Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 31 — LABOR · Chapter 560 — Board of Mediation and Arbitration
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-97 (2026)

Submission of grievance or dispute; procedure. Claim of nonarbitrability of issue

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whenever a grievance or dispute arises between an employer and his employees, the parties may submit the grievance or dispute directly to said board and notify said board or its clerk in writing and upon payment by each party of a filing fee of two hundred dollars. Whenever a single public member of the board is chosen to arbitrate a grievance or dispute, as provided in section 31-93, the parties shall each be refunded the filing fee. Whenever such notification is given, a panel of said board, as directed by its chairman, shall proceed with as little delay as possible to the locality of such grievance or dispute and inquire into the causes thereof. The parties shall thereupon submit to said panel in writing, succinctly, clearly and in detail, their grievances and complaints and the causes thereof, and severally promise and agree to continue in business or at work without a strike or lockout until the decision of the panel is rendered; but such agreement shall not be binding unless such decision is rendered within ten days after the completion of the investigation. The panel shall fully investigate and inquire into the matters in controversy, take testimony under oath in relation thereto and may administer oaths and issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and for the production of books and papers.

(b) No panel of said board may consider any claim that one or more of the issues before the panel are improper subjects for arbitration unless the party making such claim has notified the opposing party and the chairman of the panel of such claim, in writing, at least ten days prior to the date of hearing, except that the panel may consider such claim if it determines there was reasonable cause for the failure of such party to comply with said notice requirement.

(1949 Rev., S. 7384; 1949, S. 3028d; P.A. 79-610, S. 37; P.A. 80-447; P.A. 82-91, S. 32, 38; May Sp. Sess. P.A. 16-3, S. 179.)

History: P.A. 79-610 imposed $25 filing fee payable by each party; P.A. 80-447 added Subsec. (b) re claims that issues are improper subjects for arbitration; P.A. 82-91 required that whenever a single public member is chosen to arbitrate, the parties will be refunded the filing fee; May Sp. Sess. P.A. 16-3 amended Subsec. (a) to increase filing fee from $25 to $200 and make a technical change, effective July 1, 2016.

Applies as against general provision of Sec. 52-416. 136 C. 205. Cited. 145 C. 53; 163 C. 327; 171 C. 613; 200 C. 91; 206 C. 465.

Cited. 9 CA 260.

Cited. 31 CS 88.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1973–2013 · leading case: Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees v. City of New Britain, 538 A.2d 1022 (Conn. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees v. City of New Britain, 538 A.2d 1022 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 6× “1 The plaintiff unions and Louis Marino claim that the board’s action should have been vacated because: (1) its decision was not timely rendered as required by General Statutes § 31-98; 2 (2) a de novo hearing was not held as required by General Statutes § 31-97 (a); 3 *467 (3)…”
City of Milford v. Local 1566, 510 A.2d 177 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 2× “The court’s ruling in this case nullifying an award made by members of the board because they were not sworn pursuant to General Statutes § 52-414 (d) clearly undermines the integrity of the administrative procedure employed by the board and calls into question the validity of…”
Perkowski v. Stratford Bd. of Educ., 455 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D. Conn. 2006). · cites it 5× “See Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 31-97, 52-413. Perkowski makes no claim that this state-administered grievance procedure is inadequate or otherwise fails to satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause.”
State Bd. of Labor Relations v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 709 A.2d 1129 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 2× “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.”
Local 530, AFSCME, Council 15 v. City of New Haven, 518 A.2d 941 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 31-97 (a) provides: “'Whenever a grievance or dispute arises between an employer and his employees, the parties may submit the same directly to said board and notify said board or its clerk in writing and upon payment by each party of a filing fee of…”
AFSCME, Council 15, Local 3153 v. Town of Newtown, 717 A.2d 759 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 4× “The defendant, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-97, 2 timely filed a notice with the board that the dispute was not ripe and, therefore, was not arbitrable because the defendant had not actually applied its interpretation of the agreement to any employee.”
Town of Bloomfield v. United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers of Am., 939 A.2d 561 (Conn. 2008). “After exhaustion of the grievance procedures set forth by the agreement, the defendant subsequently filed a demand for arbitration, pursuant to General Stat *281 utes § 31-97 et seq., with the state board of mediation and arbitration (board) to challenge Rajtar’s termination.”
Bd. of Police Commissioners v. Maher, 370 A.2d 1076 (Conn. 1976). “Notwithstanding this conclusion, the court did find, contrary to the plaintiffs’ claims, that the union contract with the city of New Haven does confer on the defendant board of mediation and arbitration the authority to arbitrate grievances concerning disciplinary action…”
Doody v. Town of North Branford, 972 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D. Conn. 2013). · cites it 2× “, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-97 , 52-413, neither party discusses these statutes.”
Bd. of Police Commissioners v. West Haven Police Union, Local 895, 323 A.2d 447 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1973). “Section 31-97 states that after a grievance is submitted to the board it “shall fully investigate and inquire into the matters in controversy.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-97(a): 1 case
Perkowski v. Stratford Bd. of Educ., 455 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D. Conn. 2006). “See Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 31-97, 52-413. Perkowski makes no claim that this state-administered grievance procedure is inadequate or otherwise fails to satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.