City of Hartford v. Local 760, Intern. Ass'n of Firefighters, AFL-CIO

• Decision Date: 07 January 1986
• Docket Number: AFL-CIO,No. 3552,3552
• Citation: 6 Conn.App. 11,502 A.2d 429
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: CITY OF HARTFORD v. LOCAL 760, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS,

Page 429

502 A.2d 429

6 Conn.App. 11

CITY OF HARTFORD v. LOCAL 760, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, AFL-CIO.

No. 3552.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 8, 1985.

Decided Jan. 7, 1986.

J. William Gagne, Jr., Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

H. Maria Cone, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom, on brief, was Richard H. Goldstein, Corp. Counsel, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before DUPONT, C.J., and BORDEN and SPALLONE, JJ.

SPALLONE, Judge.

The defendant is appealing from the judgment of the trial court granting the plaintiff's application to vacate an arbitration award.

The defendant claims that the court erred (1) in ruling that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority, (2) in ruling that the arbitrators were precluded from fashioning a remedy, and (3) in failing to remand the case for a new arbitration hearing and award.

The grievant, Ollie Little, a twelve year veteran of the Hartford fire department, was allegedly involved in a bank robbery. He was arrested for his participation in the theft and, after a hearing, was suspended from the fire department without pay pending the disposition of the criminal charges. The defendant union, Local 760, filed a grievance with the fire department on behalf of Little which was denied. The union then requested arbitration pursuant to the parties' collective bargaining agreement. In accordance with the procedures provided therein, an arbitration hearing regarding the grievance was conducted by the state board of mediation and arbitration. The parties could not agree on the form of the submission of the issue. Therefore, the board framed the issue as follows: "Was the Grievant, Ollie Little, Jr., suspended for just cause under the collective bargaining agreement? If not, what shall the remedy be?" (Emphasis added.) The board, after hearing all parties, made its award and answered the first question raised by the submission in the affirmative, i.e., that the grievant was suspended for just cause. The board, however, went on to decide that the period of suspension was inappropriate and reduced it. The plaintiff filed an application to the Superior Court to vacate the award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418. The court ruled that the board, by reducing the suspension after its finding of just cause, exceeded its powers in that the award did not conform to the submission. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiff's application to vacate the arbitrators' award.

There is no question that arbitration awards are generally upheld and that we give great deference to an arbitrator's decisions since arbitration is favored as a means of settling disputes. Board of Education v. AFSCME, 195 Conn. 266, 270, 487 A.2d 553 (1985); Trumbull v. Trumbull Police Local 1745, 1 Conn.App. 207, 211-12, 470 A.2d 1219 (1984). Although a party to arbitration is entitled to judicial review, the autonomous nature of the arbitration process dictates minimal intrusion by the courts. Middletown v. Police Local, No. 1361, 187 Conn. 228, 230, 445 A.2d 322 (1982); Trumbull v. Trumbull Police Local 1745, supra.

The party challenging the award must produce evidence sufficient to invalidate or avoid the award. Board of Education v. AFSCME, supra, 195 Conn. 271, 487 A.2d 553; Gary Excavating Co. v. North Haven, 160 Conn. 411, 413, 279 A.2d 543 (1971). General Statutes § 52-418(a)(4) empowers the Superior Court to vacate an arbitration award where "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."

When reviewing such actions, the trial court is limited to the sole issue of whether the award conforms to the submission. Bruno v. Department of Consumer Protection, 190 Conn. 14, 18, 458 A.2d 685 (1983); Bic Pen Corporation v. Local No. 134, 183 Conn. 579, 584, 440 A.2d 774 (1981); Board of Education v. Local No. 818, 5 Conn.App. 636, 639-40, 502 A.2d 426 (1985); Gennarini Construction Co. v. Messina Painting & Decorating Co., 5 Conn.App. 61, 65, 496 A.2d 539 (1985); American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Brookman, 1 Conn.App. 219, 222, 470 A.2d 253, cert. denied, 193 Conn. 801, 473 A.2d 1226 (1984). The submission defines the scope of the entire arbitration proceedings by specifically delineating the issues to be decided and no matter outside the submission may be included in the award Board of Education v. AFSCME, supra; Bruno v. Department of Consumer Protection, supra; see Oldread v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 5 Conn.App. 517, 519-20, 500 A.2d 956 (1985). Where the award does not conform to the submission, the arbitrator has exceeded his authority and the court may vacate the award upon proper application by either party. Board of Education v. Bridgeport Education Assn., 173 Conn. 287, 291, 377 A.2d 323 (1977); see Board of Education v. AFSCME, supra.

We are adamant in our adherence to these principles which serve to perpetuate the autonomous nature of the arbitration process. To hold otherwise would expand the role of the trial court in arbitration proceedings which would result...