Judge sides with union, says jet engine maker in Conn. can’t move 1,000 jobs out of state

Judge: Pratt can’t move jobs out of Conn.

HARTFORD, Conn. — A federal judge handed the Machinists union a major victory Friday, ordering jet engine maker Pratt & Whitney to halt its plans to move 1,000 jobs out of Connecticut.

U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall in Bridgeport issued a permanent injunction, stopping the company’s plans to shift the jobs to Columbus, Ga., Japan and Singapore.

The judge strongly criticized the subsidiary of United Technologies Corp., saying it evaded the spirit of its union contract requiring it to make every effort to keep the jobs in the state.

The union, which represents about 3,700 workers, hailed the decision. In its lawsuit, the union accused Pratt & Whitney of failing to comply with the contract that required it to do everything possible to preserve the jobs.

“This is a full win for the union,” said James Parent, chief negotiator for the Machinists local.

Pratt & Whitney, reeling from a downturn in the aerospace industry, announced in September plans to shut its engine overhaul and repair plant in Cheshire by early 2011 and shift repair operations from its East Hartford facility beginning in the second quarter of this year.

Greg Brostowicz, a spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, said in an e-mailed statement that the company will consider all its options, including a possible appeal.

“We believe we upheld our contractual obligations to act in good faith and made every reasonable effort to keep this work in Connecticut,” he said. “The fact remains that we face a declining aerospace market, a shifting customer base and a significant and permanent volume drop at these two facilities.”

Hall said in her decision that Pratt’s actions were not taken out of a “mistaken view” of what the contract required.

“To the contrary, Pratt understood its obligations, but decisively attempted to evade them,” she said.

Hall said Pratt failed to make a good faith effort to keep the two operations open. The company said the union had to come up with nearly $54 million in cost savings without saying that the amount included a portion of savings that belonged to partners in a joint venture and did not benefit Pratt, she said.

“Savings for the duration of the collective bargaining agreement were never going to satisfy Pratt’s desire for long-term savings,” Hall wrote.

The union said its victory was only temporary because its contract with Pratt & Whitney expires in December.

“The Machinists union and its members will be gearing up for whatever fight is necessary to preserve these jobs and expand opportunities in the next contract,” it said in a statement.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who supported the union, praised the ruling. Because the decision applies only through the end of the year, it “hopefully will have an impact on Pratt’s future workforce decisions,” he said in an e-mailed statement.

Executives testified in federal court they had no alternative but to shut the two engine repair plants. They insisted they followed the contract by meeting in good faith with the union to find ways to save the jobs.

Underlying the union’s lawsuit were workers’ fears about growing Asian markets, lower labor and other production costs in the South and overseas and the decline in Connecticut’s manufacturing industries.

Throughout the court hearings in December and January, Pratt & Whitney executives testified that the company lost work due to the recession and the downturn in the aviation industry.

President David Hess said that when he took the helm in January 2009, Pratt & Whitney was facing its “biggest financial challenge since World War II.”

Pratt & Whitney has scaled back operations in Connecticut since the 1960s when more than 20,000 workers were employed. The company now employs 11,000 in Connecticut, fewer than one-third of its global work force.