SACRED HEART TEACHERS'ASSN. v. Sacred Heart High School Corp.

• Decision Date: 21 August 2001
• Docket Number: (AC 20515)
• Citation: 782 A.2d 227,65 Conn. App. 195
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: SACRED HEART TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. SACRED HEART HIGH SCHOOL CORPORATION ET AL.

65 Conn. App. 195

782 A.2d 227

SACRED HEART TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. SACRED HEART HIGH SCHOOL CORPORATION ET AL.

(AC 20515)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 27, 2001.

Officially released August 21, 2001.

Foti, Dranginis and Dupont, JS.

Kathleen D. Stingle, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Jeffrey C. Pingpank, with whom was Lorinda S. Coon, for the appellees (defendants).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, Sacred Heart Teachers' Association and Greater Hartford Catholic Education Association (union), appeal from the judgment of the trial court vacating an arbitration award in favor of the union. The dispute at issue arises out of the decision by the defendant Sacred Heart High School Corporation (school) not to renew the employment of Cynthia Lombardo¹ as a full-time guidance counselor at Sacred Heart High School in Waterbury. On appeal, the union claims that the court improperly (1) found that under the collective bargaining agreement, the nonrenewal of a probationary employee was not arbitrable and vacated the arbitration award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4),² and (2) found that the arbitrator's award did not conform to the submission and could not be confirmed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record discloses the following facts and procedural history. In the fall of 1996, Lombardo was hired by the school as a guidance counselor, and given probationary status pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the defendant Office of Catholic Schools of the Archdiocese of Hartford (Archdiocese). Lombardo also entered into an individual contract, called an initial contract, with the school. Lombardo's contract was renewed for the 1997-1998 school year. Due to budgetary problems, the school eliminated a guidance counselor position effective for the 1998-1999 school year.³ Lombardo, as the most junior member of the guidance staff, was laid off. On February 27, 1998, she was notified by letter that her contract would not be renewed for the 1998-1999 school year.⁴

On May 2, 1998, the union filed a grievance, claiming that Lombardo's termination violated the seniority provision set forth in Policy I, an addendum to the collective bargaining agreement. The grievance was processed in accordance with the grievance provision of the collective bargaining agreement. The grievance went first to the principal, who denied it, and then to the superintendent of schools, who also denied the grievance. In that situation, the agreement calls for a meeting to be held. The union did not demand that a meeting be held but, rather, proceeded to arbitration.

At the February 18, 1999 arbitration hearing, the Archdiocese initially challenged the arbitrability of the grievance. On April 7, 1999, the arbitrator rendered an award indicating that the matter was arbitrable, and a hearing on the merits followed. The arbitrator found that the school had misapplied Policy I with respect to Lombardo. In addition, the arbitrator ordered Lombardo's reinstatement to her former position, and payment of any salary and benefits she had lost that resulted from the nonrenewal of the contract.

The union thereafter filed an application with the court to confirm the arbitration award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-417. The Archdiocese, in turn, filed a motion to vacate the award. On January 27, 2000, the court denied the application to confirm the arbitration award and granted the motion to vacate the award. This appeal followed.

The union claims that the court improperly found that under the collective bargaining agreement, the nonrenewal of a probationary employee's contract was not arbitrable and vacated the arbitration award pursuant to § 52-418 (a) (4). We disagree.

"Whether a particular dispute is arbitrable is typically a question for the court.... It is well established [however] that arbitration is a matter of contract and that parties may agree to have questions concerning the arbitrability of their disputes decided by a separate arbitrator.... In apportioning, between the court and the arbitrators, the responsibility for determining which disputes are arbitrable, the language of the contract controls and determines whether the arbitrability of a dispute is for the court or the arbitrators.... The intention to have arbitrability determined by an arbitrator can be manifested by an express provision or through the use of broad terms to describe the scope of arbitration...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wallingford v. Wallingford Police Union Local 1570, 45 Conn. App. 432, 436, 696 A.2d 1030 (1997).

In the present case, the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement and Lombardo's initial contract provides that the termination or nonrenewal of probationary employees is not subject to grievance and arbitration procedures. Lombardo was a probationary employee, employed under the teacher's initial contract and subject to the collective bargaining agreement, and her contract was not renewed. The court, in determining whether the dispute over the decision not to renew Lombardo's contract was arbitrable, examined the language of both the agreement and the contract. The court noted the following language from article VI, § A.2, of the collective bargaining agreement, addressing the rights of a nontenured teacher: "During the period of a Teacher's Initial Contract, his employment shall be probationary and the Principal shall have the right to terminate such employment for...