Waterbury v. Waterbury Police Union, 176 Conn. 401, 404, 407 A.2d 1013 (1979). The Court concludes that under the authority of Hartford v. Local 760, 6 Conn. App. 11, 12 502 A.2d 429 (1986), the arbitration decision does not conform to the submission and must be vacated. Since the plaintiff's application is being granted on this ground, the Court does not reach plaintiff's public policy argument. In Hartford v. Local 760, supra, 6 Conn. App. 12, the grievant was arrested for his alleged involvement in a bank robbery.
Thus, in the event of arbitration, if the arbitrator found that there was just cause for Mejia's termination, the arbitrator had no authority under the CBA to substitute another remedy in place of termination. Cf. Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. District 2 Marine Engineers, 889 F.2d 599 (5th Cir. 1989); Hartford v. Local 760. International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, 502 A.2d 429 (Conn.App. 1986). The question, then, is whether the arbitrator did or did not find just cause.
The arbitration panel's award answered those issues, assigning dollar amounts as to the allocation of costs corresponding to each question. At no time has the plaintiff suggested that the panel decided a question that the parties had not vested it with the authority to decide. Contra Hartford v. Local 760, 6 Conn. App. 11, 14-15, 502 A.2d 429 (1986) (award held not to conform to submission because arbitrators determined "question of remedy" not set forth in submission). In answering the submitted issues, the arbitration panel was instructed to include in its award "findings of fact and conclusions regarding the interpretation of the insurance policies that are the subject of this arbitration as necessary to support the award.
Our determination of whether the arbitrator exceeded or imperfectly executed his powers pursuant to § 52-418 (a) (4) depends on whether the arbitrator answered the first question in the submission in the affirmative or negative. In Hartford v. Local 760, 6 Conn. App. 11, 12, 502 A.2d 429 (1986), the arbitration board was presented with the following submission: "`Was the [g]rievant . . . suspended for just cause under the collective bargaining agreement? If not, what shall the remedy be?' "The arbitration board answered the first question raised by the submission in the affirmative, finding that the grievant was suspended for just cause but went on to decide that the period of suspension was inappropriate and reduced it. Id. This court concluded that the award did not conform to the submission because the submission precluded the arbitrators from determining the question of remedy unless they found that the grievant was suspended without just cause.
The conclusion that the demotion cannot be extended in perpetuity addresses the appropriateness or the terms of the demotion, not the cause of it. We find particularly instructive this court's decision in Hartford v. Local 760, International Assn. of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, 6 Conn. App. 11, 14, 502 A.2d 429 (1986), which states that "[t]here is no question . . . that the award does not conform to the submission. The submission is clear on its face. By its language . . . the submission precluded the arbitrators from determining the question of remedy unless they found that the grievant was suspended without just cause.
' In deciding whether the arbitrator has exceeded his power under § 52-418 (a)(4), we compare the award with the submission to determine if the award and the submission conform. See New Haven v. AFSCME, Council 15, Local 530, [supra, 208 Conn. 415]; Hartford v. Local 760, 6 Conn. App. 11, 13, 502 A.2d 429 (1986). . . . `The burden of demonstrating the nonconformity of the award to the submission is on the party seeking to vacate the award.' . . . Every reasonable presumption will be made in order to sustain an award." (Citations omitted.)
" "In deciding whether the arbitrator has exceeded his power under § 52-418 (a)(4), we compare the award with the submission to determine if the award and the submission conform. See New Haven v. AFSCME, Council 15, Local 530, 208 Conn. 411, 415, 544 A.2d 186 (1988); Hartford v. Local 760, 6 Conn. App. 11, 13, 502 A.2d 429 (1986). . . . The burden of demonstrating the nonconformity of the award to the submission is on the party seeking to vacate the award. . . . Every reasonable presumption will be made in order to sustain an award." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
" (Citations omitted.) Hartford v. Local 760, 6 Conn. App. 11, 15, 502 A.2d 429 (1986). Section 31-98 provides exclusively "for the submission of grievances and disputes between an employer and his employees to a board of mediation and arbitration.
To hold otherwise would expand the role of the trial court in arbitration proceedings which would result in an unwarranted and counterproductive diminution of the efficacy of such proceedings." Hartford v. Local 760, 6 Conn. App. 11, 14, 502 A.2d 429 (1986). We view the award as sufficiently final and definite.
In deciding whether the arbitrator has exceeded his power under § 52-418(a)(4), we compare the award with the submission to determine if the award and the submission conform. See New Haven v. AFSCME, Council 15, Local 530, 208 Conn. 411, 415, 544 A.2d 186 (1988); Hartford v. Local 760, 6 Conn. App. 11, 13, 502 A.2d 429 (1986). "The submission defines the scope of the entire arbitration proceedings by specifically delineating the issues to be decided and no matter outside the submission may be included in the award."