142 Conn. App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Listro, a state social worker, was terminated for serious off-duty misconduct after the death of a foster baby in her care.
- The department conducted a Loudermill process and issued a dismissal letter citing off-duty misconduct and violations of Administrative Regulations §§ 5-240-lc(4) and 5-240-lc(13).
- The AFSCME union grieved the discharge and the matter went to binding arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement; arbitrator found just cause despite questions about proof of abuse and a nexus to Listro’s employment.
- The trial court vacated the arbitration award, holding the arbitrator based the award on negligence not alleged at Loudermill or in the termination letter.
- The department appealed, arguing the trial court exceeded its authority by vacating; the appellate court ultimately held the submission was unrestricted and vacatur was improper, affirming the arbitrator’s award.
- The Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration was originally a defendant but not a party to the appeal, and evidence at arbitration included expert testimony on the death being Shake n Baby Syndrome rather than a fall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the submission to the arbitrator was unrestricted. | Union argues the submission limited the arbitrator to specified grounds. | Department contends the submission was unrestricted and allowed negligence as just cause. | Unrestricted submission; arbitrator could conclude negligence within the contract. |
| Whether negligence needed to be identified as the basis in the Loudermill letter. | Negligence is a legal theory, not stated as conduct in the Loudermill letter. | Letter identified off-duty misconduct and tied to regulations; no required label. | Labeling as negligence not required; conduct identified in the letter sufficed. |
| Whether the trial court properly vacated the award. | Vacatur appropriate if arbitrator exceeded authority. | Trial court standard of review improperly vacated; award within arbitrator’s authority. | Court erred; vacatur improper; award should be confirmed. |
| Whether the arbitrator’s nexus finding between off-duty conduct and employment was within the contract. | Arbitrator overreached by linking off-duty conduct to job duties. | Nexus appropriately rooted in the contract’s just-cause framework. | Yes, within the contract; nexus supported the just-cause finding. |
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded authority by relying on negligence after the Loudermill proceedings. | Negligence was not charged or proven in Loudermill; improper basis. | Negligence falls within the broad just-cause standard; within arbitrator’s remit. | Within arbitrator’s authority; no excess of power. |
Key Cases Cited
- Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Co., 273 Conn. 86 (Conn. 2005) (narrow review of arbitral awards; scope of submission governs)
- Teamsters Local Union No. 677 v. Board of Education, 122 Conn. App. 617 (2009) (unrestricted submission limits court's de novo review of award)
- Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 (2005) (arbitrator’s decision final within scope of authority; not open to evidentiary review)
- State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 117 Conn. App. 54 (2009) (arbiter authority limited to issues within contract submission)