the time period described in the above paragraph. 4, Regardless of the Union by-laws, only one (1) person can be designated as the “President” and/or “Secretary/Treasurer” for purposes of this agreement on any given date. 5. Inthe event the Secretary/Treasurer assumes the office of President, his/her time as Secretary/Treasurer shall be calculated for the benefit of paragraph two (2) as long as, ‘there is no break in Union service. oe In witness whereof, the parties have caused their names to be signedon this Z4_ day of July 2006 City of New Haven 163 A DSSARR, fe ae By:

    Potrebbero piacerti anche