LLC v. 1199 (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE APPLICATION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD (# 100.31) AND APPLICATION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD (# 103.00)

This case came to this court as above stated on the miscellaneous special proceedings calendar.

The court denies the Application to Vacate the Arbitration Award and confirms the Arbitration Award.

The defendant union has applied to this court pursuant to General Statutes 52–417 and Practice Book § 23–1 for an order confirming a labor arbitration award resolving a dispute between the employer and the union issued June 23, 2011 an American Arbitration Association Case Number 12 300 00069 11.   The employer has refused to comply with the arbitration award issued in favor of the union and commenced the instant action to Vacate the Arbitration Award on July 21, 2011.   The union filed its cross application to confirm the award on August 16, 2011.   The court has reviewed the arbitrators award and decision.

This case involves the claim of an unjust termination of nine bargaining union employees when plaintiff employer acquired ownership of the skilled nursing facility where they were employed on January 1, 2011.   The facts of the case are set forth in the 36–page decision that accompanied arbitrator Katz's June 23, 2011 award reinstating the nine grievants to their employment.   The employer has refused to comply with the award by reinstating the grievants.   This court looks solely to the arbitrator's decision for the facts in this case.

The arbitrator's decision rest on a key fact that the arbitrator found the plaintiff employer agreed to assume the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with no modification to the key CBA provisions at issue in this dispute.   See arbitrators decision at page 25.   The parties by agreeing to an arbitration clause have contracted to bypass the judicial litigation process and submit disputes to an arbitrator for resolution.   If arbitration awards were subject to review by the courts for factual or legal error the contracting parties would lose the benefit of their bargain because they could not rely on the finality of an award and an arbitration would serve merely as a preliminary to protracted judicial proceedings.   The availability of judicial review would render arbitration merely a step in litigation process rather than a vehicle for avoiding protracted litigation of labor management disputes.

This was an unrestricted submission.   An unrestricted submission is reviewed only as to whether it conforms to the submission.   The court cannot substitute its judgment as to the interpretation of the agreement.   De novo review of the award is appropriate when a party makes a legitimate challenge that the award violates public policy.   The court is still bound however by the arbitrator's factual findings.   In this case the plaintiff claims:  (1) The award violates public policy;  (2) The award was issued in manifest disregard for the law;  and (3) The arbitrator exceeded his powers within the meaning of the statutes.   None of these grounds have been established.   In fact the strong public policy favoring resolution of labor disputes through arbitration requires this court to confirm the award.

For all the foregoing reasons the defendant union's Cross Application to Confirm the Arbitration award is granted and plaintiff employer's Application to Vacate is denied.   The court issues an order pursuant to General Statute 52–417 confirming arbitrator Katz's award dated June 23, 2011.

So Ordered.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR.

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

Karazin, Edward R., J.T.R.