The Connecticut Appellate Court recently examined a situation involving an arbitration between the Rocky Hill Teachers' Association and the town's board of education to determine whether the arbitration award was final and definite.

The dispute

The dispute arose when the Rocky Hill Board of Education opted to include the cost of dental premiums in the assessment of teacher contributions for health care premiums. The teachers claimed that there was no specific reference to dental costs in the collective bargaining agreement, which discussed the calculation of teacher contributions. When premiums were assessed based on a calculation that included the cost of dental care, the Rocky Hill Teachers' Association filed a grievance.

The arbitration

The teachers' association and board of education agreed that the arbitrator should consider the following: "Did the Board violate the contract [agreement] when it included the dental premium costs in its calculation of premium cost share dollar amounts as provided for in Article XXXI, Section F [of the agreement]? II. If so, what shall the remedy be?" The arbitrator held that the board had violated the agreement when it included the cost of dental premiums in its calculation of teacher contributions for health care benefits. The arbitrator, however, then ordered the parties "to negotiate the issue of whether to include the dental costs within the formula to determine teacher contributions toward medical/health premiums. In the event that said negotiations do not result in an agreement between the parties within thirty (30) days, I order the parties to submit this issue to binding arbitration under the Teacher Negotiation Act [General Statutes §10-153a et seq.]"

Court challenge

The teachers' association filed an application with the superior court to void the award on the basis that it wasn't mutual, final, and definite as required by C.G.S. §52-418(a)(4). The trial court denied the association's application on the basis that the direction to arbitrate under the Teacher Negotiation Act constituted a mutual, final, and definite award by the arbitrator. The association appealed the trial court's decision to the appellate court.

Appellate court's review

The appellate court began its review by noting that arbitration is favored as a means to prevent litigation and "expedite the equitable settlement of disputes." Courts typically give arbitrators broad discretion and defer to an arbitrator's award, giving it every reasonable inference in order to uphold the award. The scope of a court's review of arbitration awards is very narrow. There are limited situations that will lead a court to void an arbitrator's award. The first is when an arbitrator has ruled on the constitutionality of a statute. The second occurs when an arbitrator's award violates a clear public policy of the state. The third occurs when an award violates any of the statutory prohibitions found in C.G.S. §52-418(a) as follows:

(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 [or significant] to the controversy or of any other action by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced [or harmed]; 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.

The appellate court panel unanimously held that leaving the award open to further negotiation and another possible arbitration was indefinite and lacked finality. Therefore, it voided the award and sent the matter back to the arbitrator for an award consistent with the findings of a collective bargaining agreement violation.

Bottom line

Municipal employers should be certain that any arbitration in which it participates results in an award that's "mutual, final, and definite." Otherwise, further litigation on the issue is likely.

Reprinted with permission of publisher. First appeared in Connecticut Employment Law Letter (March 2003). For subscription information, call (800)274-6774.