Working Together

We have written about the General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee’s final flurry of activity approving and advancing bills out of committee.  [LINK TO PART ONE] In addition to the bills that we have already summarized, here is a brief summary of some other bills approved by the Committee (and which now await action by the full General Assembly). 

PENSION/RETIREMENT

H.B. No. 6844 (“An Act Concerning Permanent Partial Disability Benefits And Pension Offsets”) would prohibit a municipal or special taxing district pension system from diminishing or eliminating rights and benefits granted to a retiree under a pension or retirement system due to such retiree receiving workers’ compensation permanent partial disability benefits. Nothing in this bill would be construed to impair or alter the provisions of any collective bargaining agreement in effect before October 1, 2025.

H.B. No. 5609 (“An Act Concerning Retirement Benefits And Workers' Compensation Benefits”) would similarly prohibit a municipality or special taxing district pension system that provides a pension or retirement to its employees from reducing retirement benefits due to an employee receiving workers' compensation benefits.

H.B. No. 6845 (“An Act Concerning Hazard Pensions For Certain Judicial Employees”) would add investigators in the Division of Public Defender Services, investigators in the Division of Criminal Justice, and support service investigators in Support Enforcement Services of the Superior Court to the definition of "hazardous duty member" for purposes of the State Employees Retirement Act (and thus make them eligible to receive a “hazardous duty pension”).

H.B. No. 6953 (“An Act Requiring Municipalities To Provide A Pension To Police Officers And Firefighters Through Participation In The Municipal Employees' Retirement System Or Another Comparable Pension System”) would require that municipalities employing police officers and firefighters provide them with “defined pension plans” through the municipal employees' retirement system or another system that offers comparable or superior benefits.

S.B. No. 1221 (“An Act Making Changes To The Connecticut Retirement Security Program”)  would make several changes to the Connecticut Retirement Security Program, by among other things, 1)  extending the Program to cover personal care attendants who provide personal care assistance under a state-funded program; 2) tying the Program’s default contribution rate to Section 414A of the Internal Revenue Code for new enrollees; 3) allowing the Comptroller to provide an applicable retirement saving vehicle for participants who receive a federal “Saver’s Match” contribution; and 4) creating a notice requirement and financial penalty for employers who fail to enroll covered employees, with the amount based upon the size of the employer. This would be in lieu of the enforcement mechanism under current law (i.e., allowing the Commissioner of Labor or the Comptroller to bring a suit against a non-compliant employer).

WAGE/HOUR

H.B. No. 6517 (“An Act Concerning Disclosure Of Salary Ranges On Public And Internal Job Postings”) would amend a recent law regarding salary disclosure by requiring employers to disclose, in each public and internal posting for each job, promotion, transfer or other employment opportunity, the wage or wage range, and a general description of the benefits, including, but not limited to, health benefits, retirement benefits, paid days off and tax reportable benefits, and other compensation to be offered. The bill provides that it should not be construed to require an employer to use a public or internal posting to advertise a job, promotion, transfer or other employment opportunity if the employer uses an alternative method of hiring; if such an alternative method was utilized, then the employer would have to provide such wage/benefit information about the position: 1) upon the applicant’s request; or 2) if not so requested, prior to any offer or discussion of compensation. The bill also requires employers to provide this information to their employees annually. Furthermore, this bill revises the current law’s definition of “wage range” so as to constitute the range of wages for a position “set in good faith” by reference to an applicable pay scale, previously determined wage range for the position, actual wages for the employees currently holding the position, actual wage range for employees currently holding comparable positions, or the employer’s budgeted amount for the position. This bill’s provisions would apply to remote positions held by out of state employees where they have to report to an in-state supervisor, office or work site. 

H.B. No. 7197 (“An Act Requiring Paycheck Transparency”) would require employers to create a guide to help employees understand the pay codes used by the employer on records of hours worked. Each such guide would be required to be posted on the employer's web site and include, but need not be limited to, an explanation of the codes used for straight time, overtime and any pay differentials. Such information would be posted in English, Spanish and the other most common languages spoken by employees of the employer, and would include contact information of the designated office or individual who will handle employee disputes regarding calculations of hours and pay differentials. An employer would be required to update such guide each time a new pay code is added by the employer. An employer would be required to include on each record of hours furnished to an employee a link to such guide. Upon hire, an employer would be required to provide a detailed explanation of the relevant pay codes for such employee's position including a definition for each such code.

S.B. No. 829 (“An Act Concerning Pre And Post-Shift Hours”) would modify the definition of "hours worked" for purposes of the state’s wage and hour laws to include the time an employee spends in security screenings required by an employer.

H.B. No. 6842 (“An Act Concerning The Minimum Fair Wage And Persons Employed At Cannabis Establishments”) would clarify that persons employed at cannabis establishments are to be paid the “minimum fair wage” (and that gratuities would not be credited towards such wage).

H.B. No. 6843 (“An Act Concerning The Number Of Wage And Hour Investigators At The Labor Department”) would increase the number of wage and hour investigators employed by the Connecticut Department of Labor to at least 22 by October 1, 2025 and at least 45 by July 1, 2026.

S.B. No. 1370 (“An Act Requiring Workers Performing Off-Site Custom Fabrication For A Public Works Project To Be Paid Prevailing Wage Rates”) would, as the title suggests, require workers performing off-site fabrication for a public works project to be paid “prevailing wage” rates.

H.B. No. 6955 (“An Act Concerning The Liability Of A Contractor For Unpaid Wages Owed To An Employee Of A Subcontractor For Performance Of Labor On A Construction Contract”) would make a contractor jointly and severally liable for unpaid wages owed to an employee of a subcontractor at any tier who performs work on any portion of a construction contract; the bill would expressly permit such contractors to protect themselves with respect to their subcontractors via contract provisions addressing a remedy for liability caused by the subcontractor’s nonpayment of wages.  The bill would also authorize an employee or employee organization to bring a civil action against the contractor and subcontractor with respect to such nonpayment.

S.B. No. 1487 (“An Act Concerning Transportation Network Companies And Third-Party Delivery Companies”) would 1) require transportation network companies to provide receipts to both drivers and riders that detail time, distance and pay rate for drivers, 2) require such transportation network companies to provide real-time  messaging between the company and the driver through the company's digital network when the driver is using the digital network, to be available in both English and Spanish, 3) increase the registration fee for such companies, 4) prohibit any such company from retaliating against a driver for filing a complaint with the company, and 5) establish an appeals process for drivers who are suspended from accessing the company’s digital network. The bill would also require transportation network companies to pay each of their drivers the greater of: (1) 85% of each passenger fare charged not including taxes, fees, surcharges, or tips; or (2) minimum pay per trip, which is set forth as the sum of at least (a) $1.59 per mile the driver travels during “rider transport time,” and (b) 68 cents per minute of rider transport time.  The bill also requires network companies to pay drivers: (1) the cost of any cancelled ride; (2) mileage reimbursement; and (3) other fees incurred during the trip in addition to the pay.  These rates would be subject to indexing.

S.B. No. 1488 (“An Act Authorizing The Comptroller To Withhold Payment For Violations Of The Prevailing Wage Statutes") would permit the Comptroller to withhold payment of money to a contractor or subcontractor for a violation of the prevailing wage statute on a covered public works project in circumstances where a stop work order was issued by the Commissioner of Labor.

H.B. No. 5607 (“An Act Concerning The Subminimum Wage For Persons With Disabilities”) would establish a task force to study eliminating the subminimum wage for persons with disabilities, and to issue a report with its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee by January 1, 2027.

SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

S.B. No. 1371 (“An Act Establishing A Just Cause Standard For Teacher Contract Terminations And Making The Decision Of A Neutral Hearing Officer In Teacher Contract Termination Hearings Binding On The Parties”) would revise the Teacher Tenure Act’s termination provisions, by 1) explicitly adding a “just cause” standard for teacher contract terminations, 2) revising the permitted ground of termination of “other due and sufficient cause” to “just cause”, 3) mandating that any teacher termination proceeding for a tenured teacher be before an impartial hearing officer (and eliminating the ability of the parties to have the hearing be before the employing board of education), 4) making the decision of an impartial hearing officer in tenured teacher contract termination hearings binding on the parties (as opposed to consisting of findings with a recommendation), and 5) with respect to hearings concerning the non-renewal of a non-tenured teacher, eliminating the provision that an employing board of education “shall rescind a  nonrenewal decision only if the board finds such decision to be arbitrary  and capricious.”

S.B. No. 1427 (“An Act Expanding Paid Family And Medical Leave Insurance Program Benefits To Certain School Employees”) would expand eligibility for benefits under the Connecticut Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program to employees of a local or regional board of education (or a nonpublic elementary or secondary school) who do not hold professional certification.  Currently, all employees of such entities are exempt from the Program.  The bill would establish an alternative method of calculating the base period and base weekly earnings for such non-certified school employees.  The bill would also extend coverage under the Connecticut Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to any such non-certified school employee who has been employed by such school employer for at least three months during the twelve-month period before leave is requested. The bill would make such a school a covered employer under the Connecticut FMLA with respect to its eligible employees.  The bill would remove a provision of the law that made non-certified employees of local and regional boards of education eligible for leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act if they had been employed for at least twelve months by such employer and for at least 950 hours of service with such employer during the previous twelve-month period.

H.B. No. 7195 (“An Act Concerning Unemployment Benefits For Paraeducators”) would require the Department of Labor to consider certain factors in determining whether an individual who performs services as a paraeducator is eligible to receive unemployment compensation in light of a lack of “reasonable assurance” of re-employment for the next academic term (or following a customary vacation period or holiday break).  To help accomplish this, the bill would require the employing educational entity to submit a listing of paraeducators who do have such a reasonable assurance, and who do not have such reasonable assurance.

STAY TUNED FOR PART 3, COMING SOON!