 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Exley v. Connecticut Yankee Greyhound Racing8/2/2000
The defendant, Connecticut Yankee Greyhound Racing, Inc. (Yankee), appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting, in part, its application to vacate an arbitration award issued in favor of its former employee, the plaintiff Michael Exley. The plaintiff cross appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting, in part, his application to confirm the arbitration award. On appeal, Yankee claims that the trial court improperly failed to vacate the entire award because (1) the award did not conform to the parties' submission and (2) the arbitrator exceeded his authority in issuing the award. The plaintiff claims in his cross appeal that the court improperly failed to confirm the entire award because after determining that the submission was voluntary and unrestricted, the court improperly substituted its findings of fact and conclusions of law for those of the arbitrator. We affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.
The arbitrator found the following facts. Yankee entered into an employment agreement (Yankee agreement) with the plaintiff on April 15, 1995, under which the plaintiff was to act as racing secretary for a period of three years subject to earlier termination for cause pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff also entered into an employment agreement with Plainfield Pets Program, Inc. (Plainfield Pets), a separate, nonprofit entity. The term of that agreement (Plainfield Pets agreement) was to coincide with the term of the Yankee agreement. Under the Plainfield Pets agreement, the plaintiff was to act as its president.
Plainfield Pets terminated the plaintiff under its employment agreement, and subsequently the plaintiff was terminated from his employment under the Yankee agreement. A dispute arose between Yankee and the plaintiff over his termination, and, pursuant to a provision in the Yankee agreement, that dispute was submitted to arbitration. Plainfield Pets was not named as a party to the arbitration, nor was it a party before the trial court. The arbitrator found that Yankee had terminated both its agreement and the Plainfield Pets agreement without cause in violation of both agreements and ordered Yankee to pay the plaintiff damages under both agreements.
The plaintiff filed an application in the Superior Court to confirm the award, and Yankee filed an application to vacate the award. The court granted in part the plaintiff's application to confirm the arbitration award issued in favor of the plaintiff against Yankee "in so far as it relates to [the plaintiff's] right under the Yankee agreement." The court vacated the "arbitration award, if any, in favor of [the plaintiff] against Plainfield Pets and the award in favor of [the plaintiff] against [Yankee] in so far as it finds an entitlement in [the plaintiff] growing out of the [Plainfield] Pets agreement." This appeal and the plaintiff's cross appeal followed.
We first address the standard of review of arbitration awards that are challenged pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4). "The scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is very narrow. Our courts favor arbitration as a means of settling differences and uphold the finality of arbitration awards except where an award clearly falls within the proscriptions of § 52-418 of the General Statutes. . . . Subsection (a) (4) of General Statutes § 52-418, the subsection under which the [defendant] pursues its claims of error, provides in part that an award is invalid 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. Generally, any challenge to an award pursuant to General Statutes [§ 52-418 (
Page 1 2 3 4 Connecticut Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|