134 Conn. App. 559
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Rivera-Saez, a supervisor in Hartford's tax collector's office, was implicated in a scheme swapping unrecorded checks for cash during 2007 deposits.
- Campbell's investigation found discrepancies between Munis system deposits and cashier reconciliation records; Rivera-Saez assisted a subordinate cashier with reconciliation on multiple occasions.
- Rivera-Saez allegedly instructed a subordinate cashier to keep his box unlocked during lunch breaks, compromising security of cash and records.
- Rivera-Saez was terminated for gross negligence and failure to supervise; grievance was arbitration under a CBA; the panel awarded reinstatement with back-pay denial and training.
- A dissenting arbitrator would have barred reinstatement to Rivera-Saez due to public policy concerns; trial court vacated the award on public policy grounds.
- This appeal challenges whether the trial court correctly vacated the award for public policy violations; the appellate court reverses, reinstating the arbitration award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court correctly vacate the award on public policy grounds? | Hartford: reinstating Rivera-Saez violates explicit public policy | HMEA: no explicit, dominant public policy supports vacating | No; vacatur on public policy not supported |
| Is there an explicit, well-defined dominant public policy identified? | Hartford failed to identify a precise policy supporting reinstatement | HMEA contends public trust and financial accountability policies exist | Not identified; no clear policy |
| Did the arbitrators' findings support or clash with public policy? | Rivera-Saez's role undermines public trust in handling public funds | Arbitrators relied on facts to limit punishment and implement training | Arbitrators' factual findings do not clearly violate public policy |
Key Cases Cited
- AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565 v. Dept. of Correction, 298 Conn. 824 (Conn. 2010) (public policy vacatur narrowly construed; exceptions apply)
- Schoonmaker v. Cummings & Lockwood of Connecticut, P.C., 252 Conn. 416 (Conn. 2000) (de novo review if public policy implicated; analysis of policy)
- MedValUSA Health Programs, Inc. v. MemberWorks, Inc., 273 Conn. 634 (Conn. 2005) (public policy sources; typically grounded in statutes/case law)
- HH East Parcel, LLC v. Handy & Harman, Inc., 287 Conn. 189 (Conn. 2008) (courts bound by arbitrator's factual findings when reviewing public policy)
- Metropolitan District Commission v. Local 184, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 77 Conn.App. 832 (Conn. App. 2003) (illustrates vacatur standards and public policy considerations)