MSEA on behalf of Thomas Heels v. State Development Office, 
State of Maine and MLRB CV-84-309, affirming No. 84-21, aff'd 
MSEA et al. v. State Development Office, 499 A.2d 165 (Me. 1985).

STATE OF MAINE                                       SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss.                                          CIVIL ACTION
                                               Docket No. CV-84-309




MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, on behalf
of THOMAS HEELS,

            Plaintiffs

        vs.                                    ORDER

STATE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE

       and

STATE OF MAINE

       and

MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

              Defendants



     This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' appeal from
a decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board.  That decision
held that the State Development Office did not interfere with,
restrain, or coerce Thomas Heels in exercising rights pursuant
to the State Employees Labors Relations Act or otherwise discriminate
against him in his employment in ways which would have been
violative of 26 M.R.S.A.  979-C-1-A or B.

     A review of the transcript of the proceedings before the
Maine Labor Relations Board indicates that there may be sufficient
evidence in the record to support the result sought by the

                                 -1-
                                                                                                                                                   2
Plaintiffs.  However, the Court also determines that there is
sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings reached
by the Maine Labor Relations Board.  It is up to the factfinder,
not this Court, to resolve conflicting interpretations of evidence.
Considering the interpretation based on federal law and federal
precedent utilized by the Board, the Court determines that the
conclusions of law reached by the Board, based on its findings,
are not inconsistent with the present state of the law.

     In order to support a decision that the Maine Labor Relations
Board erroneously applied the law, the Plaintiff would have
to establish that the law mandates conclusions adverse to the
State Development Office as a result of the evident coincidences
in the record between disciplinary actions or adverse ratings
and times when the employee sought reclassifications, salary
improvements, or engaged in union activity.  Without a law mandating
such adverse inferences, the findings of the Board are not clearly
erroneous, and those findings having been made, the Court determines
that the Board properly applied the law.

     Therefore, the Court ORDERS and the entry shall be:

     1. Appeal DENIED.

     2. Decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board is AFFIRMED.


Dated: February 25, 1985      _______________________________________
                              DONALD G. ALEXANDER
                              Justice, Superior Court