Legal Opinion · Dissent
State v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 2663
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided September 12, 2000No. AC 19209Published
1DissentLandau, J.
I agree with the majority that there is an explicit, well defined and dominant public policy in this jurisdiction for the department of children and families (department) to provide a wide range of services to children in need of them. See General Statutes § 17a-3.1 I do not agree, however, on the facts before this court, that an arbitration award reinstating the giievant to his position as a driver for the department violates that explicit public policy and that the award should be vacated pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418 (a) (4). Consequently, I dissent because (1) the trial court did…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Schoonmaker v. Cummings & Lockwood of Connecticut, P.C.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Watertown Police Union Local 541 v. Town of WatertownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- City of Waterbury v. Waterbury Police UnionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.