Baker Bus Service v. MLRB, CV-80-157 affirming Board Case No. 79-70;
affirmed by Baker Bus Service v. Edward H. Keith, 428 A.2d 55 (Me. 1980). STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, SS CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV80-157 BAKER BUS SERVICE ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) MAINE LABOR RELATIONS ) BOARD, ) ) Defendant ) This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Rule 80B, M.R.C.P. seeking a review of a decision and order of the Maine Labor Relations Board dated March 3, 1980 in its case number 79-70. The record, the decision of the Board, and the briefs of the parties are lengthy and detailed. The issues presented for appeal however, are capable of being stated simply. Plaintiff challenges several findings of fact made by the Board. A review of the record and the decision of the Board satisfies this Court that for each finding of fact there is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In short, the factual findings made have not been demonstrated to be clearly erroneous. The principle of law which the plaintiff challenges relates to a question of whether the Board must find merely that one of the motivative factors in discharging an employee was to discourage organizational activities or whether it must find that the dominant reason was to discourage such activity. The record in this case amply supports the fact that there may have been other reasons for dismissal. Any fair reading of the decision would lead one to conclude that the Board found the ________________________________________________________________________________ -2- dominant reason to be discouragement of organizational activities. Even if such a finding were not made by the Court, this Court is of the view that better reasoned decisions provide that a discharge is unlawful if motivated in any part by anti-union animus. As is set forth in the brief submitted by the Board, all Federal Circuits adopt this view with the exception of the First Circuit which adheres to the "dominant reason" view. Other Justices of the Superior Court have adopted the view which is now adopted in this case. The remaining complaint of the plaintiff relates to the exclusion from evidence of the decision of the chairman of the Maine Employment Security Commission which found that for the purposes of the statute which he supervises, the employee was discharged for misconduct. While there is a good deal of informality encouraged, it is not reversible error to exclude such a document and indeed the relevance of such a document is at best, highly questionable. The Court finds no error of law or fact and orders that the following entry shall be made: In the action for review, the order of the Maine Labor Relations Board in its case number 79-70, is hereby AFFIRMED, and the order is enforced as written. Dated: September 4, 1980 /s/___________________________ Daniel E. Wathen Justice, Superior Court ________________________________________________________________________________