Hartford v. Board of Mediation Arbitration

68 Citing cases

  1. Lasalla v. Doctor's Associates

    2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 7241 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002)

    "`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. Hartford v. Board of Mediation Arbitration, 211 Conn. 7, 14, 557 A.2d 1236 (1989); New Haven v. AFSCME, Council 15, Local 530, 208 Conn. 411, 415-16, 544 A.2d 186 (1988). 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.Middletown v. Police Local, No. 1361, 187 Conn. 228, 230, 445 A.2d 322 (1982); State v. Connecticut Employees Union Independent, 184 Conn. 578, 579, 440 A.2d 229 (1981).

  2. Subway Development v. Doctor's Assoc.

    2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 6736 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2002)

    "`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. Hartford v. Board of Mediation Arbitration, 211 Conn. 7, 14, 557 A.2d 1236 (1989); New Haven v. AFSCME, Council 15, Local 530, 208 Conn. 411, 415-16, 544 A.2d 186 (1988). 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.Middletown v. Police Local, No. 1361, 187 Conn. 228, 230, 445 A.2d 322 (1982); State v. Connecticut Employees Union Independent, 184 Conn. 578, 579, 440 A.2d 229 (1981).

  3. INTERNATIONAL BOP v. TOWN, WINDSOR LOCKS

    1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 11153 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    General Statutes Section 7-414 requires that a civil service position be filled from a list of the three candidates ("rule of three") who rank highest in open competitive examination for that position. See Hartford v. Board of Mediation Arbitration, 211 Conn. 7, 10, n. 4, 557 A.2d 1236 (1989). The town argues that Rachele is not entitled to the position of captain because he was not among the highest three candidates in order of rank, based on the results of the open competitive examinations given, from which appointment is made pursuant to § 3.

  4. City of New Haven v. Afscme, Afl-Cio

    1998 Ct. Sup. 10056 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998)

    Id. An arbitration award was at issue in Hartford v. Board of Mediation Arbitration, 11 Conn. 7 (1989), a case on point. The issue was whether it was within the trial court's jurisdiction to base its decision on an issue not expressly raised in the pleadings.

  5. Town of Wallingford v. Local 1570

    1996 Ct. Sup. 2491 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1996)

    [w]hen the scope of that 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. Hartford v. Board of Mediation Arbitration, 211 Conn. 7, 14, 557 A.2d 1236 (1989); New Haven v. AFSCME, Council 15, Local 530, 208 Conn. 411, 415-16, 544 A.2d 186 (1988). 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 resolutions.

  6. LaFrance v. Lodmell

    SC 19614 (Conn. Sep. 6, 2016)

    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. Hartford v. Board of Mediation & Arbitration, 211 Conn. 7, 14, 557 A.2d 1236 (1989); New Haven v. AFSCME, Council 15, Local 530, 208 Conn. 411, 415-16, 544 A.2d 186 (1988). 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.

  7. LaFrance v. Lodmell

    322 Conn. 828 (Conn. 2016)   Cited 35 times
    Rejecting interpretation of § 46b-66 (c) that would produce absurd and unworkable results

    American Universal Ins. Co. v. DelGreco, [supra, 205 Conn. at 185, 530 A.2d 171 ]. 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. Hartford v. Board of Mediation & Arbitration, 211 Conn. 7, 14, 557 A.2d 1236 (1989) ; New Haven v. AFSCME, Council 15, Local 530, 208 Conn. 411, 415–16, 544 A.2d 186 (1988). 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.

  8. Honulik v. Town of Greenwich

    293 Conn. 698 (Conn. 2009)   Cited 69 times
    Reversing trial court and finding no property interest rooted in a promotion where plaintiff appeared on promotional list and received the highest examination score because town retained "discretion to hire any candidate certified to the promotional list"

    Section 7-414 embodies what is commonly known as the "rule of three," a practice adopted by many municipalities. See Kelly v. New Haven, 275 Conn. 580, 587 and nn. 9 and 10, 881 A.2d 978 (2005) (citing New Haven city charter and civil service rules); Hartford v. Board of Mediation Arbitration, 211 Conn. 7, 10-11, 557 A.2d 1236 (1989) (citing Hartford city charter and personnel rules and regulations); State ex rel. Barnard v. Ambrogio, 162 Conn. 491. 495 n. 2, 294 A.2d 529 (1972) (citing Haddam town charter). Turning next to the town's rules and policies, the term "promotional list" is defined in the town's pay plan and policy manual.

  9. Honulik v. Greenwich

    290 Conn. 421 (Conn. 2009)   Cited 11 times

    Section 7-414 embodies what is commonly known as the "rule of three," a practice adopted by many municipalities. See Kelly v. New Haven, 275 Conn. 580, 587 and nn. 9 and 10, 881 A.2d 978 (2005) (citing New Haven city charter and civil service rules); Hartford v. Board of Mediation Arbitration, 211 Conn. 7, 10-11, 557 A.2d 1236 (1989) (citing Hartford city charter and personnel rules and regulations); State ex rel. Barnard v. Ambrogio, 162 Conn. 491, 495 n. 2, 294 A.2d 529 (1972) (citing Haddam town charter).

  10. Kelly v. New Haven

    275 Conn. 580 (Conn. 2005)   Cited 80 times
    Noting its consideration of "the policy objectives of civil service laws" and that "[s]trict compliance is necessarily required to uphold the sanctity of the merit system . . . . It is strict, not technical, compliance that is required"

    " (Emphasis added.) Hartford v. Board of Mediation Arbitration, 211 Conn. 7, 17, 557 A.2d 1236 (1989). It is clear that the result of the defendants' methodology is a significant expansion of its discretion in choosing among the most qualified candidates in a pool of candidates who meet the threshold requirement for promotion. Turning again to the 2000 eligibility list for promotion to sergeant, using the raw scores, the defendants would have been able to choose from no more than four candidates, two of those having tie scores.