From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

AFSCME v. STATE DOC

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
Nov 21, 2006
2006 Ct. Sup. 21591 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006)

Opinion

No. CV 05-4018446

November 21, 2006


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION


AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565, (hereinafter referred to as the "Union"), filed a grievance with the Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration against the State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (hereinafter referred to as the "DOC") concerning whether or not Eunice Smith, an employee of the Department of Correction, was dismissed for just cause.

Eunice Smith had been an employee of the Department of Correction for thirteen years and had been assigned to the Hartford Correction Center since 1990 and had also been a Union Steward.

On January 17, 2003, Hartford Police and the Connecticut State Police were called to Hartford Correctional Center in response to statements that Eunice Smith had telephoned another correction officer and threatened to shoot her as a result of her posting a union-related document and refusing to answer questions concerning the posting.

The State Police conducted an on-site investigation. Eunice Smith told the police that she phoned the other officer once. She also indicated that she did have two registered handguns, however, neither was stored at the facility nor in her personal vehicle. With her agreement, Eunice Smith's vehicle was searched by the Connecticut State Police and a loaded 9mm firearm was found and confiscated from a handbag in Eunice Smith's trunk. She was arrested and charged with threats, breach of peace, and inciting injury to a person. She was placed on administrative leave with pay and was escorted out of the facility by the police.

On January 19, 2003, the State Police conducted an investigation of Eunice Smith's residence in order to confiscate a weapon that was registered to her. While conducting the search, State Police found a pill bottle and a partly smoked cigarette containing marijuana under her bed. Eunice Smith was charged with possession of marijuana and paraphernalia.

A Department of Correction Captain had conducted his own investigation of the threats and workplace violence made by the other correction employee against Eunice Smith by conducting interviews of facility personnel. On May 19, 2003, Eunice Smith contacted the Department Captain and indicated that she had accepted Accelerated Rehabilitation for the threats and drug charges she was accused of. The Captain then concluded his investigation. He found that Eunice Smith had been arrested by the Connecticut State Police and was charged with inciting injury to persons, breach of peace, threatening and possession of marijuana and paraphernalia.

On November 6, 2003, Eunice Smith was dismissed from State service for on-and off-duty misconduct both of which were violations of Administrative Directive 2.17.

The principle of limited judicial review has been expressed by the Supreme Court in O G/O'Connell Joint Venture v. Chase Family Limited Partnership, 203 Conn. 133, 523 A.2d 1271 (1987).

When arbitration is created by contract we recognized that this autonomy can only be preserved by minimal judicial intervention. (Citations omitted.) Because the parties themselves, by virtue of the submission, frame the issues to be resolved and define the scope of the arbitrator's powers, the parties are generally bound by the resulting award. (Citations omitted.) Since the parties consent to arbitration, and have full control over the issues to be arbitrated, a court will make every reasonable presumption in favor of the arbitration award and the arbitrator's acts and proceedings. (Citations omitted.) The party challenging the award bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to invalidate or avoid it, and only upon a showing that it falls within the proscriptions of Section 52-418 of the General Statutes or procedurally violates the parties' agreement: will the determination of an arbitrator be subject to judicial inquiry. (Citations omitted.) 203 Conn. at 145-46.

In City of New Haven v. AFSCME, Council 15, Local 530, 208 Conn. 411, CT Page 21593 544 A.2d 186 (1988), the Connecticut Supreme Court reiterated the longstanding, basic principle supporting the autonomy of arbitration and minimal judicial review of consensual arbitration awards. See also, City of Middletown v. Police Local 1361, 187 Conn. 228, 445 A.2d 322 (1982). Addressing a challenge on public policy grounds to an arbitrator's award, the Supreme Court in City of New Haven v. AFSCME Council 15, Local 530, 208 Conn. 411, stated:

This court has long endorsed arbitration as "an alternative method of settling disputes `intended to avoid the formalities, delay, expense and vexation of ordinary litigation.'" (Citations omitted.) We have recognized that when arbitration is consensual, rather than statutorily imposed, judicial review is limited in scope. (Citations omitted.) If the parties mutually agree to submit their dispute to arbitration, the resulting award is not reviewable for errors of law or fact. (Citations omitted.) Judicial review of unrestricted submissions is limited to a comparison between the submission and the award to see whether, in accordance with the powers conferred upon the arbitrators, their award conforms to the submission. (Citations omitted.) 208 Conn. at 410-11.

In deciding whether an arbitrator has exceeded his power, the Court only examines the submission and the award to determine whether the award conforms to the submission. In O G/O'Connell, supra, the Supreme Court emphasized this rule, writing that:

Unless the submission provides otherwise, an arbitrator has authority to decide factual and legal questions and courts will not review the evidence, or, where the submission is unrestricted, the arbitrator's determination of legal questions. (Citations omitted.) In this case, because neither the plaintiff's demand for arbitration nor the defendant's answer contained any conditional language restricting the powers of the arbitrators, the submission was unrestricted. (Citations omitted.) Since the award conforms to the submission, the defendants' claim that the arbitrators exceeded their powers is without merit. 203 Conn. at 153-54.

"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 . . . (Citations omitted.)" Saturn Construction Co. v. Premier Roofing Co., 238 Conn. 293, 304 (1996).

The scope of judicial review of arbitration is very narrow. Our courts favor arbitration as a means of settling differences and uphold the finality of arbitration awards except where an award clearly falls within the proscriptions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418. Exley v. Connecticut Yankee Grey Hound Racing, 59 Conn.App. 224, 228, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 930.

Sec. 52-418 in relevant part:

(3) If the arbitrators have been guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause shown or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy or of any other action by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or (4) 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.

This court cannot find that it was an egregious mis-performance of duty in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418(a)(3) or (4). The court cannot correct errors of fact or law, substituting its judgment for the arbitrators where the submission was unrestricted. Exley v. Connecticut Yankee Grey Hound Racing, 59 Conn.App. 224, 228, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 939 (2000).


Summaries of

AFSCME v. STATE DOC

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
Nov 21, 2006
2006 Ct. Sup. 21591 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006)
Case details for

AFSCME v. STATE DOC

Case Details

Full title:AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565 v. State of Connecticut, Department of…

Court:Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford

Date published: Nov 21, 2006

Citations

2006 Ct. Sup. 21591 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006)