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. ****************************************************** RICHARD PRESTON v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AC 19395)
Schaller, Zarella and Pellegrino, Js. Argued May 31--officially released November 28, 2000 Counsel

Stephen J. Courtney, for the appellant (plaintiff). Saranne P. Murray, with whom, on the brief, was Jennifer Bullock Majewski, for the appellant (defendant).
Opinion

SCHALLER, J. The plaintiff, Richard Preston, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, the division of criminal justice, denying the plaintiff's application to vacate an arbitration award. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied his application because the award was untimely issued and (2) failed to rule on his alternative grounds for vacating the award. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are rele-

vant to our disposition of this appeal. The plaintiff formerly was employed by the defendant as a prosecutor and was a member of the prosecutor's bargaining unit, Connecticut Prosecutors, Local 1437, Council 4, AFSCME (union). The union and the defendant were parties to a collective bargaining agreement (agreement) covering the period from July 1, 1994, to June 30, 1997. On May 9, 1995, the defendant terminated the plaintiff from employment as a result of his ``conduct, including alleged stalking and harassing of . . . two women.'' In accordance with the agreement, the union filed a grievance on behalf of the plaintiff regarding his discharge from employment with the defendant. In accordance with the agreement, the union and the defendant submitted the grievance to arbitration with an unrestricted submission as follows: ``Did the [defendant] have just cause to discharge [the plaintiff]? If not, what shall be the remedy, consistent with the contract and the parties' agreement concerning the tolling of liability in this matter?'' Subsequently, hearings were held before arbitrator Louis Pittocco (arbitrator).1 At the first arbitration hearing on October 30, 1996, the plaintiff signed a waiver of union representation and proceeded pro se. At the November 5, 1996 hearing, an issue arose with respect to the admissibility of evidence. The parties agreed to present briefs to the arbitrator regarding that issue postmarked December 10, 1996, which deadline subsequently was extended to January 3, 1997. After briefs were presented, the arbitrator issued a ruling allowing the admission of the disputed evidence on January 14, 1997.2 At the last hearing on May 1, 1997, the parties agreed to submit posthearing briefs to the arbitrator postmarked May 30, 1997, which date was later extended by mutual agreement to June 6, 1997. In a letter dated July 2, 1997, the arbitrator gave notice that he was unable to complete the arbitration award by July 6, 1997, and indicated that he would be postmarking the award by July 11, 1997. At the evidentiary hearing held later before the court, the arbitrator testified that he did not receive any objections from the parties with respect to his July 2, 1997 letter. The arbitrator also testified that in light of his experience, he assumed that in the absence of an objection, his request for the extension had been granted.3 On July 7, 1997, attorney Anne H. Littlefield, counsel for the defendant, contacted the plaintiff concerning the July 2, 1997 letter. The plaintiff was noncommittal and stated that he needed more time to do ``research'' before he responded to Littlefield's suggestion of a joint agreement for an extension of time. The plaintiff testified that when he called Littlefield's office later in the day, he left a message with a secretary that he was unable to enter into a joint agreement. Littlefield testi-

fied that the only message she received was that the plaintiff would respond separately to the arbitrator. In a letter dated July 7, 1997, attorney Saranne P. Murray, also counsel for the defendant, responded to the arbitrator's July 7, 1997 letter. In her letter, Murray informed the arbitrator that the defendant consented to an extension of the deadline for filing the award until July 11, 1997. Moreover, Murray advised the arbitrator that the union's agent, Joel Schweidel, had indicated in a telephone conversation that although he was not sure if the union had standing due to the plaintiff's pro se status, the union had no objection to the deadline. Subsequent to receiving Murray's July 7, 1997 letter, the plaintiff did not call or write the arbitrator. Instead, the plaintiff spoke to Schweidel and specifically instructed him to write a letter to the arbitrator. Although Schweidel wrote a letter dated July 11, 1997, that letter failed to state the plaintiff's alleged position that he already considered the award to be void. Instead, the letter merely informed the arbitrator that ``the union cannot take a position on the extension of the deadline for filing your decision.'' On July 10, 1997, the arbitrator issued his award with a cover letter dated July 11, 1997. The arbitrator found that the defendant had just cause to discharge the plaintiff and therefore denied the grievance. The arbitrator's decision stated in relevant part: ``With regard to the allegations of illegal and unethical conduct through harassment and stalking . . . the arbitrator finds that these actions on [the plaintiff's] part were deplorable and unacceptable for a prosecutor. . . . [T]here was sufficient proof to sustain his discharge.'' On August 5, 1997, pursuant to General Statutes

Download Preston v. State Division of Criminal Justice.pdf

Connecticut Law