1199 NP v. State of Connecticut (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Introduction

This is an application to vacate an arbitration award.   The arbitrator affirmed the termination of the grievant, Ida Johnson, from state employment.   Johnson was terminated from her position with the State for falsification of an application she made for disaster assistance which was available after hurricane Irene in August 2011.

The State filed a cross application seeking confirmation of the award.

Discussion

“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 ․ In other words, [u]nder an unrestricted submission, the arbitrators' decision is considered final and binding;  thus the courts will not review the evidence considered by the arbitrators nor will they review the award for errors of law or fact.”   (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.)  McCann v. Department of Environmental Protection, 288 Conn. 203, 213–4 (2008).

The arbitrator found the following facts.   During hurricane Irene the grievant lost power and had to stay in a hotel for a time.   She applied for DSNAP benefits and received a benefit of $793.00.   In her application for benefits she stated her income as $2,800 monthly, when, in fact, her income from State employment was approximately $4,593 and she earned additional sums from a part-time position.   She also included as members of her household her husband, her son's girlfriend, and her son, but did not indicate that any of them had income.   Her husband did have income of $3,182 during the eligibility period and the girlfriend had income of approximately $1,410 during that period.   The grievant's son was incarcerated.   The arbitrator found that the grievant misrepresented both the size of her household and the income the household received.   The arbitrator found that the grievant's explanation for these discrepancies was not credible.   The arbitrator concluded that the grievant was dismissed for just cause.

The plaintiff claims that the arbitrator's decision should be set aside because a large number of state employees were dismissed for receiving DSNAP benefits to which they were not entitled but that each of those dismissals, unlike the grievant's here, was reduced to a suspension by an arbitrator.   It claims that the issue is not whether the grievant deserved punishment but whether the punishment imposed on everyone else guilty of the same conduct violated the statutory requirement that the arbitrator decide the case upon the evidence before her.   Yet this is precisely what the arbitrator did because the grievant presented this same argument to the arbitrator.   The arbitrator found that the grievants who had been reinstated were found to have made mistakes on their applications but not to have engaged in fraud.   Here the arbitrator concluded that the grievant had intentionally defrauded the State for the purpose of obtaining a benefit.   The arbitrator found that the grievant misrepresented her household income and size, and her explanations for the discrepancies were not credible.

In support of its application to vacate, the plaintiff cites to other specific arbitration awards where the penalty was reduced from dismissal to suspension.   But they do not provide a basis for vacating the arbitrator's decision here.   Our Supreme Court has held that:  “in the absence of a specific contract provision to the contrary, an arbitrator is not bound to follow prior arbitration decisions, even in cases in which the grievances at issue involve the same parties and interpretation of the same contract provisions.   Although an arbitrator may find well reasoned prior awards to be a compelling influence on his or her decision-making process, the arbitrator need not give such awards preclusive effect.   Rather, the arbitrator should bring his or her own independent judgment to bear on the issue to be decided, using prior awards as the arbitrator sees fit, as it is the arbitrator's judgment for which the parties had bargained.”  Stratford v. International Association of Firefighters, 248 Conn. 108, 125 (1999).

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above the plaintiff's application to vacate the arbitration award is denied and the state's application to confirm the award is granted.

Jane S. Scholl, J.

Scholl, Jane S., J.