Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** TOWN OF GROTON v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA (SC 16164)
McDonald, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Sullivan and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued November 4, 1999--officially released August 8, 2000 Counsel

Thomas W. Meiklejohn, for the appellant (defendant). Susan M. Phillips, with whom was Harry E. Calmar, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

BORDEN, J. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether an arbitral award, which reinstated to employment an employee who had been convicted of embezzlement of his employer's funds following a plea of nolo contendere, violates public policy. The defendant union, United Steelworkers of America, appeals1 from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, the town of Groton, vacating on public policy grounds an arbitration award that had reinstated the employment of David Warren, whom the plaintiff had discharged following his conviction of embezzlement

based upon his plea of nolo contendere. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly applied the ``public policy'' exception to the general rule of deference to arbitration awards. We disagree and, accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.2 Pursuant to an unrestricted submission, the arbitrator ruled that Warren had been discharged from his employment without just cause in violation of the governing collective bargaining agreement, and ordered him reinstated with limited back pay. The plaintiff filed an application in the trial court to vacate the award, and the defendant filed a cross application to confirm the award. The trial court determined that the award was in violation of public policy, and rendered judgment granting the plaintiff's application to vacate and denying the defendant's application to confirm. This appeal followed. The facts and procedural history, as disclosed by the detailed award of the arbitrator, are undisputed. Warren was employed by the plaintiff as a weighmaster at the town landfill until April 14, 1997, when he was discharged. His duties included selling daily landfill permits to town residents, who would pay him for the permits. He was responsible for accounting for the permits that he sold and turning the money received over to the plaintiff. On November 20, 1996, Warren was charged by the Groton police with two counts of larceny by embezzlement in the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes

Download Groton v. United Steelworkers of America (concurrence and dissent below).pdf

Connecticut Law