Board of Educ. of City of Hartford v. Local 818, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
Decision Date | 24 December 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 3581,AFL-CIO,3581 |
Citation | 502 A.2d 426,5 Conn.App. 636 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 29 Ed. Law Rep. 664 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF HARTFORD v. LOCAL 818, COUNCIL 4, AFSCME, |
H. Maria Cone, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom, on brief, was Richard H. Goldstein, Corp. Counsel, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
J. William Gagne, Jr., with whom, on brief, was Barbara J. Collins, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before DUPONT, C.J., and HULL and BORDEN, JJ.
In this action, the plaintiff, Hartford board of education (board), appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its application, brought pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418, 1 to vacate an arbitration award. The board claims on appeal that the award impermissibly conflicted with the underlying collective bargaining agreement between the parties and, therefore, the court erred in refusing to vacate it. Because we conclude that the award not only was consistent with the agreement but also conformed to the submission, we find no error.
The following facts, disclosed by the record, are relevant. The defendant, Local 818 of Council 4, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (union), and the board entered into a collective bargaining agreement. In the agreement, the parties consented to grieve certain disputes, including those concerning employee discipline. One of the union members (employee), was fired by the board. The union, claiming that the discharge was not justified, grieved the disciplinary action to arbitration. An arbitration hearing was held by a three member panel from the Connecticut state board of mediation and arbitration. When the parties were unable to agree on the issue to be submitted, the arbitrators chose the union's formulation and framed the issue as follows: 2 3 The arbitrators, finding that the employee had not been terminated for just cause, rendered an award ordering, inter alia, that the employee be reinstated. 4
In support of its application to vacate, the board made three claims: (1) the arbitrators exceeded their authority by adopting a standard for termination that conflicts with the contractually established standard; (2) the arbitrators misapplied the doctrine of progressive discipline; and (3) the arbitrators' award exceeded the scope of the submission. The trial court denied the board's application to vacate and the board appealed to this court pursuing essentially the same claims of error. 5
The board claims that the arbitrators issued an award that conflicts with the underlying collective bargaining agreement and thereby exceeded their authority. In support of this contention, the board relies on Article XII of the contract in which the parties agreed that "[a]ll disciplinary actions shall be applied in a fair manner and shall not be inconsistent with the infraction for which the disciplinary action is being applied." The board argues that the just cause standard adopted differs from the fair manner standard and, accordingly, its use by the arbitrators rendered their award invalid.
The scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is very narrow. Norwich R.C. Diocesan Corporation v. So. N.E. Contracting Co., 164 Conn. 472, 475, 325 A.2d 274 (1973). Subsection (a)(4) of General Statutes § 52-418, the subsection under which the board pursues its claims of error, provides in part that an award is invalid "if the arbitrators have exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made." Generally, Trumbull v. Trumbull Police Local 1745, 1 Conn.App. 207, 212, 470 A.2d 1219 (1984). If the award conforms to the submission, the arbitrators have not exceeded their powers. Bic Pen Corporation v. Local No. 134, 183 Conn. 579, 584, 440 A.2d 774 (1981).
There are limited circumstances in which a court will conduct a broader review of an arbitrator's decision. Where one party claims that the award, as issued, is inherently inconsistent with the underlying collective bargaining agreement, the court will compare the agreement with the award to determine whether the arbitrator has ignored his obligation to interpret and apply that agreement as written. Hudson Wire Co. v. Winsted Brass Workers Union, 150 Conn. 546, 553, 191 A.2d 557 (1963). This additional analysis is conducted pursuant to such a claim because " Darien Education Assn. v. Board of Education, 172 Conn. 434, 437, 374 A.2d 1081 (1977), quoting United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corporation, 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1361, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960). If, for example, there were evidence that "revealed that [the arbitrator] had reached his decision by consulting a ouija board, [it would] not suffice that the award conformed to the submission." Darien Education Assn. v. Board of Education, supra, 172 Conn. 437-38, 374 A.2d 1081. It must be emphasized, however, that merely claiming inconsistency between the agreement and the award will not trigger judicial examination of the merits of the arbitration award. Rather, in the face of such a claimed inconsistency, this court will review the award only to determine whether it "draws it's essence from the collective bargaining agreement." United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corporation, supra, 363 U.S. 597, 80 S.Ct. at 1361.
In this case, a comparison of the contract and the award does not support the board's claim that the arbitrators failed to interpret the agreement as written. The award ordered reinstatement of the employee because he had not been terminated for "just cause." The contract required that disciplinary actions be applied in a "fair manner" and consistent with the nature of the infraction for which the disciplinary action was taken. A requirement of just cause for termination and a requirement of fairness in discipline are not so inconsistent as to give rise to an inference that the arbitrators did not reach their decision by interpreting the parties' agreement.
This conclusion that the arbitrators acted properly is supported by an examination of their memorandum of decision. In the memorandum, the arbitrators stated that "[i]t is [our position] that any disciplinary acts taken under Article XII against any employee must always be taken for just cause." (Emphasis added.) It is clear from this language that the arbitrators were interpreting the terms of the agreement. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harty v. CANTOR FITZGERALD AND CO., No. 17201.
...of contract and thus engaged in fact-finding beyond scope of trial court's powers of review); Board of Education v. Local 818, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 5 Conn.App. 636, 640, 502 A.2d 426 (1985) ("[w]here one party claims that the award, as issued, is inherently inconsistent with the unde......
-
Comprehensive Orthopaedics v. Axtmayer
...of contract and thus engaged in fact-finding beyond scope of trial court's powers of review); Board of Education v. Local 818, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 5 Conn.App. 636, 640, 502 A.2d 426 (1985) ([w]here one party claims that the award, as issued, is inherently inconsistent with the under......
-
AFSCME v. Dep't of Children & Families
...the collective bargaining agreement.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Board of Education v. Local 818, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, 5 Conn.App. 636, 640, 502 A.2d 426 (1985). In my view, Listro was not only denied due process because she was never informed that she was......
-
Watertown Police Union Local 541 v. Town of Watertown, AFL-CIO
...377 A.2d 323 (1977); International Union v. Fafnir Bearing Co., 151 Conn. 650, 653, 201 A.2d 656 (1964); Board of Education v. Local 818, 5 Conn.App. 636, 639, 502 A.2d 426 (1985). "A challenge of the arbitrator's authority is limited to a comparison of the award to the submission." Bic Pen......