Skip to main content
· 2/6/2024

Stiegler v. Meriden

Citations

  • 348 Conn. 452

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, former Meriden firefighters who retired in January, 2015, sought to recover damages from the defendants, the city of Meriden and the Meriden Municipal Pension Board, for, inter alia, their alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement between the city and the plaintiffs' union. The collective bargaining agreement contained a wage reopener provision and incorporated by reference the pension plan for fire employees that the city had adopted. Under the terms of the pension plan, a firefighter can become eligible for retirement after he or she has completed twenty-five years of service, or after the firefighter has attained the age sixty-five, in which case he or she is retired automati- cally, effective the first day of the month following the sixty-fifth birth- day. Additionally, under the plan, the amount of any retiree's normal retirement benefit is calculated in part by using his or her base rate of pay, which is defined as the ''annual pay as fixed from time to time by the collective bargaining agreement.'' The plaintiffs, all of whom were younger than sixty-five at the time of retirement, had retired voluntarily following twenty-five years of service with the city. At the time of their retirements, the city and the union were negotiating a wage reopener for the 2014–2015 contract year. When those negotiations reached an impasse, the matter proceeded to interest arbitration pursuant to the relevant provision (§ 7-473c) of the Municipal Employee Relations Act. The arbitration panel issued an award granting all Meriden firefighters 348 Conn. 452 FEBRUARY, 2024 453 Stiegler v. Meriden a 2 percent wage increase retroactive to January 1, 2015, which was before the plaintiffs' retirements took effect. The parties, having agreed that the facts were not in dispute and that the case presented purely legal questions, agreed to have the case tried to the court, which con- cluded, inter alia, that the defendants had breached the collective bar- gaining a

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander; Suarez

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.