Local 353, AFSCME, Council 4, AFL-CIO v. Waterbury
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** LOCAL 353, AFSCME, COUNCIL 4, AFL-CIO v. CITY OF WATERBURY (AC 22166) Foti, Schaller and Freedman, Js. Argued December 9, 2002 officially released February 18, 2003 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Doherty, J.) J. William Gagne, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was P. Jo Anne Burgh, for the appellant (plaintiff). Peter Abare-Brown, with whom, on the brief, was Paula N. Anthony, for the appellee (defendant). Opinion PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Local 353, AFSCME, Council 4, AFL-CIO (union), appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its application to vacate an arbitration award that denied its grievance concerning work on certain holidays for municipal refuse workers. On appeal, the union argues that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority or so imperfectly performed its duties that a mutual, final and definite award was not rendered.1 We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts are relevant to the plaintiff s appeal. The union and the defendant city of Waterbury (city) are parties to a collective bargaining agreement that provides for the arbitration of grievances. The union represents, inter alia, refuse collectors employed by the city. Under the terms of the agreement, the union filed a grievance before a panel from the state board of mediation and arbitration. The parties submitted the following joint issue to the arbitration panel: Did the City violate the collective bargaining agreement by not requiring the Refuse Department employees to work on Memorial Day and Independence Day? If so, what shall the remedy be consistent with the blue collar contract? On April 8, 1998, the arbitration panel denied the grievance and concluded that the city did not violate the collective bargaining agreement by not requiring the refuse department employees to work on Memorial Day and Independence Day. On April 29, 1998, the union filed an application to vacate the arbitration award. The union argued that the arbitration panel, by denying the grievance, rendered an award that was inherently inconsistent with the terms of the past practices provision of the collective bargaining agreement in article XIII, § 2.2 Specifically, the union argued that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority by failing to draw the essence of its award from the collective bargaining agreement. The union further argued that the arbitration award was in violation of the hours of work provision in article IV, § 5 (c),3 of the collective bargaining agreement. The city argued, inter alia, that the arbitration panel did not exceed its authority because the award conformed to the issue submitted and was consistent with article XIII, § 2, article VII, § 1,4 and article IV, § 1,5 of the collective bargaining agreement. The court denied the union s application to vacate the arbitration award, concluding that a comparison of the collective bargaining agreement and award indicated that the award was consistent with and drew its essence from the agreement. In particular, the court noted the panel s finding that the scheduling of holidays is a management right under article IV, § 1, of the agreement. Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuades us that the judgment should be affirmed. The issues were resolved in the court s thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision. Local 353, AFSCME, Council 4, AFL-CIO v. Waterbury, 47 Conn. Sup. 559, A.2d (2001). Because the memorandum of decision addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the issues and the applicable law concerning those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Serafin v. State, 63 Conn. App. 214, 216, 772 A.2d 781 (2001). The judgment is affirmed. 1 General Statutes § 52-418 (a) provides in relevant part: Upon the application of any party to an arbitration, the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides . . . shall make an order vacating the award . . . (4) if the arbitrators have exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. 2 Article XIII, § 2, of the collective bargaining agreement states: The parties further recognize that if any provision in this Agreement is contrary to a practice existing prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, then the provision of this Agreement, shall prevail. In all other respects, this Agreement shall not be construed as abridging any rights, benefits or privileges, based on historical practice, that employees have enjoyed heretofore; which rights, benefits or privileges are not specifically covered or mentioned in this Agreement. 3 Article IV, § 5 (c), of the collective bargaining agreement states in relevant part: The Refuse Collection crews will be paid on a basis of a five (5) day, forty (40) hour week (it being understood that the work day is the incentive system alluded to in Sections 5 (a) and 5 (b) hereof). However, as hereinafter indicated, only twelve (12) of the fifty-two (52) Wednesdays shall be regularly scheduled as special collection days . . . and the remaining forty (40)(more or less) Wednesdays in any calendar year shall be days on which Refuse Collection crews shall not be required to work except for the performance of Refuse Collection which is necessitated because of a snow storm or other inclement weather cancelling the immediately proceeding Monday or Tuesday refuse collection. In any given work week, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday shall be the regularly scheduled workdays for refuse collection for the Refuse Collection crews . . . . 4 Article VII, § 1, of the collective bargaining agreement states that [t]he right and authority to make work schedules and work assignments is vested exclusively in the City, its Mayor and/or the various administrative officials and/or Department Heads of the Departments involved. 5 Article IV, § 1, of the collective bargaining agreement states in relevant part that [t]he City retains the right, subject to the provisions of Section 6 and 6 (a) hereof, to amend, alter and change work week schedules. . . .
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
