In a case arising from a labor dispute, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the 30-day statutory deadline for challenging arbitration awards applies to public policy challenges even though violation of public policy is not a statutory ground for vacatur. In reaching its decision, the Court distinguished its prior holding that the deadline does not apply where a party has challenged an award on the basis that there is no arbitration agreement.

In Town of Bloomfield v. United Electrical, No. 17862, 2008 WL 221213 (Conn. Jan. 29, 2007), the Town of Bloomfield (Town) fired a police officer for allegedly fabricating witness statements and lying in a police report. The Police Union filed a grievance on behalf of the officer.

The grievance was ultimately resolved by a three-member arbitration panel, who reduced the officer's penalty to a suspension on the basis that termination was inconsistent with previous disciplinary action. The Town received notice of the award on December 30, 2005.

On February 2, 2006, the Town filed an application to vacate the award. The Union moved to dismiss the application as untimely under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-420(b), which requires an application for vacatur to be made within thirty days of notice of the award. The trial court vacated the award on public policy grounds.

On appeal, the Union again argued that the Town's application for vacatur was untimely. In response, the Town argued that the statutory deadline for challenging awards does not apply where a party is challenging an award on common law, non-statutory grounds such as public policy.

The Court relied on the breadth of the statutory language in holding that the statutory deadline does apply to public policy challenges. In reaching this holding, the Court explained that a contrary conclusion "would undermine the legislature's well established support of arbitration as a mechanism for the inexpensive and expedient resolution of private disputes."

In arguing its position, the Town relied largely on MBNA American Bank, N.A. v. Boata, 926 A.2d 1035 (2007), in which the Court held that the statutory deadline does not apply where a party is challenging an award on the basis that no arbitration agreement existed. The Court distinguished Boata on the ground that the existence of an arbitration agreement is a prerequisite to confirmation.

Since the statutory deadline applied to the Town's public policy challenge, the Court remanded the matter with instructions to grant the Union's motion to dismiss.