DOCKET NO.: SUPERIOR COURT THE STRATFORD PUBLIC WORKS I.D. OF FAIRFIELD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION LOCAL #134, AT BRIDGEPORT AFFILIATE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, MICHAEL VIDMOSKO, DAVID MADDEN, KARL MURDZIA, CHARLES HEUSER, PAUL RIBNICKY V. TOWN OF STRATFORD, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 8, 2018 AMENDED COMPLAINT The defendant, Town of Stratford, Connecticut, filed a Request to Revise on August 29, 2018 (DE 101.00). In accordance therewith, the plaintiffs, The Stratford Public Works Employees Association Local #134, Affiliate of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Michael Vidmosko, David Madden, Karl Murdzia, Charles Heuser, and Paul Ribnicky, hereby file this Amended Complaint. Parties 1. The plaintiff, The Stratford Public Works Employees Association Local #134, Affiliate of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO-CLC (?Union?), pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 7?467 and 7?468, is an ?employee organization? and the exclusive bargaining agent on wages, hours and other conditions of employment for the employees of the Public Works Department for the Town of Stratford, Connecticut. 2. The plaintiff, Michael Vidmosko (?Vidmosko?), was an employee of the Public Works Department for the Town of Stratford and a member of the Union entitled to receive employment benefits negotiated by the Union, including retirement benefits. Vidmosko was hired by the Town on April 23, 1990. Vidmosko retired from his employment with the Town on April 23, 2018. I 3. The plaintiff, David Madden (?Madden?), is an employee of the Public Works Department for the Town of Stratford and a member of the Union entitled to receive employment benefits negotiated by the Union, including retirement benefits. Madden was hired by the Town on January 20, 1986. 4. The plaintiff, Karl Murdzia (?Murdzia?), is an employee of the Public Works Department for the Town of Stratford and a member of the Union entitled to receive employment benefits negotiated by the Union, including retirement benefits. Murdzia was hired by the Town on October 15, 1984. 5. The plaintiff, Charles Heuser (?Heuser?), is an employee of the Public Works Department for the Town of Stratford and a member of the Union entitled to receive employment benefits negotiated by the Union, including retirement benefits. Heuser was hired by the Town on January 4, 1988. 6. The plaintiff, Paul Ribnicky (?Ribnicky?), is an employee of the Public Works Department for the Town of Stratford and a member of the Union entitled to receive employment benefits negotiated by the Union, including retirement benefits. Ribnicky was hired by the Town on May 18, 1987. 7. The defendant, Town of Stratford, Connecticut is a town located in Fairfield County, Connecticut and a ?municipal employer? pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 7-467. Page 2 of 16 8. The Town and Union are subject to the Municipal Employee Relations Act, Connecticut General Statutes 7-467 e_t El- 9. The Town and Union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (?Contract?) executed on March 31, 2017, with a duration of July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2017. 10. Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 7-475, the terms of the Contract remain in effect until the next collective bargaining agreement is enacted. Retirement Benefits for Union Members 11. On or about January 1, 1999, the Town and Union, along with several other unions representing Town employees, adopted a certain agreement entitled Retirement Plan for Employees of The Town of Stratford As Revised Effective January 1, 1999? (?Retirement Plan?). The Retirement Plan includes an Appendix A (?Appendix specific to the Union, which modifies and supplements the Retirement Plan for Union members. The Retirement Plan and Appendix A are collectively the ?Pension Plan.? 12. The benefits of the Pension Plan were applicable to and covered all Union members employed by the Town as of January 1, 1999. 13. The Director of Finance for the Town serves as the Treasurer of the fund from which the Pension Plan benefits are paid. 14. On September 24, 1999, the Town and Union reached an agreement regarding the Pension Plan and other retirement benefits for the Union, entitled Letter of Understanding Between the Town of Stratford, CT and Stratford Town Employees Public Works Local 134, (?Letter of Understanding?). Page 3 of 16 15. Pursuant to the Letter of Understanding, Union members covered by the Pension Plan are permitted during the term of their employment with the Town to make a one-time irrevocable election to join the Town?s Defined Contribution Plan (?401(a) Plan?). Union members do this by freezing (?Lock-In?) their Pension Plan benefits, after which they can enroll in and begin contributing to the 401(a) Plan. 16. Union members hired by the Town after September 13, 1999, were not eligible to join the Pension Plan but were instead offered enrollment in the 401(a) Plan. As of the filing of this Complaint, there are a total of sixteen (16) members of the Union covered by the Pension Plan. 17. The Pension Plan sets forth the formula to calculate the amount of pension payable to covered Union members who retire or Lock?In their Pension Plan benefits. The Pension Plan provides (Appendix A, Section IV) that the amount of pension payable to a covered member who is superannuated is equal to: a. 2.4% of his Average Annual Compensation multiplied by his Continuous Years of Service for each year for the first 25 years of Continuous Service, and b. 2.0% of his Average Annual Compensation multiplied by his Continuous Years of Service for each such year for the 26th through 30th years of Continuous Service; and c. 0.5% of his Average Annual Compensation multiplied by his Continuous Years of Service for each such year for the 31st through 35th Years of Continuous Service. 18. The Pension Plan (Retirement Plan, Section I, defines ?Compensation? of a member as of any particular date as ?the total compensation paid to him by the Town as reportable for determining income for federal income tax purposes, and the term ?compensation? Page 4 of 16 shall include but not be limited to basic salary, longevity pay, overtime pay and pay for acting in a higher classification.? 19. The Pension Plan (Appendix A, Section I, defines ?Average Annual Compensation? as follows: a. ?For a member with less than thirty (30) years of service: the annualized average of total Compensation for the twenty four (24) months of service immediately preceding the-Member?s retirement date. . .unless such Member elected to enroll in the Town?s Defined Contribution Plan in that event, such Average Annual 0 Compensation shall mean the annualized average of total Compensation for the twenty four (24) months of service immediately preceding the Member?s date of enrollment into the. . b. ?For a member with thirty (30) or more years of service: the total Compensation for the twelve (12) months of service immediately preceding the Member?s retirement date. . .unless such Member elected to enroll in the Town?s Defined Contribution Plan in that event, such Average Annual Compensation shall mean the total Compensation for the twelve (12) months of service immediately preceding the Member?s date of enrollment into the. . 20. The Pension Plan (Retirement Plan, Section I, defines ?Continuous Service? of an employee as the ?number of years and completed months determined by the Town to represent [the employee?s] most recent period of uninterrupted service with the Town.? 21. On March 31, 2017, the Town and Union entered into the Contract (term July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2017), resulting in Union members receiving retroactive pay for general wage increases dating back to the beginning of the contract. Union members received the retroactive pay in 2017, and the retroactive pay was included on each Union member?s IRS Form W-2 as taxable income for 2017. Page 5 of 16 22. The Contract (Article 13.1) incorporates the Pension Plan and Letter of Understanding by reference. 23. The Pension Plan, Letter of Understanding and Contract (collectively, the ?Union Retirement Agreements?) set forth the retirement benefits that Union members are entitled to. 24. Following execution of the Contract, Vidmosko retired and Madden, Murdzia, Heuser and Ribnicky Locked-In their Pension Plan benefits. 25. In calculating the amount of pension payable to Vidmosko, Madden, Murdzia, Heuser and Ribnicky, the Town has failed and refused to include the full amount of the retroactive payments received by each in 2017 as taxable income. 26. The Town is in breach of the Union Retirement Agreements by failing to include the full amount of the retroactive payments in calculating the pension amounts for Vidmosko, Madden, Murdzia, Heuser and Ribnicky. 27. The Town is refusing to comply with the plain language of the Pension Plan and binding Connecticut precedent. 28. The plain language of the Pension Plan is clear. When calculating the amount of pension, ?Compensation? includes all amounts paid to a covered Union member (by the Town) that are reportable for determining income for federal income tax purposes, including but not limited to, basic salary, longevity pay, overtime pay and pay for acting in a higher classification. The retroactive payments received by the individual plaintiffs were ?basic salary? and ?income for federal income taX purposes? in 2017. There is simply exclusion for retroactive payments. Page 6 of 16 COUNT ONE (Breach of Contract Regarding Vidmosko?s Pension Plan Benefits) 1?28. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 28 are reincorporated as if fully set forth herein. 29. In 2017, Vidmosko received retroactive pay after the Town and Union settled the Contract. The retroactive pay was included in Vidmosko?s 2017 form as taxable income for federal income tax purposes. 30. On April 23, 2018, .Vidmosko retired after twenty-eight (28) years of Continuous Service. As a result of his retirement, Vidmosko is eligible to receive a pension calculated pursuant to the terms of the Pension Plan. 31. In calculating his amount of pension, the Town has failed and refused to include the entire amount of the retroactive pay that Vidmosko received as taxable income in 2017. 32. By failing to include all of Vidmosko?s 2017 taxable income in calculating his pension amount, the Town is in breach of the Union Retirement Agreements. 33. Vidmosko is entitled to immediately receive the full amount of his Pension Plan benefits, which includes the retroactive pay that Vidmosko received as taxable income in 2017 that the Town has wrongfully refused to include in calculating his pension. 34. The Town?s wrongful refusal to correctly calculate Vidmosko?s benefits under the Union Retirement Agreements has and continues to cause him to receive less money than he is entitled to in his retirement. Page 7 of 16 COUNT TWO (Breach of Contract Regarding Madden?s Pension Plan Benefits) 1-28. The allegations of Paragraphs 1-28 are reincorporated as if fully set forth herein. 29. In 2017, Madden received retroactive pay after the Town and Union settled the Contract. The retroactive pay was included in Madden?s 2017 form as taxable income for federal income tax purposes. 30. On November 26, 2017, Madden Locked-In his Pension Plan benefits after 31 years and 10 months of Continuous Service and enrolled in the 401(a) Plan. As a result, Madden is entitled to a final calculation of the Pension Plan benefits that he will receive upon retirement. 31. In calculating his amount of pension, the Town has failed and refused to include the entire amount of the retroactive pay that Madden received as taxable income in 2017. 32. By failing to include all of Madden?s 2017 taxable income in calculating his pension amount, the Town is in breach of the Union Retirement Agreements. 33. Madden is entitled to immediately receive a finalPension Plan benefit calculation. for the full amount of his Pension Plan benefits, which includes the retroactive pay that Madden received as taxable income in 2017 that the Town has wrongfully refused to include in calculating his pension. 34. The Town?s wrongful refusal to correctly calculate Madden?s benefits under the Union Retirement Agreements has already and continues to impair his ability to plan for retirement. Page 8 of 16 COUNT THREE (Breach of Contract Regarding Murdzia?s Pension Plan Benefits) 1?28. The allegations of Paragraphs 1?28 are reincorporated as if fully set forth herein. 29. In 2017, Murdzia received retroactive pay after the Town and Union settled the . Contract. The retroactive pay was included in Murdzia?s 2017 form as taxable income for federal income tax purposes. 30. 3 On January 28, 2018, Murdzia Locked-In his Pension Plan benefits after 33 years and 3 months of Continuous Service and enrolled in the 401(a) Plan. As a result, Murdzia is entitled to a final calculation of the Pension Plan benefits that he will receive upon retirement. 31. I In calculating his amount of pension, the Town has failed and refused to include the entire amount of the retroactive pay that Murdzia received as taxable income in 2017. 32. By failing to include all of Murdzia? 2017 taxable income in calculating his pension amount, the Town is in breach of the Union Retirement Agreements. 33. Murdzia is entitled to. immediately receive a final Pension Plan benefit calculation 4 for the full amount of his Pension Plan benefits, which includes the retroactive pay that Murdzia received as taxable income in 2017 that the Town has wrongfully refused to include in calculating his pension. 34. The Town?s wrongful refusal to correctly calculate Murdzia?s benefits under the Union Retirement Agreements has already and continues to impair his ability to plan for retirement. Page 9 of 16 COUNT FOUR (Breach of Contract Regarding Heuser?s Pension Plan Benefits) 1?28. The allegations of Paragraphs 1-28 are reincorporated as if fully set forth herein. 29. In 2017, Heuser received retroactive pay after the Town and Union settled the Contract. The retroactive pay was included in Heuser?s 2017 W-2 form as taxable income for federal income tax purposes. 30. On January 7, 2018, Heuser Locked-In his Pension Plan benefits after 30 years of Continuous Service and enrolled in the 401(a) Plan. As a result, Heuser is entitled to a final calculation of the Pension Plan benefits that he will receive upon retirement. 31. In calculating his amount of pension, the Town has failed and refused to include the entire amount of the retroactive pay that Heuser received as taxable income in 2017. 32. By failing to include all of Heuser? 2017 taxable income in calculating his pension amount, the Town is in breach of the Union Retirement Agreements. 33. Heuser is entitled to immediately receive a final Pension Plan benefit calculation for the full amount of his Pension Plan benefits, which includes the retroactive pay that Heuser received as taxable income in 2017 that the Town has wrongfully refused to include in calculating his pension. 34. The Town? 3 wrongful refusal to correctly calculate Heuser? benefits under the Union Retirement Agreements has already and continues to impair his ability to plan for retirement. Page 10 of 16 COUNT FIVE (Breach of Contract Regarding Ribnicky?s Pension Plan Benefits) 1?28. The allegations of Paragraphs 1?28 are reincorporated as if fully set forth herein. 29. In 2017, Ribnicky received retroactive pay after the Town and Union settled the Contract. The retroactive pay was included in Ribnicky?s 2017 form as taxable income for federal income tax purposes. 30. On May 22, 2017, Ribnicky Locked?In his Pension Plan benefits after 30 years of Continuous Service and enrolled in the 401(a) Plan. As a result, Ribnicky is entitled to a final calculation of the Pension Plan benefits that he will receive upon retirement. 31. In calculating his amount of pension, the Town has failed and refused to include the entire amount of the retroactive pay that Ribnicky received as taxable income in 2017. 32. By failing to include all of Ribnicky?s 2017 taxable income in calculating his pension amount, the Town is in breach of the Union Retirement Agreements. 33. Ribnicky is entitled to immediately receive a final Pension Plan benefit calculation for the full amount of his Pension Plan benefits, which includes the retroactive pay that Ribnicky received as taxable income in 2017 that the Town has wrongfully refused to include in calculating his pension. 34. The Town?s wrongful refusal to correctly calculate Ribnicky?s benefits under the Union Retirement Agreements has already and continues to impair his ability to plan for retirement. Page 11 of 16 (Declaratory Judgment) 1?28. The allegations of Paragraphs 1-28 are reincorporated as if fully set forth herein. 29. The Union represents sixteen (16) members who have been or may be affected by the Town?s refusal to comply with the plain language of the Pension Plan and binding Connecticut precedent regarding the definition of Compensation as set forth in the Pension Plan. The Town?s wrongful refusal to correctly calculate Union members? benefits under the Pension Plan has already and continues to impair their ability to plan for retirement. 30. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-29, the Union seeks a declaratory judgment on behalf of all of its members covered by the Pension Plan that all amounts received by a member from the Town that are reportable for federal income tax purposes are Compensation as defined by the Pension Plan. 31. In compliance with Practice Book 17-5 6, the plaintiffs have attached to this Complaint a certificate stating that all parties who have an interest in the subject matter of the requested declaratory judgment have been made parties to this action or have been provided reasonable notice. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs seek the following relief: 1. A declaratory judgment requiring the Town to include as Compensation (when calculating pension amounts under the Pension Plan), all amounts paid to a covered Union member by the Town that are reportable for determining income for federal income tax purposes, including but not limited to, basic salary, longevity pay, overtime pay and pay for acting in a higher classification, and that there is no exclusion for retroactive payments received by a covered Union member; Page 12 of 16 . Monetary damages; . Breach of Contract damages; . Compensatory and consequential damages; . Legal fees and costs; . Interest pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 37-21; and . Such other and further relief as this. Court deems just and equitable. THE PLAINTIFFS, THE STRATFORD PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION LOCAL #134, AFFILIATE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, MICHAEL VIDMOSKO, DAVID MADDEN, KARL MURDZIA, CHARLES HEUSER, PAUL RIBNICKY By Lucas B. Rocklin Lucas B. Rocklin Neubert, Pepe Monteith, PC. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone No. (203) 821-2000 Juris Number 407996 Page 13 of 16 DOCKET O.: SUPERIOR COURT THE STRATFORD PUBLIC WORKS ID. OF FAIRFIELD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION LOCAL #134, AT BRIDGEPORT AFFILIATE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, MICHAEL VIDMOSKO, DAVID MADDEN, KARL MURDZIA, CHARLES HEUSER, PAUL RIBNICKY V. TOWN OF STRATFORD, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 8, 2018 CERTIFICATE OF JOINDER OF ALL INTERESTED PARTIES Pursuant to Practice Book the plaintiffs certify that all interested persons have been joined as parties to this action. THE PLAINTIFF S, THE STRATFORD PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION LOCAL #134, AFFILIATE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO-CLC, MICHAEL VIDMOSKO, DAVID MADDEN, KARL MURDZIA, CHARLES HEUSER, PAUL RIBNICKY By Lucas B. Rocklin Lucas B. Rocklin Neubert, Pepe Monteith, RC. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone No. (203) 821-2000 Juris Number 407996 Page 14 of 16 DOCKET NO.: SUPERIOR COURT THE STRATFORD PUBLIC WORKS .D. OF FAIRFIELD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION LOCAL #134, AT BRIDGEPORT AFFILIATE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, MICHAEL VIDMOSKO, DAVID MADDEN, KARL MURDZIA, CHARLES HEUSER, PAUL RIBNICKY V. TOWN OF STRATFORD, CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 8, 2018 STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND The amount, legal interest, or property in demand is not less than $15,000, exclusive of interest and costs. THE PLAINTIFFS, THE STRATFORD PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION LOCAL #134, AFFILIATE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, MICHAEL VIDMOSKO, DAVID MADDEN, KARL MURDZIA, CHARLES HEUSER, PAUL RIBNICKY By Lucas B. Rocklin Lucas B. Rocklin Neubert, Pepe Monteith, RC. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone No. (203) 821?2000 Juris Number 407996 Page 15 of 16 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed or electronically delivered on October 8, 2018 to all counsel and pro se parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and pro se parties of record who were electronically served. Sent By Electronic Mail Per Practice Book 10-13 Attorney Robert Mitchell at Mitchell Sheahan, PC. 80 Ferry Blvd, Suite 216 Stratford, Connecticut 06615 Representing the Defendant Lucas B. Rocklin Lucas B. Rocklin Neubert, Pepe Monteith, P.C. Page 16 of 16