Date: Fri 19-Jul-1996

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

FHH-Winslow-tenants

Full Text:

Bid To Delay Tenants' Departure From Fairfield Hills Fails

B Y A NDREW G OROSKO

Most of the state workers who had continued living in dormitories at Fairfield

Hills after it closed in December have now moved out or are in the process of

moving out. On July 12, Danbury Superior Court Judge Patrick Carroll dismissed

a request for an injunction to delay their departure made by Attorney Heidi

Winslow.

Ms Winslow had asked for the injunction on behalf of 15 clients from worker

dormitories at the former psychiatric institution. A total of 24 people had

been living in the dormitories.

"Everybody's out or on their way out," Ms Winslow said Tuesday. Two of the

clients she represented are expected to leave their dormitories at Fairfield

Hills by the end of the month, she said.

In not issuing the injunction, Judge Carroll decided that the state workers

still have various forms of legal recourse if they want to remain in their

dorms, such as the state employees' grievance procedure.

The state workers, who formerly were employed at Fairfield Hills by the state

Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS), obtained other

DMHAS jobs at other locations, but had continued to live at Fairfield Hills.

Last fall, the state had warned the workers that they would have to leave

their dorms after the hospital closed, but the workers, many of whom had lived

at Fairfield Hills for more than 15 years, resisted.

The state sought to force the workers to move out of their dormitories in

Stamford Hall and Watertown Hall as part of its plans to market Fairfield

Hills to private companies on a long-term basis to generate rental income for

the state.

On June 20, DMHAS officials told the workers that unless they moved out by

July 13, they would be fired for insubordination and their utilities would be

shut off.

Court Session

In a courtroom session before Judge Carroll on July 11, Attorney Peter Brown,

representing DMHAS, said the tenants' call for an injunction should be

dismissed because the state has collective bargaining agreements with the

tenants that contain provisions on their housing and the termination of

employment. Mr Brown stressed that the workers' contracts are the rules which

govern their housing, adding that state housing for state workers is a

"negotiated benefit." The state has right through its labor contracts to end

the workers' tenancy at the dormitories, he said.

"We expect them to honor their collective bargaining agreements," Mr Brown

told the court.

The contracts provide employees with the right to file a labor grievance if

they feel they are being unfairly forced out of their dormitories, he said.

Ms Winslow countered that the situation amounts to a landlord/tenant matter as

described by state law.

The state incorrectly claims that the tenants have, in effect, waived their

tenancy rights because the tenants have labor contracts, Ms Winslow said.

The state is subject to its own laws concerning the legal eviction process,

she added. Ms Winslow asked Judge Carroll to keep the state from using threats

of firings and utilty cut-offs in seeking to force the tenants from the dorms.

Attorney Paul Pernerewski, representing the state Department of Public Works

(DPW), said the state would not cut off the utilities on July 13 if the

tenants weren't out. He said the tenants wouldn't be fired on July 13 if

they're not out of the dorms. If, however, they are terminated for some

reason, there are appeals that they can take, he said.

Ms Winslow responded that the state's threats amount to a move to prevent the

tenants from exercising any appeals to which they are entitled, she said.

Mr Pernerewski responded that the workers are insubordinate for not leaving

their dorms, adding that the state has the right to enforce provisions of its

labor contracts.

"Fairfield Hills is closed. There is no need for this. This is a pre-emptive

strike," he said of Ms Winslow's request for an injunction.

Ms Winslow maintained the state is required to use established eviction

procedures to force the tenants to move. Such procedures could take months to

force evictions.

Ms Winslow said Tuesday she plans to file an "entry and detainer" motion in

Danbury Superior Court on behalf of two of her clients in a move to overturn

the judge's action. She said she also will appeal Judge Carroll's decision in

the Connecticut Appellate Court.