City of Middletown v. Police Local, No. 1361

• Decision Date: 25 May 1982
• Citation: 187 Conn. 228,445 A.2d 322
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: , 113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2728 CITY OF MIDDLETOWN v. POLICE LOCAL, NO. 1361.

Page 322

445 A.2d 322

187 Conn. 228, 113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2728

CITY OF MIDDLETOWN v. POLICE LOCAL, NO. 1361.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 3, 1982.

Decided May 25, 1982.

Francis O'Neill, Middletown, for appellant (plaintiff).

W. Paul Flynn, with whom, on the brief, was Frank J. Raccio, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).

Before SPEZIALE, C. J., and PETERS, PARSKEY, ARMENTANO and SANTANIELLO, JJ.

ARMENTANO, Associate Justice.

A panel of the Connecticut board of arbitration and mediation ordered the reinstatement of a police officer of the town of Middletown who had been dismissed for slurring by word and gesture the ethnic origin of band members at a policeman's ball, and for engaging in a fistfight with the bandleader. Upon the plaintiff's application to vacate the arbitration award, brought on several grounds, the trial court vacated ¹ the award on the single ground that the arbitrators had exceeded their powers by failing to take the statutorily required oath before the arbitration hearing. ² The plaintiff appeals only from that part of the judgment which refers the matter to a different panel of arbitrators for a rehearing, claiming that the court did not have jurisdiction to order a rehearing, and that the time within which to order a rehearing had expired.

"Arbitration is a contractual remedy designed to expedite informal dispute resolution. Waterbury Board of Education v. Waterbury Teachers Assn., 168 Conn. 54, 62, 357 A.2d 466 (1975). Its autonomy requires a minimum of judicial intrusion. Bic Pen Corporation v. Local No. 134, --- Conn. ---, ---, --- (42 Conn.L.J., No. 43, pp. 13, 14) 440 A.2d 774 (1981); see Malecki v. Burnham, 181 Conn. 211, 213, 435 A.2d 13 (1980)." State v. Connecticut Employees Union Independent, --- Conn. ---, ---, --- (43 Conn.L.J., No. 1, pp. 4A, 5A) 440 A.2d 229 (1981). An application to vacate an arbitration award triggers special statutory proceedings that are not civil actions. Waterbury v. Waterbury Police Union Local 1237, 176 Conn. 401, 408-409, 407 A.2d 1013 (1979).

General Statutes § 52-418 provides, in pertinent part, that "[i]f an award is vacated and the time within which the award is required to be rendered has not expired, the court or judge may direct a rehearing by the arbitrators." The plaintiff claims that the court erred in ordering a rehearing because the parties had not requested a rehearing either in the pleadings or at trial. ³ By filing an application to vacate the arbitration award the plaintiff invoked the statutory jurisdiction of the court, which includes the court's discretion to order a rehearing pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 even though neither party expressly requested a rehearing. Cf. Lobsenz v. Davidoff, 182 Conn. 111, ---, ---, 438 A.2d 21 (42 Conn.L.J., No. 7, pp. 11, 13) (1980).

The plaintiff claims further that the time for the arbitrators to render the award had expired and, therefore, the court was not empowered to order a rehearing. See General Statutes § 52-418. Because the arbitration agreement did not specify a time limit within which the board must render its award, the plaintiff concedes that the only limit is that the award be rendered within a reasonable time. Danbury Rubber Co. v. Local 402, 145 Conn. 53, 59, 138 A.2d 783 (1958). In the present case the original award was rendered May 9, 1978 and the judgment vacating it was rendered October 11, 1979. The trial took place over a year after the arbitration award upon the plaintiff's application to vacate. Neither party claimed prejudice because of the delay until this appeal. Cf. Danbury Rubber Co. v. Local 402, supra, 59-60, 138 A.2d 783. Under these circumstances, we cannot agree that the reasonable time for rendering an award had expired before the judgment was rendered.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other Judges concurred.

1 General Statutes § 52-418 provides: "In any of the following cases the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides or, in a controversy concerning land, for the judicial district in which the land is situated or, when said court is not in session, any judge thereof, shall make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration: (a) If the award has been procured by corruption, fraud or undue means; (b) if there has been evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators or either of...