city of hartford appeal-digiacomo
Post on 08-Apr-2018
222 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
1/71
DOCKET NO. CV : SUPERIOR COURT:
CITY OF HARTFORD : J.D. HARTFORDApplicant :
V. : AT HARTFORD:
HARTFORD FIREFIGHTERS UNION, : APRIL 21, 2011LOCAL 760, IAFF, AFL-CIO, CLC
Respondent
APPLICATION TO VACATE OR MODIFYARBITRATION AWARD
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OFHARTFORD:
The applicant, City of Hartford, seeks an order pursuant to General StatutesSections 52-418, 52-419 and/or the common law vacating or modifying an arbitrationaward in Case No. 2010-A-0434 before the State of Connecticut, Board of Mediation andArbitration, Department of Labor involving the applicant City of Hartford andrespondent HARTFORD FIREFIGHTERS UNION, LOCAL 760, IAFF, AFL-CIO, CLCrendered March 22, 2011 and received at the Office of Corporation Counsel for the Cityof Hartford on March 29, 2011.
Applicant complains and prays as follows:
1. Applicant is a Connecticut municipality.
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
2/71
2. Respondent is the collective bargaining representative for City of
Hartford employees for the purposes of collective bargaining under the Municipal
Employees Relations Act, General Statutes 7-467, et seq.
3. Applicant and Respondent are parties to a collective bargaining
agreement. (Arb. Rec. Exh. 2. attached hereto as Applicants Exh. A).
4. On or about November 10, 2009, Michael DiGiacomo, a Caucasian-
American, was informed by Assistant Chief Milner, an African American, of a
directive from then Fire Chief Charles Teale, an African-American, advising him to
remove his motor vehicle from the interior of the fire station at Engine Co. 9.
5. The directive followed a verbal complaint and subsequent filing of a Fire
Service report by Firefighter Kerry B. Foster, Sr., an African American who had
temporarily been assigned to Engine Co. 9 in the Southwest District of Hartford, a
predominately white and Hispanic District 1, that DiGiacomos motor vehicle
contained four of five bumper stickers that he considered racially offensive. (Fire
Service Report-Referenced in Joint Exhibit 5 of Arb. Rec. and attached hereto as
Applicants Ex. B).
2
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
3/71
6. It was observed through testimony at the Second Step of the Grievance
process that DiGiacomo had just put the stickers on the motor vehicle within the three
months preceding Fosters complaint to Chief Teale. (See Second Step Grievance
Decision, Jt. Exh. 5 of Arb. Rec. and attached hereto as Applicants Ex. C). This
coincided with Fosters assignment to Engine Co. 9.
7. On November 12, 2009, HARTFORD FIREFIGHTERS UNION, LOCAL
760, IAFF, AFL-CIO, CLC filed a grievance alleging that the City violated the Entire
Collective Bargaining Agreement when DiGiacomo was told by the department that he
would no longer be allowed to park inside the firehouse and could possibly be denied
any parking on city property while at work, without just cause.
8. The grievance was not resolved through the contractual grievance
process and was claimed for arbitration to the State Board of Mediation and
Arbitration.
9. The Parties agreed to the following statement of the issue before the
State Board of Mediation and Arbitration:
1 See US Census Data, 2000, Census Tract 5047 and 5048.
3
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
4/71
Did the City of Hartford violate the Collective Bargaining Agreementwith Local 760 when it denied Michael DiGiacomo the right to park hisvehicle inside the Engine Co. 9 station?
If so, what should the remedy be?
10. The State Board of Mediation and Arbitration conducted a hearing on
December 9, 2010 with the panel members consisting of arbitrators: Peter Blum,
Chairman, Michael C. Culhane, Management Member and John P. Colangelo, Labor
Member.
11. The following exhibits were put into evidence during the hearing:
Joint Exhibit 1 Issue Statement
Joint Exhibit 2 Collective Bargaining Agreement (Attached as
Applicants, Exh. A)
Joint Exhibit3 Fire Department Rules and Regulations (Attached
as Applicants, Exhibit D)
Joint Exhibit 4 Grievance Form (Attached as Applicants, Exhibit E)
Joint Exhibit 5 Second Step Decision (Attached as Applicants,
Exhibit C)
12. On January 7, 2011, both parties submitted briefs to the arbitration panel.
4
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
5/71
13. On January 20, 2011, Respondent submitted a reply brief, at which time
the submission thereof closed the record in the arbitration proceeding.
14. On March 22, 2011, the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration issued
a written Award (the Award) finding that the City violated 3.4 2 of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement when it directed DiGiacomo to remove his motor vehicle from
inside the fire station at Engine Co. 9 and that DiGiacomo was free to park his vehicle
at Engine Co 9 with the five (5) bumper sticks or any other fire station at which he is
assigned to work. (A true and correct copy of the Award is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit F).
15. The Award should be vacated for one or more of the following reasons:
a) The Award violates clear public policy and established law of theState of Connecticut, the policies of the City of Hartford and theHartford Fire Department Directives re: Anti-Discrimination in theWorkplace; and
2 3.4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement is the Prior Benefits and Practices provision and states, Any jobbenefits or work practices existing prior to the date of the Agreement that were established in written documentsissued by duly authorized City agencies or officials and which are not specifically provided for or abridged in
this Agreement shall continue in effect. The City shall have the right to make reasonable changes in such jobbenefits or work practices provided that the City shall discuss any such changes with the Union before suchchanges are made, and the Union shall have access to the grievance procedure to determine whether suchchanges are reasonable as required herein.
5
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
6/71
b) The arbitrators3
on the panel exceeded their powers and soimperfectly executed their powers that a mutual, final and definite awardupon the matter submitted was not made, in that, among other things, theAward was not issued in compliance with the General Statutes or theRegulations of Connecticut State Agencies.
c) The issuance of the award was untimely and in violation of Connecticut General Statute 52-416.
WHEREFORE , the Applicant prays:
1. That the Award be vacated;
2. That a de novo review be granted as to the public policy violation;
3. That in the alternative, the Award be modified to exclude the
portions thereof that violate public policy;
4. That in the alternative, the Award be modified to both exclude the
portions thereof that violate public policy, interfere with the
3 Not including the dissenting arbitrator, Michael C. Culhane, Management Member.
6
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
7/71
7
Hartford Fire Departments discretion and public safety
obligations as to where and how to locate Fire trucks, equipment
and apparatus at each of its fire stations and where the Award
trumps the past practice of first come first serve as to available
parking inside.
5. That an order be issued directing the respondents to appear on a
day certain to show cause, if any there be, why this application
should not be granted;
6. Such other relief in law or equity as may appertain, includingattorney fees and cost.
CITY OF HARTFORD
BY_/s/ Catharine H. Freeman Catharine H. FreemanAssistant Corporation CounselIts Attorney550 Main StreetHartford, CT 06103Juris No. 26795Telephone (860) 757-9700Facsimile (860) 722-8114
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
8/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
9/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
10/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
11/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
12/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
13/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
14/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
15/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
16/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
17/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
18/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
19/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
20/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
21/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
22/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
23/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
24/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
25/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
26/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
27/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
28/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
29/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
30/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
31/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
32/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
33/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
34/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
35/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
36/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
37/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
38/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
39/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
40/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
41/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
42/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
43/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
44/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
45/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
46/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
47/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
48/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
49/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
50/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
51/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
52/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
53/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
54/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
55/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
56/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
57/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
58/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
59/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
60/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
61/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
62/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
63/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
64/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
65/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
66/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
67/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
68/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
69/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
70/71
-
8/7/2019 City of Hartford Appeal-DiGiacomo
71/71
top related