Town of Trumbull v. Trumbull Police Local 1745, Connecticut Council of Police Unions

• Decision Date: 24 January 1984
• Docket Number: No. 2296,2296
• Citation: 470 A.2d 1219,1 Conn.App. 207
• Parties: TOWN OF TRUMBULL v. TRUMBULL POLICE LOCAL 1745, CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF POLICE UNIONS, et al.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

Page 1219

470 A.2d 1219

1 Conn.App. 207

TOWN OF TRUMBULL v. TRUMBULL POLICE LOCAL 1745, CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF POLICE

UNIONS, et al.

No. 2296.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 2, 1983.

Decided Jan. 24, 1984.

Robert M. Davidson, Westport, with whom was James P. Driscoll, Westport, for appellant (plaintiff).

Frank J. Raccio, New Haven, for appellees (defendants).

Before DANNEHY, C.P.J., and HULL and DuPONT, JJ.

HULL, Judge.

The plaintiff town of Trumbull has appealed ¹ from the trial court's confirmation of an award by the Connecticut state board of mediation and arbitration ordering the enforcement of a provision of a collective bargaining agreement which required the town to discharge summarily nonunion employees who failed to pay to the union an agency shop fee equal to union dues. ²

Early in 1978, the parties to this action entered into collective bargaining. After failing to reach an agreement, the parties submitted to fact finding proceedings by the board of mediation and arbitration pursuant to General Statute § 7-473. On December 11, 1978, the fact finder for the board issued a report which, in part, recommended that the town of Trumbull adopt the union's proposal for an agency shop fee.

The fact finder's report was neither accepted nor rejected within the time limit applicable under General Statutes § 7-473(c). ³ The parties stipulated that thereafter, on February 5, 1979, the Trumbull town council voted to approve the fact finder's report and, therefore, ratified the contract which was the subject of the collective bargaining.

The town, however, refused to enforce article XXX which was the agency shop provision of the contract. Section 2 of article XXX states: "Upon the effective date of this Agreement all members of the Bargaining Unit who are covered by the terms of this Agreement shall, as a condition of continued employment, either join the Union or pay a service fee equal to the dues paid by a Union member. Employees who fail to comply with the provisions of this section [shall be discharged by the employer within thirty days after the receipt of written notice to the employer from the Union that the employee has not complied]."

On March 13, 1979, the union president notified the first selectman of Trumbull that the town's acceptance of the fact finder's report resulted in making the agency shop provision operative and, therefore, the union president requested that the provision be enforced. ⁴ After the plaintiff's continued refusal to enforce the provision, the union filed a grievance. ⁵ The grievance, which sought enforcement of article XXX, was submitted to the arbitrators pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. ⁶

The resulting arbitration award, rendered on June 3, 1980, found that the town had violated article XXX of the agreement and directed the town to discharge the affected employees within thirty days unless their agency shop fees were paid. ⁷ The plaintiff sought to have the award vacated pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1981) § 52-418(d), ⁸ claiming that the arbitrators exceeded their powers and imperfectly executed them and further alleging that the award violated due process, improperly affected the rights of nonparties to the arbitration, and exposed the plaintiff to a law suit. The court, Grillo, J., denied the motion to vacate the award.

On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in confirming the arbitration award. The plaintiff appealed pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1981) § 52-418 which states in pertinent part that "the superior court ... shall make an order vacating the award ... (d) 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." The plaintiff alleges that it has standing to contest an award that compels it to violate the due process rights of town employees. Put another way, the plaintiff claims that the court should not enforce an award that directs it to violate the constitutional rights of its employees and contravenes certain provisions of its own charter. The plaintiff further claims that the award was not mutual, final or definite within the meaning of § 52-418(d).

I

Courts favor arbitration as a means of settling differences and expediting the resolution of disputes. Bridgeport v. Bridgeport Police Local 1159, 183 Conn. 102, 107, 438 A.2d 1171 (1981); Board of Education v. Bridgeport Education Assn., 173 Conn. 287, 290, 377 A.2d 323 (1977). The autonomous nature of the arbitration process must be respected by the courts. Arbitration is a remedy which is bargained for by the parties and they are free to negotiate with respect to the procedure to be employed. Waterbury Board of Education v. Waterbury Teachers Assn., 168 Conn. 54, 62, 357 A.2d 466 (1975). Where the parties contractually agree to a procedure and have delineated the authority of the arbitrators, they must adhere to, and are bound by, the limits which they have set. Id.

Judicial review of an arbitration award is limited in its scope by the provisions of General Statutes § 52-418 and by the terms of the contractual agreement between the parties. Carroll v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 189 Conn. 16, 22, 453 A.2d 1158 (1983); Board of Education v. Bridgeport Education Assn., supra; Waterbury Board of Education v. Waterbury Teachers Assn., supra. It is axiomatic in this jurisdiction that any challenge to an award pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1981) § 52-418(d) on the ground that the arbitrators exceeded or imperfectly performed their powers is properly limited to a comparison of the award with the submission. Caldor, Inc. v. Thornton, 191 Conn. 336, 340, 464 A.2d 785 (1983); Bruno v. Department of Consumer Protection, 190 Conn. 14, 18, 458 A.2d 685 (1983). In order to decide whether the arbitrators have exceeded their authority, the reviewing court must examine the submission together with the award and determine whether the award conforms to the submission. Bruno v. Department of Consumer Protection, supra, 18, 458 A.2d 685; Carroll v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, 189 Conn. 21, 453 A.2d 1158; Bic Pen Corporation v. Local No. 134, 183 Conn. 579, 584, 440 A.2d 774 (1981). The burden of demonstrating the nonconformity of the award to the submission is on the party seeking to vacate the award. Bruno v. Department of Consumer Protection, supra, 190 Conn. 19, 458 A.2d 685; Bic Pen Corporation v. Local No. 134, supra, 183 Conn. 585, 440 A.2d 774. Every reasonable presumption will be made in order to sustain an award. Bic Pen Corporation v. Local No. 134, supra.

If the submission does not contain limiting or conditional language, then the submission is unrestricted. Id., 584-85, 440 A.2d 774; see Bridgeport v. Bridgeport Police Local 1159, supra, 183 Conn. 106-107, 438 A.2d 1171. " 'Where the submission is unrestricted, "the award is ... final and binding and cannot be reviewed for errors of law or fact." Milford Employees Assn. v. Milford, 179 Conn. 678, 683, 427 A.2d 859 (1980).' " Caldor, Inc. v. Thornton, supra. Furthermore, if the submission is unrestricted, the arbitrators are not required to decide the issues presented to them according to law. Bridgeport v. Bridgeport Police Local 1159, supra, 183 Conn. 106, 438 A.2d 1171; see Meyers v. Lakeridge Development Co., 173 Conn. 133, 135, 376 A.2d 1105 (1977). Thus, "[w]here 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 construction placed upon the facts or 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." (Citations omitted.) Caldor, Inc. v. Thornton, supra, 191 Conn. 340-41, 464 A.2d 785, quoting Bic Pen Corporation v. Local No. 134, supra, 183 Conn. 584, 440 A.2d 774.

By agreeing to the unrestricted submission, the town and the union authorized the arbitrators to exercise their own judgment in resolving the dispute and granting a remedy. "If the question has been entrusted to the arbitration tribunal, then the court should not rule upon the merits of the issue and it should not usurp the function conferred upon that tribunal by the parties to the agreement." Hartford v. Local 308, 171 Conn. 420, 424-25, 370 A.2d 996 (1976); Frager v. Pennsylvania General Ins. Co., 155 Conn. 270, 274, 231 A.2d 531 (1967). It is clear that a party cannot object to an award which accomplishes precisely what the arbitrators were authorized to do. See New Britain v. Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, 178 Conn. 557, 563, 424 A.2d 263 (1979). "Having bargained for the decision of the arbitrator on the question ... the parties are bound by it, even if it be regarded as unwise or wrong on the merits." Local 453, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers v. Otis Elevator Co., 314 F.2d 25, 28 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 949, 83 S.Ct. 1680, 10 L.Ed.2d 705 (1963); Bridgeport v. Bridgeport Police Local 1159, supra, 183 Conn. 107-108, 438 A.2d 1171.

In the present case, the parties agreed to submit disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement to arbitration. ⁹ The parties voluntarily submitted the issue to the arbitrators and the submission did not contain limiting or conditional language. ¹⁰ The submission, therefore, was unrestricted. In essence, the submission asked the arbitrators to determine whether the plaintiff violated the agreement by failing to discharge the nonunion employees whose agency shop fees were not paid, and to fashion a remedy if such a violation were found. The arbitrators' award found that the town had violated the agency shop provision and they fashioned a remedy whereby the town was...