MUNICIPAL COMPLAINT STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS IN THE MATTER OF Hartford Fire

Fighters Association, Local IAFF 760 -ANDDaniel Nolan RESPONDENTS ADDRESS: RESPONDENTS PHONE: 1 Linden Place, Apt. 104, Hartford, CT 06103 860-296-3523

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7-471(5) OF THE MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ACT THE UNDERSIGNED ALLEGES THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED IN AND IS ENGAGING IN PROHIBITED PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7-470 OF SAID ACT, IN THAT: Breach of Duty of Fair Representation under C.G.S. 7-468(d) 1. At all times mentioned herein, the claimant, Daniel Nolan was a Union member in good standing. 2. At all times mentioned herein, the respondent, Hartford Firefighters Association (hereinafter, Union) was an employee organization within the meaning of C.G.S. 4 467, with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. 3. The City of Hartford (hereinafter City) dismissed the claimant from his position as the Deputy Chief of Training for the City of Hartford Fire Department on or about February 19, 2009. 4. The claimant, through the Union, filed a grievance and pursued the wrongful firing through arbitration.

5. The claimant was subsequently ordered reinstated to his prior position in the City of Hartford Fire Department pursuant to a March 29, 2011 arbitration award that went into effect in January 2012. 6. The claimants active duty military service from September 9, 2011 until November 9, 2012, delayed his return to the City of Hartford Fire Department until November 25, 2012. 7. The arbitration award directed that the claimant be reinstated to his former position, be awarded full back pay, seniority, and other benefits due to him from the time of termination until the time he resumed his duties. 8. Upon his return to work, the claimant was informed that he would not be returned to his position as the Deputy Chief of Training. 9. The claimant was also informed that he would no longer oversee the training of personnel. 10. The claimants new position also stripped him of authority in making promotion determinations. 11. The claimant informed the Union via email that he had not been reinstated to his prior position as required by the arbitration award. 12. The Union, on or about November 27, 2012, indicated that it would not seek to enforce that portion of the arbitration award that required the City to reinstate the claimant to his prior position. 13. The claimant subsequently requested explanation from the Union as to why it was declining to pursue enforcement of his arbitration award.

14. The Union responded on December 18, 2012, simply indicating that it declined to pursue the matter further. 15. The claimant then urged the Union once again on or about January 7, 2013 to reconsider its inaction and to provide an explanation for its inaction. 16. The claimant received no response. 17. In January 2013, the claimant informed his chain of command and Union that he had not been awarded the compensation prescribed in the arbitration decision. 18. The Union was provided an update of this situation on March 7, 2013. To date, the Union has failed to act to rectify the Citys noncompliance. 19. On March 28, 2013, the claimant informed the City that it had failed to provide compensation due for his active duty National Guard service, in violation of the Citys ordinances. 20. Shortly thereafter, the claimant informed the Union about the Citys failure to compensate him for his active duty service. The Union declined to act. 21. The City again failed to provide compensation due the claimant for his May 2013 National Guard active duty service. 22. On or about May 29, 2013, the Union was again informed of the failures by the City to act in accordance with its ordinances and the arbitration decision. 23. On June 21, 2013, the claimant informed the Union that the City had yet to respond to the claimants request to be paid the appropriate back pay per the arbitrators award and to be compensated for his work in the National Guard per City ordinance. 24. To date, the Union has failed to respond.

25. To date, the Union has taken no steps to enforce the arbitration award both in terms of the claimants rightful position and the compensation owed. 26. To date, the Union has failed to ensure that the claimant receives proper compensation for his active duty service. 27. The Union conduct towards the claimant has been arbitrary, discriminatory, and/or in bad faith and thus, breached the duty to fair representation under C.G.S. 7-468(d). 28. As a result of the Unions conduct, the claimant has suffered monetary damages. 29. As a further result, the claimant has been force to incur incurred attorneys fees and costs in order to obtain the rights to which he is entitled. Count Two Breach of the Duty of Fair Representation under C.G.S. 7-470(b)(3) 1. Paragraphs 1-26 of Count One are hereby made Paragraphs 1-26 of the Second Count as if more fully set forth herein. 27. The Union conduct towards the claimant has been arbitrary, discriminatory, and/or in bad faith and thus, breached the duty to fair representation under C.G.S. 7-470(b)(3). 28. As a result of the Unions conduct, the claimant has suffered monetary damages. 29. As a further result, the claimant has been force to incur incurred attorneys fees and costs in order to obtain the rights to which he is entitled. Count Three Failure to Abide by Arbitration Award under C.G.S. 7-470(b)(4) 1. Paragraphs 1-26 of Count One are hereby made Paragraphs 1-26 of the Third Count as if more fully set forth herein. 27. The arbitration award demanded that the claimant be 1) reinstated to his former position, 2) be awarded full back pay, 3) seniority, and 4) other benefits consistent with the position he held at the time of his termination. 28. The Union has taken no steps to enforce any of these four provisions.

29. The Unions actions violate C.G.S. 7-470(b)(4). 30. As a result of the Unions conduct, the claimant has suffered monetary damages. 31. As a further result, the claimant has been force to incur incurred attorneys fees and costs in order to obtain the rights to which he is entitled.

________________________________________ Dan Nolan 26 Whitney Circle Windsor, CT 06095 Counsel of Record: Fazzano & Tomasiewicz, LLC 96 Oak Street Hartford, CT 06106 860-231-7766 Subscribed and sworn to before me this _______ day of ______________, 2013

________________________________ Commissioner of the Superior Court/Notary Public

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 7-471-20 OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL REGULATIONS, A COPY OF THE FOREGOING WAS MAILED TO THE RESPONDENT BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL.