Naugatuck Board of Mayor v. Teachers League, No. 0125597 (Dec. 7, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Naugatuck Board of Mayor v. Teachers League, No. 0125597 (Dec. 7, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13373, 15 Conn. L. Rptr. 483

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 7, 1995

DocketNo. 0125597

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13373 (Naugatuck Board of Mayor v. Teachers League, No. 0125597 (Dec. 7, 1995)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Naugatuck Board of Mayor v. Teachers League, No. 0125597 (Dec. 7, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13373, 15 Conn. L. Rptr. 483 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiffs The Naugatuck Board of Mayor and Burgesses (Burgesses), the representative body of Naugatuck, here seek to set aside and prevent enforcement of an award by an arbitration panel to the Naugatuck Teachers League (League). This award was ordered by the arbitration panel entirely upon the agreement or CT Page 13374 stipulation entered into by the Naugatuck Board of Education (Board), a party to the arbitration, and the League, another party, and brought to the arbitrator's attention. It was thereafter rejected by the Burgesses and a second arbitration panel reaffirmed the award.

The Burgesses claim that the agreement or stipulation was a contract between the Board and the league and as such must be presented to them for approval under § 10-153d of the General Statutes. Under that section the Burgesses may vote to reject the contract and if so, then the issues may be mediated. The Burgesses claim the contract was not subject to binding arbitration under § 10-153 in these circumstances.

The league has moved to dismiss this action. The league claims since the Burgesses were not a party to the arbitration, they may not ask the court to vacate the award or stay its enforcement.

The burgesses seek here to have declared invalid the award and to stay any enforcement of the award against Naugatuck, not because of some error in the award process but rather because the arbitration award process itself should not have been used when the Board and the league reached agreement on all issues in the contract. In Brotherhood of Police Officers v. Jewett City,234 Conn. 123, the Supreme Court ordered dismissal of a union's application to enforce such an agreed award. Here the representative body is seeking relief from future enforcement of the award. It should have its day in court to establish its claims.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied.

McDONALD, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The plaintiffs The Naugatuck Board of Mayor and Burgesses (Burgesses), the representative body of Naugatuck, here seek to set aside and prevent enforcement of an award by an arbitration panel to the Naugatuck Teachers League (League). This award was ordered by the arbitration panel entirely upon the agreement or CT Page 13374 stipulation entered into by the Naugatuck Board of Education (Board), a party to the arbitration, and the League, another party, and brought to the arbitrator's attention. It was thereafter rejected by the Burgesses and a second arbitration panel reaffirmed the award.

The Burgesses claim that the agreement or stipulation was a contract between the Board and the league and as such must be presented to them for approval under § 10-153d of the General Statutes. Under that section the Burgesses may vote to reject the contract and if so, then the issues may be mediated. The Burgesses claim the contract was not subject to binding arbitration under § 10-153 in these circumstances.

The league has moved to dismiss this action. The league claims since the Burgesses were not a party to the arbitration, they may not ask the court to vacate the award or stay its enforcement.

The burgesses seek here to have declared invalid the award and to stay any enforcement of the award against Naugatuck, not because of some error in the award process but rather because the arbitration award process itself should not have been used when the Board and the league reached agreement on all issues in the contract. In Brotherhood of Police Officers v. Jewett City,234 Conn. 123, the Supreme Court ordered dismissal of a union's application to enforce such an agreed award. Here the representative body is seeking relief from future enforcement of the award. It should have its day in court to establish its claims.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied.

McDONALD, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13373, 15 Conn. L. Rptr. 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naugatuck-board-of-mayor-v-teachers-league-no-0125597-dec-7-1995-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack