DocketNumber: No. 111469
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 4774
Judges: WEST, J.
Filed Date: 5/3/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On June 26, 1992, the Eligibility List was published by the Personnel Director and both appellants were found eligible to be promoted immediately. While neither appellant had four years of service with the Waterbury Fire Department, the Personnel Director determined that each firefighter had prior service with CT Page 4775 the aforementioned municipalities sufficiently comparable to Waterbury Fire service in a qualitative and quantitative sense to compensate for the fifteen days remaining before his fourth anniversary with the city of Waterbury. On June 29, 1992, the union filed a labor grievance which challenged the Personnel Director's determination that the appellants were eligible for promotion. On this date, the Mayor of Waterbury sustained the union's labor grievance and ordered the Personnel Director to rescind credit for firefighting experience outside the City of Waterbury. As a result of the Mayor's action, the appellants were not promoted to the rank of Fire Lieutenant. Both plaintiffs appealed the revocation of credit for non-Waterbury service to the Civil Service Commission and these appeals were heard on September 9, 1992. The commission, by a 3 to 2 vote, rejected both appeals.
The plaintiffs now properly appeal those decisions of the Civil Service Commission. Conn. Gen. Stat. §
In reviewing the decision of the Civil Service Commission, the court may not adjudicate facts or substitute its judgment for that of the Commission. [Ferrier v. Personnel and PensionAppeals Board],
The plaintiffs claim that the union and the mayor violated the labor contract because a grievance cannot be filed and ruled upon on a matter pertaining to the conduct and rating of a merit exam. However, the union in the instant case did not challenge the conduct and rating of the exam; the union challenged and the Mayor ruled upon the eligibility qualifications of certain individuals to sit for the exam. Therefore, the contract does not prohibit the grievance.
Similarly, the conduct and grading of merit exams and establishment of lists from such exams and the initial appointments from such lists are not subject to collective bargaining and a grievance procedure. Conn. Gen. Stat. §
Moreover, it is important to note that even if the Mayor and the union should not have followed the grievance procedure, the Civil Service Commission has authority over matters relating to the eligibility of candidates with regard to such factors as experience. Waterbury City Code Div. 2, 5205(f). Therefore, the decision of the Civil Service Commission, which relied upon evidence that demonstrated that fire service in New Britain and Ridgefield is not comparable in a qualitative and quantitative sense to Waterbury Fire Service, should not be disturbed as such decision of the commission was not illegal, arbitrary, or in abuse of its discretion.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
WEST, J.