Maine State Employees Association v. City of Lewiston and Lewiston School Committee, MLRB Nos. 92-17 & -18 (Sept. 11, 1992), Order Denying Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, No. CV-92-400 (Me. Super. Ct., And. Cty., Nov. 30, 1992), Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Nos. CV-92-480 & -400 (Jan. 21, 1993), Decision Vacating Board Order, Nos. CV-92-400 & -480 (Feb. 25, 1993), Law Court Decision Vacating Superior Court Decision for Lack of Jurisdiction, sub nom, City of Lewiston v. Maine State Employees Association, 638 A.2d 739 (Me. 1994) STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, SS. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-92-400 CITY OF LEWISTON ) and ) LEWISTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) ORDER ) MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ) ASSOCIATION ) and the ) MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ) ) Defendants. ) This case is an appeal, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C, from a decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board in favor of the Maine State Employees Association, the union representing city employees in Lewiston. Currently pending is respondents' motion to dismiss for lack of timely filing. The sole issue before the court is whether the filing of the petition for review on September 29, 1992, can be accepted by the court in light of the fact that the time for filing, as computed pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 968(5)(F) (Supp. 1991) and M.R. Civ. P. 6(a), expired one day before the petition was received by the court. For the reasons which follow, this court denies the motion to dismiss and will allow the appeal. This motion is before the court only because the United States Mail deviated in this case from its usual practice of delivering mail from Lewiston to the clerk's office across the river in Auburn in one day, that delivery in this instance requiring four days. Rule 80C appeals "shall be governed by [the] Rules of Civil Procedure as modified by" Rule 80C, "except to the -1- extent inconsistent with the provisions of a statute." M.R. Civ. P. 80C. Rule 80C does nothing to modify the usual handling of filing requirements, which are governed by M.R. Civ. P. 6. The general intent of the rules is "to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action." M.R. Civ. P. 1. Rule 6(b) allows for enlargement of the time for filing "upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period" if the delay in filing was caused by "excusable neglect." M.R. Civ. P. 6(b). In this case, the only action that could be construed as neglect is petitioners' reliance on the U.S. Mail's published delivery schedule, followed by a failure to telephone the clerk's office to double-check on the clerk's timely receipt of the petition. This court is hesitant to conclude that standard practice requires attorneys to either telephone the clerk's office regarding each filing or to hand deliver items that are within three days of their filing deadline. Any possible neglect on the part of petitioners, therefore, is excusable and is hereby excused. The entry will be: The motion for enlargement of time for filing by one day is granted. Dated: November 30, 1992 /s/________________________________ Roland A. Cole Justice, Superior Court -2- STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, SS. CIVIL ACTION Docket Nos. CV-92-480 CV-92-400 ) MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ) ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1989, SEIU, ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF LEWISTON and LEWISTON ) SCHOOL COMMITTEE ) ) Defendants ) ________________________________) ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CITY OF LEWISTON and LEWISTON ) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SCHOOL COMMITTEE ) ) Petitioners ) ) v. ) ) MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ) ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1989, SEIU ) and MAINE LABOR RELATIONS ) BOARD ) ) Respondents ) Plaintiff Maine State Employees Association (MSEA) has moved, pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 968(5)(D), for a temporary restraining order to enforce a decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board (MLRB) in Maine State Employees Association v. City of Lewiston and Lewiston School Committee, Case No. 92-17 and 18 (M.L.R.B., Sept. 11, 1992). The initial petition in this consolidated action was filed on September 29, 1992, appealing the underlying decision of the MLRB. MSEA filed a complaint seeking enforcement of the MLRB decision on or about December 3, 1992, after the court denied its Motion to Dismiss the City's appeal in Case No. CV-92-400. The City answered that complaint on or about December 22, 1992, -1- requesting for the first time that the MLRB decision be stayed pending appeal. The City of Lewiston and the School Committee for the City of Lewiston (City) have not complied with the MLRB order and have failed to present sufficient facts to clearly show that "... substantial and irreparable injury [will] be sustained." 28 M.R.S.A. 968 (5)(D). IT IS ORDERED that the City of Lewiston and the Lewiston School Committee comply fully and immediately with the MLRB order in Maine State Employees Association v. City of Lewiston and Lewiston School Committee, Case No. 92-17 and 18 (M.L.R.B., Sept. 11, 1992); however provided, that this Order is conditioned upon MSEA executing a bond in favor of the City in an amount not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), said bond to be filed with the clerk of this court and to be in favor of the City in the event it prevails in this action and is required to recoup sums paid to employees. This Order is further conditioned upon MSEA entering into an agreement on behalf of its members and all persons who obtain any benefit from this Order to repay all sums received hereunder within a period not to exceed the time for which payments are made pursuant to this Order. It is further Ordered that MSEA notify, at its cost, all persons affected hereby of the terms of this Order, that it is temporary and that if the City ultimately prevails, sums received under this Order must be repaid within a time certain. -2- The clerk shall incorporate this order into the docket by reference. So Ordered. Dated: January 21, 1993. /s/______________________________ Thomas E. Delahanty, II Chief Justice, Superior Court -3- ------------------------ STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, SS. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-92-400 XCV-92-480 CITY OF LEWISTON and ) LEWISTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE, ) ) Petitioners ) ) v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) ON APPEAL MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ) ASSOCIATION, LOCAL ) 1989 SEIU, and ) MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ) ) Respondents ) This case is an appeal, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C, of a decision by the Maine Labor Relations Board (MLRB) requiring petitioners to implement pay increases according to an expired employment contract. Petitioners had a contract with the MSEA for two years which provided for periodic raises every six months. Upon expiration of the contract in June 1991 the petitioners continued the salaries, wages, and benefits at the level then in effect. This was in accordance with existing MLRB policy. Approximately four months later, the MLRB changed its policy to require continuation of the contract provision for periodic salary increases and raises during negotiation. The city and its school committee have appealed. For the reasons which follow, this court concludes that the MLRB exceeded its statutory authority in ordering the freezing of the wage formula rather than the wage itself. The Law Court has held that the MLRB "exceed[s] its powers in -1- imposing upon employers against (their] will the duty of paying a wage increase during [a period for which] [tlhe [employer] had never, directly or indirectly, agreed to any change in wages. . . ." Caribou School Department v. Caribou Teachers Association, 402 A.2d 1279, 1285-86 (Me. 1979). Likewise, the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law explicitly states that "neither side shall be compelled to agree to a proposal or be required to make a concession." 26 M.R.S.A. 965(1)(C). In this case, the parties agreed to specific pay rates and rates of increase (measured by length of service) for a defined period, and for no longer. This case is therefore like the Caribou case, in that "[t]here simply never was any meeting of minds on any wage increase to go into effect" after the expiration of the contract. Caribou, 402 A.2d at 1286. Requiring petitioners to abide by the entire wage formula in the expired contract therefore is requiring them to do something they have never agreed to do. Petitioners agreed to pay respondents particular wages, escalating over time, until they reached a given point in June 1991. The parties explicitly agreed on nothing more, and given the state of the law in 1989, could implicitly have agreed only to freeze wages upon the expiration of the contract in absolute dollar terms. See M.S.A.D. No. 43 Teachers Association v. M.S.A.D. No. 43 Board of Directors, 432 A.2d 395 (Me. 1981). -2- The entry will be: Appeal sustained. The order of the Maine Labor Relations Board is vacated. So ordered. Dated: February 25, 1993 /s/____________________________ Thomas E. Delahanty, II Chief Justice, Superior Court STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, SS. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-92-400 XCV-92-480 CITY OF LEWISTON and ) LEWISTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE ) ) Petitioners ) ) v. ) ORDER ON REMAND ) MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ) ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1989 SEIU, ) and MAINE LABOR RELATIONS ) BOARD ) ) Respondents ) On February 25, 1993, this court entered judgment vacating an order of the Maine Labor Relations Board. An appeal was subsequently taken to the Law Court by the Maine State Employees Association and the Maine Labor Relations Board. On March 16, 1994, the Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, issued a mandate vacating the judgment of this court. Pursuant to the mandate, it is Ordered that the appeal to the Superior Court by the Petitioner City of Lewiston is dismissed. So Ordered. Dated: July 25, 1994 /s/___________________________________ Thomas E. Delahanty, II Chief Justice, Superior Court -1-