2009 Ct. Sup. 13912
No. CV 09-4044134-SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
August 24, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON APPLICATION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD
WAGNER, JTR.
On May 8, 2008 the New England Health Care Employees Union District 1199 (“Union”) brought a labor grievance against Kettle Brook Care Center, LLC (“Kettle Brook”), a skilled nursing home pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) and filed a demand for arbitration. The grievance involved an interpretation of the CBA signed on April 1, 2005 regarding employee’s contribution to the health insurances plan, which had been raised periodically after that date, with the Union claiming that such employee’s contributions had been frozen as of July 1, 2005, the effective due date of the initial contribution. The arbitration authorized by the CBA was assigned to J. Larry Foy, an arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association. At the arbitration hearing on February 12, 2009, the parties mutually agreed to the following statement of the issues submitted to arbitration:
“Is the grievance arbitrable?
If so, did the Company violate Article 20 of the Contract when it raised employee contributions for health insurance?
If so, what shall be the remedy?”
After a hearing on that date the arbitrator issued the following award on April 15, 2009 “The company will be required to make the employees whole for the health insurance premium shares Union employees were required to pay above the amounts on July 1, 2005 from May 8, 2008 until the expiration of the Contract.”
-I-
In its application dated May 12, 2009 Kettle Brook claims this award should be vacated or modified because: CT Page 13913
1. The Union’s filing of its grievance on May 8, 2008 was untimely and the question of the untimeliness was non-arbitrable.
2. The award was vague and indefinable.
3. The award should not have applied to any time period prior to January 1, the earlier date on which Kettle Brook established the annual premiums following notice of the Union’s grievance.
A hearing was held in this Court on this application on July 30, 2009.
-II-
In State v. AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Council 4, Local 2663, 257 Conn. 80 (2001) our Supreme Court stated:
We begin by setting forth the appropriate standard of review of arbitration awards. “The well established general rule is that [w]hen the parties agree to arbitration and establish the authority of the arbitrator through the terms of their submission, the extent of our judicial review of the award is delineated by the scope of the parties’ agreement. American Universal Ins. Co. v. DelGreco, 205 Conn. 178, 185, 530 A.2d 171 (1987). When the scope of the submission is unrestricted, the resulting award is not subject to de novo review even for errors of law so long as the award conforms to the submission. Hartford v. Board of Mediation Arbitration, 211 Conn. 7, 14, 557 A.2d 1236 (1989); New Haven v. AFSCME, Council 15, Local 530, 208 Conn. 411, 415-16, 544 A.2d 186
(1988). Because we favor arbitration as a means of settling private disputes, we undertake judicial review of arbitration awards in a manner designed to minimize interference with an efficient and economical system of alternative dispute resolution. Garrrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1, 4-5, 612 A.2d 742 (1992). Furthermore, in applying this general rule of deference to an arbitrator’s award, [e]very reasonable presumption and intendment will be made in favor of the arbitral] award and of the arbitrators’ acts and proceedings. (Cases cited.)
Kettle Brook argues that the grievance and its filing was untimely CT Page 13914 because 1) When the Union filed its grievance, Kettle Brook had already implemented the increases in employee premiums which were not contested. 2) The grievance was filed more than ten days after the time limit in the CBA.
The arbitrator found that this claim was arbitrable and that there was a “continual” violation and therefore the grievance was not untimely citing several standard texts and an Appellate Court decision. American Fabrics Co. v. United Textile Workers of America, 12 Conn.App. 642
(1987).
-III-
In considering whether Kettle Brook violated Article 20 of the CBA, the arbitrator interpreted the following language of Article 20 which provided that “premiums shall be as low as the existing premiums” as referring to the premiums charged to the employees (emphasis supplied) and concluded that Kettle Brook was obligated to maintain or lower the premiums charged to employees at the level in effect on the date of the contract. He also relied on the language in Article 20(a) “The employer shall maintain its current or a comparable health insurance plans.”
In fashioning the remedy, the arbitrator considered the argument of Kettle Brook that since January 1, 2009 was the first time the annual review of the plan was to take place, any adjustments or credits should begin no earlier than January 1, 2009, and extend no later than the end date of the CBA, March 15, 2009.
The arbitrator, again citing authoritative text authorities applied the remedy from the date of the grievance, refusing to go back to the prior years as requested by the Union, or forgoing the remedy to January 1, 2009, as requested by Kettle Brook.
Our Supreme Court has ruled that this court cannot review de novo these findings of the arbitrator which are arbitrable, unrestricted and covered by the submission. Moreover it is clear that the issues covered by the submission, were all arbitrable, and the award was clear and unambiguous and well within the discretion of the arbitrator and supported by applicable law and authorities.
Application to vacate, modify or correct arbitration award is denied.
CT Page 13915