AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565 v. Department of Correction
298 Conn. 824
| Conn. | 2010Background
- AFSCME challenged an arbitration award discharging Eunice Smith under the collective bargaining agreement.
- Arbitrator relied on Smith’s admission to accelerated rehabilitation (AR) under § 54-56e as evidence of misconduct.
- Appellate Court upheld trial court; AFSCME petitioned for certiorari claiming public policy and statutory grounds.
- Court reviewed whether AR admission violates well-defined public policy prohibiting guilt inference in arbitration.
- Court concluded AR admission creates a strong public policy against using AR as evidence of guilt and vacated the award.
- Remand directed to reinstate proceedings before the arbitrator under § 52-418(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does AR admission violate public policy as evidence of guilt in arbitration? | AFSCME argues AR admission is probative of guilt and violates clear policy. | Dept. contends no public policy bars AR use; submission was unrestricted and AR is not guilt. | Yes; AR admission violates clear public policy. |
| Did arbitrator exceed powers by relying on AR admission under § 52-418(a)(4)? | Arbitrator misapplied law by using AR to decide just cause. | Arbitrator’s use of AR was within her authority if supported by evidence. | Issue not reached; vacatur based on public policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schoonmaker v. Cummings & Lockwood of Connecticut, P.C., 252 Conn. 416 (2000) (public policy de novo review when well-defined policy violated)
- Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1 (1992) (burden for manifest disregard of the law under § 52-418(a)(4))
- Groton v. United Steelworkers of America, 254 Conn. 35 (2000) (public policy and arbitral deference framework)
- State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 287 Conn. 258 (2008) (narrow public policy exception to arbitral deference)
- South Windsor v. South Windsor Police Union Local 1480, Council 15, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 255 Conn. 800 (2001) (public policy limits on arbitral authority; explicit policy required)
- Waterbury Teachers Assn. v. Furlong, 162 Conn. 390 (1972) (public policy as basis to refuse enforcement of contracts contrary to law)
- State v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2663, AFL-CIO, 257 Conn. 80 (2001) (arbitral deference and public policy in discipline cases)
- Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 273 Conn. 86 (2005) (three grounds for vacating under unrestricted submissions)
- MedValUSA Health Programs, Inc. v. MemberWorks, Inc., 273 Conn. 634 (2005) (source-based test for well-defined public policy)