Minot School Committee v. MLRB and Minot Education Assoc., No. AP-97-52, affirming Minot Education Assoc. v. Minot School Committee No. 96-27. Law Court affirmed in part, modified in part 1998 ME 211, Aug. 14, 1998. STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION KENNEBEC, SS. DOCKET NO. AP-97-52 MINOT SCHOOL COMMITTEE, Petitioner v. OPINION AND ORDER THE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and THE MINOT EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondents This matter is before the court on the Minot School Committee's appeal from a decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board. That decision determined that the Minot School Committee had engaged in a prohibited labor practice by not bargaining in good faith and ordered certain remedies. On appeal, the Minot School Committee contends that the Board erred in: (1) vacating an interest arbitration award of the Maine Board of Arbitration and Conciliation, (2) determining that there had been bad faith bargaining before all steps to resolve an impasse had been exhausted, (3) infringing on school committee members' First Amendment rights by criticizing school committee members' actions in petitioning for reconsidera- tion of a town meeting vote, and (4) finding bad faith bargaining without support of sufficient evidence. -1- ______________________________________________________________________________ DISCUSSION: The record before the Maine Labor Relations Board fully supports the Board findings that the Minot School Committee did not negotiate in good faith. In support of its findings, the Board cited actions of members of the Minot School Committee in petitioning the Minot town meeting to withdraw an appropriation increase previously adopted to support implementation of a collective bargaining agreement with enhanced compensation for teachers. This citation of the actions of the members of the Minot School Committee was viewed as demonstrating their bad faith bargaining posture. Such a citation of things that committee members have done and said is hardly an infringement of their First Amendment rights. After all, a determination of bad faith bargaining is in essence an evaluation of what bargainers do and say. The fact that school committee members publicly undertook efforts to frustrate achievement of a collective bargaining agreement is certainly relevant to this determination. It is no infringement of the committee members' First Amendment rights. In the course of the collective bargaining activities between the Minot School Committee and the Minot Education Association, a prohibited practice complaint was filed after the Minot School Committee failed to adopt, or even negotiate in good faith on, a factfinding report and recommendations by an impartial panel. 26 M.R.S.A. 965(3). Following the filing of the prohibited practice complaint, the dispute went to arbitration before the Maine Board of Arbitration and Conciliation. The arbitration -2- ______________________________________________________________________________ panel then issued a decision whose effect was to govern certain contract language provisions and make advisory recommendations regarding salaries and health insurance -- the two major issues in contention. Pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 965(4), arbitration panels' decisions on issues such as salaries and insurance are advisory and not binding on the parties. The school committee, determining that negotiations had failed, implemented the arbitration panel's recommendations on salaries and insurance which were consistent with the school committee's original offer to the Minot Education Association. The Maine Labor Relations Board decision purports to vacate the decision of the interest arbitration panel. What the decision really vacates, however, are the panel determinations on salary and insurance which were advisory, not mandatory. As the Minot School Committee points out, decisions of interest arbitra- tion panels of the Maine Board of Arbitration and Conciliation are final, subject only to review by the Superior Court. 26 M.R.S.A. 965(4) and 972. Thus, they argue that the action of the Maine Labor Relations Board purporting to vacate the decision of the arbitration panel was beyond the Maine Labor Relations Board's authority. The school committee would be correct if what the Maine Labor Relations Board had really done had been to vacate the board decision. Such collateral attack would be improper. However, the Maine Labor Relations Board did not vacate the arbitration panel's mandatory decision. It only vacated the school committee's unilateral action -3- ______________________________________________________________________________ in implementing the nonbinding advice given by the arbitration panel. While such action was perhaps a poor choice of words by the MLRB, it was not an improper exercise of its authority. The only purportedly binding action which the MLRB's decision vacated was the unilateral action of the Minot School Committee implementing its own last offer, recommended as nonbinding advice to the parties by the arbitration panel. This action, attempting to return the parties to the status quo before the prohibited labor practice occurred, was not reversible error. Looking at the facts as found by the Maine Labor Relations Board and the history of the case, there also can be no question that, in the circumstances of this case, the Maine Labor Relations Board could have legitimately found that there was a bona fide impasse on the critical issues of salary and insurance which were central to the negotiations. Therefore, the MLRB's order in no way is violative of the standards set forth in Mountain Valley Education Association v. Maine School Administrative District No. 43, 655 A.2d 348 (Me. 1995). Here, the bad faith negotiations occurred before arbitration. After arbitration, the impasse rather evidently continued as the school committee unilaterally imposed its last offer on the Minot Education Association. There was no error in the MLRB's finding on this point. Their findings of lack of good faith bargaining and prohibited labor practice are fully supported by the record. -4- ______________________________________________________________________________ Therefore, the court ORDERS: 1. Appeal DENIED. 2. Decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board AFFIRMED. Dated: December 16, 1997 /s/___________________________________ Donald G. Alexander Justice, Superior Court -5- ______________________________________________________________________________