source: Caselaw Access Project

author: KATZ, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION ET AL. STATE BOARD OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION ET AL.
    (SC 15565)
    Borden, Berdon, Katz, Palmer and McDonald, Js.
    Argued January 15
    officially released April 14, 1998

      Victor R. Perpetua, appellate counsel, with whom, on the brief, were Mitchell W. Pearlman, general counsel, and Justine C. Rakich-Kelly and Joan M. Andrews, commission counsel, for the appellant (freedom of information commission).

      Laurie Adler, assistant attorney general, with whom were Jaye Bailey Zanta, Jason W. Cohen and, on the brief, Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, Charles A. Overend, assistant attorney general, and Joseph M. Celentano, for the appellees (state board of labor relations, state board of mediation and arbitration, and AFSCME, Council 4, AFL-CIO).
   Opinion

KATZ, J.

The sole issue to be decided in this certified appeal is whether grievance arbitration proceedings before the plaintiff state board of mediation and arbitration (mediation board) are excluded from the definition of “meeting” set forth in General Statutes § l-18a (b) of the Freedom of Information Act (act); General Statutes § 1-7 et seq.; either because they involve strategy or negotiation with respect to collective bargaining, or because the confidentiality requirement of General Statutes § 31-100 precludes the proceedings from being open to the public. The defendant, M. Jeffrey Spahr, deputy corporation counsel for the city of Norwalk, a party to a grievance arbitration pending before the mediation board, sought permission to tape-record the arbitration proceedings. When the mediation board denied him permission, Spahr requested, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-176, that the named defendant, the freedom of information commission (commission), issue an advisory opinion regarding the legality of the mediation board’s policy prohibiting the tape-recording of grievance arbitration proceedings. The commission issued an advisory opinion on February 26,1991, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-176 (e), concluding that the mediation board’s policy constituted a violation of the act. The mediation board, and the intervening plaintiff, the state board of labor relations (labor relations board), appealed from the decision reached by the commission in its advisory opinion to the trial court in two separate appeals pursuant to General Statutes §§ 4-176 (h), 4-183, and l-21i (d). The trial court sustained the appeals, and rendered judgments ordering that the advisory opinion be set aside, vacated and rescinded. The commission appealed from the trial court judgments to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgments. State Board of Labor Relations v. Freedom of Information Commission, 43 Conn. App. 133, 682 A.2d 1068 (1996). Thereafter, we granted the commission’s petitions for certification limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that grievance arbitration proceedings before the state board of mediation and.arbitration are not ‘meetings’ within the meaning of General Statutes § l-18a (b)?” State Board of Labor Relations v. Freedom of Information Commission, 239 Conn. 940, 684 A.2d 712 (1996). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history. “On January 28, 1991, M. Jeffrey Spahr, deputy corporation counsel for the city of Norwalk (city), requested an advisory opinion . . . from the [commission] regarding the propriety of the mediation board’s policy of refusing to permit the parties to an arbitration proceeding to tape-record such proceedings. Spahr’s request was precipitated by the ruling of an arbitrator who presided over a grievance arbitration proceeding between the city and the police union, and would not permit Spahr to tape-record the proceedings.

“In his letter to the [commission], Spahr contended that, because the mediation board was a public agency within the meaning of § l-18a (a), and because arbitration hearings are public meetings within the meaning of General Statutes § 1-21 (a), the ‘clear and unambiguous provisions’ of [General Statutes] § 1-2 la (a) apply to grievance arbitration hearings and thereby render illegal the [mediation] board’s policy of refusing to permit the parties to a mediation board hearing to tape-record the proceedings. The [commission] granted Spahr’s request and conducted a hearing on July 30, 1991. At the hearing, the [labor relations board] appeared and was granted permission by the [commission] to intervene as an interested party. Both boards contended that grievance arbitration proceedings are not subject to the recording provisions of the [act], General Statutes § 1-15 et seq.

“Subsequently, on February 19, 1992, the [commission] issued a ruling in which it concluded that ‘arbitration hearings are neither strategy nor negotiation sessions’ with respect to collective bargaining and that ‘the [mediation board’s] policies prohibiting the tape recording of its arbitration hearings violate, and are superseded by, the provisions of the [act].’ The [commission] also concluded that, although arbitration hearings are public meetings within the meaning of the act, the [mediation] board ‘may certainly convene in executive session in those instances permitted under [the act].’ The [commission] decided that the request for an advisory opinion did not necessitate a finding as to ‘whether a tape recording of an arbitration hearing, kept by the [mediation board], is subject to public disclosure under [the act].’

“Although the mediation board and the [labor relations board] appealed separately to the Superior Court, the trial court consolidated the appeals because they involved the same administrative proceeding. On January 6, 1995, the court issued separate memoranda of decision sustaining [their] appeals. In the mediation board’s appeal, the court concluded, inter alia, that ‘arbitration hearings are not meetings within the purview of § l-18a (b)’ and ordered the [commission’s] advisory opinion ‘set aside, vacated and rescinded.’ The trial court sustained the appeal of the [labor relations board] ‘for the reasons recited’ in the related appeal.” State Board of Labor Relations v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 43 Conn. App. 135-36.

In its appeals to this court, the commission claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that grievance arbitration proceedings conducted by the mediation board pursuant to General Statutes § 31-91 et seq. are not public meetings within the meaning of § l-18a (b) and, therefore, are not governed by the recording provisions of the act. Specifically, the commission argues that grievance arbitration proceedings are not excluded from the definition of a meeting pursuant to § l-18a (b) as strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining. Conversely, the mediation board and the labor relations board contend that grievance arbitration proceedings are labor disputes that necessarily involve negotiations and strategy discussions related to the collective bargaining process and, as such, are excluded from the definition of meetings under § l-18a (b).

Further, the mediation board and the labor relations board contend that alternate grounds exist upon which the Appellate Court judgment may be affirmed. In that regard, they argue that even if grievance arbitration proceedings do not involve strategy or negotiation so as to exclude them from the definition of meetings under § l-18a (b), such proceedings in any event are not meetings because § 31-100 exempts them from the open meeting requirements of the act. The commission concluded, in its advisory opinion, however, that § 31-100 does not exempt grievance arbitration proceedings from the open meeting requirements of the act. Neither the trial court nor the Appellate Court addressed whether and to what extent § 31-100 bears upon the issue in this case. We conclude that § 31-100 exempts grievance arbitration proceedings from the open meeting requirements of the act, and that as a result such proceedings are not meetings within the meaning of § 1-18a (b). Therefore, we do not address the commission’s first argument.

The standard of review in appeals from the decisions of administrative agencies is clearly delineated. “Judicial review of [an administrative agency’s] action is governed by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (General Statutes, c. 54, §§ 4-166 through 4-189) and the scope of that review is very restricted.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) New Haven v. Freedom of Information Commission, 205 Conn. 767, 773, 535 A.2d 1297 (1988). “With regard to questions of fact, it is neither the function of the trial court nor of this court ‘to retry the case or to substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency.’ ” Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care, 200 Conn. 489, 496, 512 A.2d 199, appeal dismissed, 479 U.S. 1023, 107 S. Ct. 781, 93 L. Ed. 2d 819 (1986). “Judicial review of the conclusions of law reached administratively is also limited. The court’s ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the [agency] has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. “Although the interpretation of statutes is ultimately a question of law . . . it is the well established practice of this court to accord great deference to the construction given [a] statute by the agency charged with its enforcement.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. “Conclusions of law reached by the administrative agency must stand if the court determines that they resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found and could reasonably and logically follow from such facts.” New Haven v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 774.

In this case, whether grievance arbitration proceedings are meetings within the meaning of § l-18a (b) is a matter of statutory interpretation and, as such, constitutes a question of law. State v. Burns, 236 Conn. 18, 22, 670 A.2d 851 (1996). Specifically, the statutory scheme upon which the commission relies in arguing that grievance arbitration proceedings are public meetings that the mediation board must allow to be recorded involves a number of interrelated statutory provisions, not all of which are charged to the commission for enforcement. Therefore, we do not accord any special deference to the commission’s interpretation of the overall statutory scheme. Doe v. Stamford, 241 Conn. 692, 697, 699 A.2d 52 (1997). Instead, our analysis is guided solely by the traditional, well established principles of statutory construction that apply in all cases turning upon the interpretation of statutes.

“[T]he process of statutory interpretation involves a reasoned search for the intention of the legislature.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ledbetter, 240 Conn. 317, 327, 692 A.2d 713 (1997). “In seeking to discern that intent, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter. . . . Furthermore, [we] presume that laws are enacted in view of existing relevant statutes . . . and that [statutes are to be interpreted with regard to other relevant statutes because the legislature is presumed to have created a consistent body of law.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Conway v. Wilton, 238 Conn. 653, 663-64, 680 A.2d 242 (1996). “[N]o part of a legislative enactment is to be treated as insignificant or unnecessary, and there is a presumption of purpose behind every sentence, clause or phrase . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ayala, 222 Conn. 331, 346, 610 A.2d 1162 (1992). Statutes are to be construed “in a manner that will not thwart [their] intended purpose or lead to absurd results.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Coley v. Camden Associates, Inc., 243 Conn. 311, 319, 702 A.2d 1180 (1997). “The law favors a rational statutory construction and we presume that the legislature intended a sensible result.” Stale v. Par-malee, 197 Conn. 158, 165, 496 A.2d 186 (1985).

The provisions upon which the commission primarily relies are §§ l-18a, 1-21, and l-21a. Section l-18a (b) defines “meeting” as “any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency ... to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.” The provision excludes from that definition, however, any “strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining . . . .” Section 1-21 (a) provides in relevant part that “[t]he meetings of all public agencies . . . shall be open to the public . . . .” Section l-21a (a) provides in relevant part that “[a]t any meeting of a public agency which is open to the public . . . proceedings of such public agency may be recorded ... by any person . . . .”

The commission contends that grievance arbitration proceedings are meetings as that term is defined by § 1-18a (b), and that, therefore, they must be open to the public pursuant to § 1-21 (a), and may be recorded by any person pursuant to § 1-2la (a). It is apparent from the plain language of these provisions that, if the grievance arbitration proceedings at issue here constitute meetings within the meaning of § l-18a (b), they must be open to the public and recording must be allowed. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ second argument essentially raises the question of whether, in light of the requirement of § 31-100 that the mediation board hold confidential all information submitted to it by the parties to a labor dispute, the proceedings constitute meetings that necessarily would be open to the public. For a number of reasons, we conclude that the confidentiality requirement of § 31-100 exempts grievance arbitration proceedings from the definition of meetings set forth in § l-18a (b).

First, an obvious conflict would arise between § 31-100 and § 1-21 (a) if we were to conclude that grievance arbitration proceedings are meetings within the definition of § l-18a (b). Section 31-100 requires the mediation board to “hold confidential all information submitted to it by any party to a labor dispute . . . .” Neither that section nor any other provision of chapter 560 of the General Statutes, which governs the mediation board, defines the term “information.” In the absence of a statutorily provided definition, however, “words and phrases shall be construed according to the commonly approved usage of the language . . . .” General Statutes § 1-1. In its commonly used form, “information” includes orally imparted communications as well as communications that are written or recorded. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (“information” is “knowledge communicated by others or obtained from investigation [or] study”; to “communicate” is to “speak, gesticulate, or write to another to convey information”). Therefore, we inteipret § 31-100 to require that the mediation board hold confidential all information submitted to it orally at grievance arbitration proceedings, as well as all information submitted to it in written or recorded form. It follows that if grievance arbitration proceedings are meetings within the meaning of § l-18a (b), the confidentiality requirement of § 31-100 will directly conflict with the open meeting requirement of § 1-21 (a), and it will be impossible for the mediation board to adhere to one provision without violating the other. Section 31-100, therefore, provides a strong indication that grievance arbitration proceedings are not to be conducted publicly. In turn, that result indicates that grievance arbitration proceedings are not meetings, because meetings, pursuant to § 1-21 (a), must be open to the public.

Although the commission suggests that § 31-100 should be interpreted to require only that written and recorded submissions to the board be held confidential, we do not find that argument persuasive. First, we can conceive of no legal or logical reason to distinguish between written and recorded submissions and information conveyed orally. In Glastonbury Education Assn. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 35 Conn. App. 111, 117 n.10, 643 A.2d 1320 (1994), aff'd, 234 Conn. 704, 663 A.2d 349 (1995), the Appellate Court found that there is “no legal difference between a written document and the same information in oral form,” and determined that “[c]onstancy and logic demand that they be treated in the same manner.” We agree with that conclusion.

Second, even if we were to interpret § 31-100 as requiring only that written and recorded information submitted to the mediation board be held confidential, it would nevertheless be impossible to maintain the confidentiality of that information if grievance arbitration proceedings were conducted publicly. Much of the information conveyed orally during the proceedings can be expected to be identical to information submitted in written or recorded form. As a result, the substance of the written or recorded submissions likely would be revealed publicly through oral repetition of the same information if the grievance arbitration proceedings were open to the public. In that case, no purpose would be served by the confidentiality requirement of § 31-100, because the protection afforded the written or recorded information would be defeated when that same information was subject to disclosure at the proceedings. Such a result would violate the well established principles of statutory construction that statutes must be interpreted under the assumption that the legislature “did not intend to enact meaningless provisions”; (internal quotation marks omitted) Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Truelove & Maclean, Inc., 238 Conn. 337, 347, 680 A.2d 1261 (1996); and “that no part of a legislative enactment is to be treated as insignificant or unnecessary, and there is a presumption of purpose behind every sentence, clause or phrase . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ayala, supra, 222 Conn. 346.

An interpretation of the statutory scheme that would have § 1-21 (a) defeat the confidentiality purpose of § 31-100 would also violate another well settled rule of statutory construction, namely, that “[statutes are to be construed consistently with other relevant statutes, because we presume that the legislature intended to create a coherent body of law.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Bruce R., 234 Conn. 194, 207, 662 A.2d 107 (1995). Specifically, in reconciling apparently conflicting statutory provisions, we presume that subsequent enactments were enacted in light of already existing relevant statutes as part of a consistent body of law. Caulkins v. Petrillo, 200 Conn. 713, 718, 513 A.2d 43 (1986). Section 31-100 predates the first public meetings act, No. 468 of the 1957 Public Acts, from which § 1-21 (a) derives. In addition, neither the first public meetings act nor any of its subsequent amendments refer to § 31-100. Therefore, we infer that § 1-21 (a) was not intended to overrule the confidentiality requirement of § 31-100. Accordingly, in order to interpret the act consistently with § 31-100, which predates the act, we conclude that grievance arbitration proceedings are not meetings under § l-18a (b) that, pursuant to § 1-21 (a), must be open to the public.

Our interpretation is further supported by the fact that an untenable result would follow if we were to conclude that grievance arbitration proceedings are meetings to which both § 31-100 and § 1-21 (a) apply. Because we have already determined that in that situation the two provisions would directly conflict, making it impossible for the mediation board to abide by both directives, we reasonably cannot presume that such an irrational result could have been intended by the legislature. “[I]f there are two possible interpretations of a statute [or statutory scheme] and one alternative proves unreasonable or produces the possibility of bizarre results, then the more reasonable alternative should be adopted.” State v. Parmalee, supra, 197 Conn. 165. In this case, the only interpretation of the statutory scheme that is reasonable is that grievance arbitration proceedings are not meetings under § l-18a (b).

Finally, this interpretation furthers the goals of the legislation that provides for the grievance arbitration process before the mediation board, without impeding in any way the legislature’s intent in enacting General Statutes § 1-15 et seq. General Statutes § 31-97 provides for the submission of grievances and disputes between an employer and an employee to the mediation board for resolution upon payment of a $25 filing fee. The testimony at trial indicated that the low cost associated with this method of conflict resolution is a major factor motivating parties to choose arbitration before the mediation board over private arbitration, which they are also free to choose. It is not disputed that arbitration conducted with private arbitrators may be closed to the public. If proceedings before the mediation board were required to be conducted publicly, there would be a significant difference between arbitration before that body and privately conducted arbitration. Indeed, the testimony at trial indicated that requiring proceedings before the mediation board to be open to the public would create a significant deterrent to parties considering arbitration before the mediation board. This, in turn, would work to defeat the legislature’s goal of providing low cost arbitration services as an effective alternative to private arbitrators to facilitate the resolution of labor disputes.

Concomitantly, an interpretation of § l-18a (b) that excludes grievance arbitration proceedings from the definition of meetings does not impede the goals underlying the act. The act was enacted for the purpose of assuring public access to information relating to the activities of public agencies. Although the legislature specifically exempted certain types of activities from the definition of meeting under § l-18a (b), it did not specifically mention grievance arbitration proceedings in that subsection. We presume, however, that it enacted § l-18a (b) with knowledge of the existence of § 31-100. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Truelove & Maclean, Inc., supra, 238 Conn. 337. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the legislature decided that the benefit associated with the confidentiality of grievance arbitration proceedings outweighed the benefit to be derived from granting public access to these proceedings, and, consequently, it did not amend or overrule § 31-100 so as to include grievance arbitration proceedings within the definition of meeting under § l-18a (b). Thus, the exclusion of grievance arbitration proceedings from the definition of meeting is within the contemplation of the act.

In the advisory opinion it issued in this matter, the commission based its conclusion that § 31-100 does not exempt grievance arbitration proceedings from the open meeting requirements of the act upon the fact that neither § 31-100 nor any other statute explicitly provides that such proceedings are not to be open to the public, and there is nothing further in chapter 560, governing mediation and arbitration before the mediation board, to so indicate. In light of our preceding discussion, however, we do not find the absence of an explicit statement that the proceedings are to be closed to the public to be dispositive. The explicit requirement of confidentiality is sufficient to compel that result.

The commission also noted that it could not locate any cases addressing the applicability of § 31-100 to grievance arbitration proceedings and did not believe that it made sense to apply § 31-100 to the proceedings due to the fact that both sides present evidence during the proceedings that is seen and heard by the other side. The fact that each party will be exposed to the other party’s evidence during the proceedings does not mean that no purpose can be served by the confidentiality requirement. Here, it is the public that the mediation board and the labor relations board seek to exclude from the proceedings, not an opposing party to a labor dispute.

We conclude that § 31-100 excludes grievance arbitration proceedings before the mediation board from the definition of meeting provided for in § l-18a (b) of the act. Therefore, the open meeting requirements of § 1-21 (a) and the recording provisions of § l-21a (a) of the act are inapplicable to such proceedings.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       The mediation board, established pursuant to General Statutes § 31-91, performs the duties of conciliation, mediation and arbitration for the purpose of resolving labor disputes. General Statutes § 31-93.

       General Statutes § l-18a (b) provides: “ ‘Meeting’ means any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of amultimember public agency, whether in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power. ‘Meeting’ shall not include: Any meeting of a personnel search committee for executive level employment candidates; any chance meeting, or a social meeting neither planned nor intended for the purpose of discussing matters relating to official business; strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining; a caucus of members of a single political party notwithstanding that such members also constitute a quorum of a public agency; an administrative or staff meeting of a single-member public agency; and communication limited to notice of meetings of any public agency or the agendas thereof. ‘Caucus’ means a convening or assembly of the enrolled members of a single political party who are members of apublic agency within the state or apolitical subdivision.”

       General Statutes § 31-100 provides: “Annual report. Confidential information. Said board [of mediation and arbitration] shall, as provided in section 4-60, make a report to the Governor and shall include therein statements of such facts and explanations as will disclose the actual doings of the board and such suggestions as to legislation as seem to it conducive to harmony in the relations between employers and employees. The board shall hold confidential all information submitted to it by any party to a labor dispute and shall not reveal such information unless specifically authorized to do so by such party.”

       General Statutes § 4-176 (a) provides in relevant part: “Any person may petition an agency . . . for a declaratory ruling as to the validity of any regulation, or the applicability to specified circumstances of a provision of the general statutes, a regulation, or a final decision on a matter within the jurisdiction of an agency.”

       In addition to Spahr and the commission, Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO was also named as a defendant in the second case. Only the commission, however, has appealed.

       General Statutes § 4-176 (e) provides: “Within sixty days after receipt of a petition for a declaratory ruling, an agency in writing shall: (1) Issue a ruling declaring the validity of a regulation or the applicability of the provision of the general statutes, the regulation, or the final decision in question to the specified circumstances, (2) order the matter set for specified proceedings, (3) agree to issue a declaratory ruling by a specified date, (4) decide not to issue a declaratory ruling and initiate regulation-making proceedings, under section 4-168, on the subject, or (5) decide not to issue a declaratory ruling, stating the reason for its action.”

       Because the issues raised in each appeal are identical, we have consolidated the appeals for the purposes of this opinion.

       General Statutes § l-18a (a) provides in relevant part: “ ‘Public agency’ or ‘agency’ means any executive, administrative or legislative office of the state . . .

       General Statutes § 1-21 (a) provides in relevant part: “The meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions as defined in subsection (e) of section l-18a, shall be open to the public. . . .’’

       General Statutes § l-21a (a) provides in relevant part: “At any meeting of a public agency which is open to the public, pursuant to the provisions of section 1-21, proceedings of such public agency may be recorded, photographed, broadcast or recorded for broadcast, subject to such rules as such public agency may have prescribed prior to such meeting, by any person or by any newspaper, radio broadcasting company or television broadcasting company. ...”

       See footnote 2 of this opinion.

       See footnote 3 of this opinion.

       Section 31-100 was enacted in 1949; see General Statutes (1949 Rev.) § 7387; while the first public meetings act,, No. 468 of the 1957 Public Acts, was passed in 1957.

       In this opinion, we determine only that grievance arbitration proceedings are not meetings under § l-18a (b), and that the declaratory ruling of the commission is, therefore, not binding. We do not address whether the mediation board’s policy of prohibiting the tape-recording of such proceedings is appropriate pursuant to § 31-100.


author: PETERS, J.

text:
    CZESLAW HERMAN v. SHERWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.
    (SC 15836)
    Callahan, C. J., and Berdon, Norcott, Palmer and Peters, Js.
    Argued February 18
    officially released April 21, 1998

      Daniel A. Silver, for the appellant (claimant).

      Joseph E. Shelly, Jr., for the appellees (respondents).
   Opinion

PETERS, J.

The Workers’ Compensation Act (act); General Statutes § 31-275 et seq.; provides coverage for an injury suffered by a worker “in the course of his employment.” The issue in this appeal is whether a worker qualifies for such coverage if he is injured immediately after the termination of his employment, while still at his former employer’s place of business. We conclude that, in the circumstances of this case, such an injury is compensable.

The claimant, Czeslaw Herman, filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits for injuries that he allegedly had received, immediately after his discharge from employment, as a result of retrieving a box containing his personal tools from the loading dock of his former employer, the respondent Sherwood Industries, Inc. (Sherwood). Ruling on the basis of stipulated facts, the workers’ compensation commissioner for the sixth district (commissioner) decided that, at the time of the claimant’s injury, he was on Sherwood’s premises “within the course of his employment.” On appeal, however, the compensation review board (board) reversed, concluding that the claimant was ineligible for workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant appealed to the Appellate Court and we transferred his appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 65-1, and General Statutes § 51-199 (c). We reverse the decision of the board.

There is no factual dispute. For nine years, Sherwood had employed the claimant as a machinist. During his employment, the claimant kept some of his own tools at Sherwood’s place of business to supplement those supplied by Sherwood.

On July 8, 1994, Sherwood terminated the claimant’s employment. On the afternoon of the same day, the claimant attended a termination meeting at Sherwood’s personnel office. At that meeting, Sherwood’s personnel officer conducted an exit interview and gave the claimant a layoff slip and a copy of an exit interview check list. Also at the termination meeting, the personnel officer informed the claimant that he could retrieve his personal tool box from the Sherwood loading dock, where it had been placed by Sherwood’s foreman. Thereafter, in order to retrieve his tool box, the claimant was escorted from the personnel office to the loading dock, which stands about four to five feet high. The claimant alleges that he suffered a lumbar spine injury while he was lifting his tool box off the loading dock.

On appeal to this court, the claimant challenges, on two grounds, the board’s determination of his ineligibility for workers’ compensation benefits. He argues that: (1) his injury arose in the course of his employment with Sherwood as that term is defined by § 31-275 (1) and our case law; and (2) that his case is factually distinguishable from the decision of the Appellate Court in Fulco v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 27 Conn. App. 800, 609 A.2d 1034 (1992), appeal dismissed, 226 Conn. 404, 627 A.2d 931 (1993). Sherwood disputes these contentions and urges us to recognize and implement a general legislative policy, manifested specifically by the 1993 enactment of § 31-275 (16) (B) (i) and (iii), that the definition of “scope of employment” must be construed narrowly. We agree with the arguments presented by the claimant and are unpersuaded by Sherwood’s policy argument in the present context.

The parties do not contest the underlying principle of workers’ compensation law that we must apply to the facts of this case. A claimant who asserts that he or she is entitled to workers’ compensation bears the burden of proving that the injury: (1) arose out of the employment; and (2) occurred in the course of the employment within the meaning of § 31-275 (1). McNamara v. Hamden, 176 Conn. 547, 550, 398 A.2d 1161 (1979); see also Mazzone v. Connecticut Transit Co., 240 Conn. 788, 792, 694 A.2d 1230 (1997). “The former requirement relates to the origin and cause of the accident, while the latter requirement ‘relates to the time, place and [circumstance] of the accident.’ ” Mazzone v. Connecticut Transit Co., supra, 792-93.

In this case, as in both McNamara and Mazzone, the claimant, Sherwood and the board have focused on the second part of the test. “Although the parties repeatedly recite both parts of the test in support of their respective arguments, their unelaborated references to the ‘arising out of language are merely incidental to the issue that lies at the crux of their dispute, and at the heart of the commissioner’s and the board’s decisions, namely, whether the claimant was ‘in the course of his employment’ at the time of his injury. ‘Thus, we will confine our discussion and review to that element in deciding this case.’ ” Id., 793.

An injury occurs in the course of the employment if it takes place: (1) within the period of the employment; (2) at a place the employee reasonably may be; and (3) while the employee reasonably is fulfilling the duties of the employment or doing something incidental to it. Id., 791. Only the first and third factors of the “course of employment” test are at issue in this case. The second prong of the test is satisfied by the undisputed fact that Sherwood’s loading dock was a place where Sherwood reasonably could expect to find its employees. Accordingly, we need decide only the remaining issues, namely, whether: (1) the claimant’s alleged posttermination injury occurred within the period of his employment with Sherwood; and (2) the claimant’s removal of his tool box was an activity incidental to his employment with Sherwood. Contrary to the board, we conclude that, in the circumstances of this case, both of these issues should be decided in favor of the claimant.

I

The first issue that we must resolve is whether the claimant’s alleged injury occurred within the period of his employment by Sherwood. In determining that it did not do so, the board relied principally on a decision of the Appellate Court. Fulco v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., supra, 27 Conn. App. 800. In addition, it concluded that the enactment of § 31-275 (16) (B) (iii) manifested a legislative policy favoring a narrow construction of the “scope of employment” period. Finally, it observed that ineligibility for workers’ compensation did not leave the claimant without a remedy because he could seek damages by filing a personal injury action sounding in negligence. We are persuaded that Fulco v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., supra, 800, does not control this case.

Fulco v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., supra, 27 Conn. App. 800, arose in the context of a plaintiffs tort action claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from the manner in which his employment had been terminated by the defendant. The Appellate Court determined that the plaintiffs tort claim could proceed because it was not barred by the exclusivity provision of the act. Id., 807. The court noted that “the plaintiff alleged that his emotional distress arose out of his discharge, not out of the conditions of his employment. Thus, the earliest time that the plaintiffs injury could have arisen was immediately after his discharge. It is impossible for the injury to have arisen during the period of his employment because his employment necessarily terminated before the alleged injury arose.” Id., 808.

The factual circumstances of the physical injury allegedly sustained by the claimant distinguish it from the circumstances of Fulco. We are not adjudicating the validity of a claim for compensation because of a delayed psychological reaction to the fact of discharge from employment. The claimant in this case was retrieving tools used on the job from the employer’s work site at a time that was in close temporal proximity to the termination of his employment. If we were to conclude that “the period of employment” ends abruptly and categorically at the instant of discharge from employment, we would be doing violence to the humanitarian purpose of the act. See Gil v. Courthouse One, 239 Conn. 676, 682, 687 A.2d 146 (1997); Weinberg v. ARA Vending Co., 223 Conn. 336, 341, 612 A.2d 1203 (1992); Dubois v. General Dynamics Corp., 222 Conn. 62, 67, 607 A.2d 431 (1992). Pursuant to the act and our decisions, the period of time during which the claimant allegedly was injured does not deprive him of the protection of his workers’ compensation safety net.

Authority from other jurisdictions supports the conclusion that we have reached. Courts around the country have held that “an employee who has been discharged and sustains injury while in the process of leaving the job site is still an employee for the purpose of compensation coverage.” Mitchell v. Hizer, 73 Cal. App. 3d 499, 504-505, 140 Cal. Rptr. 790 (1977). In the case of a roofer who was injured falling off of a plank walkway, immediately after he had been discharged, the Oklahoma Supreme Court concluded that the roofer was entitled to workers’ compensation. The court noted that “the employee generally is held to be within the course of employment for a reasonable period while he finishes his affairs and leaves the premises.” Leonhardt Enterprises v. Houseman, 562 P.2d 515, 518 (Okla. 1977). Similarly, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that an employee was entitled to compensation for an injury incurred when he slipped and fell in the employer’s parking lot while leaving the premises after he had been discharged. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Rodriguez, 97 Or. App. 500, 502, 776 P.2d 588 (1989).

Professor Arthur Larson has discussed the rationale for the rule adopted by these courts. He writes that “[c]ompensation coverage is not automatically and instantaneously terminated by the firing or quitting of the employee.” 2 A. Larson & L. Larson, Workers’ Compensation (1997) § 26.10, p. 5-329. Rather, “[h]e or she is deemed to be within the course of employment for a reasonable period while winding up his or her affairs and leaving the premises.” Id.

Accordingly, we are persuaded that a claimant is entitled to workers’ compensation for an injury that was incurred while leaving the job site immediately after the termination of his or her employment. Under the facts of this case, this claimant’s injury occurred during the period of his employment.

II

We next consider whether the claimant’s alleged injury occurred in the course of an activity incidental to his employment. In Mazzone v. Connecticut Transit Co., supra, 240 Conn. 791, we stated that employer-sanctioned activities are incidental to employment if they occur on the employer’s premises and if they contribute to the benefit and convenience of both the employer and the employee. Id., 795. Thus, we concluded that an employee eating lunch was engaged in a compensable activity incidental to his employment. Id. We reasoned that “[a]cts of ministration by a servant to himself, such as . . . relieving his hunger . . . performance of which while at work are reasonably necessary to his health and comfort, are incidents to his employment . . . though they are only indirectly conducive to the purpose of the employment.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. In particular, we noted that the mutually beneficial activity at issue had been permitted by the employer. Id., 795 n.4.

In light of this authority, the claimant has demonstrated factually that he was engaged in an activity incidental to his employment. With Sherwood’s acquiescence, he kept his tools at Sherwood’s premises for the mutual benefit of both parties, but principally in order to perform work for Sherwood. In accordance with instructions from Sheiwood’s personnel officer, he undertook to retrieve these tools from the Sherwood loading dock. Sherwood has not argued and the record does not indicate that Sherwood presented him with any other alternative for regaining his tools, such as having them delivered to his home at Sherwood’s expense. On this factual record, we conclude that the claimant’s retrieval of his tools was an activity incidental to his employment within the meaning of the act.

III

Finally, we address briefly Sherwood’s contention that, in construing “in the course of his employment,” we must consider the policy implications of the 1993 legislative amendments of the act. Sherwood points specifically to § 31-275 (16) (B) (i), which bars compensation for injuries incurred during an employee’s voluntary participation in a social or recreational activity, and to § 31-275 (16) (B) (iii), which bars compensation for mental or emotional impairment sustained as a result of demotion or termination. Public Acts 1993, No. 93-228, § 1. These enactments, it contends, demonstrate the legislature’s intent that a worker’s eligibility for compensation should now be construed narrowly.

We disagree with Sherwood’s contention for two reasons. First, as a general matter, the humanitarian and remedial purposes of the act counsel against an overly narrow construction that unduly limits eligibility for workers’ compensation. Gil v. Courthouse One, supra, 239 Conn. 682; Weinberg v. ARA Vending Co., supra, 223 Conn. 341; Dubois v. General Dynamics Corp., supra, 222 Conn. 67. Second, “[a]lthough the parties have called our attention to the public policy implications of this case, the issue presented is, at bottom, a matter of statutory construction.” Doe v. Stamford, 241 Conn. 692, 697, 699 A.2d 52 (1997).

The legislative history of Public Acts 1993, No. 93-228 does not illuminate the dispute before us. The very specificity of the amendments that the legislature chose to adopt counsels against drawing wide-ranging implications from their text. It is telling that, in § 31-275 (16) (B) (iii), the legislature excluded only specified kinds of injuries from the category of a “personal injury” allegedly resulting from an adverse personnel action, such as dismissal. Although the legislature excluded coverage for “a mental or emotional impairment” resulting from dismissals, it did not address physical injuries arising in the context of an employer’s personnel action. Furthermore, in enacting § 31-275 (16) (B), the legislature did not narrow the broad definition of “personal injury” that is contained in § 31-275 (16) (A). Accordingly, we adhere to our previous holdings that we do not construe the act to impose limitations on benefits that the act itself does not specify clearly. Doe v. Stamford, supra, 241 Conn. 698; Misenti v. International Silver Co., 215 Conn. 206, 210, 575 A.2d 690 (1990).

In summation, we conclude that the claimant in this case sustained his alleged injury in the coruse of his employment within the meaning of § 31-275 (1). Despite Sherwood’s formal termination of his employment, at the time of his accident, he was still within the period of his employment and his conduct in retrieving his tools from Sherwood’s loading dock was incidental to his employment. In light of the facts, the applicable statutory language and our recent decision in Mazzone v. Connecticut Transit Co., supra, 240 Conn. 791, we are unpersuaded by the contrary decision of the board or by Sherwood’s arguments to the same effect.

The judgment of the board is reversed and the case is remanded to the board with direction to affirm the decision of the commissioner.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       General Statutes § 31-275 (1) provides in relevant part: “ ‘Arising out of and in the course of his employment’ means an accidental injury happening to an employee or an occupational disease of an employee originating while he has been engaged in the line of his duty in the business or affairs of the employer upon the employer’s premises, or while engaged elsewhere upon the employer’s business or affairs by the direction, express or implied, of the employer . . . .”

       In all the relevant proceedings, the respondents included not only Sherwood but also The Hartford Insurance Group. Because the respondents have filed a joint brief in this court that contains nothing to suggest a diversity of interest between them, we will refer to them, in the singular, as Sherwood.

       General Statutes § 51-199 (c) provides in relevant part: “The Supreme Court may transfer to itself a cause in the Appellate Court. . . .”

       General Statutes § 31-275 (16) (B) provides in relevant part: “ ‘Personal injury’ or ‘injury’ shall not be construed to include:
      “(i) An injury to an employee which results from his voluntary participation in any activity the major purpose of which is social or recreational, including, but not limited to, athletic events, parties and picnics, whether or not the employer pays some or all of the cost of such activity . . .
      “(iii) A mental or emotional impairment which results from a personnel action, including, but not limited to, a transfer, promotion, demotion or termination.”

       We recognize that the enactment of § 31-275 (16) (B) (i) raises questions about the continued viability of the McNamara decision with respect to the facts of that case. See remarks of Representative Lucien A. Dimeo on House Bill 7172, enacted as Public Acts 1993, No. 93-228. 36 H.R. Proc., Pt. 18, 1993 Sess., pp. 6201-6202. Nevertheless, the general principles outlined in that opinion are still applicable.

       At oral argument, Sherwood’s counsel conceded that, following his discharge, the claimant remained on Sherwood’s premises with the status of licensee, and perhaps even had the status of a business invitee. It is not easy to reconcile this concession with Sherwood’s argument that, at the moment of the terminal ion of the claimant’s employment, he ceased being an employee.

       The decision of the Appellate Court in Fulco was codified by the 1993 enactment of § 31-275 (16) (B) (iii).

       The facts of this case do not require us to consider the more difficult question of whether an injury is compensable if it is incurred when a discharged employee returns to the job site. There is authority for the proposition that such an injury is compensable if industry custom allows a discharged employee to return to pick up his or her paycheck on a designated day, or to retrieve his or her personal belongings. See Nails v. Market Tire Co., 29 Md. App. 154, 347 A.2d 564 (1975) (holding compensable injuries sustained when employee returned to employer’s premises two days after employment had been terminated in order to retrieve personal tools and tool box); Parrott v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 145 Ohio St. 66, 70, 60 N.E.2d 660 (1945) (holding that injury incurred when employee returned to retrieve paycheck six days after employment had been terminated occurred in course of employment); see also A. Larson, supra, § 26.31, pp. 5-348-5-352, and § 26.40, pp. 5-358-5-361.

       Having decided that the claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of § 31-275 (1), we necessarily conclude that he also was still acting as an employee within the meaning of § 31-275 (9) (A) (i), which provides in relevant part that an “employee” is any person who “[h]as entered into or works under any contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer . . . .”

       This court’s opinion in Mazzone v. Connecticut Transit Co., supra, 240 Conn. 788, was not available to the board at the time that it rendered its decision in this case.

       The parties did not cite any legislative materials in their briefs.


author: BORDEN, J.

text:
    UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY ET AL. v. JOHN C. HUTCHINSON, ADMINISTRATOR (ESTATE OF ROBERT M. HUTCHINSON), ET AL.
    (SC 15790)
    Borden, Berdon, Norcott, Katz and Palmer, Js.
    Argued January 15
    officially released April 21, 1998

      John W. Lemega, with whom was Daniel P. Scapel-lati, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

      Michael C. Jainchill, with whom were Kathryn Cali-bey, Douglas W. Hammond and, on the brief, James D. Bartolini, for the appellees (defendants).
   Opinion

BORDEN, J.

The dispositive issue in this appeal involving an uninsured motorist arbitration award is whether the parties’ submission to arbitration was unrestricted, where the insurance policy language (1) required the arbitrators to decide whether the insured was “legally entitled to recover damages,” and (2) provided that “local rules of law as to arbitration procedure and evidence will apply.” The plaintiffs, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company and Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, filed an application in the trial court to vacate an arbitration award in favor of the defendants, John C. Hutchinson and Katherine Y. Hutchinson, the coadministrators of the estate of their son, Robert M. Hutchinson (decedent), in the amount of $1,300,000. The trial court determined that the submission to arbitration was unrestricted, denied the plaintiffs’ application to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418, and granted the defendants’ application to confirm the award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-417. The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court. Upon the plaintiffs’ motion, we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 4024, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 65-2. We conclude that the submission was unrestricted, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The undisputed material facts are as follows. The defendants sought to recover uninsured motorist benefits for the death of their decedent, who was a passenger in a motor vehicle that was involved in an accident and was operated by Brian Thompson. The defendants demanded arbitration of their claim. The plaintiffs and defendants agreed, pursuant to the arbitration clauses contained in three motor vehicle insurance policies issued by the plaintiffs to the decedent’s family, to submit the issues of liability and causation, contributory negligence and coverage to arbitration before a panel of three arbitrators.

The arbitrators found that the evidence “clearly established that the motor vehicle operated by . . . Thompson . . . was an uninsured vehicle . . . and that there was no other insurance covering . . . Thompson for the operation of a motor vehicle.” The panel also found that: (1) the accident was caused by Thompson’s loss of control due to both speed and intoxication; (2) contributory negligence on the part of the decedent was not proven because there was no evidence to establish that he was on notice that Thompson was intoxicated when the decedent became a passenger in the vehicle; and (3) uninsured motorist coverage under the policies was limited to $1,600,000. The panel awarded $1,300,000 to the defendants as “a fair and reasonable amount of damages . . . .”

The plaintiffs then applied to the trial court to vacate the arbitration award alleging that the arbitrators had exceeded their powers by: (1) finding the coverage issues in favor of the defendants; (2) finding that the defendants were “legally entitled to recover damages” under the terms of the insurance policies; and (3) failing to comply with the provision of the policies that “ ‘[ljocal rules of law as to [arbitration] procedure and evidence will apply.’ ” The defendants filed an application to confirm the arbitration award, and asked the court to award interest from the date of the arbitration decision.

In the trial court, both parties agreed that the threshold issue was “whether the submission to the arbitrators was restricted or unrestricted,” and they further agreed that if the submission was determined to be unrestricted, then the arbitration award would stand. The plaintiffs claimed that two clauses in the insurance policies rendered the submission restricted, in which case the trial court was required to conduct a de novo review. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the phrase “legally entitled to recover damages” restricted the arbitrators to making their decision according to the prevailing laws of negligence, and that the clause “local rules of law as to arbitration procedure and evidence will apply” restricted the arbitrators to following the rules of evidence that apply in the Superior Court. The defendants maintained that, under controlling case law, the submission is unrestricted.

The trial court disagreed with the plaintiffs’ contentions and concluded that the submission was unrestricted. Specifically, that court reasoned that our decision in Carroll v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 189 Conn. 16, 20-21, 453 A.2d 1158 (1983), controlled the submission at issue, because in that case we concluded that the phrase “legally entitled to recover damages” did not restrict the submission. The trial court also concluded that the phrase “local rules of law as to arbitration procedure and evidence” was ambiguous, and construed the phrase against the plaintiffs, who were the drafters of the insurance policies. Accordingly, the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ application to vacate the arbitration award, granted the defendants’ application to confirm the arbitration award, and awarded interest at the statutory rate. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the parties agree, as they did in the trial court, that, if we determine that the submission is unrestricted, then the award of the arbitrators must be sustained. The plaintiffs argue that the trial court improperly concluded that the submission to the arbitration panel was unrestricted. They contend that the two provisions at issue, namely, the phrases “legally entitled to recover” and “local rules of law as to arbitration procedure and evidence apply,” created a restricted submission based on our case law. The defendants argue, to the contrary, that Carroll is the controlling precedent, thus causing this submission to be unrestricted. We agree with the defendants.

“Arbitration is a creature of contract and the parties themselves, by the terms of their submission, define the powers of the arbitrators. Waterbury v. Waterbury Police Union, 176 Conn. 401, 403, 407 A.2d 1013 (1979). Where the language of the arbitration clause indicates an intention on the part of the parties to include all controversies which may arise under their agreement, and where the record reveals no specific questions which the parties submitted to the arbitrator, the submission will be construed as unrestricted. Malecki v. Burnham, 181 Conn. 211, 213, 435 A.2d 13 (1980).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Carroll v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, 189 Conn. 20. A submission is deemed restricted “only if the agreement contains express language restricting the breadth of issues, reserving explicit rights, or conditioning the award on court review.” Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1, 5, 612 A.2d 742 (1992).

“ ‘Because we favor arbitration as a means of settling private disputes, we undertake judicial review of arbitration awards in a manner designed to minimize interference with an efficient and economical system of alternative dispute resolution.’ ” Saturn Construction Co. v. Premier Roofing Co., 238 Conn. 293, 304, 680 A.2d 1274 (1996). “Under an unrestricted submission, the arbitrators’ decision is considered final and binding; thus the courts will not review the evidence considered by the arbitrators nor will they review the award for errors of law or fact.” American Universal Ins. Co. v. DelGreco, 205 Conn. 178, 186, 530 A.2d 171 (1987); Carroll v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, 189 Conn. 19. The resulting award can be reviewed, however, to determine if the award conforms to the submission. Garrity v. McCaskey, supra, 223 Conn. 4. “Such a limited scope of judicial review is warranted given the fact that the parties voluntarily bargained for the decision of the arbitrator and, as such, the parties are presumed to have assumed the risks of and waived objections to that decision. . . . It is clear that a party cannot object to an award which accomplishes precisely what the arbitrators were authorized to do merely because that party dislikes the results.” (Citations omitted.) American Universal Ins. Co. v. DelGreco, supra, 186-87. The significance, therefore, of a determination that an arbitration submission was unrestricted or restricted is not to determine what the arbitrators are obligated to do, but to determine the scope of judicial review of what they have done. Put another way, the submission tells the arbitrators what they are obligated to decide. The determination by a court of whether the submission was restricted or unrestricted tells the court what its scope of review is regarding the arbitrators’ decision.

In Carroll v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, 189 Conn. 19 n.5, the insurance policy provided in relevant part: “ ‘If any person making claim hereunder and the Company do not agree that such person is legally entitled to recover damages ... or do not agree as to the amount of payment which may be owing under this Coverage, then, upon 'written demand of either, the matter . . . shall be settled by arbitration . . . .’” (Emphasis added.) The insurer in Carroll made the identical argument that the plaintiffs make in the present case, namely, that because the arbitrators were required to decide according to law, the submission was restricted and subject to an enhanced standard of review. Id., 19. We concluded in Carroll that “[t]he language of the submission . . . clearly delegates all disputed issues to binding arbitration, and can therefore only be construed as unrestricted.” Id., 20.

Although they acknowledge that the nearly identical language in Carroll was deemed to have created an unrestricted submission, the plaintiffs assert that our subsequent definition of the phrase “ ‘legally entitled to collect damages’ ” in Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 359, 367, 641 A.2d 783 (1994), has, in effect, overruled Carroll, so that the phrase now creates a restricted submission. We are unpersuaded.

As the plaintiffs correctly note, Williams defines the phrase “legally entitled to collect damages” with respect to an uninsured motorist claim. In Williams, we stated that the phrase “ ‘[l]egally entitled to collect damages from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle,’ means ... (1) that the other motorist was uninsured; (2) that the other motorist was legally liable under the prevailing law; and (3) the amount of liability.” Id., 367-68. The issue in Williams, however, did not involve the question of the scope of judicial review of an arbitration award but, rather, involved a choice of law issue. Id., 365. Thus, it was in the context of determining whether the substantive law of New York or Connecticut controlled that we defined the phrase. Because it was not relevant to the resolution of the appeal, we did not cite to Carroll in that decision.

Moreover, the fact that we gave the phrase further substantive content in Williams does not convert the submission in the present case into a restricted submission to arbitration for purposes of defining the scope of judicial review, as the plaintiffs suggest. In Williams, we simply gave more detailed meaning to the phrase “legally entitled to collect damages.” That more detailed articulation of the arbitrators’ task in deciding the case submitted to them, however, neither expanded nor contracted the fundamental meaning of that phrase. Instead, we articulated what that language had always meant. The meaning of that phrase had not changed since our decision in Carroll, when we concluded that “[t]he language of the submission . . . clearly delegates all disputed issues to binding arbitration . . . .” Carroll v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, 189 Conn. 20. Finally, we do not agree that Carroll was improperly decided. We decline, therefore, the plaintiffs’ invitation to overrule Carroll. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ attempts to use the definition provided in Williams to restrict the arbitration submission in the present case must fail.

Next, we must determine whether the phrase “local rules of law as to arbitration procedure and evidence will apply,” creates a restricted submission for purposes of judicial review. We conclude that it does not. Since approximately 1990, this phrase has been standard in automobile insurance policies dealing with uninsured motorist coverage in Connecticut. 2 A. Widiss, Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Insurance (2d Ed. 1992), appendix A, p. 116. The plaintiffs contend that the phrase is unambiguous, and that a reasonable construction of the language requires application of the judicial rules of evidence. The defendants argue that this provision is ambiguous because there can be multiple sets of local rules, depending upon the forum, including local federal courts, local state courts, administrative proceedings and arbitration proceedings. The defendants further argue that the plaintiffs, as the drafters of the insurance policies, could have specified more clearly which rules apply, as the insurer did in Boyce v. State Farm Ins. Co., 34 Conn. App. 40, 640 A.2d 135, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 905, 648 A.2d 150 (1994). In that case, the insurance policy specified that “[s]tate court rules governing procedure and admission of evidence shall be used.” (Emphasis added.) Boyce v. State Farm Ins. Co., Conn. Appellate Court Records & Briefs, December Term, 1993, Record p. 18. We agree with the defendants.

The trial court found that the phrase was ambiguous because the plaintiffs could have identified specifically the rules that should apply, and the rules applicable in the trial court are not Connecticut’s only rules of evidence. Furthermore, the trial court reasoned that because the more relaxed evidentiary rules that provide the trier with considerable discretion in arbitration proceedings; see Saturn Construction Co. v. Premier Roofing Co., supra, 238 Conn. 298; are also considered “local rules,” it is not clear from this language that the rules of evidence applicable to trials in state courts must be applied by the arbitrators. We agree with the trial court in this regard. Accordingly, we conclude that the phrase did not operate to render the present submission restricted.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

       The remaining claims raised by the plaintiffs, which are not relevant to this appeal, are that: (1) the trial court improperly refused to review the arbitration award for errors of fact and law; (2) the accident reconstruction expert was improperly allowed to testify as to the speed of the car; (3) the expert testimony regarding lost earning capacity was improperly admitted because it was without evidential foundation; and (4) there was no substantial evidence of proximate cause between the injury and the act. Because the plaintiffs have conceded, however, that if the submission was deemed to be unrestricted, then the remainder of their claims must fail, we need not address any specific evidentiary claims raised by the plaintiffs.

       General Statutes § 52-418 provides in relevant part: “Vacating award, (a) Upon the application of any party to an arbitration, the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides . . . any judge thereof, shall make an order vacating the award if it finds any of the following defects: (1) If the award has been procured by corruption, fraud or undue means; (2) if there has been evident partiality or corruption on the part of any arbitrator; (3) if the arbitrators have been guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause shown or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy or of any other action by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or (4) if the arbitrators have exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. . . .”

       General Statutes § 52-417providesinrelevantpart: “Application for order confirming award. At any time within one year after an award has been rendered and the parties to the arbitration notified thereof, any party to the arbitration may make application to the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides ... to any judge thereof, for an order confirming the award. The court or judge shall grant such an order confirming the award unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed in sections 52^418 and 52-419.”

       The three insurance policies consisted of an individual automobile liability policy identifying John C. Hutchinson and Katherine Y. Hutchinson as named insureds, an individual automobile liability policy identifying Leigh Ann Hutchinson as the named insured, and a business automobile liability policy identifying John C. Hutchinson as the named insured. The insureds named in these policies were all members of the decedent’s family.

       Two of the insurance policies contained arbitration clauses, which provided in relevant part:
      “If we and an ‘insured’ do not agree:
      “1. Whether that person is legally entitled to recover damages under Part C; or
      “2. As to the amount of damages;
      “the ‘insured’ may make a written demand for arbitration. . . .
      “If the amount of damages the ‘insured’ demands exceeds $40,000 each party will select an arbitrator. The two arbitrators will select a third. If they cannot agree within 30 days, either may request that selection be made by a judge of a court having jurisdiction. In this event, each party will:
      “1. Pay the expenses it incurs; and
      “2. Bear the expenses of the third arbitrator equally.
      “Unless both parties agree otherwise, arbitration will take place in the county in which the ‘insured’ lives. Local rules of law as to procedure and evidence will apply. Any decision agreed to by the arbitrators) will be binding as to:
      “1. Whether the ‘insured’ is legally entitled to recover damages; and
      “2. The amount of damages. This applies only if the amount does not exceed the minimum limit for bodily iqjury liability specified by the financial responsibility law of the state in which ‘your covered auto’ is principally garaged. If the amount exceeds that limit, either party may demand the right to a trial. This demand must be made within 60 days of the arbitrator(s) decision. If this demand is not made, the amount of damages agreed to by the arbitrators) will be binding.” (Emphasis added.)
      The arbitration clause contained in the third insurance policy provided:
      “a. If we and an ‘insured’ disagree whether the ‘insured’ is legally entitled to recover damages from the owner or driver of an ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ or do not agree as to the amount of damages, either party may make a written demand for arbitration. In this event, each party will select an arbitrator. The two arbitrators will select a third. If they cannot agree within 30 days, either may request that selection be made by a judge of a court having jurisdiction. Each party will pay the expenses it incurs and bear the expenses of the third arbitrator equally.
      “b. Unless both parties agree otherwise, arbitration will take place in the county in which the ‘insured’ lives. Local rules of law as to arbitration procedure and evidence will apply. A decision agreed to by two of the arbitrators will be binding.” (Emphasis added.)

       This language is present in one of the insurance policies. In the other two insurance policies, however, the word “arbitration” is omitted. This omission does not affect our analysis of this provision.

       The language in the arbitration provision of the defendants’ insurance policies is substantially equivalent to the standard form contract. 2 A. Widiss, supra, appendix A, p. 116.