Costello Const. Corp. v. Teamsters Local 559

• Decision Date: 26 November 1974
• Citation: 355 A.2d 279,167 Conn. 315
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: , 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2999, 76 Lab.Cas. P 53,550 The COSTELLO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 559 et al.

Page 279

355 A.2d 279

167 Conn. 315, 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2999,

76 Lab.Cas. P 53,550

The COSTELLO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 559 et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Nov. 26, 1974.

Norman Zolot, Hamden, for appellant (defendant).

James N. Royster, Hartford, for appellees (plaintiffs).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and COTTER, SHAPIRO, LOISELLE and MacDONALD, JJ.

MacDONALD, Associate Justice.

The defendant, Teamsters Local 559, has appealed (1) from a judgment of the Superior Court granting the motion of the plaintiff, The Costello Construction Corporation, to vacate an arbitrator's award and (2) from the court's failure to rule upon the question of the defendant's right to counsel fees. The subject matter involved arose out of a labor dispute submitted to arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the parties, the relevant portions of which appear in the footnote. ¹

The facts giving rise to the dispute, as set forth in the finding which has been corrected by the addition of certain facts which the court properly should have drawn from the arbitrator's opinion, ² are as follows: On June 26, 1969, Theodore Hansen was employed by the plaintiff as a driver, and was laid off from his job on January 21, 1970. Pursuant to the agreement between the parties, Hansen was entitled to be recalled to work before the plaintiff hired any new drivers. Beginning on April 27, 1970, the plaintiff hired new drivers without recalling Hansen, in violation of his rights under the agreement.

Hansen filed a grievance, protesting this violation, on July 16, 1970. The parties, unable to resolve the dispute, submitted it to arbitration as provided in their agreement. The submission to the arbitrator read as follows: 'Did the Company violate the agreement by not recalling Mr. Theodore Hansen to work in 1970? If so, what shall be the remedy? Is the foregoing arbitrable?' After hearing testimony the arbitrator rendered the following award: 'The Company had violated the Agreement by not recalling Mr. Hansen to work in 1970. Mr. Hansen shall be compensated for the loss of earnings caused by this violation of the Agreement for the period of July 18, 1970 to August 22, 1970.' The arbitrator did not explicitly state in his award that the matter was arbitrable. The plaintiff applied to the Superior Court for an order vacating the award. The defendant filed its answer and a motion to confirm the award. After a hearing the court granted the plaintiff's motion to vacate. ³

The court concluded that the issue of whether the aggrieved employee had filed a timely and proper notice of the grievance, a condition precedent to arbitration of the merits of the grievance, was improperly determined by the arbitrator, and that the award thus was in violation of the terms of the agreement between the parties. Under that agreement, ⁴ the grievance was to be filed within three working days after the reason for its filing had occurred. The scope of judicial review of an arbitration award is limited by statute and by the contractual agreement between the parties. Where by the parties' agreement the question of arbitrability is clearly committed to the arbitrator for determination, the court is bound by the arbitrator's determination unless that determination clearly falls within the proscriptions of § 52-418 of the General Statutes, or procedurally violates the parties' agreement.

An arbitrator's fidelity to his duty is to be tested by comparing the award with the submission in order to determine its conformity thereto. Norwich R. C. Diocesan Corporation v. So. N.C.Contracting Co., 164 Conn. 472, 477, 325 A.2d 274. This court frequently has stated that the award rather than the finding and conclusions of fact controls, and that, ordinarily, the memorandum of the arbitrator is irrelevant. International Union v. Fafnir Bearing Co., 151 Conn. 650, 654, 201 A.2d 656; Von Langendorff v. Riordan, 147 Conn. 524, 527, 163 A.2d 100; American Brass Co. v. Torrington Brass Workers' Union, 141 Conn. 514, 522, 107 A.2d 255. The memorandum, however, may be examined in considering this question of the infidelity of the arbitrator to his obligation. As we stated in International Union v. Fafnir Bearing Co., supra: 'There is no legal doctrine, however, which dictates the exclusion of an arbitrator's opinion or which forbids its examination in the determination whether an award should be corrected under § 52-419 or whether an arbitrator in his award has demonstrated infidelity to his obligation.'

The arbitrator's opinion contained the following: 'In view of the conflicts in the testimony, and the nature of the evidence which prevents me from accepting one version as more substantiable (sic) than the other, I am inclined to consider the grievance as timely filed and properly in Arbitration. . . . Since I am not able to find with certainty that Hansen had actually known of the hiring of the other drivers before July 15, 'after the reason for the grievance has occurred,' I conclude that the grievance was timely filed and properly in arbitration. This approach is consistent with the established public interest of considering grievances as arbitrable unless expressly and unquestionably excluded from arbitral determination. Such express and unquestioned disqualification cannot be concluded from the state of the submitted evidence.' (Emphasis added.)

" It is the established policy of the courts to regard awards with liberality. Every reasonable presumption and intendment will be made in favor of the award and of the arbitrators' acts and proceedings. Hence, the burden rests on the party attacking the award to produce evidence sufficient to invalidate or avoid it. 6 C.J.S. Arbitration and Award § 130, p. 281; Sturges, Commercial Arbitrations and Awards, p. 549.' Von Langendorff v. Riordan, 147 Conn. 524, 527, 163 A.3d 100, 102. The arbitrators are only required to...