Norwalk Police Union, Local 1727, Council 15, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Norwalk
153 A.3d 1280
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Stephen E. Couture, a Norwalk police sergeant, learned from a Westport detective that Lieutenant Thomas Cummings was a suspect in a sexual assault investigation and told Cummings on October 26, 2007. Couture later did not inform a state’s attorney during phone calls that he had met with Cummings.
- Chief Harry Rilling reassigned Couture from the youth bureau to patrol, then initiated an internal investigation; the Board of Police Commissioners held a four-day hearing and voted to terminate Couture for violations of departmental rules.
- The Norwalk Police Union filed a grievance and submitted Couture’s discharge to arbitration under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement; a majority of the arbitration panel found just cause for discharge and concluded the earlier reassignment was not discipline (and thus double jeopardy did not apply).
- The union applied to vacate the arbitration award under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418, claiming the award was in manifest disregard of the law because the city had disciplined Couture twice for the same misconduct (reassignment then discharge).
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, allowed Couture to testify about the reassignment, found the reassignment was disciplinary and that double jeopardy applied, and vacated the arbitration award as in manifest disregard of the law.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed: whether the reassignment constituted discipline was a factual question for the arbitrator, and the trial court erred by substituting its findings for the arbitration panel’s, so vacatur was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration award should be vacated for manifest disregard of law because the city disciplined Couture twice for the same incident | The reassignment was disciplinary and raised double jeopardy/due process concerns that the arbitrators ignored; the award manifestly disregarded established law | Reassignment was not discipline (arbitrators found it was not); factual determinations are for arbitrators and courts cannot substitute findings | Reversed: arbitration panel’s factual finding that reassignment was not discipline is binding; trial court improperly substituted its view and thus improperly vacated the award |
| Whether reassignment as a matter of law constitutes discipline | Reassignment amounted to discipline triggering prohibitions on double discipline under the contract | No authority shows reassignment is per se discipline; absent clear law or contract, it is a factual question for arbitrator | There is no well-defined, explicit rule that reassignment is discipline as a matter of law; the issue is factual and for the arbitrator |
| Whether the trial court properly admitted additional testimony and decided factual issues de novo on vacatur | Testimony was necessary to show the reassignment was disciplinary and to decide manifest disregard | Trial court exceeded its limited review authority by considering evidence and substituting findings | Trial court erred in admitting testimony and substituting its findings for arbitrator; should have deferred or remanded to arbitrator |
| Standard for vacating arbitration awards for manifest disregard of law | Manifest disregard exception applies where arbitrator ignored clearly governing legal principle | Manifest disregard is narrow; requires clear, well-defined law ignored by arbitrator | Confirmed narrow standard: vacatur requires an obvious error, appreciation and intentional ignoring of a clearly applicable legal principle; not met here |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1 (recognizes limited judicial review of arbitration awards and narrow manifest-disregard ground for vacatur)
- Saturn Construction Co. v. Premier Roofing Co., 238 Conn. 293 (sets three-part test for vacatur for manifest disregard of law)
- Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 (when arbitration submission is unrestricted, courts will not review arbitrator’s factual findings or legal errors)
- Burr Road Operating Co. II, LLC v. New England Health Care Employees Union, Dist. 1199, 316 Conn. 618 (arbitral factual findings are not subject to judicial review)
- Board of Education v. East Haven Education Assn., 66 Conn. App. 202 (court may remand to arbitrator for further proceedings when appropriate)