You asked if a fire district operating under a special act must have the approval of the General Assembly to change its pension plan for full-time employees. If the district can make changes, you also wanted to know if the statutes limit the types of changes possible even if they are agreed to through collective bargaining.

The Office of Legislative Research is not authorized to provide legal opinions and this report should not be considered one.

SUMMARY

The law specifically provides that a special act fire district does not need legislative approval to amend its pension plan provided the changes do not reduce or eliminate the rights or benefits of anyone under the plan. A separate statute provides that in cases where a collective bargaining agreement conflicts with local law or certain state statutes, the agreement prevails.

It appears that because the legislature chose to exclude the statute preventing districts from reducing pension benefits when it specified when collective bargaining agreements could supersede certain statutes, the legislature intended not to allow fire districts this means of reducing the benefits of plan beneficiaries. This does not appear to prevent a fire district from reducing rights or benefits for new hires, in other words, those who do not yet have any rights or benefits under the plan.

PENSION PLAN CHANGES WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL

The law allows special act entities to amend their pension plans without going to the state legislature, but it sets parameters on what kind of changes can be made (CGS § 7-450). This statute provides that any municipality, school district, taxing district, fire district, or other specified political subdivision may amend a special act concerning its pension or retirement plan by ordinance or resolution in order to maintain the retirement fund in a sound condition. But such a change can only be made "provided the rights or benefits granted to any individual under any municipal retirement or pension system shall not be diminished or eliminated. "

PENSION PLAN CHANGES VIA A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Another statute provides that in cases where a collective bargaining agreement conflicts with local law or certain state statutes, the agreement prevails (CGS § 7-474(f)). This statute allows a new collective bargaining agreement, reached through negotiations that follow Municipal Employee Relations Act guidelines, to supersede prior ordinances, charter provisions, special acts, or municipal civil service policy. It explicitly authorizes such an agreement to supersede statutes governing (1) work hours of police and firefighters, and (2) coverage by the state-sponsored municipal employee retirement system and the Policemen and Firemen Survivors' Benefit Fund. But it does not authorize superseding § 7-450, although § 7-450 was already law when § 7-474(f) was enacted. It is likely a court would interpret the two statutes to mean the legislature declined to make an exception for § 7-450. We could not find any case law that addresses this point.

The protection provided by § 7-450 applies to "rights or benefits granted to any individual under any municipal retirement or pension system. " A fire district could seek to negotiate a new union contract that reduces retirement benefits for future hires, because future employees are not under the plan and have no rights or benefits under it.

It could be argued that current employees who have not yet vested under the plan do not have full rights or entitlement to benefits and therefore their expected rights and benefits could be reduced under a new agreement.

This would depend upon the vesting schedule and other details of the particular plan. It is common for plans to require employees to have anywhere from five to 10 years of service before they are fully vested.

JM: ts