Connecticut Attorney General's Office

Press Release

Attorney General In Federal Court Brief: Pratt Negotiations With State And Union Were A "Sham"

December 18, 2009

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, in a brief filed with the U.S. District Court today, said Pratt & Whitney's so-called negotiations with the state and union officials to preserve jobs were a sham because the company was determined to move Connecticut jobs to Singapore, Japan and Columbus, Georgia.

In testimony, United Technologies Corporation (Pratt parent company) President and CEO Louis Chenevert affirmatively acknowledged that the jobs would be transferred, even if the union agreed to a $53 million in annual savings during the remainder of the contract that the company had said it would consider.

"The company made these discussions a sham and charade by demanding unreasonable and unnecessary concessions and overstating supposed cost savings from sending jobs out of state," Blumenthal said. "The company betrayed its moral and legal duties to its workers -- and to the state, which offered generous incentives and assistance to keep the jobs here.

"This company's sham negotiations added insult to injury -- callously cornering union workers and the state into making life-damaging concessions that would ultimately mean nothing," Blumenthal said. "Pratt broke its promise to workers, and now threatens to break our economy with substantial job loss and other harm."

Blumenthal said the company's move violates its collective bargaining agreement with workers, and will directly damage the state's economy through substantial job losses that will disrupt hundreds of families.

Blumenthal alleges that Pratt & Whitney disingenuously dismissed the state's efforts to offer $100 million in incentives, and other efforts by union officials, to preserve jobs. He said Pratt violated its binding contractual obligation to exercise all reasonable efforts to preserve those jobs by:

• Demanding unreasonable and unnecessary concessions by the union and state, and then failing to properly value those concessions;

• Requiring concessions well beyond the term of the current contract;

• Overstating cost savings from job transfers and requiring the union and state to propose concessions exceeding the overstated savings; and

• Abruptly terminating the meet and confer process to deprive the state union from the ability to increase their concession offers.

Blumenthal said, "Had Pratt reasonably and fairly evaluated the union's and state's proposed concessions, as required by its contract, it could not have concluded that transfer of this work -- work that has consistently and increasingly generated profits -- was warranted."