State v. AFSCME, COUNCIL 4, LOCAL 391
125 Conn. App. 408
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Arbitration upheld a grievant’s termination for alleged open pattern of sexual harassment under a union contract; award reduced to a one-year suspension with reinstatement dating from December 6, 2006.
- Plaintiff State sought to vacate the award under General Statutes § 52-418, arguing the award violated public policy and undermined managerial responsibility to enforce zero-tolerance harassment.
- Arbitrator found grievant made lewd, sexually explicit comments and engaged in unwanted touching, publicly, over a substantial period, despite knowledge of the zero-tolerance directive 2.2.
- Trial court vacated the award, holding that enforcing the award would contravene a clearly defined public policy against workplace harassment and that termination was warranted to uphold that policy.
- The court also noted grievant’s awareness of the policy and the department’s obligation to maintain a harassment-free environment; the award’s reinstatement would undermine that policy.
- On appeal, the union challenged (1) the public-policy vacatur and (2) consideration of a letter from the commissioner of correction as part of vacatur analysis; the State affirmed the vacatur and denial of confirmation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enforcing the award violates public policy against harassment. | State argues § 46a-60 (a) (8)(C) creates a dominant policy; the award undermines zero tolerance. | AFSCME contends the arbitrator acted within the submission; public policy not clearly violated by reinstatement. | Yes; reinstatement violates clear public policy against harassment. |
| Whether the court properly vacated based on the commissioner's letter. | State asserts letter corroborates facts supporting public-policy vacatur. | AFSCME contends letter outside the arbitration record should not influence vacatur analysis. | Yes; independent of the letter, record supports vacatur; letter vacancy not required for the ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 287 Conn. 258 (2008) (recognizes well-defined public policy against workplace harassment; de novo review when public-policy claim raised)
- State v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 387, AFL-CIO, 252 Conn. 467 (2000) (limits on review; deference to arbitral authority; grounds for vacatur)
- Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1 (1992) (grounds for vacating an arbitration award; heightened review)
- Board of Police Commissioners v. Stanley, 92 Conn.App. 723 (2005) (reinstatement conflicts with anti-discrimination and public-policy concerns)
- Newsday, Inc. v. Long Island Typographical Union, 915 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1990) (arbitral reinstatement may conflict with employer duties to eliminate harassment)