Biddeford Teachers Association v. Mayor James Grattelo and Biddeford Board of Education, No. 96-01 (June 17, 1996); Biddeford Board of Education v. Biddeford Teachers Association, No. CV-96-314, Interim Order on Motion for Stay, (Me. Super. Ct., York Cty., Aug. 1, 1996), rev'd in part sub nom. Mayor James Grattelo and Biddeford Board of Education v. Biddeford Teachers Association and Maine Labor Relations Board, No. CV-96-314 (Aug. 13, 1996); Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, No. CV-96-314, Dec. 12, 1996; Interim Order Enforcing Board Order, in part, No. CV-96-314 (Sept. 24, 1996); rev'd in part sub nom. Biddeford Board of Education v. Biddeford Teachers Association, 1997 ME 17 , 688 A.2d 922 (Me. 1997); Biddeford Teachers Association v. Mayor James Grattelo and Biddeford Board of Education, No. 96-01, Decision and Order on Motion for Order on Remedies (Me.L.R.B. May 13, 1997) STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT YORK, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-96-314 BIDDEFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Plaintiffs v. ORDER BIDDEFORD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants Pending is Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay relating to a decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board dated June 17, 1996. The motion came on for testimonial hearing on July 18, 1996. Following hearing, the Motion for Stay is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1) With respect to teachers who are entitled to back pay under the Board's decision but who are not presently employed as teachers in Biddeford, the Motion for Stay is granted. 2) With respect to teachers who are entitled to back-pay under the Board's decision and who continue to teach in Biddeford during the 1996-1997 school year, the Stay is granted until the date on which the first pay checks for such teachers are issued after the start of the 1996-1997 school year in Biddeford. On that date the Stay granted by this order is dissolved unless extended by the Justice who will hear this -1- appeal on its merits on August 8, 1996.[fn]1 Dated: August 1, 1996 /s/___________________________ G. Arthur Brennan Justice, Superior Court _______________ 1 By order dated June 26, 1996, this appeal is proceeding on an accelerated briefing schedule. Under this schedule the meritss of the appeal will be heard on August 8, 1996. Nothing in this order should be construed to limit the discretion of the hearing Justice to dissolve, extend or modify this order. -2- _______________ STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT YORK, ss. Civil Action Docket No. CV-96-314 MAYOR JAMES GRATTELO and BIDDEFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION Plaintiff v. ORDER BIDDEFORD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION and MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Defendant This matter came before the court on the appeal of Mayor James Gratello (Mayor) and Board of Education of the City of Biddeford (Board) from a decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board (MLRB) declaring the mayor's veto of a tentative contract with the Biddeford Teachers Association (Association) to be illegal, and therefore invalid, and thereupon declaring that the Board had, in fact, ratified the contract. The matter was briefed on an accelerated briefing schedule. Prior to hearing on the merits of the appeal, hearing was held on the Board's request for stay of enforcement of the MLRB decision. An order was entered on August 1, 1996 (Brennan, J.) staying the enforcement in part. After lengthy oral argument, this court entered its decision on the appeal on the record. No court reporter was available to record the entry of the decision. Because the Law Court will review the decision of the MLRB directly, it is not -1- necessary for any appellant to provide the Law Court with a transcript of the oral argument. Therefore, this brief written order is entered to make clear for the record the decision announced, and final in this court, on August 8, 1996. This court concludes as follows: 1. The MLRB's finding of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record and are not challenged on appeal. 2. In order to carry out its duties, the MLRB necessarily had jusisdiction, pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. Sec. 968(5)(A) to examine and rule on the legality of the process used by the Board when it undertook a vote on ratification of the tentative agreement. 3. Although the court will give deference to the decisions of the MLRB interpreting its own rules and statutes, no deference will be given to the MLRB in its interpretation of municipal law. 3. The MLRB did not err as a matter of law in concluding that the process used by the Board, which had been unanimously voted into existence by the Board in December of 1993, conflicted with the terms of the City Charter and 20-A M.R.S.A. Sec. 13201 in that it gave to the Mayor greater authority in Board proceedings than was authorized under the Charter or by state law. Although the court (and the MLRB) -2- should defer to lawfully enacted procedures establislhed by the Board, this court concludes that the process enacted here elevates Mayoral control of the Board's appropriations decisions beyond that authorized by law or Charter. 4. The MLRB erred as a matter of law, and abused its discretion, when it concluded that the Board had ratified the tentative agreement by its initial four to three vote. This court concludes that the four to three vote was taken as a part of a whole process and cannot, standing on its own, constitute ratification of the contract. Once the MLRB determined the Board's process (or a substantial part of that process) to have been illegal, it erred when it designated a part of the process upon which to declare a point of ratification. Because the Board employed an ineffective process on April 25, 1995, no final vote on the ratification occurred, and therefore the MLRB erred in determining that the contract had been ratified. While the MLRB may take further action, including sanctions against the Board resulting from the process employed, it cannot force upon the parties a contract that has not been ratified by one of the parties. 5. This matter must be remanded to the MLRB for further proceedings consistent with the conclusions contained herein. 6. The MLRB's motion to vacate or amend the Partial Stay granted by Justice Brennan is DENIED. The order dated August 1, 1996, staying the operation of the -3- MLRB's decision in part shall remain in effect during the appeal period, but shall cease to be effective upon expiration of that appeal period if no appeal has been filed. The motion for findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the Augsut 1, 1996 order, which the MLRB may file on or before Augsut 15, 1996, must be presented to Justice Brennan for his consideration in due course. Wherefore, the entry shall be Appeal GRANTED. Remanded to the MLRB for further proceedings consistent with the conclusions herein. The motion to vacate or amend the Partial Stay granted on August 1, 1996 in DENIED. DATED: August 13, 1996 /s/_________________________ Leigh I. Saufley Justice, Superior Court -4- -------------------- STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT YORK, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-96-314 ) MAYOR JAMES GRATTELO ) and ) BIDDEFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) ORDER ) BIDDEFORD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, ) and ) MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ) Defendants ) ) This matter initially came before the Superior Court on the appeal of the Plaintiffs from a decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board (MLRB) declaring that a tentative contract between the Board of Education of the City of Biddeford ("Board") and the Biddeford Teachers Association was in effect and ordering the Board to make payments as provided by the terms of the tentative contract. While the appeal was pending, Plaintiffs requested a stay of the MLRB's order to pay under the terms of the tentative contract. On August 1, 1996, a stay of the MLRB's order was granted by the court (Brennan, J.) with respect to teachers who are entitled to back pay under the MLRB's decision but who are not presently employed as teachers in Biddeford. With respect to teachers who are entitled to back pay under the MLRB's order and who continue to teach in Biddeford during the 1996-1997 1 school year, a stay was granted until the date on which the first paychecks for such teachers were to be issued after the start of the 1996-1997 school year in Biddeford. On that date, this stay would dissolve unless extended by the Justice who would hear the appeal on the merits. On August 8, 1996 the Superior Court (Saufley, J.) granted Plaintiffs' appeal and left the August 1, 1996 stay in place. Justice Saufley's Order has been appealed by the Defendants and cross-appealed by the Plaintiffs. These appeals are currently pending before the Law Court. Pending before this court are: 1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Order relating to an order of the Maine Labor Relations Board dated June 17, 1996 and to Superior Court orders dated August 1, 1996 and August 8, 1996; 2) Defendant Biddeford Teachers Association's Motion for Contempt relating to the same orders, and 3) Defendant Maine Labor Relations Board's Motion to Compel the unstayed portion of its June 17, 1996 order. Following hearing, the court concludes as follows: 1. With respect to teachers who are not presently employed as teachers in Biddeford, the stay remains in place.[fn]1 2. With respect to teachers who are presently employed as teachers by the City of Biddeford, the August 1, 1996 stay dissolved by its own terms on September 11, 1996, the date (as represented by the parties) on which the first paychecks for such teachers were issued. With respect to teachers who are currently employed, no _______________ 1 The MLRB has requested findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the August 1, 1996 stay. Plaintiffs and Defendants are to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the court no later than September 27, 1996. The court will issue findings and conclusions after that date. 2 sufficient showing of irreparable injury or risk has been established to induce the court to extend the stay past September 11, 1996. 3. The court finds that despite Justice Saufley's order of August 8, the MLRB's June 17, 1996 decision and order are still in effect pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 968(5)(F) (1988 & Supp. 1995). This statute confirms the vitality of the MLRB's orders pending further court review. Section 968(5)(F) provides that "pending review" the MLRB's order shall not be stayed except when it is clearly shown that substantial and irreparable injury will be sustained or that there is a substantial risk of danger to the public health or safety. The court reads "pending review" to include not only review by the Superior Court but also any further appellate review which the parties may seek. Therefore, the MLRB's order to Plaintiffs to pay under the tentative contract is in effect pending further appellate review of the MLRB's decision, regardless of the fact that Justice Saufley granted Plaintiffs' appeal. 4. Plaintiffs, through counsel, have represented to the court their willingness to comply with the MLRB's order if ordered to do so by this court. Therefore, it is unnecessary at this juncture to hold Plaintiffs in contempt. Wherefore the entry shall be The Motion for Relief from Order is DENIED, the Motion for contempt is DENIED, and the Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to comply with the unstayed portion of the June 17, 1996 Decision and Order of the Maine Labor Relations Board. 3 DATED: September 24, 1996 /s/__________________________ G. Arthur Brennan Justice, Superior Court 4 -------------------- STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION YORK, SS. DOCKET NO. CV-96-314 MAYOR JAMES GRATTELO, individually in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Biddeford and BIDDEFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiffs FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW v. BIDDEFORD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION and MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Defendants 1. This matter came to this court on a Rule 80C complaint of Mayor James Grattelo of Biddeford ("Grattelo" or "Mayor") and the Biddeford Board of Education ("Board of Education" or "Board") appealing the June 17, 1996 Decision and Order (the "Order") of the Maine Labor Relations Board (the "MLRB") in favor of the Biddeford Teachers Association ("BTA") which Order found that Mayor Grattelo and the Board violated various sections of 26 M.R.S.A. 964 and 965. 2. An expedited briefing schedule on the Rule 80C complaint was agreed to by the parties and ordered by this court (per J. Fritzsche) on June 26, 1996. 3. On June 20, 1996, along with their 80C complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for stay of the underlying MLRB Order. 4. On July 2, 1996, the BTA and MLRB submitted memoranda opposing the plaintiffs' stay motion. 5. On July 18, 1996, a hearing was held before the undersigned on plaintiffs' motion for stay. -1- 6. On August 1, 1996, the undersigned entered an order with respect to the motion for stay denying in part, and granting in part (for a period of time) plaintiffs' motion for stay. 7. The court's August 1, 1996 order holds that teachers in Biddeford who are owed back pay under the MLRB Order and who continue to teach in Biddeford during the 1996-1997 school year shall have the stay applied to them only to the date that their first regular paychecks are issued for the 1996-1997 school year (September 11, 1996) unless the stay is "extended by the justice who will hear this appeal on its merits on August 8, 1996." (Court's Order of August 1, 1996, at 1 and 2; footnote omitted.) 8. Prior to that scheduled August 8, 1996 hearing, the MLRB filed a motion to vacate or amend the partial stay order of August 1, 1996. 9. On August 8, 1996, Justice Leigh I. Saufley heard the merits of the 80C complaint. Justice Saufley made findings at that hearing and followed the same with an order dated August 13, 1996. The MLRB motion to vacate or amend the partial stay was also dealt with by Justice Saufley, in the context of dealing with the court's August 1, 1996 stay order: The order dated August 1, 1996, staying the operation of the MLRB's decision in part shall remain in effect during the appeal period, but shall cease to be effective upon expiration of that appeal if no appeal has been filed. The motion for findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding August 1, 1996 order, which the MLRB may file on or before August 15, 1996, must be presented to Justice Brennan for his consideration in due course. (Court's order of August 13, 1996) -2- -2- 10. On August 14, 1996, the MLRB filed a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law and a motion requesting admission of additional evidence, which motions were informally taken up by the court on September 19, 1996, said matters having been opposed by an August 29, 1996 objection of plaintiffs. 11. On August 14, 1996, the MLRB also filed its notice of appeal of Justice Saufley's order, which was followed by the filing of a notice of appeal by the BTA and a cross-appeal notice by plaintiffs. 12. On September 6, 1996, the BTA filed a motion for contempt against plaintiffs with regard to plaintiffs' public and private position that they did not have to pay retroactive benefits pursuant to the MLRB's order. 13. The BTA's position on the stay was that given the content of the underlying orders with regard to the same, the partial stay was vacated as of September 11, 1996 as regards retroactive payment of teachers' salaries for teachers employed by the Biddeford School System for the 1996-1997 school year. 14. Since the BTA believed that the plaintiffs' position on payment of retroactive amounts due the teachers put them in contempt of the orders of this court with regard to the stay, the BTA's September 6, 1996 motion for contempt also sought sanctions against plaintiffs for every day they remain in contempt for failing to pay the teachers past amounts due. 15. Also on September 6, 1996, plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from order pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 60(b) with regard this court's August 1, 1996 order and Justice Saufley's August 8, 1996 and August 13, 1996 orders following up the same. -3- 16. On September ____________, 1996, the MLRB filed a motion to compel plaintiffs to comply with its order of June 17, 1996. 17. On September 17, 1996, the BTA filed its opposition to plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) motion. 18. Argument on plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) motion was heard by the court on September 19, 1996 at which time the plaintiffs, the BTA and the MLRB argued the merits of that motion, as well as the merits of the stay order and various other motions outstanding to the stay order. 19. At the conclusion of the September 19, 1996 hearing, the court requested the parties to submit proposed findings of fact with regard to the court's August 1, 1996 stay order. 20. In addition to the above procedural facts and the court' consideration of the arguments made on the stay motion and the arguments made on the various motions following up the August 1, 1996 stay order, the court also finds the following: a. The present surplus level of the City indicates that the City has the financial ability to fund the raises called for under the contract. b. That the school department, with assistance from the BTA, has the administrative capacity to adjust the personnel and payroll records for existing teachers to accommodate the raise contemplated under the disputed contract. -4- c. The teachers who have left their teaching jobs with the City as a result of retirement or otherwise create serious administrative problems. Payments made to them might well prove difficult to recoup if the contract is not upheld. For those in the Maine State Retirement System, increased payments will cause serious administrative problems with that system, as well as the city system, if the contract is not upheld. These complications will cause serious and irreparable harm and confusion if the contract is not upheld. Thus, the stay with respect to teachers separated from city employment remains in place. d. The plaintiffs have failed to make any arguments, or present any evidence, which convinces the court that the court should extend the stay past September 11, 1996 with regard to teachers who are currently employed by the Biddeford School System. In other words, the plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence of an irreparable injury or risk required in order to keep the stay in place, and therefore the stay will be dissolved. DATED: December 12, 1996 /s/___________________ G. Arthur Brennan Justice, Superior Court -5-