State of Maine, Department of Public Safety and Maine State Employees 
Association, Local 1989, SEUI, MLRB No. 94-UCA-01 (July 1, 1994)
Affirming MLRB Nos. 83-UC-45 & 91-UC-45 (Feb. 4, 1994)

				      Case No. 94-UCA-01
				      Issued:  July 1, 1994

PUBLIC SAFETY,                      )
		    Appellant,      )
	    and                     )  UNIT CLARIFICATION APPEAL
LOCAL 1989, SEIU,                   )
		    Appellee.       )

     This is an appeal of a unit clarification report filed by
the State of Maine (State) on February 18, 1994, pursuant to
26 M.R.S.A.  979-G(2) (Supp. 1993) 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 was
issued on February 4, 1994.  The single aspect of the unit
clarification report which is appealed by the State is the
hearing examiner's determination that Clerk Stenographer III Joan
Butler[fn]1 should not be excluded from the coverages of the State
Employees Labor Relations Act (SELRA) as a confidential employee
within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  979-A(6)(C) (1988).
The hearing examiner determined that the record did not establish
a sufficient amount of "confidential" work on the part of Butler
or excluded confidential Administrative Secretary Sophie Welsh[fn]2
     1 Butler was alleged by the State to perform necessary
confidential duties for the Chief of the Maine State Police.

     2 Welsh is Administrative Secretary both to the Commissioner
of Public Safety and to the Deputy Chief of the Maine State


to necessitate the exclusion of a total of three[fn]3 clerical
employees.  The hearing examiner found that although Butler had
performed confidential duties within the meaning of the SELRA,
her exclusion could "be avoided through a reasonable reassignment
of some duties."

     The parties waived oral argument and mutually agreed to
submit the appeal on written argument alone.  By agreement no
transcript of the underlying evidentiary proceeding was produced
and the parties stipulated that no additional facts--beyond those
contained in the unit clarification report--were needed for full
litigation of the appeal.  A briefing schedule was agreed upon,
pursuant to which the parties' main briefs were both filed on
April 27, 1994.  The State filed a reply brief on May 9, 1994.
The Appellant/State is represented in this matter by Attorney
Sandra S. Carraher and the Appellee/Maine State Employees
Association (MSEA) by Attorney Timothy L. Belcher.  The Board,
comprised of Chair Peter T. Dawson, Employee Representative
George W. Lambertson and Alternate Employer Representative
Eben B. Marsh, deliberated this matter on June 21, 1994.


     The State is an aggrieved party within the meaning of 26
M.R.S.A.  979-G(2) (Supp. 1993), and is a public employer within
the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  979-A(5) (Supp. 1993).  The MSEA is
the bargaining agent, within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  979-
A(1) (1988), of Joan Butler and other Law Enforcement Services
bargaining unit employees within the State Department of Public
Safety.  The jurisdiction of the Maine Labor Relations Board to
hear this appeal and to render a decision herein lies in

     3 The hearing officer also excluded as confidential, within
the meaning of the SELRA, Clerk Typist Priscilla Martin,
secretary to the Department Personnel Manager.


26 M.R.S.A.  979-G(2) (Supp. 1993).

     Neither party has taken exception with any finding of fact
contained in the hearing examiner's February 4, 1994, unit
clarification report.  Those findings of fact are hereby
incorporated in and made a part hereof.

     We have often stated the standard applicable to our review
of hearing examiners' unit clarification reports.  It is as

     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

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 contested portions of the unit
clarification report in light of the above standard of review and
the arguments of the parties.  We hold that the hearing
examiner's rulings are lawful, reasonable and are supported by
competent substantial record evidence.  Pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A.
 979-G(2) (Supp. 1993), we hereby AFFIRM the hearing examiner's
factual findings and legal analysis with respect to the unit
placement of Clerk Stenographer III Joan Butler, and adopt them
as our own.



     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. 1993), it is ORDERED:

     that the February 18, 1994, appeal of the State of
     Maine, filed with respect to the February 4, 1994, unit
     clarification report in Case No. 83-UC-45 and 91-UC-45,
     is denied and the report is affirmed, in part, as is
     set forth above.

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 1st day of July, 1994.


The parties are hereby advised     /s/___________________________
of their right, pursuant to 26     Peter T. Dawson
M.R.S.A.  979-G(2) (Supp.         Chair
1993), to seek review of this
Decision and Order on Unit
Clarification Appeal by the
Superior Court.  To initiate       /s/___________________________
such a review an appealing         George W. Lambertson
party must file a complaint        Employee Representative
with the Superior Court within
fifteen (15) days of the date
of announcement hereof, and
otherwise comply with the          /s/___________________________
requirements of Rule 80C of        Eben B. Marsh
the Maine Rules of Civil           Alternate Employer
Procedure.                           Representative