City of New Britain v. Connecticut State Bd. of Mediation and Arbitration

• Decision Date: 31 July 1979
• Citation: City of New Britain v. Connecticut State Bd. of Mediation and Arbitration, 424 A.2d 263, 178 Conn. 557 (Conn. 1979)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF NEW BRITAIN v. CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION et al.

Page 263

424 A.2d 263

178 Conn. 557

CITY OF NEW BRITAIN v.CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued June 6, 1979.

Decided July 31, 1979.

Edward T. Lynch, Jr., New Britain, with whom was Dennis G. Ciccarillo, Hartford, for appellant(plaintiff).

Joel M. Ellis, Glastonbury, with whom, on the brief, was William S. Zeman, West Hartford, for appellee(defendant Local 1186, AFSCME, Council 4, AFL-CIO).

Before COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and ARTHUR H. HEALEY, JJ.

BOGDANSKI, Associate Justice.

In this action, the city of New Britain is appealing from a judgment of the Superior Court denying its application to vacate an arbitration award rendered by the defendant board of arbitration.

The record discloses the following facts: In November of 1975, the defendantVincent Fusari was hired by the city under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973(hereinafter CETA) and assigned to a position as a planning technician in the city's planning department.In April, 1976, the manpower coordinator of the city sent a letter to all CETA employees informing them that "in the ensuing months, much more intensive emphasis will be placed on transition to permanent jobs (and as a result) you will be referred to permanent job openings for which you are qualified and will be requested to go for many interviews (for which) you will be paid ... providing the proper procedures have been followed."The letter went on to caution the employees "to not refuse an interview and/or comparable job if it is offered to you (as) such refusal will indicate a violation of the intent of the CETA program (i. e. temporary transitional employment) and will weigh very heavily in any decision for lay-off or termination from the program."

In July, 1976, Fusari was terminated from the CETA program by the city for failure to attend a job interview arranged for him by the manpower coordinator.The letter of termination also informed Fusari that "in accordance with the provisions of the Bargaining Agreement between the City of New Britain and Local # 1186, AFSCME AFL-CIO you have fifteen (15) days in which to appeal in writing through the grievance procedure."A grievance was timely filed on behalf of Fusari by the union and was processed through the various steps of the contractually provided grievance procedure.When no agreement was reached, the grievance was submitted to the defendantBoard of Arbitration, the agency named in the agreement as arbitrator.The submission to the arbitrators by the parties was as follows: "Under Article 8.1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, was grievant Vincent Fusari discharged for just cause?If not, what shall the remedy be?"

In January, 1977, the arbitrators held a hearing at which the city appeared and participated through its attorney.The award subsequently rendered by the arbitrators ordered that the discharge of the grievant be converted into a thirty-day suspension and that after the suspension period, the grievant be reinstated and awarded back pay, reduced by any unemployment benefits or other compensation which he may have received in the interim.

The city thereupon filed an application, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 52-418-19 to have the award vacated, while the union moved to have the award confirmed.From the judgment of the trial court confirming the award, the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

On appeal, the plaintiff contends that Fusari, as a CETA participant, was only a temporary employee and was not entitled to use the grievance procedure established by the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the union, and that the arbitrators exceeded their powers in sustaining the grievance filed on Fusari's behalf by the union.

We note that a respondent in arbitration who desires to question the arbitrability of a particular dispute may refuse to submit to arbitration and may instead compel judicial determination of the issue of arbitrability.United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409;Frager v. Pennsylvania General Ins. Co., 155 Conn. 270, 274, 231 A.2d 531.In such cases, a court will interpret the terms of the parties' agreement to determine whether the dispute in question is one which the agreement of the parties requires them to submit to arbitration.United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 567-68, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403.Alternatively, threshold questions of arbitrability may properly be committed to the arbitrators themselves for determination under the terms of the contract, along with the merits of the underlying dispute.United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. United States Gypsum Co., 492 F.2d 713(5th Cir.);Gorman, Labor Law(1976 Ed.) c. 25 § 2.In such casesa court, on a motion to vacate, may properly entertain a challenge to an award alleging disregard of the limits in the parties' agreement with respect to arbitration.Waterbury Board of Education v. Waterbury Teachers Assn., 168 Conn. 54, 63, 357 A.2d 466;Costello Construction Corporation v. Teamsters Local 559, 167 Conn. 315, 318, 355 A.2d 279.

In Waterbury Board of Education v. Waterbury Teachers Assn., supra, 168 Conn. 62, 357 A.2d 471, this court observed that its respect for the autonomy of the arbitration process "dictates that we recognize the waiver principle" and cautioned that "(t)he effect of this recognition is to place a burden upon the parties, in the situation where the question of arbitrability is not (expressly) reserved to the arbitrator, to frame the submission carefully ... and, if necessary to protect their objections to seek judicial reconciliation of (such) threshold questions prior to submitting to arbitration."See also note, "Participation in arbitration proceedings as waiver of objections to arbitrability,"33 A.L.R.3d 1242.

The record in the instant case discloses...