Teamsters Local Union No. 677 v. Bd. Of Educ. Of The City Of Danbury, No. 31314.
Citation | 122 Conn.App. 617,998 A.2d 1239 |
Decision Date | 20 July 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 31314. |
Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
Parties | TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 677v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF DANBURY. |
John T. Fussell, East Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Peter J. Murphy, with whom, on the brief, was Thomas B. Mooney, Hartford, for the appellee (defendant).
BISHOP, BEACH and WEST, Js.
The plaintiff, Teamsters Local Union No. 677, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its application to vacate an arbitration award in which the arbitrator found in favor of the defendant, the board of education of the city of Danbury. The plaintiff claims that the court should have vacated the award on the basis that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in determining that the defendant terminated the employment of Patricia Russo in accordance with the provisions of the parties' collective bargaining agreement (agreement). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following undisputed material facts and procedural history. As of February, 2008, Russo had been employed by the defendant as a school lunch program worker for approximately twelve years, and her job sometimes required heavy lifting. The terms and conditions of Russo's employment were governed by the agreement.
On February 25, 2008, Russo, with her arm in a full-length cast, presented to her supervisor at the school a work status certificate from a physician that indicated: This statement to the defendant also contained the notation “Work Status: Off.” The defendant accepted this certificate and, pursuant to the terms of the agreement, placed her on paid sick leave while she awaited surgery and the subsequent period of recovery.
For several years, Russo also had been employed by H & R Block during the afternoon and evening hours, after her shift at the school. Her job at H & R Block involved light clerical work without heavy lifting. Because Russo's cast did not impede her work at H & R Block, Russo continued to work at that job while on paid sick leave from her employment at the school.
On April 2, 2008, Russo was terminated from her employment with the school when the defendant discovered that she was working at H & R Block while on paid sick leave from her school job. The stated reason for the termination was that Russo was
Russo filed a grievance, which was denied, and the dispute was submitted to arbitration. The parties submitted the following issue to the arbitrator: 1 The arbitrator concluded that Russo had been discharged in accordance with article VIII(D)(1) of the agreement and sustained the termination.
On December 24, 2008, the plaintiff filed an application with the Superior Court to vacate the arbitrator's award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418(a)(4) 2 premised on the claim that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by sustaining the termination on grounds that had no basis in the agreement, namely, that Russo had an obligation to inquire whether light duty work at the school was available to her and that he failed to apply the principles of progressive discipline.3 The court concluded that the submission to arbitration was unrestricted and, therefore, limited its inquiry to whether the award conformed to the submission. The court answered that question in the affirmative and, therefore, determined that the arbitrator had not exceeded his authority. Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiff's application to vacate. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly denied its application to vacate the award because the arbitrator exceeded his authority in issuing an award that is inconsistent with the agreement. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the award violates Russo's “contractual rights to paid sick leave and to progressive discipline.” 4 We are unpersuaded.
Before addressing the plaintiff's claims on appeal, we set forth the well established principles that guide our review of an arbitration award that is based on an unrestricted submission.5 “Judicial review of arbitral decisions is narrowly confined.... When the parties agree to arbitration and establish the authority of the arbitrator through the terms of their submission, the extent of our judicial review of the award is delineated by the scope of the parties' agreement.... When the scope of the submission is unrestricted, the resulting award is not subject to de novo review even for errors of law so long as the award conforms to the submission.... Because we favor arbitration as a means of settling private disputes, we undertake judicial review of arbitration awards in a manner designed to minimize interference with an efficient and economical system of alternative dispute resolution....
“In our construction of § 52-418(a)(4), we have, as a general matter, looked to a comparison of the award with the submission to determine whether the arbitrators have exceeded their powers.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72, 80-81, 881 A.2d 139 (2005). “The standard for reviewing a claim that the award does not conform to the submission requires what we have termed ‘in effect, de novo judicial review.’ ” Id., at 84, 881 A.2d 139. Id., at 85, 881 A.2d 139.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 86 n. 7, 881 A.2d 139, quoting 1 M. Domke, Commercial Arbitration (3d Ed.2003) § 39:6, pp. 39-12 through 39-13. Moreover, (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., supra, 275 Conn. at 88-89, 881 A.2d 139.
In this case, the plaintiff concedes that the award conforms to the submission. The plaintiff argues, nevertheless, that the award must be vacated because it is inconsistent with Russo's contractual rights to paid sick leave and to progressive discipline. In support of its claim, the plaintiff asserts that this court should engage in a broader scope of review, and, rather than limit our review to the examination of the award and the submission, we should “compare the agreement with the award to determine whether the arbitrator has ignored his obligation to interpret and apply that agreement as written.” Board of Education v. Local 818, 5 Conn.App. 636, 640, 502 A.2d 426 (1985). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burr Rd. Operating Co. II, LLC v. New Eng. Health Care Emps. Union
...that were submitted to arbitration." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Teamsters Local Union No. 677 v. Board of Education, 122 Conn.App. 617, 624–25, 998 A.2d 1239 (2010). Finally, we previously have stated that "[m]erely because an arbitral decision is not based on the......
-
SBD Kitchens, LLC v. Jefferson
...see Design Tech, LLC v. Moriniere, 146 Conn.App. 60, 67–68, 76 A.3d 712 (2013) ; Teamsters Local Union No. 677 v. Board of Education, 122 Conn.App. 617, 622–23, 998 A.2d 1239 (2010) ; and that this rule of law applies equally to a punitive damage award made by an arbitrator. See Nxegen, LLC......
-
Burr Rd. Operating Co. v. New England Health Care Emps. Union
...that were submitted to arbitration." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Teamsters Local Union No. 677 v. Board of Education, 122 Conn. App. 617, 624-25, 998 A.2d 1239 (2010). Finally, we previously have stated that "[m]erely because an arbitral decision is not based on th......
-
Design Tech, LLC v. Moriniere
...and economical system of alternative dispute resolution.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Teamsters Local Union No. 677 v. Board of Education, 122 Conn.App. 617, 621–22, 998 A.2d 1239 (2010). “Additionally, every reasonable inference is to be made in favor of the arbitral award and of t......