DOCKET NO.

CV

SUPERIOR COURT

CITY OF HARTFORD Applicant

J.D. HARTFORD

V.

AT HARTFORD

BARTFORD FIREFIGHTERS UNION, LocAL 760, IAFF, AFL-CIO, CLC Respondent

APRIL 28,2011

APPLICATION TO VACATE OR MODIFY ARBITRA TION AWARD

TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD:

...... I'~'_

The applicant, City of Hartford, seeks an order pursuant to General Statutes

Sections 52-418, 52A19 and/or the common law vacating or modifying an arbitration -award in AAA Case No .. 123900019909 before the American Arbitration Association ~involving'the applicant City of Hartford and respondent HARTFORD FIREFIGHTERS ,UNIG>N, LOCAL 760, IAFF, AFL-CIO, CLC rendered March 29,2011 and received at

the Office of Corporation Counsel for the City of Hartford on April I, 2011.

Applicant complains and prays as follows:

I. Applicant is a Connecticut municipality.

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.

1. Applicant and.Respondent are parties to a collective bargaining

agreement. (Attached hereto and referred herein as Joint Exhibit 1).

4. The Applicant has a municipal Fire Academy for the training and

assignment of new fire fighters to the Hartford Fire Department.

5. . Most Fire Academy models follow a para-militaristic approach .

. 6. Though there are no set guidelines within the Hartford Fire Department

as, to the.manner and method that fire recruit training should take place, there are

t- " 'certain competencies per CPAT (Candidate Physical Ability Test) that recruits must

.".' l

obtain prior to entry into the Fire Academy and in order to graduate from the Academy

and become a permanent full-time employee of the Hartford Fire Department.

7. In March 2008, Assistant Chief Parker, now retired, received reports of

anonymous complaints advising him that recruits were being compelled by Deputy

Chief Daniel Nolan to participate in a quid pro quo scheme that required recruits who

already passed CPA T, to make charitable contributions and in return they would have

2

a reduction in running disciplinary six (6) story towers that were meted out daily as a disciplinary tool.

Towers, the six (6) story stairwell, was a disciplinary tool utilized generally in the Fire Academy training process.

8. Soon thereafter, Assistant Chief Parker, received a written complaint

from Vincent Fusco, President of Local 760, the Hartford Firefighter's Union advising him of serious allegations against Deputy Chief Dan Nolan, alleging that he solicited recruits to donate to charity; again referencing to a quid pro quo scheme whereby

.rowers. were reduced for charitable contributions. (Attached hereto as City Exh. I).

9. An extensive investigation ensued and Parker memorialized his fmdings

with notations (Attached hereto as City Exh. 2) and a four (4) page memorandum to FireChiefCharles A. Teale, Sr. dated April 17, 2008. (Attached hereto as City Exh. 4).

10. Loudermill proceedings were held on both January 14th and 23rd of2009

regarding allegations against Deputy Chief Nolan that he: I)Provided False Statements to a Superior 2) Abused his Authority, 3) Jeopardized the Health and Safety of Fire Recruits, 4) Failed to Abide by a Directive from his Superior, and 5) Engaged in the

3

Misuse of His Assigned City Vehicle. Nolan was summarily terminated and deemed liable on all but the. misuse of city vehicle claim. (Attached as It. Exh, 2).

11. On or about April 13, 2009 and pursuant to the terms of the parties'

Collective Bargaining Agreement, thematter was submitted to the American Arbitration Association.

12. The Parties agreed to the following statement of the issue before AAA-

Arbitrator Harvey M. Shrage:

.W.as the grievant terminated for just cause: if not what shall the remedy be?

13. Arbitrator Shrage conducted arbitration proceedings over the course of

. an eleven (II) month period.

14. The evidence shows that recruits were subject to the quid pro quo

scheme aforementioned by Deputy Chief Nolan.

15. Exhibits, including but not limited to the following were put into

evidence during the ten (10) day hearing process from November 2009 through October 2010 and are incorporated herein by reference:

4

Joint Exhibit 1- Collective Bargaining Agreement

Joint Exhibit 2- February 17,2009, Termination letter.

Joint Exhibit 8- Ruling of Arbitrator Shrage- June 8, 2010. I Exhibit 1- Unions April 7, 2008 inquiry to Assistant Chief Michael Parker re: allegations against Dan Nolan.

Exhibit 2- Assistant Chief Parker's notes.

Exhibit 3- Six Story Tower at the Hartford Fire Academy

Exhibit 4- Assistant Chief Parker investigative report to Chief Teale,

,. .",April 7, 'Z008.

Exhibit 5- November 19,2008 Correspondence from Chief Teale to Deputy Chief Nolan.

Exhibit 6- April 21, 2008

Exhibit 7- Patterson affidavit

Exhibit 8- Huertas affidavit

Exhibit 9- Nelson affidavit

Exhibit 10- Sanchez affidavit

I It is the applicant's belief that there was no Joint 3 through 7 in the arbitration proceedings,

5

Exhibit 11- McCue affidavit Exhibit 12- Graves affidavit Exhibit 13- Wallace Affidavit Exhibit 14- Stevenson affidavit Exhibit 15- Jones affidavit Exhibit 16- DeBella Affidavit

Exhibit 17- City, Past Practice Complaint.August 9, 2010 Exhibit 18- City, Motion in Limine, August 9, 2010

'1,6. On Of about December 8, 2010, both parties submitted briefs to the

Arbitrator.

17. On or about December 22, 2010 the city submitted a reply brief, and

upon information and belief, the submission thereof closed the record in the arbitration proceeding.

18. On March 29,2011, Arbitrator Shrage issued a written Award (the

"Award") finding regardless of the quid pro quo scheme imposed upon recruits that the City did not have just cause to terminate Deputy Chief Nolan and no other

6

discipline was suggested by our Arbitrator Shrage. (A true and correct copy of the

Award is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Appendix I).

19. The Award should be vacated for one or more of the following reasons:

a) The Award violates clear public policy and Hartford Fire

Department Directives and Practices; and

b) The arbitrator exceeded his power and so imperfectly executed his powers that a mutual, final and definite award upon the matter submitted was not made, in that, among other things, the Award was not issued in compliance with the General Statutes or the Regulations of Connecticut 'State Agencies.

WHEREFORE, the Applicant prays:

I. 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

7

Hartford Fire Departments' discretion and public safety

obligations.

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; and

6. Such other relief in law or equity as may appertain.

CITY OF HARTFORD

BY lsi Catharine H. Freeman Catharine H. Freeman Assistant Corporation Counsel Its Attorney

550 Main Street

Hartford, CT 06103

Juris No. 26795 Telephone (860) 757-9700

8