661 A.2d 587
(15026)Supreme Court of Connecticut
CALLAHAN, BORDEN, BERDON, NORCOTT and PALMER, Js.
Argued June 1, 1995
Decision released July 11, 1995
Application to vacate an arbitration award issued by the defendant finance planning and assistance board of the city of West Haven in favor of the named defendant, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford and tried to the court, Sheldon, J.; judgment denying the plaintiff’s application to vacate, from which the plaintiff appealed Affirmed.
Harry B. Elliott, Jr., with whom was J. William Gagne, Jr., for the appellant (plaintiff).
Saranne P. Murray, with whom were Sheila A. Huddleston, William J. Prensky, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellees (defendants).
The plaintiff, AFSCME, Council 4, Local 681, AFL-CIO, which represents the municipal employees of West Haven, applied to the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 to vacate
a binding collective bargaining arbitration award issued by the defendant West Haven finance planning and assistance board (board). The court affirmed the board’s award and the plaintiff appealed from the court’s judgment to the Appellate Court. We transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(C).
The events that prompted this litigation can be summarized in the following manner. In early 1992, the new administration of the defendant city of West Haven (city) became aware that the city’s financial condition was especially precarious. Projections were that by the end of June, 1992, the city’s deficit would reach $10.2 million. The administration attempted to alleviate the city’s financial crisis by various methods, including borrowing money through the issuance of bond anticipation notes. In April, 1992, however, the city was informed that its bond rating had been downgraded so that its bond anticipation notes were unmarketable. In desperation, the city sought assistance from the state in the form of state guarantees of its present and future bond obligations.
The Connecticut legislature responded by enacting No. 92-5 of the 1992 Special Acts (act). The act provided the sought after guarantees of the city’s obligations. It also created the board, however, to oversee the city’s finances and to ensure that the city did not default on its bonds and bond anticipation notes that
were thereafter guaranteed by the state. Moreover, the board was vested by the act with broad oversight powers. Those powers include the power: to approve or disapprove budgets; to review and approve the city’s financial plans; to review and approve all contracts involving expenditures of more than $50,000; and, most importantly for the purposes of this litigation, to approve or disapprove all collective bargaining agreements and to serve as the binding arbitration panel with respect to all labor contracts.
On June 30, 1993, the existing collective bargaining agreement between the plaintiff and the city expired. When the plaintiff and the city were unsuccessful in agreeing on a new contract, the board imposed binding arbitration. Functioning as the arbitration panel pursuant to the act, the board conducted hearings and issued an arbitration award in December, 1993. The plaintiff, dissatisfied with the arbitration award, filed its application to vacate the award. In its application to vacate, the plaintiff claimed that the act: (1) violated the home rule provision of article tenth, § 1, of the state Constitution; (2) violated General Statutes § 2-14;
(3) required the board members to act with “evident partiality” toward the city in violation of § 52-418(a) (2); (4) denied the plaintiff and its members equal protection of the law, in violation of article first, § 20, of the state constitution; and (5) granted the city exclusive emoluments or privileges in violation of article first, § 1, of the state constitution. The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s various claims and denied its application to vacate the arbitration award. This appeal followed. In its appeal, the plaintiff renews the claims it made in the trial court.
A thorough examination of the record, the briefs and arguments of the parties on appeal persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The issues raised on appeal were correctly decided in the
trial court’s exhaustive memorandum of decision AFSCME, Council 4, Local 681, AFL-CIO v. West Haven, 43 Conn. Sup. 470, ___ A.2d ___ (1995).
Because the court’s memorandum of decision addresses and fully resolves the issues raised in the present appeal, it would serve no useful purpose to repeat the discussion contained therein. Fraenza v. Keeney, 232 Conn. 401, 404-405, 655 A.2d 1112 (1995).
The judgment is affirmed.
“(b) If an award is vacated and the time within which the award is required to be rendered has not expired, the court or judge may direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.
“(c) Any party filing an application pursuant to subsection (a) of this section concerning an arbitration award issued by the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration shall notify said board and the attorney general, in writing, of such filing within five days of the date of filing.”