Connecticut Statutes

§ 5-278 — Determination of employer representative. Negotiations and agreements with employee representative. Arbitration awards. Approval of agreements and awards by General Assembly. Conflicts with statutes, acts or agency regulations.

Connecticut § 5-278
JurisdictionConnecticut
Title 5State Employees
Ch. 68Collective Bargaining for State Employees

This text of Connecticut § 5-278 (Determination of employer representative. Negotiations and agreements with employee representative. Arbitration awards. Approval of agreements and awards by General Assembly. Conflicts with statutes, acts or agency regulations.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-278 (2026).

Text

(a)When an employee organization has been designated, in accordance with the provisions of sections 5-270 to 5-280, inclusive, as the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit, the employer shall be represented in collective bargaining with such employee organization in the following manner:
(1)In the case of an executive branch employer, including the Division of Criminal Justice, by the chief executive officer whether elected or appointed, or his designated representative; who shall maintain a close liaison with the legislature relative to the negotiations and the potential fiscal ramifications of any proposed settlement;
(2)in the case of a judicial branch employer, by the Chief Court Administrator or his designated representative; and (3) in the case of each segme

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Spanierman v. Hughes
576 F. Supp. 2d 292 (D. Connecticut, 2008)
12 case citations
State v. Protective Svcs. Emps' Coalition, No. Cv94-704954 (Dec. 9, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12493 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)

Legislative History

(P.A. 75-566, S. 9; P.A. 76-435, S. 42, 82; P.A. 77-22, S. 2, 3; P.A. 80-483, S. 151, 186; P.A. 83-318; P.A. 86-411, S. 4, 8; P.A. 88-126, S. 1–3; P.A. 89-349, S. 1, 4; P.A. 91-265; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 91-3, S. 163, 168; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 17-2, S. 332; July Sp. Sess. P.A. 20-1, S. 8.) History: P.A. 76-435 replaced vague reference to “provisions of this law” with “provisions of this chapter” in Subsec. (d); P.A. 77-22 amended Subsec. (a) removing provision that chief administrative officer or his representative represent legislative branch employer in collective bargaining; P.A. 80-483 replaced references to personnel boards with references to any state agency; P.A. 83-318 amended Subsec. (a) by replacing the “chief administrative officer” with the “chief court administrator” as the representative of a judicial branch employer; P.A. 86-411 amended Subsec. (b) to remove the provision that failure to submit a request for funds within 14 days of the date an agreement is reached constitutes a prohibited practice, to allow previously approved provisions to be excluded from the submittal of any successor agreement, to require the legislature to vote on the request within 30 days of submittal, and to establish requirements for the submittal of arbitration awards to the legislature and added Subsecs. (f) and (g), establishing coalition bargaining for retirement issues and setting limitations on the use of the impasse procedures, effective July 1, 1986, and applicable to negotiations then in progress; P.A. 88-126 amended Subsec. (b) to require supplemental understandings containing provisions which supersede general statutes or state agency regulations or which require additional state funding to be submitted to general assembly for approval and made technical change in Subsec. (b) and amended Subsec. (c) to require appropriation of funds required to comply with a supplemental understanding, provided request called for in Subsec. (b) has been approved by legislature; P.A. 89-349 amended Subsec. (b)(2) by adding the provisions of Subpara. (B) requiring the appropriations committee to consider arbitration awards filed when the legislature is not in session, specified that arbitration awards be filed with the clerks of the senate and the house of representatives and provided the procedures to be followed for the purposes of a special session; P.A. 91-265 amended Subsec. (f) to include collective bargaining for health and welfare benefits to be effective on and after July 1, 1994; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 91-3 amended Subsec. (b) to establish identical filing procedures and time limits for collective bargaining agreements and arbitration awards and to provide that such agreements may be rejected by a majority vote of either house and such awards may be rejected by a two-thirds vote of either house; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 17-2 amended Subsec. (b) by designating existing provisions re agreement reduced to writing, filed with clerks of House and Senate and approval or rejection by General Assembly as Subdiv. (1), designating existing provisions re rejection of agreement as Subdiv. (2) and amending same to delete “for further bargaining” and add provisions re parties to initiate arbitration and submission of award to General Assembly for approval, designating existing provisions re resubmittal and supplemental understanding as Subdiv. (3) and amending same by replacing “agreement or award shall be deemed approved if the General Assembly fails to vote” with “agreement or award shall be deemed rejected if the General Assembly fails to vote”, adding Subdivs. (4) and (5) re time for debate, and made technical and conforming changes, effective October 31, 2017; July Sp. Sess. P.A. 20-1 amended Subsec. (e) by designating existing provisions as Subdiv. (1), adding an exception to Subdiv. (1) and adding Subdiv. (2) re disclosure of disciplinary matters or alleged misconduct and conflict with the Freedom of Information Act, effective July 31, 2020. Cited. 179 C. 184; 183 C. 235, 238; 197 C. 91; 201 C. 685; 239 C. 32. Cited. 13 CA 461. Collective bargaining agreement did not need to undergo new supersedence process under statute as 1989 memorandum of agreement between state and union it incorporated was evidence legislature had already approved benefits changes concerning per diem employees. 218 CA 445. Cited. 43 CS 1. Subsec. (e): Plaintiff's claim that he was laid off in violation of Sec. 5-241 is barred by doctrine of sovereign immunity because defendants acted in accordance with legislatively approved collective bargaining agreement provisions that superseded statute. 278 C. 204.

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 5-278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/5-278.