DocketNumber: No. CV 94-0461636S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8956
Judges: LAVINE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/8/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The court finds that plaintiff has failed to bear its burden of proving that any one of the four conditions set out in General Statutes §
The submission to the panel was unrestricted.Garrity v. McCaskey,
Laidlaw gave timely notice of its intention to take the position that the grievance was an improper subject for arbitration, pursuant to General Statutes §
The witnesses who testified at the August 1, 1994, hearing differed on the subject of whether Laidlaw had raised the issue of the union's admittedly late filing of its arbitration request at the panel's hearing. Plaintiff's witnesses said they believed that this topic had not been raised. Teddi Barra's testimony is susceptible to a different interpretation, and permits, while it does not compel, the conclusion that the issue of the union's late filing of its arbitration request was in fact raised. No transcript of the underlying hearing was produced.
Plaintiff produced no evidence at the August 1 hearing that Laidlaw had ever waived the 30 arbitration rule in writing.
See also Fraund v. Design Ideas, Inc.,
For the above reasons, Defendant's Motion to Vacate is denied. The award of the panel is confirmed.
DOUGLAS S. LAVINE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT