STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Case No. 93-10 Issued: February 8, 1993 ________________________________ ) ROY GALLANT and MAINE STATE ) TROOPERS ASSOCIATION, ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ) MAINE STATE POLICE, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________) On September 14, 1992, Roy Gallant and the Maine State Troopers Association ("complainants") filed a prohibited practices complaint with the Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board") alleging that the Department of Public Safety, Maine State Police ("Department"), had unilaterally instituted a one- hour-per-week reduction in work schedules for members of the State Police Unit, in violation of section 979-C(1)(E) of the State Employees Labor Relations Act ("SELRA"), 26 M.R.S.A. 979- C(1)(E) (1988). In response, the Department alleges that the work-week reduction is prescribed and/or controlled by public law, and therefore that it is prohibited from bargaining over this subject or any aspect thereof. On November 4, 1992, Board Chair Peter T. Dawson convened a prehearing conference in this matter. His Prehearing Memorandum and Order, dated November 13, 1992, is incorporated in and made a part of this decision and order. At the prehearing conference, complainants were represented by Daniel F. Gilligan, Esquire, and the Department was represented by Robert N. Moore, Esquire. At that time, the parties reached certain stipulations, indicated that a fully stipulated record might be possible, and set a briefing schedule that would obtain should the record be fully -1- stipulated. Thereafter, the parties were able to stipulate the record, obviating the need for an evidentiary hearing; their stipulations have been incorporated herein. Initial briefs were filed on or before December 15, 1992, as required, and neither party chose to file a reply brief (due December 30th). The Board, having received and reviewed all relevant materials, deliberated this matter by telephone on January 25, 1993. JURISDICTION The jurisdiction of the Board to hear this case and to render a decision and order lies in 26 M.R.S.A. 979-H (1988 & Supp. 1992). STIPULATIONS 1. Complainant Roy Gallant is the President of the Maine State Troopers Association, and is a State Employee in the bargaining unit represented by the Maine State Troopers Association, within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 979-A(6). 2. The Maine State Troopers Association is a non-profit corporation which is the exclusive bargaining representative for permanent full-time troopers, corporals and sergeants in the Bureau of State Police, within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 979-A(1). 3. The Department of Public Safety and the Maine State Police are public employers within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 979-A(5). 4. Colonel Andrew Demers, Jr., is the Chief of the Maine State Police and occupied this position from the beginning of June, 1992 to the time of this Complaint. 5. The mailing address of the Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Maine State Police, is State House Station 42, Augusta, ME 04333. Colonel Andrew Demers, Jr., has the same business address. 6. The address of Complainant Roy Gallant is P.O. Box 871F, -2- Belgrade, Maine 04918. The registered agent for Complainant Maine State Troopers Association is 465 Congress Street, P.O. Box 9732, Portland, Maine 04104. 7. Effective June 7, 1992, without engaging in collective bargaining with Complainants, Respondent implemented a reduction in the work schedule of employees in the State Police bargaining unit such that each employee's work schedule was reduced by one (1) hour each work week. This schedule change, in effect, reduced the scheduled work hours for unit employees by a total of four (4) hours over the 28-day work cycle. 8. Joint-1 is a true copy of the collective bargaining agreement in effect at all times relevant to this prohibited practice complaint. Further, the parties stipulate that negotiations for a successor agreement are in progress and at present Joint-1 remains in effect. 9. By certified mail letter on or about June 18, 1992, counsel for the Complainants requested that the Director of the Bureau of Employee Relations of the Department of Administration for the State of Maine collectively bargain with the Maine State Troopers Association on the work week reduction of one hour. 10. By a response dated July 8, 1992, the Director of the Bureau of Employee Relations for the Department of Administration indicated its refusal to bargain the work week reduction. 11. Joint exhibits 1 through 4, as described in the Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Order, are admitted without objection. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the entire record, the Board further finds: 1. Joint Exhibit 1 is the most recent collective bargaining agreement ("Agreement") between the State of Maine and the Maine State Troopers Association for the State Police Unit. The Agreement was effective "as of the signing of this Agreement until June 30, 1992, unless otherwise specifically provided herein." (Article 44) 2. A budget reduction law was enacted by the 115th -3- Legislature in its Second Regular Session and signed by Governor McKernan on April 1, 1992. P.L. 1991, ch. 780. Part WW, section WW-1, of that law states: Sec. WW-1. Reduction in work schedule for all state employees in fiscal year 1992-93. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the weekly work schedule for each state employee in the executive branch, legislative branch and other agencies of State Government is reduced by one hour for payrolls effective in fiscal year 1992-93. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the weekly work schedule for each state employee in the judicial branch is reduced by one hour for payrolls effective in fiscal year 1992-93. Supervisors shall be responsible for conferring with employees for the scheduling of the one- hour reduction, subject to operational needs of the department or agency. Each employee must be given at least 14 days' notice of the change in that individual's schedule. Compensation for all state employees for the payrolls effective in fiscal year 1992-93 must be reduced in accordance with this section. The reduction in work schedules required in this section does not affect state employee rights and bene- fits that are established under contract or in law and that are based on work schedules in effect prior to the effective date of this Act. Rights and benefits must be determined as if the work schedules of employees had not been reduced. Sections WW-4 through 9 itemize the savings in personnel costs to be accomplished by the legislation. Those savings total over $9 million. DISCUSSION The events leading up to the filing of the complaint in this case are straightforward and uncontested. The budget reduction law enacted by the 115th Legislature in its Second Regular Session and signed by Governor McKernan on April 1, 1992, included a provision requiring that the work week of State employees be reduced by one hour, for payrolls effective in fiscal year 1992-93. Shortly after the reduction was implemented at the Department on June 7, 1992, without bargaining, complain- ants made a written request to the Bureau of Employee Relations ("BOER") to bargain over the reduction. BOER refused, and this litigation followed. -4- Because the budget reduction law itself is not quite so straightforward, we will make a preliminary observation before addressing the complainants' main allegation. Section WW-1 of the budget reduction law required a one-hour-per-week reduction for "payrolls effective in fiscal year 1992-93." Therefore, it was intended to include the two-week pay period that began June 5, 1992, for which employees were paid on July 1, 1992, the first day of fiscal year 1992-93. Complainants allege that the Department unilaterally implemented the reduction on June 7, 1992 (the first work day of the pay period), before the parties' Agreement expired on June 30, 1992.1 That Agreement sets hours of work and salaries for State Police Unit employees. We do not read the complaint to be directed to the three- week period before the Agreement expired, but to the extent that it is, the Board has no authority to provide relief to the complainants. The Department had no choice but to implement the budget reduction law in accordance with the time requirements set out in the legislation. If the legislation itself was unlawful because it unconstitutionally impaired the parties' Agreement, that claim can only be pursued in the courts. At the heart of the complainants' complaint is their assertion that the Legislature never intended the budget reduction law to apply to State Police Unit members. Therefore, they argue, the Department has violated its duty to bargain by unilaterally reducing the work week and salaries of those employees, in violation of Article 16 (Hours and Work Schedules) _________________________ 1Although the parties have stipulated that Exhibit J-1 (the Agreement) remains in effect while the parties bargain for a successor agreement, we take that stipulation to be a reflection of the fact that the status quo must be maintained during negotiations. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the parties formally extended the contract itself. -5- and Article 6 (Compensation) of the Agreement.2 More specifi- cally, the complainants argue that the second paragraph of section WW-1 of the budget reduction law exempted State Police unit members from the one-hour reduction because there was a pre- existing collective bargaining agreement that set hours of work and salaries. The paragraph on which complainants rely states: The reduction in work schedules required in this section does not affect state employee rights and bene- fits that are established under contract or in law and that are based on work schedules in effect prior to the effective date of this Act. Rights and benefits must be determined as if the work schedules of employees had not been reduced. The Board disagrees with complainants' interpretation of that paragraph for two reasons. First, the purpose of the legislation is evident in sections WW-4 through 9: to save the State several million dollars in personnel costs, as part of a larger effort to balance the budget. If every employee whose work week had previously been established by law or contract were exempt from the work-week reduction, the savings achieved would be virtually non-existent.3 More important, the words of the legislation speak for _________________________ 2More accurately, in the absence of the budget reduction law, the unilateral change in the work week and in corresponding salaries would violate the Agreement during the period from June 7 through June 30, 1992, while it was still in effect. After expiration of the Agreement, the unilateral change would violate the Board's requirement that the status quo be maintained until a successor agreement is in place. 3We do not mean to suggest that all employees were necessarily subject to the work-week reduction legislation. In instances where employees were in a bargaining unit for which a collective bargaining agreement extended into fiscal 1992-93, the Legislature would have been constitutionally prohibited from impairing the obligations in that contract, absent extraordinary circumstances. Constitution of Maine, Article I, Section 11. -6- themselves. The last sentence of the second paragraph reveals the intent of that paragraph: "Rights and benefits must be determined as if the work schedules of employees had not been reduced." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the intent of the paragraph is not to exclude particular employees from the one-hour-per-week reduction, but to make it clear that for employees whose work week is reduced, other rights and benefits based on the length of the work week will not also be reduced. Rights and benefits that are dependent on number of hours worked include vacation accumulation, sick leave accumulation and the employer's contribution for health insurance. Under paragraph 2 of section WW-1, these and similar benefits other than salaries -- whether previously established by law or by contract -- will not be affected by the one-year reduction in hours.4 In sum, we find that in enacting section WW-1, the Legislature intended to include the State Police Unit in its requirement that the work week be reduced by one hour for State employees. The Legislature also mandated that salaries would be reduced accordingly. Consequently, BOER could not bargain over the one-hour reduction itself or the salary reduction that flowed therefrom. The complaint will be dismissed. ORDER On the basis of the foregoing stipulations, 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 _________________________ 4Although salary is also dependent on hours worked, the Legislature clearly did not intend that salaries remain unchanged when hours were reduced. The purpose of the legislation -- to help balance the budget -- would not have been served if hours were cut without a corresponding cut in salary. More to the point, the first paragraph of section WW-1 states, in part: "Compensation for all state employees for the payrolls effective in fiscal year 1992-93 must be reduced in accordance with this section." -7- 26 M.R.S.A. 979-H(4) (1988), it is hereby ORDERED: 1. That the complaint filed by Roy Gallant and the Maine State Troopers Association on September 14, 1992, is dismissed. 2. That the parties' respective requests for reason- able attorney's fees and costs are denied. Issued at Augusta, Maine, this 8th day of February, 1993. MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The parties are hereby advised of their right, pursuant to /s/_________________________ 26 M.R.S.A. 979-H(7) (Supp. Peter T. Dawson 1992), to seek review of this Chair decision and order by the Superior Court. To initiate such a review, an appealing party must file a complaint with /s/_________________________ the Superior Court within fif- Howard Reiche, Jr. teen (15) days of the date of Employer Representative issuance of this decision and order, and otherwise comply with the requirements of Rule 80C of the Maine Rules of Civil /s/_________________________ Procedure. George W. Lambertson Employee Representative