Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Sec. 31-56b. Project labor agreements for public works projects. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any general statute, regulation or requirement regarding procurement of goods or services, a public entity may require a project labor agreement for any public works project when such public entity has determined, on a project-by-project basis and acting within its discretion, that it is in the public's interest to require such an agreement. In making such determination, the public entity may consider the effects a project labor agreement may have on (1) the efficiency, cost and direct and indirect economic benefits to the public entity; (2) the availability of a skilled workforce to complete the public works project; (3) the prevention of construction delays; (4) the safety and quality of the public works project; (5) the advancement of minority and women-owned businesses; and (6) employment opportunities for the community.
(b) A public entity's decision to require a project labor agreement shall not be evidence of fraud, corruption or favoritism.
(c) Any project labor agreement required by a public entity pursuant to this section shall: (1) Set forth mutually binding procedures for resolving disputes that can be implemented without delay; (2) include guarantees against a strike, lockout or other concerted action aimed at slowing or stopping the progress of a public works project; (3) ensure a reliable source of skilled and experienced labor; (4) include goals for the number of apprentices and for a percentage of work to be performed by minorities, women and veterans; (5) invite all contractors to bid on the project without regard to whether the employees of any such contractor are members of a labor organization, as defined in section 31-101; (6) permit the selection of the lowest responsible qualified bidder without regard to labor organization affiliation; (7) not require compulsory labor organization membership of employees working on the project; and (8) bind all contractors and subcontractors to the terms of the agreement.
(d) Any bidder for a public works project that does not agree to abide by the conditions of the project labor agreement or a requirement to negotiate a project labor agreement shall not be regarded as a responsible qualified bidder for such project.
(P.A. 12-70, S. 5.)
Feb 23, 2022
Non-Jury Verdict
New London County
New London County, CT
Jul 25, 2014
Dismissal
New Haven County
New Haven County, CT
May 16, 2017
Dismissal
Hartford County
Hartford County, CT
Jan 22, 2014
Trial Verdict
Windham County
Windham County, CT
Apr 27, 2015
Trial Verdict
Hartford County
Hartford County, CT
DOCKET NO. CV-17-6078460 : SUPERIOR COURT : : HARTFORD FEDERATION OF : JUDICIAL DISTRICT TEACHERS, LOCAL 1018 : OF HARTFORD …
May 16, 2017
CONNECTICUT SMALL CLAIMS MATTER ANASTASIOU, JOCELYN : Civ. No. KNL-CV22-6055368S v. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON NORWICH BOARD OF ED. ET AL. : AUGUST 4, 2022 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR § 31-72 DAMAGES …
Feb 23, 2022
New London County, CT
Aug 04, 2022
+ Juris No. 416477 DOCKET NO. WWM-CV14-6008110-S : SUPERIOR COURT JILLIAN L. HANLEY : LD. OF WINDHAM v. : ATPUTNAM XSE GROUP, INC., d/b/a : AZTEC OFFICE, LLC : JUNE 19, 2015 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF C.G.S. § 31-72 DAMAGES The Defendant, XSE Group, Inc. d/b/a Aztec Office, LLC, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby move to preclude all evidence, or any reference thereto, pertaining to Plaintiff's alleged damages pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 31-72 …
Jan 22, 2014
STATE OF CONNECTICUT DOCKET NO: UWY-CV14-6025482-S : : : TCHAOU TCHABANGNA, MOUSTAFA : ADAM, VERNON SUTTON AND : …
Jul 25, 2014
New Haven County, CT
Jun 02, 2015
GRIFFITH & KELLY, LLC —- ATTORNEYS AT LAW 66 CEDAR STREET, NEWINGTON, CONNECTICUT 06111-2646 — 860.667.0855 — FAX 860.667.9260- JURIS NO. 100655 DOCKET NO.: HHD-CV-15-6058932-S : SUPERIOR COURT CHRISTINE CARROLL, Plaintiff ' : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD VS. : AT HARTFORD NEWINGTON FINANCIAL, LLC D/B/A, JACKSON HEWITT and JEFFREY L. HEDBERG, Defendants : JUNE 10, 2019 POST-JUDGMENT/VERDICT MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS FROM PLAINTIFF INACCORDANCE WITH CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUT…
Apr 27, 2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.