In State v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 1565, 49 Conn. App. 33, 713 A.2d 869 (1998), aff'd, 249 Conn. 474, 732 A.2d 762 (1999) the Court upheld the trial court's judgment vacating an arbitrator's award on the ground that the award was not mutual, final and definite. Id., at 37. The aggrieved party was a correction officer who had been, as the arbitrator determined, wrongly dismissed from her job. Id., at 34-35. The remedy was reinstatement, but there was ambiguity as to where she would be reemployed. Id., at 35. The award ordered the grievant to be placed at either the Niantic correctional facility or at an alternate facility that would be agreeable to all parties. Id. Thus, further negotiation was required on that point. Because the award did not specify an exact location for placement, this court determined that the award was, in the language of 52-418, indefinite. Id., at 37. The award could not be said to fix definitively the rights and obligations of the parties. The Court found evidence for the lack of definitiveness in the arbitrator's decision to retain jurisdiction over the case for an additional sixty days to resolve any outstanding issues. Id.