State of Maine, Dept. Agriculture and MSEA, No. 96-UCA-01 (April 8, 1996),
affirming Unit Clarification Decision No. 83-UC-15 and 91-UC-15, (Dec. 12, 1995). STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Case No. 96-UCA-O1 Issued: April 8, 1996 _____________________________________ ) STATE OF MAINE, DEPARTMENT OF ) AGRICULTURE, ) ) Public Employer and Appellant, ) ) DECISION AND ORDER and ) ON UNIT CLARIFICATION ) APPEAL MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ) ) Bargaining Agent and Appellee. ) _____________________________________) This unit clarification appeal was filed by the State of Maine (State) on December 21, 1995, pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 979-G(2) (Supp. 1995) and Rule 1.12 of the Rules and Procedures of the Maine Labor Relations Board (Board). The unit clarification report which is the subject of this appeal issued on December 12, 1995. In its appeal the State challenges the Executive Director's determination that Chief Accountant Gary Palmer is a state employee within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 979-A(6)(C) (1988 & Supp. 1995). The State contends that Palmer should be excluded from the coverages of the State Employees Labor Relations Act (SELRA) as a policy formulator/effectuator (J-1) within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 979-A(6)(J) (1988). The Executive Director determined that although the Chief Accountant's involvement in the MFASIS and joint service center committees "involved both the development and the implementation of policy, as those terms are contemplated in J-1," his involvement "was for discrete periods of limited duration and, while intimately related to the normal job duties of the position . . . were undertaken in the context of special, one-time projects." The Executive Director concluded that the record as a whole [-1-] __________________________________________________________________ failed to establish substantial participation in policy formulation and policy implementation to be inherent aspects of Palmer's normal job functions. On December 21, 1995, the parties waived oral argument and agreed to an amended briefing schedule pursuant to which the last brief was received on March 1, 1996. Neither party adduced or requested additional facts beyond those contained in the unit clarification report. The Appellant State is represented in this matter by its Counsel, Sandra S. Carraher, the Appellee Maine State Employees Association (MSEA) by its Chief Counsel, Timothy L. Belcher. The Board, comprised of Alternate Chair Kathy M. Hooke, Employer Representative Howard Reiche, Jr., and Alternate Employee Representative Gwendolyn Gatcomb, deliberated the matter on Tuesday, March 19, 1996. JURISDICTION The State is an aggrieved party within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 979-G(2) (Supp. 1995), and is a public employer within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 979-A(5) (1988 & Supp. 1995). The MSEA is the bargaining agent, within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 979-A(1) (1988), of Supervisory Services bargaining unit employees within the Department of Agriculture. The jurisdiction of the Maine Labor Relations Board to hear this appeal and to render a decision herein lies in 26 M.R.S.A. 979-G(2) (Supp. 1995). FINDINGS OF FACT Neither party has taken exception with any finding of fact contained in the Executive Director's December 12, 1995, unit clarification report. Those findings of fact are hereby incorporated in and made a part hereof. -2- __________________________________________________________________ DISCUSSION We have often stated the standard applicable to our review of Executive Director's unit clarification reports. It is as follows: We will overturn a hearing examiner's rulings and determinations if they are "unlawful, unreasonable, or lacking in any rational factual basis." It is thus not proper for us to substitute our judgment for the hearing examiner's; our function is to review the facts to determine whether the hearing examiner's decisions are logical and are rationally supported by the evidence. AFSCME, Council 93 and Town of Sanford, No. 92-UDA-03, slip op. at 4 (Me.L.R.B. May 7, 1992); State of Maine and AFSCME Council 93, No. 91-UCA-02, slip op. at 2 (Me.L.R.B. Feb. 12, 1991); Portland Superintending School Committee v. Portland Administrative Employees Association, No. 87-A-03, slip op. at 6 (Me.L.R.B. May 29, 1987). We have reviewed the unit clarification report in light of the above standard of review and the arguments of the parties. We hold that the Executive Director's rulings are lawful, reasonable and are supported by competent substantial record evidence. Pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 979-G(2) (Supp. 1995), we hereby AFFIRM the Executive Director's factual findings and legal analysis with respect to the unit placement of Chief Accountant Gary Palmer and adopt them as our own. ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and discussion and by virtue of and pursuant to the powers granted to the Maine Labor Relations Board by the provisions of 26 M.R.S.A. 979-G(2) (Supp. 1995), it is ORDERED: that the December 21, 1995, appeal of the State of Maine, filed with respect to the December 12, 1995, -3- __________________________________________________________________ unit clarification report in Case Nos. 83-UC-15 and 91-UC-15 is denied and the report is affirmed as set forth above. Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 8th day of April, 1996. MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The parties are hereby advised of their right, pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 979-G(2) (Supp. /s/________________________ 1995), to seek review of this Kathy M. Hooke Decision and Order on Unit Alternate Chair Clarification Appeal by the Superior Court. To initiate such a review an appealing /s/________________________ party must file a complaint Howard C. Reiche, Jr. with the Superior Court within Employer Representative fifteen (15) days of the date of announcement hereof, and otherwise comply with the /s/________________________ requirements of Rule 8OC of Gwendolyn Gatcomb the Maine Rules of Civil Alternate Employee Procedure. Representative -4- __________________________________________________________________