Waterbury Bd. of Ed. v. Waterbury Teachers Ass'n

• Decision Date: 04 March 1975
• Citation: 168 Conn. 54,357 A.2d 466
• Parties: , 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3467, 76 Lab.Cas. P 53,646 WATERBURY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. WATERBURY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Page 466

357 A.2d 466

168 Conn. 54, 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3467,

76 Lab.Cas. P 53,646

WATERBURY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. WATERBURY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

March 4, 1975.

Kevin T. Nixon, Naugatuck, with whom, on the brief, were Donald A. House and Neal B. Hanlon, Naugatuck, for appellant (defendant).

John F. Phelan, Waterbury, for appellee (plaintiff).

Martin A. Gould, Hartford, filed a brief as amicus curiae but did not argue.

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

MacDONALD, Associate Justice.

The defendant, Waterbury Teachers Association, hereinafter referred to as W.T.A., has appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court granting the motion of the plaintiff, Waterbury Board of Education, hereinafter the Board, to vacate an arbitrator's award. The finding, which is not subject to correction, ¹ discloses the following- : On December 29, 1969, the Board and W.T.A. entered into an agreement, negotiated pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes § 10-153, as amended through 1968, commonly known and hereinafter referred to as the Teacher Negotiation Act. The term of said agreement was for the period January 1, 1970, through December 31, 1972, and its relevant portions are either quoted or, where sufficiently clear, summarized in the footnote. ²

Article XXIII of the agreement contained a grievance procedure pursuant to which Henry Capozzi, a Waterbury teacher, on October 18, 1971, filed a grievance claiming a violation of the Waterbury civil service rules and regulations and of the 1969 agreement with regard to the appointment, duties and salaries of the positions of Director of Adult Basic Education, hereinafter referred to as D.A.B.E., and Director of Manpower Development Training Act, hereinafter M.D.T.A. The remedy requested in the grievance was twofold: (a) the conducting of open competitive examinations for the two positions, in accordance with the provisions and procedures of the civil service rules and regulations; and (b) the negotiation of the duties and and salaries for said positions to be conducted in accordance with the Teacher Negotiation Act. The grievance was submitted to arbitration and on July 19, 1972, the arbitrator conducted a hearing at which there were oral amendments by W.T.A. of the statement of grievance and by the Board of its answer to the grievance. The arbitrator precisely stated the amended W.T.A. position and the amended Board answer in the following language quoted from his 'Analysis': 'At the Jury 19th hearing the . . . (W.T.A.) amended the remedy requested to include the following: (1) Nullify the existing appointments to M.D.T.A. and D.A.B.E. (2) Negotiate job specifications and salaries under the teachers negotiation act. (3) Schedule examinations under Civil Service and refill both positions. (4a) . . . (If) the positions are found to be temporary and not administrative, then no administrative experience credit should be given for serving in the positions in any Civil Service examinations for other positions in the system. (4b) Reexamine for those positions where administrative experience credit was given for serving as either Director, M.D.T.A. or D.A.B.E. The Board's answer to the grievance is dated December 7, 1971, . . . and as amended at the July 19th hearing it reads in relevant part as follows: 'The position entitled Director of Adult Basic Education is fully funded by the State and Federal governments and therefore not under Civil Service Rules and Regulations. The position, Director of M.D.T.A. is fully funded by the State and or Federal Government and therefore, does not come under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations."

On August 24, 1972, the arbitrator issued an award in the following language: 'The Board of Education violated Article II, Section 1, of its current collective bargaining agreement when it declined to subject the positions of Director, M.D.T.A., and Director of Adult Basic Education, to Civil Service Rules and Regulations. For ninety days from the date of this award, the present incumbents in both positions shall continue to perform all their dutues. During this ninety day period the Board is directed to advise the Director of Personnel of this award and seek an open, competitive examination under Civil Service Rules and Regulations for both positions. If there has been no determination as to who is the successful applicant for each position from Civil Service within ninety days of this award, the Board is directed to declare both positions vacant on the ninety-first day following this award, until such determination is forthcoming from Civil Service.'

Section 204 of the charter of the city of Waterbury provides, in part, that: 'Any promotion from a teaching position to an administrative position shall be made under the provisions of this Charter amendment. For the purposes of this Charter amendment administrative positions shall include: Superintendent of Schools, Assistant Superintendent of Schools . . .. The positions listed herein are examples of intent and shall not be considered as all-inclusive. Any other position in the educational system which requires more than fifty percent of the incumbent's time to be devoted to administrative duties shall be included in the classified service. If a question arises relative to the amount of time devoted in an administrative position, the question shall be referred to a committee of three for a decision. The Board of Education and the Civil Service Commission shall each designate one of their members to serve on such committee and these two persons together with the Mayor shall comprise said committee. The decision of the committee shall be final.'

Section 205 of the charter provides in part for both open competitive examinations and promotional examinations for vacancies in position in the classified service. The positions of D.A.B.E. and M.D.T.A. are not specifically enumerated among the positions listed in § 204 of the charter. The Capozzi grievance never requested, as a remedy, that the charter-prescribed committee of three be called upon to determine whether the positions of D.A.B.E. and M.D.T.A. are 'administrative positions' within the meaning of that phrase as defined in § 204 of the charter.

The collective bargaining agreement between the parties was silent with regard to the two contested positions. Further, the agreement contained no reference to 'open competitive examinations' even for positions covered by the agreement. The positions of D.A.B.E. and M.D.T.A. are not 'positions covered by the budget of the Waterbury Board of Education' as they are 'federally and/or state funded.'

The court granted the motion to vacate on the basis of having concluded (1) that the agreement is silent in regard to the specific positions of D.A.B.E. and M.D.T.A.; (2) that the positions of D.A.B.E. and M.D.T.A. are found not to be within the classified service of the city of Waterbury since those positions lack the permanency which is requisite in a classified position because they 'are not funded by the city but are funded entirely by federal and/or state grants, and which grants do not extend beyond a one year period'; (3) that the agreement is silent as to any contractual obligation of the director of personnel to conduct open competitive examinations for these positions; (4) that the arbitrator in his award erred and exceeded his powers in holding that the positions of D.A.B.E. and M.D.T.A. were covered by the provisions of the agreement, and added to the terms and provisions of the agreement and thus exceeded his powers by ordering open competitive examinations for these positions; and (5) that the arbitrator's award contravened the public policy of the state of Connecticut. The court's further conclusion that the Board had no obligation to conduct 'ongoing negotiations' with W.T.A. during the term of the agreement will be discussed separately in this opinion.

The basic assignment of error raises the question as to whether the trial court improperly concluded that the arbitrator exceeded his powers and thus rendered an invalid award. W.T.A. argues, and we agree, that an award rendered in conformity with the submission so as to constitute 'a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted'; § 52-418; should be confirmed. Costello Construction Corporation v. Teamsters Local 559, 167 Conn. 315, 319, 355 A.2d 279; Gary Excavating Co. v. North Haven, 160 Conn. 411, 279 A.2d 543.

The court concluded that the arbitrator erred and exceeded his powers in making an award and in further directing conduct, that is, directing the Board to avise the director of personnel to seek an open competitive examination under the civil service rules and regulations on the ground that such award and direction were beyond the submission. With this conclusion we disagree, for we find the award clearly was within the framework of the submission. W.T.A. argues that...