UPSEU 424 v. South Central Regional Water Authority (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS # 104

On January 20, 2011, the state board of mediation and arbitration issued an Arbitration Award (Award) relating to a dispute between the plaintiff, UPSEU, Local 424, unit ICOPS 3, SCRWA police (Union) and the defendant, South Central Regional Water Authority (RWA).

On February 16, 2011, the Union filed an Application for an order vacating the Award pursuant to General Statutes § 52–418 ¹ with this court.   On March 17, 2011, the RWA filed a Motion to Dismiss (# 104),² along with a Memorandum in Support of the Motion (# 105).   On April 15, 2011, the Union filed an objection to the motion to dismiss (# 106).   Oral argument was heard on April 18, 2011.

“A Motion to dismiss ․ properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state of cause of action that should be heard by the court.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Bacon Construction Co. v. Dept. Of Public Works, 294 Conn. 695, 706, 987 A.2d 348 (2010).  “A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Wilcox v. Webster Ins., Inc., 294 Conn. 206, 213, 982 A.2d 1053 (2009).   This standard has previously been applied by our Supreme Court within the context of an arbitration appeal.  Bloomfield v. United Electric, 285 Conn. 278, 286, 929 A.2d 561 (2008).

In the present case, the RWA moves to dismiss the Union's Application “because the allegations in that Application cannot meet the standards for vacation an arbitration award under ․ § 52–418.”   Such an argument addresses the merits of the Union's Application and does not implicate the jurisdiction of this court.   Consequently, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

Robinson, A.,J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. General Statutes § 52–418(a) provides, in pertinent part:  “Upon the application of any party to an arbitration, the superior court ․ 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.”.  FN1. General Statutes § 52–418(a) provides, in pertinent part:  “Upon the application of any party to an arbitration, the superior court ․ 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.”

FN2. The filing also contained a cross application for an order confirming the award pursuant to General Statutes § 52–417.   That statutory section provides that “At any time within one year after an award has been rendered and the parties to the arbitration notified thereof, any party to the arbitration may make application to the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides ․ The court or judge shall grant such an order confirming the award unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed in Sections 52–418 and 52–419.”.  FN2. The filing also contained a cross application for an order confirming the award pursuant to General Statutes § 52–417.   That statutory section provides that “At any time within one year after an award has been rendered and the parties to the arbitration notified thereof, any party to the arbitration may make application to the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides ․ The court or judge shall grant such an order confirming the award unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed in Sections 52–418 and 52–419.”

Robinson, Angela C., J.