Barnett v. Board of Educ. of Town of Fairfield

• Decision Date: 14 February 1995
• Docket Number: No. 14987,14987
• Citation: 232 Conn. 198,654 A.2d 720
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: , 149 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2627, 97 Ed. Law Rep. 1086 Robert BARNETT v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN OF FAIRFIELD

Page 720

654 A.2d 720

232 Conn. 198, 149 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2627,

97 Ed. Law Rep. 1086

Robert BARNETT v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN OF FAIRFIELD

No. 14987.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 29, 1994.

Decided Feb. 14, 1995.

Vito Mazza, Trumbull, for appellant (plaintiff).

Christopher M. Hodgson, Bridgeport, for appellee (defendant).

Before CALLAHAN, NORCOTT, PALMER, FRANCIS X. HENNESSY and MARY R. HENNESSEY, JJ.

CALLAHAN, Associate Justice.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether the defendant, the Fairfield board of education (board), properly terminated the employment of the plaintiff, Robert Barnett. The plaintiff had been employed by the board as an industrial arts teacher for twenty years. He had attained tenure, pursuant to General Statutes § 10-151(a)(6)(A), because he had completed "thirty school months of full-time continuous employment for the same board of education...." The plaintiff's employment was terminated by the board on September 25, 1992, as a result of a reduction in force in his department. The plaintiff appealed from the board's decision to terminate his employment to the Superior Court, which rendered judgment dismissing his appeal. He appealed from that judgment to the Appellate Court and we transferred his appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(c). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The board had a collective bargaining agreement with the plaintiff's bargaining unit, the Fairfield Education Association (union), in effect from July, 1990, through June, 1993. Article V of the agreement set forth the procedure for layoffs due to a reduction in force. Section 5.1.1 provided in pertinent part: "Where there are more individuals within a category than necessary to reduce, least senior teachers shall be terminated before more senior teachers, provided that those teachers remaining are the most qualified to perform the work available after the reduction...." In 1990, all of the teachers in the plaintiff's department had the same seniority status. ¹ Section 5.1.2 of the agreement provided for a point system to be used to determine the most qualified teachers. ² According to § 5.1.2.7 of the agreement, the points assigned to a teacher initially would remain valid for a three year period, unless the teacher or his immediate supervisor requested an update of the teacher's job description analysis, or anecdotal report, to include new information.

On April 7, 1990, the plaintiff received a letter from Ralph Burke, the personnel administrator for the Fairfield public schools, indicating that the industrial arts department would be subject to a reduction in force. The letter further indicated that each member of the department would be evaluated pursuant to the provisions of §§ 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of the collective bargaining agreement. In response to the letter, the plaintiff's immediate supervisor at the time, R.J. Margucci, prepared an anecdotal report and submitted it to the interim superintendent of schools, William French. On that evaluation, the plaintiff received a point assignment of eighty-one, giving him the number one ranking out of the seven members of the industrial arts department. On the basis of the evaluation, the plaintiff was not subject to dismissal at that time.

On March 15, 1991, the plaintiff received another letter from Burke indicating that his department would be subject to another force reduction. The letter stated in part: "Within the last three years you and your supervisor authored an anecdotal report which was later read by the Superintendent. Normally, unless you or your supervisor requested an update for new information, the points assigned would remain valid. As a result of a recent grievance settlement--the [union] and Administration has agreed that [the superintendent of schools, Carol Harrington,] will re-evaluate all anecdotal write-ups and reassign points for those within Category D of the Industrial Arts Department." (Emphasis in original.) The grievance referred to in the letter was that of Ronald Salamon, who also was a teacher in the department. Salamon, through the union, had filed a grievance claiming that his anecdotal report was not as complete as it should have been because of the absence of one of his supervisors. The grievance was settled between the union and the board by an agreement under which the superintendent of schools would order all of the anecdotal reports to be redone for that department. In response to the 1991 letter from Burke, the plaintiff chose not to have his report updated, and submitted the same report that he had submitted in 1990. The plaintiff thereafter received a new point assignment of sixty-one, which resulted in a ranking of sixth out of the eight teachers in the department. He subsequently received notification that he would not be subject to termination at that time.

The plaintiff filed a grievance through the union disputing the reassignment of points in 1991. The grievance was denied by the board at step four of the grievance procedure provided by the collective bargaining agreement. The union refused to pursue the matter to arbitration and the plaintiff did not pursue an action against the union for its refusal to pursue his grievance to arbitration.

In April, 1992, the plaintiff received a third letter from Burke, which notified him that his department again was subject to a potential reduction in force. ³ This letter stated in part: "Within the last three years you and your supervisor authored an anecdotal report which was later read by the Superintendent. Unless you or your supervisor request an update for new information, the points assigned will remain valid." (Emphasis added.) In response, the plaintiff's immediate supervisor, Margaret Mary Fitzgerald, submitted an updated anecdotal report concerning the plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that Fitzgerald encouraged him to submit an updated report, and although he did not believe that the superintendent could reassign points at that time, he told her to submit an updated report if she thought it possibly could help him. On the advice of his attorney, however, he did not sign the report. The plaintiff continued to maintain that his original evaluation resulting in an assignment of eighty-one points should have remained in effect for a period of three years. Burke testified, however, that the plaintiff's immediate supervisor requested an update of the plaintiff's anecdotal report for new information in 1992. The superintendent evaluated the plaintiff's updated anecdotal report, and again the plaintiff received a point assignment of sixty-one. As a result, the plaintiff was ranked last among the teachers in his department.

The plaintiff later received a letter, dated June 17, 1992, indicating that he was under consideration for termination due to the elimination of the position to which he had been appointed. See General Statutes § 10-151(d)(5). ⁴ The plaintiff requested a hearing before an impartial panel pursuant to § 10-151(d). The panel of arbitrators held a hearing on August 19, 1992, and issued its findings on September 16, 1992. The three panel members agreed upon findings numbers one through ten and finding number thirteen, but one member disagreed as to findings numbers eleven and twelve. The majority's finding number eleven stated: "Sec. 5.1.2.7 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement was not revoked by the settlement of the Ronald Salamon grievance and remains in effect until the Union Membership ratifies a change or until a new contract is signed." The majority's finding number twelve stated: "Neither Mr. Barnett [nor] his immediate supervisor directly requested a reevaluation or reassignment of points in 1991 or 1992. Any reevaluation or reassignment of points in those years was made at the suggestion of the Superintendent of Schools, not the grievant's immediate supervisor." Based in part on these findings, the two member majority recommended that the plaintiff be reinstated, concluding that the plaintiff had the right to rely on the results of the 1990 assignment of eighty-one points.

The dissenting arbitrator recommended that the board terminate the plaintiff's employment contract. To support his conclusion, the dissenting arbitrator proposed the following findings: "11. The effect of the grievance settlement on the Robert Salamon case did impact the 1991 re-evaluation and reassignment of all teachers within Category D of the Industrial Arts Department including Mr. Barnett. In order to be in compliance with the grievance settlement, the administration was obligated to include all Industrial Arts teachers within Category D in the re-evaluation and reassignment of points. 12. Mr. Barnett's immediate supervisor, Margaret Mary Fitzgerald, requested and prepared an updated Job Description Anecdotal Report in 1992, and encouraged Mr. Barnett to participate in the updated report. The Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Carol Harrington, made the final decision on the reevaluation and reassignment of points in 1991 and 1992."

The board held a public hearing on September 24, 1992, to consider the termination of the plaintiff's contract. The plaintiff was notified by letter, dated September 25, 1992, that the board had voted to terminate his employment. The letter stated: "The reason is that the [board] found the dissenting findings number 11 and 12 correct and therefore accepted the Superintendent's recommendation which was predicated on the elimination of the position to which you had been appointed."

The plaintiff appealed the board's decision to the trial court, pursuant to General Statutes § 10-151(f). ⁵ The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the board properly had adopted the dissenting arbitrator's findings numbers eleven and twelve and properly had terminated the plaintiff's employment. The plaintiff raises two issues on appeal: first, whether the trial court...