State of Maine v. MSEA and MLRB, CV-83-09 affirming (mostly) No. 82-05; judgment vacated in State of Maine v. MSEA et al., 499 A.2d 1228 (Me. 1985) reversing No. 82-05 on waiver issue. STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-83-09 STATE OF MAINE, ) ) Plaintiff ) vs. ) ) MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ) ASSOCIATION and ) MAINE LABOR RELATIONS ) BOARD, ) Respondents ) ------------------------ Docket No. CV-83-14 MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ) ASSOCIATION, ) ) Plaintiff ) vs. ) ) STATE OF MAINE and ) MAINE LABOR RELATIONS ) BOARD, ) ) Respondents ) DECISION These cases are before the Court on consolidated appeal from a decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board resolving a number of disputes about the bargainability of certain work change procedures and impacts resulting from reorganization, reclassifications and reductions in force at the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Human Services and the State Board of Cosmetology. At oral argument, the parties agreed that issues addressed by the Maine Labor Relations Board relating to grandfather rights for certain employees have been rendered moot by subsequent -1- ______________________________________________________________________________ collective bargaining activities. However, the remainder of the actions taken by the Maine Labor Relations Board are viable disputes, continuing before the Court for decision despite the fact that the collective bargaining agreement has been entered into subsequent to the collective bargaining agreements at issue in this proceeding. The Maine Labor Relations Board has rendered an extensive decision on this matter which outlines the facts and has given careful and considerate attention to the positions of the parties on the various issues and has extensively reviewed the law applicable to each point. The contentions of the parties before the Maine Labor Relations Board were essentially similar to the contentions of the parties before this Court. With two exceptions, the Court determines (a) that the findings of the Maine Labor Relations Board are fully supported by the evidence in the record and (b) that the conclusions based on those findings represent a proper application of the law. It would serve no purpose for this Court to review the matter in an extensive opinion which would simply adopt language similar to the opinion already issued by the Maine Labor Relations Board. Instead, the Court adopts by reference the opinion of the Maine Labor Relations Board. There are two exceptions to this adoption by reference. First, the Court determines that the Maine Labor Relations Board erred in determining that the staffing levels of hazardous waste cleanup crews were a bargainable item. The Management Rights -2- ______________________________________________________________________________ Article LVI of the Supervisory Services collective bargaining agreement is rather explicit that staffing levels for various activities are reserved to the State and are not bargainable. No exception can be found for staffing levels of activities which may affect the employees' health or safety - however broadly or narrowly construed those terms might be. Certainly the very general terms of the Health and Safety Article XXXV cannot prevail over the specific reservation to the State in Article LVI to determine the size and composition of the work- force. Second, the Court determines that it was error for the Maine Labor Relations Board to conclude that the decision to relocate the Board of Cosmetology Inspector's Headquarters from Augusta to Portland was a bargainable item. At oral argument, the Maine State Employees Association conceded that the provision of the Maine Labor Relations Board order - paragraph 4(a) - was in excess of authority of the Maine Labor Relations Board. The Maine State Employees Association urged that the order simply be modified to limit its scope to the impact of a transfer of headquarters. However, there is no question that, from the terms of the Maine Labor Relations Board decision, at pages 24 and 25, and its order, Section 4(a), that it determined that the question of location of headquarters was bargainable. This was error in light of the specific reservation to the State to determine the "mission, location and size" of all agencies in the Management Rights Article LV of the Professional and Technical Services agreement. -3- ______________________________________________________________________________ Other than these two points, the decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board will be affirmed. Therefore the Court ORDERS and the entry shall be: In Docket No. 83-09: 1. Appeal sustained in part. 2. Paragraphs l(e) and 4(a) of the order of the Maine Labor Relations Board are reversed. 3. Remanded to the Maine Labor Relations Board with direction that its order be amended to recognize that the staffing levels of hazardous waste cleanup crews and the location of the Board of Cosmetology Inspector's Headquarters are not subjects of mandatory collective bargaining. 4. In all other respects, the order of the Maine Labor Relations Board is affirmed. In Docket No. 83-14: 1. Appeal denied. 2. Order of the Maine Labor Relations Board is affirmed. Date: June 28, 1983 /s/____________________________ DONALD G. ALEXANDER Justice, Superior Court -4- ______________________________________________________________________________