Opinion
No. WWM-CV07-4005409 S
April 25, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The defendant, Local R1-126, is the exclusive bargaining representative of custodians and maintenance workers of the plaintiff, Plainfield Board of Education. The plaintiff and the defendant were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that was in effect at all times relevant to this dispute. The agreement provides for resolution of employee grievances, including arbitration. The grievance procedure of the agreement pertains to employee grievances ". . . involving the interpretation or application of a specific section of the agreement . . ." Article XVIII. The agreement states that "(t)he Arbitrators shall be bound by and must comply with all the terms of this Agreement and shall have no power to add to, subtract from, or in any way, modify the provisions of this Agreement." Article XVIII.
The language subject to this dispute was contained in Article XXI which reads as follows:
"Absences of up to four (4) weeks, to the extent the Board elects to fill in for the absent employee, will be offered to full time bargaining unit members on an overtime basis. If, after four (4) weeks, the employer decides to hire a new bargaining unit employee, once the individual on the extended absence returns to work, the individual hired as a fill-in will be the junior employee for purposes of promotion or layoff.
Nothing herein shall prevent the Board from assigning a part time employee to do work at a location that has an absent full time employee."
The defendant union filed a grievance on this matter on October 13, 2004, claiming that the Board of Education was violating the article by using part time employees to fill in for absent employees instead of using full-time employees on an overtime basis. The employer relying on the last sentence of the above quoted language claimed that the grievance had no validity.
The parties did not agree on the issue submitted for consideration. The arbitrators determined the issue to be:
"Did the Board of Education violate Article XXI of the collective bargaining agreement when it assigned part-time employees to perform work at schools which would have been performed by absent full-time employees without first offering that work on an overtime basis to full-time employees? If so, what shall the remedy be?"
On December 28, 2006, the arbitrators issued an award. The award found that the Board of Education had violated Article XXI and instructed the board to apply the language of Article XXI pertinent to filling positions on an over-time basis. Finally the award provided:
"The monies shall be paid by the Board in each instance of wrongful absentee coverage by part-time employees for four (4) hours at the applicable overtime rates and not six (6) hours at the overtime rates, as the part-time employees only filled in for four (4) hours for the absent full-time employees."
II. DISCUSSION
General Statute § 52-418(a) provides four grounds upon which arbitration awards may be vacated. The first three allow vacation for awards that are based upon corruption, evident partiality, or for misconduct in the scheduling of hearings, the hearing of evidence or other prejudicial misconduct. None of these are at issue in the instant matter. The fourth, § 52-418(a)(4) allows an award to be vacated if the arbitrators exceed their power or do not issue an award that is mutual, final and definite.
The plaintiff puts forth three claims in support of its argument that the arbitrators exceeded their powers. The plaintiff claims that the arbitrators essentially deleted Article XXI, Paragraph 6 of the agreement; that the arbitrators modified the agreement by placing restrictions on the type of work a part-time employee may perform; and that the arbitrators issued an award that is inherently inconsistent with the underlying agreement. The plaintiff also argued for vacation of the award claiming that the award as entered was not final and definite.
Generally, courts cannot review arbitration awards for errors of fact or law, but a narrow exception has been recognized when arbitrators manifestly disregard the law in reaching their decision. Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1, 6-8 (1992). Garrity sets forth a three-part test for determining whether there has been a manifest disregard of a law. That test is clearly articulated in the later opinion in Economos as follows:
"[T]he error was obvious and capable of being readily and instantly perceived by the average person qualified to serve as an arbitrator; (2) the arbitration panel appreciated the existence of a clearly governing legal principle but decided to ignore it; and (3) the governing law alleged to have been ignored by the arbitration panel is well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Economos v. Liljedahl Bros., Inc., 279 Conn. 300, 307 (2006).
Unless a submission provides otherwise, an arbitrator has authority to decide factual and legal questions and courts will not review the evidence, and — subject to the Garrity test — where the submission is unrestricted, will not review the arbitrator's determination of legal questions. Bic Pen Corp. v. Local No. 134, 183 Conn. 579, 584 (1981). The court is bound by the award unless "that determination clearly falls within the proscriptions of § 52-418 of the General Statutes, or procedurally violates the parties' agreement." Costello Construction Corp. v. Teamsters Local 599, 167 Conn. 315, 318 (1974).
Each side argues at considerable length as to the proper interpretation of Article XXI of the agreement. However, it is not this court's role to second guess the arbitrators on either the facts or the law. Here there is no indication that the court should consider errors at law because of a violation of the Garrity test. The plaintiff's claim that Article XXI was deleted and modified or was interpreted in an inherently inconsistent way is no more than a disagreement with the contract interpretation arrived at by the arbitration panel. The reconciliation of the first paragraph of Article XXI with the second paragraph of Article XXI was the entire purpose of this arbitration. The fact that the plaintiff does not agree with the interpretation arrived at by the arbitration panel is not grounds for vacating the award.
The plaintiff's claim that the award was not final, however, does present a question of law for de novo review because "an award must be final as to the matters submitted so that the rights and obligations of the parties may be definitely fixed." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565, 49 Conn.App. 33, 35-36, (1998).
The requirement of finality is well illustrated by two cases cited by plaintiff in its brief. In State v. AFSCME, Council 4 Local 1565, the state discharged a correctional officer for excessive unauthorized absences during her assignment to Northeastern Community Correctional Center at Storrs. The arbitrator held that the state did not have just cause to discharge the grievance and ordered her to be reinstated to a position at Niantic Correctional Center or another facility agreeable to the grievant and the union. The arbitrator retained jurisdiction for sixty days to resolve any issues related to the award. The court vacated the award because it was not final since the parties still might be required to negotiate an agreeable facility.
In Rocky Hill Teachers' Association v. Board of Education, 72 Conn.App. 274, 281 (2002), the Appellate Court held that an arbitration award was not final and definite. That grievance concerned the costs of dental premiums included in calculating the teachers' contribution to overall healthcare premiums. The arbitrator determined a violation of the contract. The arbitrator then ordered the parties to negotiate the issue of whether to include the dental costs within the formula to determine teachers' health care conditions. Again, future negotiation was required.
It is true that the plaintiff has claimed that "the plaintiff does not have the information necessary to implement the award." Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law p. 14. If this information is indeed unavailable, and the superintendent so testified at the hearing, then there may be future disputes about the amount of payments due. This is a far different matter from an arbitration which orders future negotiation. This arbitration award is final.
III. CONCLUSION
The court finds no grounds for vacating the award and for the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff's application to vacate is denied.