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