Piteau v. Board of Education
15 A.3d 1067
Conn.2011Background
- Plaintiff Michael Piteau sues the Hartford Board of Education and unions Local 566 and Council 4 for breach of the duty of fair representation and breach of the collective bargaining agreement.
- Trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding exhaustion of administrative remedies before the state board of labor relations was required.
- Facts: Piteau, a mechanical journeyman (1996–2006), participated in salvaging metal from a school renovation site; others did so as well; after disputes, he was terminated in 2006.
- Arbitration upheld the board’s termination; Chesky’s last chance agreement was introduced but not disclosed to Piteau during proceedings.
- Piteau filed an unfair labor practice complaint (later withdrawn) and then this hybrid suit, seeking reinstatement with back pay, damages, and fees.
- Legislative history of PA 93-426 is invoked to support exclusive board-of-labor-relations jurisdiction for duty-of-fair-representation claims, with review in Superior Court only by appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required. | Piteau argues exhaustion not required for hybrid action. | Defendants contend § 7-468(d) divests concurrent jurisdiction and requires board exhaustion. | Exhaustion required; board has exclusive initial jurisdiction for these claims. |
| Whether the futility exception applies to exhaustion here. | Remedy before the board would be futile, as it cannot reinstate or award damages. | Board can provide remedies including reinstatement with back pay; futility not shown. | Futility exception not satisfied; board could provide adequate relief, so exhaustion stands. |
| Whether the board of labor relations has authority to grant the plaintiff the relief he seeks. | Board cannot reinstate or award damages, so exhaustion would be futile. | Board can order reinstatement with back pay and other remedies under § 7-471(5). | Board can grant the requested relief; exhaustion remains proper. |
| Whether the dispute is appropriately framed as a hybrid contract/duty-of-fair-representation claim. | Claims are intertwined; court should hear them together in a Superior Court action bypassing exhaustion. | Hybrid claims must first proceed to the board; court review is only by appeal from adverse board decision. | Cohesive hybrid action must first go to the board; Superior Court review limited to appeal. |
| Whether the board’s exclusive jurisdiction over duty-of-fair-representation claims divests the Superior Court of concurrent jurisdiction. | PA 93-426 overruled Spadola and preserved concurrent jurisdiction for hybrid actions. | PA 93-426 divested concurrent jurisdiction; board exclusive in the first instance. | Legislation assigns exclusive board jurisdiction initially; Superior Court review only on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartford v. Hartford Municipal Employees Assn., 259 Conn. 251 (2002) (board authority and remedies under the act; separation of forum between board and courts)
- Labbe v. Pension Commission, 239 Conn. 168 (1996) (duty of fair representation; standards of arbitral and union conduct)
- DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983) (hybrid action; interdependent contract and fair representation claims)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (explanation of hybrid action and union's duty to process grievances)
- Stepney, LLC v. Fairfield, 263 Conn. 558 (2003) (exhaustion of administrative remedies in administrative law)
- Spadola v. Board of Education, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, 7 Conn. L. Rptr. 473 (1992) (pre-PA 93-426 view on exhaustion of contractual remedies in hybrid actions)