City of Waterbury v. AFSCME 15 1237 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff, City of Waterbury (City), has applied to vacate an arbitration dated November 30, 2010, issued from the Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, involving a submission made pursuant to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the defendant, Waterbury Police Union, AFSCME Council # 15, Local # 1237 (Union).

The underlying facts are that a grievance was filed by the Union for a former Waterbury police officer, Michael Edwards, who claimed that the City miscalculated his pension benefits following his retirement from service from the City. The grievance was denied at the first step.   The Union appealed to the Human Resources Department of the City pursuant to the CBA. That grievance was also denied.   Next, pursuant to the CBA, the Union appealed to the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration.

The submission to the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration stated the following:

Whether the City violated Article 21 or Article 23, including the Pension Ordinance as incorporated in and made a part of Article 23, of the collective bargaining agreement when it calculated and awarded the pension benefit of Michael Edwards?   If so, what shall the remedy be?

The submission was executed by Eric R. Brown on behalf of the Union and Gary S. Roosa on behalf of the City. The submission made to the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration was an unrestricted submission.   The State Board of Mediation and Arbitration panel consisted of three members and ruled in favor of the Union in support of the grievance by a vote of two to one.

The Arbitration Panel ruled on the submission as follows:

The city violated the Pension Ordinance as incorporated and made a part of Article 23 of the collective bargaining agreement when it calculated and awarded the pension benefit of Michael Edwards.   The remedy is that the final average base pay calculation shall be made by the city as if Edwards had been paid his wages during the period of his suspension.

The City's application to vacate the arbitration award alleges that the arbitrators exceeded their authority in finding that they had jurisdiction to hear the grievance and that the arbitrators imperfectly executed their powers by failing to acknowledge the requirements of the City's pension ordinance and its application to the facts in the grievance.   The legal basis of the City's application is that the arbitration award violates General Statutes § 52–418(a)(4).

The Union opposes the application to vacate and also seeks confirmation of the award because it was an unrestricted submission to arbitrate.

The bases for vacating an arbitration award are established in General Statutes § 52–418(a), which states:  “Upon the application of any party to an arbitration, the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides or, in a controversy concerning land, for the judicial district in which the land is situated or, when the court is not in session, any judge thereof, shall make an order vacating the award if it finds any of the following defects:  (1) If the award has been procured by corruption, fraud or undue means;  (2) if there has been evident partiality or corruption on the part of any arbitrator;  (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.”

In State v. New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, AFL–CIO, 265 Conn. 771, 830 A.2d 729 (2003), our Supreme Court discussed the well established standard of review of arbitration awards to be performed by our courts.   The court stated:  “Our analysis is guided by the well established standard of review of arbitration awards.   Judicial review of arbitral decisions is narrowly confined ․ When the parties agree to arbitration and establish the authority of the arbitrator through the terms of their submission, the extent of our judicial review of the award is delineated by the scope of the parties' agreement ․ 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 ․ 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 ․ Where the submission does not otherwise state, the arbitrators are empowered to decide factual and legal questions and an award cannot be vacated on the grounds that ․ the interpretation of the agreement by the arbitrators was erroneous.   Courts will not review the evidence nor, where the submission is unrestricted, will they review the arbitrators' decision of the legal questions involved.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  State v. New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, AFL–CIO, supra, 265 Conn.777–78.

The court continued, “[b]ecause the submission was unrestricted, the trial court's review of the award was limited to a determination of whether the award conforms to the submission ․ An award conforming to an unrestricted submission should generally be confirmed by the court.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Id., 778.

Finally, the court in Saturn Construction Co. v. Premier Roofing Co., 238 Conn. 293, 680 A.2d 1274 (1996), stated the following:  “Such a limited scope of judicial review is warranted given the fact that the parties voluntarily bargained for the decision of the arbitrator and, as such, the parties are presumed to have assumed the risks of and waived objections to that decision ․ It is clear that a party cannot object to an award which accomplishes precisely what the arbitrators were authorized to do merely because that party dislikes the results ․ Thus, we have previously held that the parties should be bound by a decision that they contracted and bargained for, even if it is regarded as unwise or wrong on the merits.  Id., 304.

In the present case, the parties made an unrestricted submission to arbitration on the issues in dispute.   Consistent with State v. New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, AFL–CIO, supra, the parties contracted for and bargained for the arbitration panel's judgment on these issues.   This court cannot and may not review, de novo, the arbitrator's decision for even errors of law so long as the award conforms to the submission.   A review of the arbitration decision finds that the panel ruled upon both of the City's arguments;  first as to the jurisdiction of the arbitration panel, as well as, to the merits of the parties' positions.   The arbitration award conforms to the submission.   The court does not find that the arbitration panel exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them under the provisions of General Statutes § 52–418(a)(4).   In fact, the arbitration panel performed those services requested of them and made findings in this matter after a full hearing and consideration of all the evidence submitted.

In conclusion, based on the case law and review of the arbitration award, the City's application to vacate the arbitration award is denied.   The Union's request to confirm the arbitration award is granted.

Agati, J.

Agati, Salvatore C., J.