Town of Wells v. Teamsters, No. CV-84-235 (Feb. 28, 1985), affirming Board decision No. 84-A-03 which had reversed in part Hearing Officer Decision 84-UC-04. STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT Civil Action YORK, ss. Docket No. CV84-235 INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF ) WELLS, ) Plaintiff ) v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No. 48, ) et al., ) Defendants) The Town of Wells (Town) brings this M.R. Civ. P. 80B appeal from a ruling of the Maine Labor Relations Board (Board) that the Town's Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) is not a "department head" within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 962(6)(D). The Board reversed a hearing examiner's decision that, as a department head, the CEO could not be included within a collective bargaining unit under the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act, 26 M.R.S.A. 961 et seq. The Town argues that the Board disregarded its own standard of review in overturning the decision of the hearing examiner, and that the Board's decision constituted an error of law reversible by the Superior Court under 26 M.R.S.A. 972. This court disagrees with both arguments and affirms the decision of the Board. The Board will overturn a hearing examiner's determinations if it finds they were unlawful, unreasonable, or lacking in any rational factual basis. The hearing examiner made findings of fact in this case and, from those findings, concluded that since the CEO's duties included administrative responsibilities, [-1-] ____________________________________________________________________ he was a department head. The Board adopted the examiner's findings of fact, but concluded from the findings that the CEO's duties are mixed, including both administrative and rank-and- file, or operational, components. The Board found that the facts showed that the CEO's primary duties were operational, and that his administrative responsibilities were so limited that it was unreasonable to classify him as a department head. The Board did not disregard the applicable standard of review. The Town also argues that the Board's decision was an error of law, while the Board responds that it was a purely factual determination, not to be overturned in the absence of fraud under 26 M.R.S.A. 972 and Baker Bus Service v. Keith, 416 A.2d 727 (Me. 1980). Whether a particular employee is a "department head" is not a question of fact. Since it requires statutory interpretation, it is a question of law, and the reviewing court may overturn the Board if its interpretation is erroneous. However, the Board made no error of law in this case. Employees of municipalities and other small governmental entities frequently have hybrid responsibilities, including both managerial and operational duties. If any degree of adminis- trative or supervisory responsibility were enough to disqualify an employee from collective bargaining, many workers now routinely included in bargaining units would have to be dropped. The Board's use of the "primary responsibility" test to clarify the difficult situation of mixed responsibility is proper, and the Board relied correctly on the facts in reaching its conclusion -2- ___________________________________________________________________ that the CEO is not a department head. The entry is: The decision of the Maine Labor Relations Board is AFFIRMED. The appeal of the Town of Wells is DISMISSED. Dated: February 28, 1985 /s/_____________________________ William E. McKinley,Justice Superior Court -3- ___________________________________________________________________