Uma Ramiah Photo
Alderman Elicker: Union victory “not healthy” for union workers.
Two years after they disappeared from City Hall, coolers are coming back, now that the state decided that the city lied to managers in order to convince them to give up bottled water.
The decision, from the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, came down last month. The board found that the city did not bargain in good faith with AFSCME Local 3144, which represents about 360 managers.
The ruling settles a complaint filed in 2011, shortly after the Board of Aldermen ordered the city to stop supplying bottled water to city workers, as a way to go green and save greenbacks. After the order, Local 3144 President Cherlyn Poindexter signed a waiver allowing the city to change her union’s work conditions by removing water coolers.
Thomas MacMillan Photo
Then she found out that other unions hadn’t signed the same waiver, even though Craig Manemeit, then head of labor relations for the city, told Poindexter (pictured) they had, according to the board’s decision. Poindexter filed a complaint with the state, which resulted in last month’s decision in her favor.
The labor relations board has ordered the city to restore water coolers to work areas used by Local 3144 members. Click here to read the decision.
Contacted at his new job as a lawyer for the United Public Service Employees Union, Manemeit criticized the board decision’s account of what happened. He said he never told Poindexter that all other unions had signed the waiver.
Meanwhile, since the city stopped paying for bottled water, Poindexter and other city workers who don’t want to drink tap have been buying bottled water with their own money. Poindexter said she goes through a case of bottled water each week.
Cool, Refreshing
East Rock Alderman Justin Elicker, the engineer of the 2011 bottled-water ban, called the labor relations board decision “unfortunate.” Bottled water is less safe, more expensive, and worse for the environment than tap water, he said. Plus, its use send the false message that New Haven city tap water is unsafe and unpleasant.
Elicker made that same argument nearly three years ago, when he sought to convince his colleagues to end bottled water use in city buildings.
At the time, the city was spending nearly $32,000 per year on bottled water trucked in from Worcester, Mass. The water came in big blue 5‑gallon jugs, dispensed through water coolers. Elicker said that was a waste of money and natural resources.
It’s also dangerous to drink out of plastic, Elicker said: The plastic leaches toxins into the water. He taste-tested water from the around the city and “found them all to be cool and refreshing,” he told an aldermanic committee in 2011.
Backed by community support, Elicker’s proposal was passed into law in March 2011, and water coolers disappeared from City Hall.
Elicker had sought to end bottled water use in public schools, but the Board of Aldermen didn’t have jurisdiction, according to city Corporation Counsel Victor Bolden. The city continues to buy bottled water for the Board of Ed.
Here’s what happened after the ban passed the Board of Aldermen, according to the labor relations decision:
On March 16, 2011, Manemeit, the labor relations director, sent a letter to “All Union Presidents” stating that the aldermen-ordered removal of bottled water would require a settlement agreement.
City union contracts don’t contain language on bottled water. But under the Municipal Employees Relations Act, any change in working conditions requires negotiation with the affected union.
Manemeit gave Poindexter, Local 3144’s president, a proposed settlement agreement stating that the union wouldn’t get bottled water anymore.
“After reviewing the draft settlement agreement, Poindexter raised a concern to Manemeit that unless all City and School Board bargaining units agreed to the City’s proposal, some members of the Union’s bargaining unit would have access to bottle water while other members would not,” the decision reads. “Manemeit assured Poindexter that the presidents of all other unions representing City and School Board employees had already signed similar settlement agreements.”
“For the record, at no time did I ever make any representations that were less than truthful to Ms. Poindexter or anyone else concerning this or any other issue during my tenure as the City’s Director of Labor Relations,” Manemeit said on Tuesday. “Further, and more specifically, I certainly did not ‘assure’ anyone that I had signed settlement agreements from all other City and Board unions or that layoffs would be avoided as a result of the nominal savings realized from the elimination of bottled water delivery.”
Poindexter signed the agreement on March 24, 2011. In July, her union learned that other unions hadn’t signed any such agreement, except for Local 71, part of UE Local 222, CILU/CIPU, which covers parks workers.
“The City made material misrepresentations of fact in order to induce the Union to enter into a settlement agreement,” the labor relations board found.
The board ordered the city to “restore all bottled water dispensers, as such existed immediately prior to March 16, 2011, to work areas frequented by members of the bargaining unit and equip such dispensers in a reasonable and regular basis.”
City spokeswoman Anna Mariotti said Monday that the city is “currently in the process of restoring bottled water.”
Bottles & Bottles
“There is overwhelming evidence that the plastic used in bottled water is detrimental to human health,” Elicker said. Tap water quality is more closely monitored and regulated than bottled water, he said. “I think it’s unfortunate, because the union leadership is advocating for something that’s actually not healthy for union members.”
“It’s a victory,” Poindexter said of the labor relations board decision. “It’s more about the city bargaining in bad faith than it was about the water itself. They didn’t tell the truth about the issue of water.”
Poindexter said the main issue is that the city lied, not that bottled water is better than tap water. Local 3144 is willing to work with the city to find ways to be more environmentally friendly, she said.
Some city employees have, since the bottled water ban, been pooling their money to keep the bottle deliveries coming. That’s the case for workers in the budget office, the chief administrator’s office, and the labor relations department, who share a water cooler stocked at their own expense.
Poindexter said she drinks bottled water — which she purchases — every day, rather than drink the tap water at fire department headquarters, where she works. It’s an expense that adds up, she said. But, “what other choice do I have?”
Local 3144 is willing to sit down and negotiation about ways the city can be greener, Poindexter said. “I’m not against that at all.”
The city still buys bottled water for some city workers who don’t have easy access to tap water, said Rob Smuts, chief administrative officer. Bridge tenders in the public works department, for instance, drink bottled water because they don’t have faucets nearby.
Jimmy Kottage, president of the firefighters union, said the water cooler ban didn’t affect firefighters much. “I thought it was a non-issue.” Kottage said some firehouses still have coolers, paid for by the firefighters in the house.
Dominic Magliochetti, member of Local 71’s executive board and former president of the union, said his union never discussed agreeing to give up bottled water, which happened under his predecessor, President Jack Mesner. He said he’d like to see the cooler return to the parks department shop. A lot of seasonal workers are paid only $9 an hour, he said. They don’t have the spare cash to buy a cold drink on a hot day. “It’d be nice to come in and get something cold.”
Wow. I understand the argument about bargaining in bad faith and sticking to the letter of the contract but Ms. Poindexter isn't making herself, or her union, look good here: <blockquote>Poindexter said she drinks bottled water—which she purchases—every day, rather than drink the tap water at fire department headquarters, where she works. It's an expense that adds up, she said. But, "what other choice do I have?"</blockquote>
At least one jumps instantly to mind.