Bd. of Educ. of the Town of New Milford v. New Milford Educ. Ass'n, 331 Conn. 524

Board and union negotiated a 2015–2018 collective bargaining agreement; board gave notice it would eliminate previously abbreviated (early-dismissal) student days used for teacher development.
Parties reached impasse and submitted six issues to a three-member interest arbitration panel; relevant outcomes: the panel accepted the board’s last best offers (no new language on "impact of notice" and a limit of six required evening meetings per year).
After interest arbitration, the board published the 2015–2016 calendar eliminating abbreviated days; calendar included six after-school professional development days and ten after-school/evening events.
Union filed a grievance asserting the calendar unlawfully extended the teachers’ normal work day and exceeded the six-event limit; parties submitted three questions to a grievance arbitrator (arbitrability, preclusion by res judicata/collateral estoppel, and merits).
Grievance arbitrator found the grievance arbitrable, concluded res judicata/collateral estoppel did not bar the claim, and ruled for the union on the merits; trial court denied the board’s application to vacate and confirmed the award.
Board appealed, arguing (1) the grievance was precluded by the prior interest arbitration (manifest disregard of law), and (2) the grievance was not arbitrable under the contract.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Board)	Defendant's Argument (Union)	Held
Whether the grievance was barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel (manifest disregard)	Interest arbitration already decided impact of eliminating abbreviated days; union’s grievance impermissibly relitigates those issues	Interest arbitration determined contract language only; it did not decide whether board violated the contract; panel expressly left future disputes to grievance/negotiation	Court held arbitrator did not manifestly disregard law; prior interest arbitration set contract language but did not adjudicate the grievance’s factual merits, and panel signaled those issues remained for grievance/future negotiation
Whether the grievance was arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement	Contract limits arbitration to disputes involving interpretation/application of express, specific provisions; arbitrator lacked authority to decide arbitrability and grievance fails to invoke an express provision	Grievance challenges express provisions (Normal Work Day; Staff Meetings; Open House) so it is within the contract’s arbitration scope	Court held issue of arbitrability is for the court (no clear-and-unmistakable waiver to arbitrator), but on de novo review the grievance was arbitrable because it implicated express, specific contract provisions

AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2663 v. Dept. of Children & Families, 317 Conn. 238 (standard for review of arbitration awards and when courts may vacate)
AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565 v. Dept. of Correction, 298 Conn. 824 (elements to show arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law)
Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 258 Conn. 101 (determination that disputes about violation of a contract section are unrestricted submissions)
Stratford v. International Assn. of Firefighters, Local 998, 248 Conn. 108 (arbitrators are not bound to follow prior arbitration decisions absent contract provision)
New Britain v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1186, 304 Conn. 639 (who decides arbitrability; clear-and-unmistakable evidence required to assign that question to arbitrator)
Bacon Construction Co. v. Dept. of Public Works, 294 Conn. 695 (waiver/preservation principles for judicial review of arbitrability)
Board of Education v. State Board of Labor Relations, 299 Conn. 63 (duty to bargain impact when board policy affects terms/conditions of employment)
Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Groton, 262 Conn. 45 (distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion)
Liggett v. Torrington Building Co., 114 Conn. 425 (contract language that "all questions in dispute" can vest arbitrators with broad authority)