KISIEL v. DCF, No. CV-04-4000946S (Sep. 1, 2005)

MARSHALL K. BERGER, JUDGE.

The plaintiff seeks to vacate an arbitration award upholding a sixty-day suspension without pay from his employment as a child services worker for the state Department of Children and Families (DCF) on the grounds that the arbitrator was not impartial, lacked integrity and that she exceeded her powers. As stated at the hearing before this court, these arguments result not from any particular evidence submitted to this court or to the arbitrator; rather, the plaintiff argues that the arbitrator's decision could not have been reached unless she was partial. Simply put, the plaintiff disagrees with the arbitrator's evidentiary findings and legal conclusions. Simultaneously, the DCF seeks to confirm the award.

"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 . . . 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 . . . 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 . . . Furthermore, in applying this general rule of deference to an arbitrator's award, [e]very CT Page 12128 reasonable presumption and intendment will be made in favor of the [arbitral] award and of the arbitrator's acts and proceedings." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. New England Health Care Employees Union, 271 Conn. 127, 134, 855 A.2d 964 (2004). The submission to arbitration was unrestricted in the present case and thus this rule of deference applies.

Kisiel's main argument is that other than a hotline review investigation, which was rejected by the DCF Administrative Review, the DCF conducted no other investigation and thus, there was no evidence against him to support the DCF's claims. Essentially he argues that the Administrative Review's decision and its findings should end the matter. This argument was rejected by the arbitrator, who stated "the State, however, does not rely on the findings and conclusion of the Hotline investigation but presented the evidence and testimony of the Witnesses to the event and argues that the actions thus shown violate State policies and procedures and support the discipline imposed. The grievant did not testify or submit any evidence to rebut the facts established by the State. The State witnesses and documents established that the grievant's actions violated policy and procedures in the following instances . . ."

"Unless the submission provides otherwise, an arbitrator has authority to decide factual and legal questions, and courts will not review the evidence, or, where the submission is unrestricted, the arbitrator's determination of legal questions." OG/O'Connell Joint Venture v. Chase Family Ltd. Partnership No. 3, 203 Conn. 133, 153-54, 523 A.2d 1271 (1987). Indeed, that court further held, "[i]n fact, the defendants' assertion that the arbitrators exceeded their powers is but a thinly veiled attempt to have the award vacated on the ground that it was not supported by any evidence presented at the hearings." Id., 154. The plaintiff's argument is similar and this court rejects it. Accordingly, the plaintiff's application to vacate the award is denied and the defendant's application to confirm is granted.

Berger, J. CT Page 12129

CT Page 12130