Appeals court upholds promotion of Shelton officers

HARTFORD — The state Appellate Court on Friday upheld the city of Shelton’s promotion of three police officers to the rank of lieutenant without a written examination.

The appeals court upheld a lower court ruling, which had overturned a decision of the State Board of Labor Relations that found Shelton in violation of the Municipal Employees Relations Act.

“The city and I are pleased with the decision,” said Mark Sommaruga, the city’s lawyer in the case. “The appeals court upheld the principle that the words in an ordinance do mean something.”

The city had argued its Code of Ordinances did not require a written test.

The lawyer for the police union could not be reached for comment.

According to court records, in the spring of 2018, Shelton faced an increased need for lieutenants within its police department. On April 6, 2018, the chief of police contacted the city’s administrative assistant, who then posted notice of openings for the lieutenant position.

Five officers applied for the positions and the city, under its Ordinance No. 908, completed an oral examination as part of the application process. Three of the applicants were subsequently promoted to lieutenant.

On Feb. 19, 2019, the police union filed an appeal with the State Board of Labor Relations contending that by removing the written component of the promotional exam without negotiation with the union, the city had violated the Municipal Employees Relations Act.

On March 10, 2020, the labor board ruled that the city’s failure to include a written examination as part of the promotion process violated the act.

The city then appealed the ruling in Superior Court.

A Superior Court judge later disagreed with the board’s decision, stating that because a written examination was not mandated, its elimination did not constitute a change in the examination methods.

The Appellate Court agreed. “We hereby adopt the court’s thorough and well-reasoned memorandum of decision as a definitive statement of the applicable facts and law on the issues raised in this appeal,” the Appellate Court ruled.