710 A.2d 1392

AFSCME, COUNCIL 4, LOCALS 387, 391 AND 1565, AFL-CIO v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ET AL.

(AC 17210)Appellate Court of Connecticut

O’Connell, C.J., and Lavery and Landau, Js.

Argued March 19, 1998

Officially released June 2, 1998

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appeal from the decision by the defendant board of labor relations dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint against the named defendant alleging prohibited employment practices within the meaning of the State Employee Relations Act, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford and tried to the court, McWeeny, J.;
judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.

Jason W. Cohen, with whom, on the brief, was J. William Gagne, Jr., for the appellant (plaintiff).

Richard T. Sponzo, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Charles S. Overend, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (named defendant).

Lisa S. Lazarek, with whom, on the brief, was Jaye Bailey Zanta, general counsel, for the appellee (defendant board of labor relations).

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, AFSCME, Council 4, Locals 387, 391 and 1565, AFL-CIO (union), appealed to the trial court from a decision of the state labor relations board (board). The trial court affirmed the board’s decision and the union appealed to this court. The dispositive issue is whether an earlier decision of the board bars the present proceeding under the doctrine of res judicata.

Page 784

Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. In a thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision, the trial court analyzed the law in a manner consistent with our statutes and case precedents. Because that memorandum addresses the dispositive argument raised in this appeal, we adopt the trial court’s well reasoned decision; AFSCME, Council 4, Locals 387, 391 1565 v Dept. of Correction, 45 Conn. Sup. 292, ___ A.2d ___ (1997); as a statement of the applicable law on this issue. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See In re Karrlo K., 40 Conn. App. 73, 75, 668 A.2d 1353 (1996); Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Bardinelli, 39 Conn. App. 786, 788, 667 A.2d 806
(1995).

The judgment is affirmed.