155 Conn.App. 246
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- John Jasinski, a Stratford paramedic, was terminated after an investigation into his April 26, 2010 crew swap (leaving a volunteer EMT at headquarters while transporting a patient), alleged to avoid lateness and to avoid reporting the volunteer’s conduct.
- The union grieved and submitted the termination to arbitration under an unrestricted submission in the collective bargaining agreement.
- The arbitration panel held two hearings (April 5 and May 4, 2012) and unanimously found the investigation flawed (noting involvement of Donna Best, who had a prior adverse history with Jasinski), concluded there was no just cause, and ordered reinstatement.
- Stratford sought to vacate the award under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418(a), arguing: violation of public policy (risk to patient safety and interference with management rights), evident partiality by the arbitrators, and denial of a full and fair hearing (refusal to admit past-discipline evidence).
- The trial court denied vacatur and confirmed the award after (1) concluding the public-policy challenge was colorable and reviewing it de novo, (2) finding no evidence of a detrimental act to the patient and that crew swaps were tolerated by the town, (3) rejecting claims of evident partiality and unfair hearing.
- The Appellate Court affirmed: the award did not violate clear public policy, the plaintiff failed to prove evident partiality, and the panel did not abuse discretion by excluding or refusing certain evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public policy violation | Crew swap violated patient-safety policy and Regs. Conn. State Agen. §19a-179-9(f); award undermines employer management rights | No evidence the swap harmed patient; swap was brief, sometimes routine and tolerated; award does not conflict with clear public policy | Court: Public-policy exception colorable but award did not violate dominant public policy; affirmed |
| Evident partiality (§52-418(a)(2)) | Arbitrators made findings beyond record and showed bias by criticizing town investigators (Best) without evidence | Arbitrators merely assessed investigator participation and prior history; no reasonable person would conclude arbitrators favored Jasinski | Court: Plaintiff failed to meet burden to show evident partiality; affirmed |
| Full and fair hearing (§52-418(a)(3)) | Panel refused to consider prior disciplinary evidence, prejudicing town’s rights | Arbitrators have broad discretion over admissibility; exclusion does not show misconduct | Court: No misconduct shown; arbitrators’ discretion proper; affirmed |
| Scope of judicial review of arbitration | Plaintiff urged broad review because award allegedly illegal | Defendant urged limited review under unrestricted submission, except clear public-policy claims | Court: Submission was unrestricted; ordinary limited review applies; de novo review reserved for colorable public-policy claims only |
Key Cases Cited
- Industrial Risk Insurers v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 258 Conn. 101 (describes arbitration as creature of contract and explains unrestricted submission limits judicial review)
- Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., 275 Conn. 72 (explains limited judicial review of unrestricted arbitration awards)
- Burr Road Operating Co. II, LLC v. New England Health Care Employees Union, 142 Conn. App. 213 (de novo review for colorable public-policy challenges and two-step test for public-policy exception)
- Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1 (public-policy exception applies only for clear violations of strong public policy)
- Alexson v. Foss, 276 Conn. 599 (standard for proving evident partiality requires more than appearance; reasonable person must conclude arbitrator favors a party)
- Bic Pen Corp. v. Local No. 134, 183 Conn. 579 (arbitrators decide factual and legal questions when submission silent; courts do not revisit those findings)
- Bridgeport v. Kasper Group, Inc., 278 Conn. 466 (arbitrators afforded substantial discretion in evidence admissibility)