You are on page 1of 18
NO. HHD CV 11-6021257-8 SUPERIOR COURT | CITY OF HARTFORD J.D, OF HARTFORD vs. AT HARTPORD HARTFORD FIREFIGHTERS UNION, LOCAL 760, IAFF, AFL-CIO, CLC : DECEMBER 21, 2011 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: PL: ACATE OR MODIFY Al ‘The issue presently before the court is whether to vacate or modify an arbitration award ordering the reinstatement of a former Hartford firefighter, deputy chief Daniel C. Nolan (the grievant), The grievant was terminated from his employment with the plaintiff, the city of Hartford, in January 2009, after allegedly soliciting charitable donations during working hours and reducing towers! for members of the recruit class who donated. The defendant, Hartford Firefighters Union, Local 760, [AFF, AFL-CIO, CLC, is the bargaining representative for all Hartford firefighters. After the grievant's termination, the matter was submitted to the American Arbitration Association, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. On March 29, 2011, the arbitrator, Harvey M. Schrage, determined the plaintiff “did not " According to the arbitrator's decision: “A tower fs: approximatel: tories high that is used for training Purpose’: » Gp 4 they Frecmanres ee 40a a Lei ar Cnniliey on ; ACD) * Ua us un Se e1$ 1080 popifit have just cause to terminate the grievant” and ordered that he be reinstated. On April 29, 2011, the plaintiff filed and application to vacate or modify the arbitration award on the grounds that the award is violative of public policy and General Statutes § 52-418 (a). The plaintiff submitted a memorandum of law and exhibits in support of its application on July 11, 2011. On | May 17, 2011, the defendant submitted an answer and cross-application to confirm the | arbitration award. The defendant submitted a memorandum in opposition to the application to vacate the arbitration award and in support of its cross-application to confirm the arbitration award on August 8, 2011. Argument on this matter was heard by the court on September 7, 2011. The parties both filed post-hearing briefs on September 22, 2011. FACTS The facts relevant to resolution of the present motion are as follows.” The plaintiff and the defendant are parties to a collective bargaining agreement. The agreement contains a provision requiring “just cause” for disciplinary action and also sets forth the various steps of the | grievance procedure. The agreement provides that either party may request to have a particular case heard by the American Arbitration Association, if the grievance remains unresolved. “The facts are taken from the March 29, 2011 decision of the arbitrator, following the parties’ arbitral submission | 2 | was promoted to deputy chief of training. One of the grievant’s job responsibilities was to The grievant was employed by the plaintiff'as a firefighter from June 1983 until his termination in January 2009. He began his career as a firefighter and eventually by April 2001 ‘conduct training classes, including supervision of the recruit classes. The training program is a minimum of fourteen weeks and involves rigorous activity from 8 a.m. unti! 5 p.m, One such rigorous activity involved the running of towers. A tower is a six story structure that the recruits would run up and down as a form of punishment, Recruits were punished for not doing well on aun, making errors in a drill, forgetting a name tag and many other things. | In August 2008, the assistant fire chief, Michael Parker, became aware of some concerns | regarding the grievant. Parker received three complaints about the grievant, one of which is | relevant to this case. The union submitted a complaint alleging that “the grievant was soliciting recruits for donations for charities in retum for reducing the number of ‘punishment towers? the recruits had to run” during the 2007-2008 recruit class, Parker then conducted an investigation and interviewed the grievant and members of the recruit class. After an initial investigation, fire chief Charles Teale conducted a second investigation with the assistance of human resources and the corporation counsel’s office. Affer the second investigation, Loudermill proceedings were held on January 14 and January 23, 2009, after which, the grievant was “summarily terminated.”

You might also like