Board of Ed. v. WALLINGFORD EDUC. ASS'N

• Decision Date: 26 October 2004
• Docket Number: No. 17141.,17141.
• Citation: Board of Ed. v. WALLINGFORD EDUC. ASS'N, 858 A.2d 762, 271 Conn. 634 (Conn. 2004)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN OF WALLINGFORD v. WALLINGFORD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

858 A.2d 762

271 Conn. 634

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN OF WALLINGFORD v.WALLINGFORD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

No. 17141.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 17, 2004.

Decided October 26, 2004.

Ronald Cordilico, for the appellant(defendant).

Janis M. Small, for the appellee(plaintiff).

SULLIVAN, C.J., and BORDEN, NORCOTT, PALMER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.

PALMER, J.

This declaratory judgment action arises out of a dispute between the plaintiff, the board of education of the town of Wallingford(board), and the defendant, Wallingford Education Association(association), the bargaining agent for teachers employed by the board, concerning the proper distribution of certain stock proceeds allegedly realized by the town of Wallingford(town) as a result of the demutualization of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield (Anthem), the teachers' medical insurance provider.The association filed a grievance alleging, inter alia, that the board had breached the parties' collective bargaining agreement by failing to credit teachers who are members of the association with a share of the proceeds from the demutualization commensurate with contributions that those teachers had made toward their medical insurance premiums in accordance with the agreement.After the grievance was denied, the association sought to invoke the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, and the board filed this action seeking a judgment declaring that the decision to deny the grievance is not arbitrable.The trial court rendered judgment for the board, concluding that the parties' dispute is not arbitrable because the subject matter of the grievance falls outside the purview of the collective bargaining agreement.On appeal, the association challenges the trial court's determination of nonarbitrability.We conclude that the parties' dispute is arbitrable and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following undisputed facts and procedural history are necessary to our resolution of this appeal.The board and the association are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (agreement) that, inter alia, prescribes the procedures for resolving grievances between the parties.That agreement defines the term "grievance" as "a claimed misapplication or misinterpretation of a specific provision(s) of th[e][a]greement."If the grievant is dissatisfied with the resolution of a grievance, the agreement permits the grievant to file a request for arbitration in accordance with the rules and regulations of the American Arbitration Association.

On March 13, 2002, the association filed a grievance with the town's assistant superintendent for personnel (assistant superintendent) claiming a violation of appendix I of the agreement.The particular provision of the agreement that the association claimed had been violated concerns the payment of medical insurance premiums and provides in relevant part: "Teachers shall through payroll deductions pay ten ... percent of the premium cost for the above medical insurance program, and such payment shall not exceed [$1000] for individual coverage, [$1550] for individual and spousal coverage, and [$1650] for family coverage...."The association alleged, as part of its grievance, that "[t]eachers ... who have not elected to waive insurance coverage ... contribute an amount toward the cost of insurance premiums.The [board] has received a refund of insurance premium from Anthem....This has been received in the form of the distribution of stock from Anthem to the [t]own ... in the amount of (51,057) shares, valued as of [March 13, 2002, at] over $2.9 million at the selling price of shares....The [b]oard has refused to distribute to qualifying teachers a proportional part of the value of these shares based upon the premium contributions set forth in the agreement between the [board] and the [association].Such failure violates the [a]greement's [a]rticle ([a]ppendix I Medical) especially [the] subsection... which states [that] ... teachers shall through payroll deductions pay ten... percent of the premium...."

On July 15, 2002, the assistant superintendent denied the association's grievance, stating that "[t]he Anthem stock received by the [t]own ... as part of the demutualization was not a refund of premium, the stock was not issued to the [b]oard, and there is no entitlement to that stock by the individual employees....[In addition], the language of [a]ppendix I [of the agreement] does not contain any provision which would entitle any employees or retired employees to share in any alleged `premium refunds,' even if such facts were the case, which they are not."(Citation omitted.)

On November 22, 2002, the association notified the board of its intent to file for arbitration.Thereafter, in December, 2002, the board commenced this declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that the association's grievance is not arbitrable.In support of its claim of nonarbitrability, the board alleged, inter alia, that "[a]ny questions pertaining to the demutualization of [Anthem], the distribution of shares of stock to the town or to the [board], the distribution of a `proportional part of the value of these shares,' or the concept of `teachers' proportional share of stock,' are not matters pertinent to, let alone controlled by specific provisions of the agreement...."

The trial court concluded that the parties' dispute is not arbitrable.In so concluding, the trial court stated that there is "nothing [in appendix I of the agreement that] even remotely addresses the instant situation.The language [of that provision] has not been breached in any way and the dispute between the parties does not have an origin in the contract or a breach of a term."The court further concluded that "[t]he money realized by the town [as a result of the demutualization of Anthem] was obviously not anticipated by the parties to the agreement and such occurrences were not included even indirectly in that agreement.To read this document to cover the instant claim would require the court to ignore the contract terms."

The trial court also addressed "what it perceive[d] as a further flaw in the [association's] position," namely, that "the funds [that] the [association] seek[s] to...