Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, CONTRACT CLAIMS—Conn. App.: Police officers who retired before distribution date not entitled to retroactive wages, (Feb 27, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The appeals court pointed out that where the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, the contract is to be given effect according to its terms....

A Connecticut trial court properly determined that the City of New Haven did not breach a collective bargaining agreement when it failed to pay retroactive wages to police officers who retired prior to the distribution date of the retroactive wages, ruled a Connecticut Court of Appeals. The CBA clearly stated that a union member must be an active employee on date of distribution, and 34 of the 37 police officers had retired prior to ratification of the new CBA and so were not active employees on the distribution date. Those retirees were not entitled to retroactive wage payments under the parties’ 2016 agreement (Lalli v. City of New Haven, No. AC 47153 (Conn. App. Feb. 25, 2025)).

Retirees. 37 retired New Haven police officers appealed from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the City of News Haven. On appeal, the retirees claim that the trial court improperly determined that the city did not breach the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, by finding that as retirees and not active employees, they were not entitled to retroactive wages.

Each of the plaintiffs is a former member of the union representing the city’s police force. The terms of employment are set forth in a CBA between the city and the union. Although the latest CBA had expired, under Connecticut law, the parties were required to continue to work at the rate of pay included in the CBA until a new agreement (2016 agreement) was ratified. Ratification of the new agreement occurred September 16, 2016. 34 of the 37 police officers retired prior to ratification of 2016 agreement.

The 2016 agreement provided for retroactive wages for employees who were active on the date of distribution. The city did not make payments on November 14, 2019, the distribution date, to any of the police officers who retired prior to ratification of the 2016 agreement. The retirees also did not receive any increase in their pension benefits.

Breach of contract. The retirees filed a complaint alleging breach of contract. In a November 27, 2023 decision, the trial court held that the 2016 agreement unambiguously required that a union member be an active employee on the date of distribution in order to receive retroactive wage payments. Thus, the officers who retired prior to the ratification of the 2016 agreement were not entitled to retroactive wages, as they were not “active employees” on the date of distribution. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the retirees claimed that the trial court improperly determined that they were not eligible for retroactive wage payment under the 2016 agreement. They asserted that “when employees retire within the effective dates of a contract that provides retroactive wages for periods worked under an expired contract, those retired employees are entitled to said retroactive wages.” The appeals court was not persuaded.

The appeals court pointed out that, where the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, the contract is to be given effect according to its terms....

Active employees. The 2016 agreement provided for the distribution of one-third of the retroactive wage payment to be paid, respectively, on November 14, 2019, July 1, 2020, and in July, 2021. It further provided that, “[i]n order to be eligible for these payments, members must be an active employee on the date of distribution.”

The agreement used the adjective “active” to precede the term “employee,” thereby indicating currentemployment status. Additionally, the appeals court noted that it ordinary looks to the dictionary definition of a word to ascertain its commonly approved usage.... Dictionary definitions make it evident that the currency of the relationship is paramount.

Therefore, according to the terms of the 2016 agreement, only active employees, which term does not include retirees, on the date of distribution can receive retroactive wage payments. 34 of the 37 plaintiffs retired prior to the ratification of the 2016 agreement and under the provisions of the 2011 agreement and were not entitled to retroactive wages payments under the 2016 agreement.

Because the employer’s actions regarding the distribution of the retroactive wage payments to the plaintiffs did not violate the terms of the 2016 agreement, the appeals court concluded that the trial court properly found for the employer on the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

The case is No. AC 47153.

Judge: Bear, S.

Attorneys: William J. Ward (Carlin, Ward, Ash & Heiart) for John M. Lalli, Jr. Claire M. McNamara (Milano & Wanat) for City of New Haven.

Companies: City of New Haven

Cases: Labor UnionsMembers ContractClaims WageHour PensionBenefitPlans EmployeeStatus ConnecticutNews