State of Maine v. MSEA and MLRB, MSEA v. State of Maine, No. CV-81-472 and CV-81-499, affirming 81-44, rev'd 443 A.2d 948 (Me. 1982) STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, SS CIVIL ACTION Docket Nos. CV-81-472 CV81-499 STATE OF MAINE, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ) and MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ) ) Defendant ) ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ) ) MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF MAINE, ) ) Defendant ) This case comes before the Court by complaint for review under Rule 80B of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure and pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 979-H(7) of the State Employees Labor Relations Act (SELRA). Plaintiff State of Maine seeks review of a decision and order of the Maine Labor Relations Board (MLRB) in its case no.'s 81-44 and 81-56, issued September 21, 1981, in which the M.L.R.B. determined that the bargaining proposals of the M.S.E.A. to reallocate or reclassify positions in state service were mandatory subjects of bargaining. The case arose when a dispute occurred over the "negotiability", i.e., the mandatory or nonmandatory nature of M.S.E.A.'s 122 proposals to either reclassify specific positions to a different classification or to reallocate whole classifications to a -1- higher salary grade in the salary schedule. At some point in the bargaining the State indicated that it would not negotiate these proposals based upon a claim that they were nonmandatory subjects of bargaining. The basis for the State's refusal to bargain was that the proposals conflict with (1) the procedure and limits established by public law for the processing of reclassification and reallocation requests, (2) the spirit and intent of merit selection principles including the concepts of equal pay for equal work ("internal equity") and the Hay Guide Chart Job Profile Evaluation method, and (3) the spirit and intent of the personnel laws that reclassifications and allocations be analytically and adjudicatively determined rather than subjected to the political process of collective bargaining. Essentially the State contends that the provisions of the Personnel Law, 593, (5 M.R.S.A. 551-903) controls classifications and reallocations and therefore prohibits the negotiations of reclassification of specific positions to a different classification or reallocation of whole classifications to a higher salary grade in the salary schedule. 26 M.R.S.A. 5979-D(1)(E)(1) provides in part: [I]t shall be the obligation of the [State] and the [Union] to bargain collectively. 'Collective bargaining' means, for the purpose of this chapter, their mutual obligations: E. (1) To confer and negotiate in good faith with respect to wages, hours, working conditions and contract grievance arbitration, except that by such obligation neither party shall be compelled to agree to a proposal or be required to make a concession. All matters relating to the relationship between the employer and employees shall be the subject of collective bargaining, except -2- those matters which are prescribed or controlled by public law. [emphasis added]. 26 M.R.S.A. 979-D(1)(E)(1) lists categories (a) through (f) as appropriate matters included, but not limited to, collectively bargaining to the extent not prescribed or controlled by public law. Since the Personnel Law provides a procedure for classification and reallocation of employees, the State reasons, the provisions for classification and reallocation of employees are controlled by public law and the provisions of the S.E.L.R.A. never come into play. The obvious purpose of the language "except those matters which are prescribed or controlled by public law", 26 M.R.S.A. 979-D(1)(E) is merely to prevent a term of a collective bargaining agreement from being in violation of existing law. The mere fact that the Legislature granted, under the Personnel Law, a procedure for classification and reallocation of employees does not exclude the possibility that such reclassification and reallocation cannot be influenced by the collective bargaining process. 5 M.R.S.A. 551-903 contains no statutory directive that would be violated by permitting collective bargaining. State of Maine v. Maine Labor Relations Board, 413 A.2d 510, 515 (1980). The entire record of the proceedings before the Maine Labor Relations Board, the Decision and Order of the M.L.R.B. dated September 21, 1981, and briefs of counsel have been reviewed. The Court is satisfied that the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached by the M.L.R.B. are well-founded. Therefore, it is ORDERED: -3- 1. The relief prayed for by the Plaintiff is DENIED. 2. The Decision and Order of the M.L.R.B. dated September 21, 1981 is AFFIRMED. Dated: December 23, 1981 /s/___________________________ Carl 0. Bradford Justice, Superior Court ------------------------------------------