Teamsters Local Union No. 677 v. Bd. Of Educ. Of The City Of Danbury, No. 31314.

Citation122 Conn.App. 617,998 A.2d 1239
Decision Date20 July 2010
Docket NumberNo. 31314.
CourtAppellate Court of Connecticut
PartiesTEAMSTERS 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.

BISHOP, J.

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: “Patient is to be off due to pending surgery and long arm cast.... Estimated return to work is [four] weeks after surgery.” 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 “engag[ed] in gainful employment while being on a [sick leave] with the Danbury Public Schools. This dismissal is for just cause and is in accordance with the principles of progressive discipline.”

Russo filed a grievance, which was denied, and the dispute was submitted to arbitration. The parties submitted the following issue to the arbitrator: “Was ... Russo terminated for just cause in accordance with Article VIII(D)(1) of the ... agreement? If not, what shall the remedy be?” 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....

“Where the submission does not otherwise state, the arbitrators are empowered to decide factual and legal questions and an award cannot be vacated on the grounds that ... the interpretation of the agreement by the arbitrators was erroneous. Courts will not review the evidence nor, where the submission is unrestricted, will they review the arbitrators' decision of the legal questions involved.... In other words, [u]nder an unrestricted submission, the arbitrators' decision is considered final and binding; thus the courts will not review the evidence considered by the arbitrators nor will they review the award for errors of law or fact....

“Even in the case of an unrestricted submission, we have ... recognized three grounds for vacating an award: (1) the award rules on the constitutionality of a statute ... (2) the award violates clear public policy ... [and] (3) the award contravenes one or more of the statutory proscriptions of § 52-418.... [Section] 52-418(a)(4) provides that an arbitration award shall be vacated if the arbitrators have exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

“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. “Although we have not explained precisely what in effect, de novo judicial review entails as applied to a claim that the award does not conform with the submission, that standard best can be understood when viewed in the context of what the court is permitted to consider when making this determination and the exact nature of the inquiry presented. Our review is limited to a comparison of the award to the submission. Our inquiry generally is limited to a determination as to whether the parties have vested the arbitrators with the authority to decide the issue presented or to award the relief conferred.” Id., at 85, 881 A.2d 139.

“In determining whether an arbitrator has exceeded the authority granted under the contract, a court cannot base the decision on whether the court would have ordered the same relief, or whether or not the arbitrator correctly interpreted the contract. The court must instead focus on whether the [arbitrator] had authority to reach a certain issue, not whether that issue was correctly decided. Consequently, as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of authority, the award must be enforced. The arbitrator's decision cannot be overturned even if the court is convinced that the arbitrator committed serious error.” (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, [e]very reasonable presumption and intendment will be made in favor of the award and of the arbitrator's acts and proceedings. Hence, the burden rests on the party challenging the award to produce evidence sufficient to show that it does not conform to the submission.” (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). “This additional analysis is conducted pursuant to such a claim because an arbitrator's award is legitimate only so long as it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. When the arbitrator's words manifest an infidelity to this obligation, courts have no choice but to refuse enforcement of this award.... If, for example, there was evidence that revealed that [the arbitrator] had reached his decision by consulting a ouija board, [it would] not suffice that the award conformed to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Burr Rd. Operating Co. II, LLC v. New Eng. Health Care Emps. Union
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 26 Enero 2016
    ...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
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 16 Junio 2015
    ...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
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 26 Enero 2016
    ...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
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 24 Septiembre 2013
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT