Aircraft Engine Maker Pratt & Whitney Request Court To Act
Aircraft Engine Maker Pratt & Whitney Request Court To Act Quickly
March 5, 2010 - On Thursday, Pratt & Whitney went into court to request the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Hartford, Connecticut to act quickly on an appeal before the court on a lower court decision that prevents the jet engine maker from moving over 1,000 job's out of the state and country. Pratt & Whitney indicated they needed a decision before their machinists contract expires December 5, 2010.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, in a brief filed with the lower
court, U.S. District Court, said that Pratt & Whitney had failed to
demonstrate that the transfer of 1,000
Blumenthal said the company also proved through its own case at trial that it violated its collective bargaining agreement and failed to consider reasonable offers by the union and state to avoid devastating job cuts.
Blumenthal said the evidence demonstrates that Pratt never had any
intentions of trying to preserve these jobs. Instead, the company made
demands to the union and state -- dubiously disguised as good-faith
negotiations -- that were unreasonable, unnecessary and impossible.
"Pratt & Whitney presented a great case against itself -- demonstrating
that it failed to negotiate in good faith with the union and state, and
that it cannot lawfully move
disingenuously demanded concessions that it knew to be impossible,
callously violating its legal agreement with workers to make every
reasonable effort to preserve work, even when the concession cost
savings outweighed the expense of transferring jobs.
On February 5,
2010, U.S. District Court, Judge Janet Hall in an 85-page decision
issued a permanent injunction on the company's restructuring plan during
the term of International Association of Machinists collective
bargaining agreement, which will expires on Dec. 10, 2010.
?Pratt & Whitney
is adding insult to injury by filing an appeal of the court decision
castigating them for failing to make an effort to preserve work in
Jim Parent, Assistant DBR and chief negotiator for UTC matters, added: ?They won?t win an appeal; the judge?s decision was sound and the evidence was over-whelming. They should stop wasting time and money and start working with us. Acting recklessly with people?s lives is irresponsible.?
Just two weeks
after a federal judge issued an injunction against Pratt & Whitney to
keep them from closing the
announced last July that they were closing the two plants and moving the
work to Singapore, Japan and Georgia, the IAM won an injunction in
federal court after showing that Pratt had violated the IAM contract?s
provision to ?make every reasonable effort? to keep work in Connecticut.
During the trial, evidence was presented that the company planned to
claim a downturn in aerospace as an excuse for cutting
?The top brass of Pratt & UTC were caught in lie after lie during the court trial. They should have owned up to their mistakes and sat down with us,? said Everett Corey, IAM District 26 Directing Business Representative (DBR). ?Instead, they think they can save face by punishing workers. It?s outrageous. If they want a fight, they will get one. My message to Pratt is simple: ?work with us to save jobs,?? said James Parent, District 26 Assistant DBR. ?The same people who orchestrated the plant-closing fiasco for Pratt are pushing these layoffs. If they want to start cutting jobs, that?s the people they should start with.?
|?AvStop Online Magazine Contact Us Return To News|