Opinion
No. CV 00-0596132
June 15, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) filed this action seeking to vacate an arbitration award rendered against it by the Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration on the grounds that it violates public policy.
The arbitration concerned the termination of an MDC employee who removed a magazine from an MDC customer's home while the employee was installing a new water meter. The employee initially and repeatedly denied removing the magazine, but when confronted by the police, she admitted the act and returned the magazine. The MDC discharged her for theft and lying and the defendant, AFSCME, filed this grievance contending that she removed the magazine in her work pail through error and that her denial was based on fear of losing her job. The panel held that as "there was no indication that the magazine had any special value to her as a collector's item . . . the panel is convinced that there is no proportionality between her actions and the penalty meted out." Accordingly the panel held that the employee was not terminated for just cause and reinstated the employee without back pay.
The MDC seeks to vacate the award based upon General Statutes § 52-418(a), which states in relevant part, that, an award shall be vacated "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 MDC maintains that there is an explicit statutory public policy concerning theft, which the panel failed to consider and thus argues that the employee's actions establish just cause for her dismissal. See, Groton v. United Steelworkers of America, 254 Conn. 35, 48, 757 A.2d 501 (2000).
In opposing the MDC's request, AFSCME has outlined the broad principles and limitations of judicial review of arbitral decisions. See generally, OG/O'Connell Joint Venture v. Chase Family Limited Partnership No. 3, 203 Conn. 133, 523 A.2d 1271 (1987). A court must determine whether the award conforms to the submission, id., 153, and in this case neither party suggests that it did not conform or was restricted. In such cases, "[c]ourts will not . . . review the arbitrators' decision of the legal questions involved." State of Connecticut v. AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Council 4, Local 2663, 257 Conn. 80, 86, 777 A.2d 169 (2001).
However, as noted by the Supreme Court, "[w]hen a challenge to a voluntary arbitration award rendered pursuant to an unrestricted submission raises a legitimate and colorable claim of violation of public policy, the question of whether the award violates public policy requires de novo judicial review . . . [The plaintiff's] challenge raises such a claim. We therefore undertake de novo review of the award." (Citations omitted.) Id., 90. The Supreme Court further added that "[t]he public policy exception applies only when the award is clearly illegal or clearly violative of a strong public policy . . . A challenge that an award is in contravention of public policy is premised on the fact that the parties cannot expect an arbitration award approving conduct which is illegal or contrary to public policy to receive judicial endorsement any more than parties can expect a court to enforce such a contract between them." Id., 90.
In Metropolitan District Commission v. Local 184, 77 Conn. App. 832, 825 A.2d 218 (2003), the Appellate Court decided that an arbitration award reinstating an employee who was discharged for allowing unauthorized dumping at a waste disposal facility did not violate public policy. The court held that as the employee had not been charged or convicted of any crime, the reinstatement was not a violation of public policy. Id., 845. The court went on to reason that "cases that have held that a court properly vacated an arbitration award that compelled reinstatement of an employee usually involved some apparent and egregious misconduct on the part of the employee." Id. The Appellate Court found that the employee's actions in allowing unauthorized dumping in violation of certain state waste statutes did not rise to the level of "apparent and egregious misconduct." Id.
Such is the situation in the present case. The employee was never charged or convicted of a crime, but was discharged for removing a magazine which she later returned. This case is governed by Metropolitan District Commission v. Local 184, supra, and accordingly, MDC's motion to vacate the award is denied.
Berger, J.