Case Name: AFSCME, COUNCIL 4, LOCALS 387, 391 AND 1565, AFL-CIO v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ET AL.
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1998-06-02
Citations: 48 Conn. App. 783
Docket Number: AC 17210
Parties: AFSCME, COUNCIL 4, LOCALS 387, 391 AND 1565, AFL-CIO v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 783–784

Head Matter:
AFSCME, COUNCIL 4, LOCALS 387, 391 AND 1565, AFL-CIO v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ET AL.
(AC 17210)
O’Connell, C. J., and Lavery and Landau, Js.
Argued March 19
officially released June 2, 1998
Jason W. Cohen, with whom, on the brief, was J. William Gagne, Jr., for the appellant (plaintiff).
Richard T. Sponzo, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Charles S. Overend, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (named defendant).
Lisa S. Lazarek, with whom, on the brief, was Jaye Bailey Zanta, general counsel, for the appellee (defendant board of labor relations).

Opinion:
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, AFSCME, Council 4, Locals 387, 391 and 1565, AFL-CIO (union), appealed to the trial court from a decision of the state labor relations board (board). The trial court affirmed the board's decision and the union appealed to this court. The dispositive issue is whether an earlier decision of the board bars the present proceeding under the doctrine of res judicata.
Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. In a thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision, the trial court analyzed the law in a manner consistent with our statutes and case precedents. Because that memorandum addresses the dispositive argument raised in this appeal, we adopt the trial court's well reasoned decision; AFSCME, Council 4, Locals 387, 391 & 1565, AFL-CIO v. Dept. of Correction, 45 Conn. Sup. 292, 714 A.2d 75 (1997); as a statement of the applicable law on this issue. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See In re Karrlo K., 40 Conn. App. 73, 75, 668 A.2d 1353 (1996); Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Bardinelli, 39 Conn. App. 786, 788, 667 A.2d 806 (1995).
The judgment is affirmed.