Legal Opinion
Borough of Naugatuck v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1303
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 14, 1983No. 10558PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGrillo, J.
The facts culminating in the present appeal are not in dispute. On September 30, 1979, the CETA (Comprehensive Employment Training Act) eligibility of the individual defendant, Richard Brown, having allegedly expired, his employment was terminated by the plaintiff Borough of Naugatuck (hereinafter the borough). Local 1303, Council #4, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (hereinafter the union), formally protested the termination of Brown pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement in effect between the borough and the union. The grievance was rejected by…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Carroll v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Board of Education v. Bridgeport Education Assn.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- City of New Britain v. Connecticut State Board of Mediation & ArbitrationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- State v. Connecticut Employees Union IndependentSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Conte v. City of NorwalkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
3Cited by18 opinions
- Board of Education v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 287Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Daley v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- L & R Realty v. Connecticut National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Daginella v. Foremost InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Coldwell Banker Manning Realty, Inc. v. Cushman & WakefieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.