This Law Court case is not an appeal of an MLRB decision.
It has been placed on the Board's website because it is a 
noteworthy case involving Maine's public sector collective 
bargaining laws.
                                
             ROBERT WASHBURN et al. v. STATE OF MAINE et al.
                         
                        Law Docket No. Ken-80-53
                         
                     Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
                         
                              432 A.2d 1237
                         
                          Argued May 14, 1981.  
                         Decided July 29, 1981.
                         
                         
Before MCKUSICK, C.J., and WERNICK, NICHOLS, ROBERTS and CARTER, JJ.

NICHOLS, Justice

[1237]  
     Robert Washburn was discharged from his position as Director of 
the Bureau of Veterans Services on November 17, 1979, by the Adjutant 
General.[fn]1  Alleging that he had been discharged without cause in 
violation of certain provisions of the Maine State Employees Contract, 
Washburn and the Maine State Employees Association initiated grievance 
proceedings.  The case was eventually submitted to arbitration.  The 
arbitration award ordered the State of Maine to reinstate Washburn as 
Director of Veterans Services.  When Washburn and the Association then
brought this controversy to Superior Court (Kennebec County), seeking 
to have the award confirmed, that court vacated the award.  Washburn 
and the Association now appeal from the order vacating the award.

     We affirm the judgment below.

     The single issue on this appeal is whether the position Washburn 
occupied can be the subject of a collective bargaining agreement that 
limits the authority of his superior to discharge this employee.  
Because the Association's contract with the State contains an invalid 
provision relating to discharge procedures applicable to the Director 
of the Bureau of Veterans Services, we affirm the order of the
Superior Court vacating the arbitrator's award.

     Although the record does not clearly reveal the details of labor 
negotiations preceding 

___________________

1.  The Adjutant General is the chief administrator of the Department 
  of Defense and Veterans Services and is also known as the
  Commissioner of the Department of Defense and Veterans Services.  
  See 37-A M.R.S.A.  1 (1978).
__________________________________________________________________________

[/1238]  
Washburn's discharge, in February, 1977, the Maine Labor Relations Board 
apparently determined that the position of Director of the Bureau of 
Veterans Services held by Washburn should be represented by the Maine 
State Employees Association in collective bargaining.  Accordingly, the 
Board concluded that the Director should be placed in the supervisory 
services unit of state employees for purposes of collective
bargaining.[fn]2  On May 23, 1979, the State and the Association executed 
collective bargaining agreements, including an agreement covering 
employees in the supervisory services unit.

     Against this background, Washburn responded to the termination of 
his employment in November, 1979, by claiming he had been discharged 
without just cause in violation of his rights pursuant to a provision 
of the Maine State Employees Contract[fn]3 and a provision of the Maine 
Personnel Law,[fn]4 both of which proscribed the discharge of a state 
employee without cause.  Washburn initiated grievance proceedings 
pursuant to the contract,[fn]5 and on Washburn's behalf, the Association 
made a demand for arbitration on January 9, 1980.  The State then moved 
in Superior Court for a stay of arbitration pending that court's decision
on substantive arbitrability and for an order permanently enjoining 
arbitration of the case.  See 14 M.R.S.A. 5928 (1980).  The motion 
was denied on February 7, 1980, and the parties were ordered to proceed 
to arbitration "in accordance with the provisions of Article XLIV [of the] 
Supervisory Services Agreement."

     On May 1, 1980, the arbitrator issued an interim opinion concluding 
that the grievance was arbitrable. The parties then stipulated that 
Washburn had been discharged without just cause, and on May 14, 1980, 
the arbitrator made a final award. This final award ordered the State 
of Maine to reinstate Washburn as Director of the Bureau of Veterans 
Services and to restore back earnings less earnings from other employment.

     Pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A.  5937, Washburn and the Association 
moved to confirm the arbitration award in Superior Court.  The State 
thereupon requested the court to declare that the appointment and 
discharge of the Director of the Bureau of Veterans Services were 
controlled by public law.  After a hearing and submission of briefs, 
the Superior Court vacated the award on September 5, 1980.  The court 
concluded that the dispute was not arbitrable under the supervisory unit 
agreement executed between the State and the Association because (1) the 
parties to the agreement did not intend to submit such disputes to an 
arbitrator and (2) "even if the parties had so intended, their agreement 
would be void as against public policy and the language of 37-A M.R.S.A. 
 1(4) and 5 M.R.S.A.  711(2) and 26 M.R.S.A.  979-D(1)(E)."  The 
court also concluded that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in 
finding the dispute arbitrable and in reaching the merits of the dispute.
Having appealed to this Court, Washburn and the Association contend 
that the dispute over discharging Washburn is substantively arbitrable 
because (1) the parties to the supervisory services unit agreement 
intended the Director of the Bureau of Veterans Services to be covered 
by the terms of the contract and (2) public law does not preclude 
collective bargaining over the discharge 
____________________

2.  Pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 80B, the State sought review of the Board's 
  action in Superior Court.  The court ultimately denied relief on 
  October 10, 1980, one month after in the case now before us that Court 
  vacated the arbitrator's awards.  The October 10 order deals with an 
  issue broader than the issue before us, namely, whether the Director of
  the Bureau of Veterans Services may be designated a state employee and 
  included within the supervisory services unit for collective bargaining 
  purposes in general.  Here, we address the narrow issue of whether 
  discharge procedures to be observed with respect to the Director are a 
  lawful subject of collective bargaining and, therefore, substantively 
  arbitrable.

3.  Maine State Employees Association Agreement, art. XLIII,  1 
  (1978-80).
4.  M.R.S.A.  678 (1979).
5.  Agreement, supra, note 3, art. XLIV.
 
__________________________________________________________________________

[/1239]  
of a state employee serving as Director of that Bureau.  We find it 
unnecessary to consider their first contention because, regardless of 
the parties' intentions, the discharge of a state employee in such a 
directorship could not be lawfully the subject of a collective bargaining 
agreement which limits the prerogative of his superior to discharge him.

     While the Maine State Employees Labor Relations Act expresses a 
policy favoring "the right of state employees to join labor organizations 
of their own choosing and to be represented by such organizations in 
collective bargaining for terms and conditions of employment," 26 M.R.S.A. 
 979 (1974), the Legislature plainly recognized that collective
bargaining with respect to particular employment conditions of specific 
positions held by state employees might not always be appropriate.  
The Act thus explicitly limits collective bargaining as follows:
   
     All matters relating to the relationship between the employer 
     and employees shall be the subject of collective bargaining 
     except those matters which are prescribed or controlled by 
     public law.

26 M.R.S.A.  979-D(1)(E)(1) (1974) (emphasis supplied).

     Provisions of the act creating the Bureau of Veterans Services and 
the Maine Personnel Law are particularly relevant here.  The Director 
of the Bureau of Veterans Services is a position created by statute to 
manage the Bureau of Veterans Services, a Bureau within the Department 
of Defense and Veterans Services.  37-A M.R.S.A.  1,  11 (1978). 
The Department is supervised by an Adjutant General or Commissioner, 
who is appointed and serves at the pleasure of the Governor.  The 
Adjutant General is statutorily authorized to appoint the Director of 
the Bureau of Veterans Services, who, in turn, serves "at the pleasure 
of the Adjutant General." Id.  1(4).  The Director may employ "necessary
assistance to carry out" the Bureau's functions.  Id.  11.  Also, he is 
authorized to adopt "reasonable rules and regulations." Id.  12,  20.

     Under the Maine Personnel Law, state employees are divided into two 
categories, classified and unclassified.  Employees in the classified 
division are hired on the basis of merit and must generally avoid 
political activity.  5 M.R.S.A.  671-73, 676-77,  679-A.  In contrast, 
the unclassified service includes elected officials, certain other state
employees, and so-called major policy-influencing positions.  The position 
Washburn held is expressly designated a major policy-influencing position 
by statute.  Id.  711(2)(A)(14)(c).  Major policy-influencing personnel 
are not afforded protections against arbitrary employer discipline under 
the Maine Personnel Law.[fn]6

     Both the Act creating the Bureau and the Maine Personnel Law reveal 
that the terms and conditions of a discharge of a state employee serving 
as the Director of the Bureau of Veterans Services are prescribed or 
controlled by public law" within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 
 979-D(1)(E)(1).  Under 37-A M.R.S.A.  1 (1978), a line of authority
sensitive to political pressures experienced at the highest levels of 
state government is established.  The Director's superior, the Adjutant 
General, serves at the pleasure of the Governor.  The Adjutant General 
has "the power to appoint and remove" the Director of the Bureau. 
5 M.R.S.A.  711(2)(B) (1979).  Just as the Adjutant General serves at 
the pleasure of the Governor, "the director serves at the pleasure of 
the Adjutant General."  37-A M.R.S.A.  1(4) (1978).

     The phrase "at the pleasure of" is a phrase of art embodying the 
concept of unfettered discretion.  See Patterson v. Ramsey, 413 F. Supp.
523, 531 (D.Md. 1976) aff'd., 552 F.2d 117 (4th Cir. 1977); Rogers v. 
Congleton, 27 Ky.L.Rep. 109, 110-111, 
____________________

6.  The Act provides in pertinent part:
        
       An appointing authority may dismiss, suspend or otherwise 
       discipline an employee for cause.  This right is subject 
       to the right of appeal and arbitration of grievances set 
       forth in sections 751 to 753, or by personnel rule; and 
       said sections 751 to 753 shall apply to any employee who
       has satisfactorily completed an initial probationary           
       period.  This paragraph shall not apply to an employee
       appointed to a major policy-influencing position listed        
       in section 711, subsection 2.
    
  Id.  678 (emphasis supplied).
   
__________________________________________________________________________
   
[/1240]
84 S.W. 521, 522 (1905); Kropp v. Common Council of City of North 
Tonawanda, 207 N.Y.S.2d 411, 416, 26 Misc.2d 127, 131 (Sup. Ct. 1960). 
Thus, the authority of the Adjutant General, and thence, the Governor to
discharge a state employee serving as Director for reasons other than 
just cause is clearly conferred by statute.  That the Legislature 
intended the Adjutant General to have this prerogative is further 
supported by the express exemption of employees in the position of the 
Director from the statutory protections barring arbitrary discharge for 
disciplinary reasons.  See footnote 6 supra.
   
     Requiring that a decision to terminate the employment of the 
Director be for just cause, as the Association's contract with the State 
purports to require here, clearly conflicts with the authority of the 
Adjutant General conferred by statute.  The political philosophy of a 
Director may well influence the way in which a particular director 
administers a Bureau.  In the context of policy formulation and
implementation, the concept of just cause is wholly inappropriate as a 
prerequisite to terminating the employment of a state employee who is 
serving at major policy-influencing levels of state government since the 
job performance of such an employee may be technically competent, but 
politically unsatisfactory.  The notion of a position being served "at 
the pleasure of" a state official directly accountable to the Governor 
thus preserves legitimate political interaction and accountability at 
the policy-influencing levels of the Department of Defense and Veterans 
Services.

     Washburn and the Association nevertheless argue that the contractual 
provision permitting discipline of an employee only for just cause and 
the arbitration of a grievance resting on such a provision do not 
conflict with the statutes governing the position of Director of the 
Bureau of Veterans Services.  The fact that the Director serves at the 
pleasure of the Adjutant General does not mean, they argue, that the 
State may not voluntarily agree in the course of collective bargaining 
to place restrictions on the exercise of the prerogative.
     
     We do not find this argument persuasive for two reasons.  First, 
the statute providing that the Director serve at the pleasure of the 
Adjutant General accentuates by its language the Legislature's interest 
in requiring the Director to serve pursuant to that condition.  The 
statute ordains that the Director "shall serve at the pleasure of the 
Adjutant General."  37-A M.R.S.A.  1(4).  As we have suggested above, 
this mandate is not without a rational basis.  Protracted proceedings 
for the purpose of adjudicating the rectitude of dismissing the Director
risks seriously impeding the effective implementation of political 
policy at the policy-influencing levels of government.  It is no 
accident that the Maine Personnel Law exempts state employees serving in
 positions at those levels of government from the protections afforded 
other state employees from arbitrary state disciplinary procedures.  
See 5 M.R.S.A.  678.

     Second, acceptance of this argument would lead to unacceptable 
consequences.  Illustratively, if the Governor or Adjutant General 
voluntarily determined as a matter of policy that the prerogative to 
dismiss the Director should be conceded during collective bargaining, 
a newly-elected Governor might be prevented from appointing a new 
Director whose views and talents were more attractive to him because a 
collective bargaining agreement, negotiated and approved during the prior 
Governor's term, was still binding on the State.

     We conclude that the Superior Court did not err in vacating the 
arbitrator's award because the terms and conditions of the discharge of 
a state employee serving as Director of the Bureau of Veterans Services 
were prescribed and controlled by public law, and these terms and 
conditions were not, therefore, a lawful subject of a collective 
bargaining agreement limiting the prerogative of the Adjutant General 
to discharge the Director of this Bureau.[fn]7
____________________

7.  See Board of Directors of Maine S.A.D. No. 36 v. Maine S.A.D. No. 36 
  Teachers Ass'n., Me., 428 A.2d 419 (1981).
   _______________________________________________________________________
    
[/1241]  
The entry will be:

Appeal denied.

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.
__________________________________________________________________________