Unions Sue Colt’s 

Mar 6, 2018

Two of the labor unions at Colt’s West Hartford, Connecticut facility have filed suit against the company, alleging violation of a collective bargaining agreement by “outsourcing significant production and laying off workers.”

The suit, reported in HartfordBusiness.com, says that a condition of the $10 million state loan to Colt last year included a pledge to maintain and grow jobs in West Hartford. 

The Amalgamated Local No. 376 and United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO filed the suit last week in U.S. District Court of Connecticut, alleging the violation. It also asks the court to reverse the layoffs of 74 workers until an arbitration case against the company is heard in July. 

Court documents obtained by HartfordBusiness.com show the feud first began in October 2016, when Colt’s announced it was making layoffs and outsourcing parts.

When the unions filed a grievance over the changes, Colt’s response cited financial conditions as the reasoning for the outsourcing. Unable to reach an agreement, Colt’s informed the unions in October they would be moving forward with the outsourcing plans.

In October 2016, the unions say Colt’s employed 506 union members. Today, court documents say the company employs 288. According to a spokesman for the Department of Economic and Community Development, the contract and state loan say the company must “average 615 jobs for 60 consecutive months ending December 21, 2021.”

The unions have also filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. To our knowledge, no comments or official statements have been released by Colt’s.

Ironically, yesterday’s editions of HartfordBusiness.com carried a story of the $100 million renovation project that has been underway at the 20-acre former Colt works for the past decade. The project, now in its sixth phase of development, has converted the former manufacturing facilities into mixed use development that includes housing, retail, corporate and educational space. 

In other news, it seems the announcements from Dick’s, Field & Stream, Walmart, L.L. Bean, and Fred Meyer stores that said they would no longer sell firearms to anyone under 21 years of age is raising questions about anti-discrimination laws.

A Monday column in the Boston Globe entitled “Arguable” makes the case that refusing to sell to anyone under 21 in states where the minimum age to purchase a gun amounts to age discrimination. Citing what Dick’s said were overwhelmingly positive responses, the writer asked “would the responses have been so supportive...had they announced..in the wake of a terror attack..they would no longer sell weapons to Muslims.”

Yikes. 

Of course, Second Amendment groups have already raised that same issue. But, since they’re pro Second Amendment activists, you’ve not seen much about that in mainstream media. 

Discrimination, if it fits “the narrative” it seems, is apparently OK.

We’ll keep you posted.

-- Jim Shepherd