2012 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 52 - Civil Actions
Chapter 909 - Arbitration Proceedings
Section 52-418 - Vacating award.

CT Gen Stat § 52-418 (2012) What's This?

(a) Upon the application of any party to an arbitration, the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides or, in a controversy concerning land, for the judicial district in which the land is situated or, when the court is not in session, any judge thereof, shall make an order vacating the award if it finds any of the following defects: (1) If the award has been procured by corruption, fraud or undue means; (2) if there has been evident partiality or corruption on the part of any arbitrator; (3) if the arbitrators have been guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause shown or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy or of any other action by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or (4) if the arbitrators have exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

(b) If an award is vacated and the time within which the award is required to be rendered has not expired, the court or judge may direct a rehearing by the arbitrators. Notwithstanding the time within which the award is required to be rendered, if an award issued pursuant to a grievance taken under a collective bargaining agreement is vacated the court or judge shall direct a rehearing unless either party affirmatively pleads and the court or judge determines that there is no issue in dispute.

(c) Any party filing an application pursuant to subsection (a) of this section concerning an arbitration award issued by the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration shall notify said board and the Attorney General, in writing, of such filing within five days of the date of filing.

(1949 Rev., S. 8161; P.A. 78-280, S. 2, 127; P.A. 82-160, S. 157; P.A. 87-19; P.A. 97-134.)

History: P.A. 78-280 substituted “judicial district” for “county”; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section, inserted Subsec. indicators and replaced alphabetic Subdiv. indicators with numeric indicators; P.A. 87-19 added Subsec. (c) to provide that the state board of mediation and arbitration and the attorney general must be notified by any party filing to vacate an award issued by the board; P.A. 97-134 amended Subsec. (b) to permit a rehearing of an award unless a party affirmatively pleads and judge determines no issue is disputed.

Unless collective bargaining agreement provides for personal right to seek arbitration an employee subject to the agreement is not a “party to the arbitration”; standing is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction which cannot be conferred by the parties. 1 CA 154. Cited. Id., 207; Id., 219; 3 CA 250; Id., 697; 4 CA 21; Id., 577; 5 CA 61; Id., 636; 6 CA 11; Id., 438; 7 CA 286; 9 CA 396; 10 CA 292; Id., 611; 12 CA 642; 13 CA 461; 14 CA 153; Id., 257; 16 CA 486; 17 CA 280; 20 CA 67; 23 CA 24; Id., 727; 26 CA 351; 27 CA 386; Id., 635; 28 CA 337; 29 CA 484; 30 CA 157; 31 CA 73; judgment reversed; see 229 C. 465; 32 CA 289; 33 CA 1; Id., 626; Id., 737; 34 CA 27; 35 CA 338; Id., 775; Id., 804; 36 CA 29; 37 CA 1; Id., 708; 39 CA 122; 43 CA 800; 44 CA 415; Id., 506; 45 CA 237; 46 CA 520. Broad and unrestricted arbitration clauses in purchase and sale agreements that provided for arbitration “concerning any matter provided for herein or arising hereunder” gave trial court the authority to determine amounts owed on each note and to direct that they be paid by defendants. 62 CA 83. Trial court’s determination was proper and consistent with applicable collective bargaining agreement. 75 CA 198. Enforcement of arbitration award reducing grievant’s dismissal to a 1-year suspension would violate a clearly established public policy against workplace sexual harassment. 125 CA 408.

When applications are commenced. 15 CS 118. Proceedings of agreement to arbitrate not affected by limitations between union and employer. Id., 391. Cited. Id., 397; 16 CS 137. Meaning of “an application to the court”. Id., 505. Cited. 17 CS 14; 18 CS 231. To vacate an award, court must find arbitrator’s interpretation clearly untenable. 19 CS 71; Id., 347. Cited. 20 CS 91. The charter of an arbitrator is the submission but the provisions of the contract in question must be read as a whole. Id., 451. A labor arbitration award which contravenes public policy by its construction of a labor agreement is void. 22 CS 475. Cited. 29 CS 25; 32 CS 85. Since the parties by the agreement of submission define the scope of the arbitration, an award will not be vacated if it conforms to the submission. 36 CS 223. Cited. 40 CS 145; Id., 365; 42 CS 336; 43 CS 470; 44 CS 312; Id., 482; 45 CS 130. Absent violation of statute, courts should not interfere in arbitral decision. Id., 144.

Former Subdiv. (b):

Cited. 140 C. 446.

Former Subdiv. (c):

Cited. 38 CS 80.

Former Subdiv. (d):

Cited. 141 C. 514; Id., 606. The question submitted to arbitration was whether the collective bargaining agreement was violated by the company’s “present operating practice”; the award, by defining a course of conduct which could be followed in the future, went beyond the submission and could not be upheld. 149 C. 687. In deciding whether arbitrators have “exceeded their powers”, as that phrase is used in Subsec., courts need only examine the submission and award to determine whether award conforms to submission. 171 C. 420. Cited. 176 C. 401; 181 C. 211; Id., 449; 183 C. 579.

Inherently inconsistent award was vacated as arbitrator acted in violation, of Subsec., imperfectly executing his powers. 27 CS 278. Since the law of the forum determines the remedy, an Iowa law prohibiting the stacking of uninsured motorist coverage was inapplicable and the arbitrator’s award was confirmed. 36 CS 232. Cited. 38 CS 80.

Subsec. (a):

Subdiv. (4) cited. 190 C. 14. Cited. 209 C. 579; 212 C. 368. Subdiv. (4) cited. Id., 652; 214 C. 734. Cited. 218 C. 51; 231 C. 563. Subdiv. (4) cited. 234 C. 408. Subdiv. (3): Misconduct under section may be waived; judgment of Appellate Court in 38 CA 709 reversed. 237 C. 378. Subdiv. (4): Arbitrators did not exceed their powers when they failed to give collateral estoppel effect to a prior arbitration award. 248 C. 108. Challenge to voluntary arbitration award rendered pursuant to an unrestricted submission which raises a legitimate and colorable claim of violation of public policy requires de novo judicial review. 257 C. 80. Trial court did not err in confirming arbitration award; in matters where an arbitration submission is unrestricted, arbitrator’s award shall not be vacated unless award rules on constitutionality of a statute, violates clear public policy or contravenes one or more statutory prescriptions of section. 273 C. 86. Trial court correctly determined that plaintiff had not adduced sufficient evidence of partiality or bias by the arbitrator to justify vacatur of award under Subdiv. (2). 276 C. 599. Arbitrator’s failure to consider trial testimony of defendant’s employee concerning employee’s bribes to plaintiff’s former mayor in exchange for awards of construction contracts constituted misconduct, because evidence was not cumulative and provided additional information. 278 C. 466. Subdiv. (4): On application to vacate award on the ground that it violates public policy, applicant did not meet significant burden to demonstrate that arbitrator exercised power in manifest disregard of the law where applicant asserted that public policy of preventing sexual harassment and workplace violence overrode employee’s contractual right to transfer. 287 C. 258. Subdiv. (4): Arbitrator did not exceed his authority by declining to award attorney’s fees under the arbitration agreement since question is whether arbitrator had authority to reach the issue, not whether the issue was correctly decided. 293 C. 748. Subdiv. (4): Arbitrator improperly relied on employee’s admission into accelerated rehabilitation program as evidence of cause for employee’s discharge from employment despite clear and significant public policy that acceptance of accelerated rehabilitation is not evidence of guilt, that it cannot be used as evidence of guilt, and that it has no probative value on the issues of guilt or innocence of the charged offenses. 298 C. 824.

Subdiv. (4) cited. 3 CA 286. Subdiv. (2) cited. 9 CA 260. Cited. 16 CA 711; 23 CA 107. Subdiv. (4) cited. Id., 107. Cited. 24 CA 254. Subdiv. (4) cited. 33 CA 669. Cited. 35 CA 638. Subdiv. (3): Once a finding of misconduct made, court required to vacate award. 38 CA 709. Subdiv. (3) cited. 44 CA 764. Cited. 45 CA 432. Subdiv. (4) is not sole source of court’s power of review of arbitration. 48 CA 849. Award not definite under Subdiv. (4) where remedy remained open to negotiation and award left a specific remedy to the predilection of a party. 49 CA 33. Plaintiff has burden of establishing the award is invalid because it falls within the proscriptions of section. Id., 443. Review of unrestricted submissions discussed; arbitrators’ decision conforms to submission. 53 CA 702. In the event part of arbitration award is within the scope of the submission and part of award is not, court may vacate any portion of the award that does not disturb the merits of the arbitration. 56 CA 786. When agreement is silent, arbitration board may establish standard of proof without violating requirements of notice and full and fair hearing. 57 CA 490. Subdiv. (4): Where submission was voluntary and unrestricted, court did not err in failing to vacate entire award since award conformed to submission, but court did err in failing to confirm entire award when it improperly substituted its findings of fact and conclusions of law for that of the arbitrator. 59 CA 224. Arbitration award vacated where award was open to negotiation; the fact that a failed negotiation might return to a different arbitrator did mitigate the indefiniteness, or lack of finality, of the award. 72 CA 274. It is axiomatic that any challenge to an award under Subdiv. (4), on ground that arbitrator exceeded his powers, is limited to comparison of award with submission. 80 CA 1. Party challenging arbitration award on the ground that arbitrator refused to receive material evidence must prove that, by virtue of an evidentiary ruling, he was in fact deprived of full and fair hearing before the arbitration panel. 81 CA 532. Subdiv. (4): With unrestricted submission, court’s review of the award is limited to determination of whether it conforms to the submission. Id., 726. Award that is legally incorrect does not fall within exception provided in Subdiv. (4) and should not be set aside. 84 CA 826. Subdiv. (4): Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that arbitration award conformed to the submission and declining to examine arbitrator’s reasoning in arriving at the award because, when submission is unrestricted, court is confined to examination of the submission and award to determine whether the award conformed to the submission. 86 CA 686. Subdiv. (4): Trial court properly denied plaintiff union’s application to vacate arbitration award, plaintiff having failed to establish its claim that arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in concluding that article two of collective bargaining agreement pertaining to management rights, rather than article nine pertaining to layoffs, applied to facts of case; given arbitrator’s finding that grievant was unable to perform duties of a security guard, it was not unreasonable for arbitrator to conclude that article nine did not address layoffs of individuals for being unable to perform duties of their position. 99 CA 54. Arbitration panel did not exceed and imperfectly execute its powers because its award did not conform to the parties’ submission; trial court did not improperly refuse to vacate award. 102 CA 61. An arbitrator, in rendering arbitration award, may take into account grievant’s acceptance of accelerated rehabilitation; there is no clear legal principle preventing arbitrator from drawing adverse inferences from fact that grievant has utilized accelerated rehabilitation and drawing of such inferences is not violation of public policy. 107 CA 321; judgment reversed, see 298 C. 824. Plaintiff did not meet burden of demonstrating arbitration award failed to conform to submission; ex parte communication between one of the arbitrators and one of the parties did not result in any harm and did not mandate vacatur of the arbitration award. 121 CA 31. Arbitrator did not exceed his authority under Subdiv. (4) because the submission asked arbitrator to determine whether employee had been terminated for just cause in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement and, if not, what the remedy should be, the plaintiff conceded that the award conformed to the submission and the record demonstrated that the arbitrator applied and interpreted the agreement. 122 CA 617. Subdiv. (4): Submission to arbitration panel was unrestricted, and panel was not limited in the remedy it could fashion once it determined that employee was terminated from employment without just cause, and panel’s failure to reinstate employee cannot be construed as a failure to conform with the submission. 125 CA 225. Subdiv. (4): At most, the panel misapplied or misconstrued statutory requirements, neither of which is sufficient to support a manifest disregard of the law claim. 130 CA 556. Subdiv. (4): Under Subdiv., a court will compare the award to the submission to determine whether the arbitrators have exceeded their powers. 132 CA 326.

Subdiv. (4): Arbitration award that upheld the disciplining of a police officer for his insistence on being truthful contravenes public policy and therefore exceeds the powers of the arbitrator and is vacated as void and unenforceable. 40 CS 145. Subdiv. (3) cited. 41 CS 17. Subdiv. (4) cited. Id.; 43 CS 32; 45 CS 130. Labor union that sought to challenge an arbitration award failed to meet burden of demonstrating that the arbitration panel’s award violated section. 47 CS 559. On application to vacate an award on the ground that it violates public policy, court first addresses whether an explicit public policy has been identified in the application and then whether arbitrators’ award violated this clear public policy. 48 CS 38. Subdiv. (3): Application to vacate award denied where defendant failed to demonstrate that arbitrators denied request for a postponement, arbitrators misled defendant into believing its request for a postponement had been denied, or arbitrators were presented with sufficient cause for defendant to obtain a postponement. 52 CS 295.

Subsec. (b):

Cited. 218 C. 51. Although it is within discretion of trial court to decide whether to submit the issues to the initial arbitrator, the court may also refer the matter to a new arbitrator. 249 C. 474. Trial court had authority to remand case to arbitration panel to clarify its decision and complete its task without vacating award. 271 C. 474.

In 1997 amendment, legislature chose to make rehearing mandatory for arbitral awards pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, irrespective of time within which award was required to have been rendered; legislature did not manifest intent to require court to remand award for new hearing by new arbitrator; text of statute does not require de novo hearing on remand. 66 CA 202.

Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Connecticut may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.