The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, SS. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO. AP-01-05
SKS- el) > 7/2/2001
TROY LANGLEY
Petitioner
V. DECISION ON APPEAL
MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
LOCAL 1989
Respondent
This matter comes on for review of final agency action
pursuant to applicable statute and Maine Rules of Civil Procedure
80C. The action under review is the Decision and Order of the
Maine Labor Relations Board (Board) dated December 26, 2000 by
which it was ordered that Petitioner Troy Langley’s complaint
against the Maine State Employees Association (MSEA) was
dismissed. Finding no error of law, the appeal will be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Langley is a former employee of the Maine Department of
Transportation, who was terminated from his employment on June 23,
1999 for being unavailable for work for three consecutive days.
Langley had a history of frequent leaves of absence from work, but
the reason for his absence in June 1999 was his incarceration
following a guilty plea on criminal charges of assault and
violation of a condition of release. Following his conviction,
but prior to his actual incarceration, Langley sought assistance
from his union, the MSEA, in an attempt to save his employment.
The MSEA representative spoke with Langley and his supervisors,
but ultimately advised Langley that there was nothing the union
could for him to save his job and that he might consider a
voluntary resignation. Subsequently, Langley filed a prohibited
practice complaint before the Board alleging that the MSEA had
violated 26 M.R.S.A. §979-C (2) (A) by breaching its duty of fair
representation.
The Board conducted a three day hearing and issued a 35 page
decision including 22 pages of findings of fact set forth in 57
numbered paragraphs. After considering the law applicable to
these facts, the Board dismissed the complaint. That dismissal
generated the present appeal.
DISCUSSION
When the decision of an administrative agency is appealed
pursuant to Maine Rules of Civil Procedure 80C, this Court reviews
the agency’s decision directly for abuse of discretion, errors of
law or findings not supported by the evidence. Centamore v.
Department of Human Services, 664 A.2d 369, 370 (Me. 1995). “An
administrative decision will be sustained if, on the basis of the
entire record before it, the agency could have fairly and
reasonably found the facts as it did.” Seider v. Board of
Examiners of Psychologists, 2000 ME 206, 99, 762 A.2d 551, 555.
“Inconsistent evidence will not render an agency decision
unsupported.” Id.
Although Langley’s recitation of the facts in his brief
differs from the findings of the Board, he does not directly
challenge the Board’s findings on appeal. The Board’s extensive
findings are all supported by substantial evidence in the record
and this is not the basis for the appeal.
Langley argues that the Board acted arbitrarily and committed
legal error by ignoring case law circumscribing the duty of fair
representation. It is essentially Langley’s position that the
Board applied a standard so high that a breach of the duty hardly
ever could be found. Langley points out the dearth of Maine law
examining the contours of a breach of the duty and then invites
the Court’s attention to four federal decisions from the second,
eighth and ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. The problem with the
citations is that those cases all predate a more recent decision
by the United States Supreme Court in QO’Neill v. Airline Pilots
Association, 499 U.S. 65, 111 Supreme Court 1127, 1130 (1991).
This was a major problem with the Petitioner’s argument before the
Board, as pointed out on page 27 of the Board’s decision, and it
remains the same major problem on appeal.
The rule applied by the Board is well established and has
been stated as follows:
A union breaches its duty of fair representation when a
“union's conduct toward its members [is] arbitrary,
discriminatory or in bad faith. Thus, the union may not
ignore a meritorious grievance or process it in a perfunctory
manner. Nevertheless, a wide range of reasonableness must be
allowed and mere negligence, poor judgment or ineptitude are
sufficient to establish a breach of the duty of fair
representation.” Brown v. Maine State Employees Ass‘n.,1997
ME 24, 47, 690 A.2d 956, 958 (citing Lundrigan v. Maine Labor
Relations Board, 482 A.2d 834 (Me. 1984)
Using this rule was not an error law and application of the rule
to the facts was not an abuse of discretion.
For the reasons state above, the entry will be: Appeal
DENIED.
DATED: 7/12 lol
S. Kirk Studstrup
Justice, Superior Court
Date Filed 1/10/01 Kennebec Docket No. __ APO1-05
County
Action Petition for Review , 7 STRUP
a J). STUD
Troy A. Langley VS. Maine State Employees Association, Local
Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant’s Attorney 1989,Sediu
Diane A. Khiel, Esq. , . .
P.O. Box 70 -Lisa Copenhaver, Esq..
Orono, Maine 04473 Maine Relations Board
90 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333-0090
-Timothy Belcher, Esq.
PO Box 1072
Augusta Maine 04332
Date of
Entry
1/12/01 Complaint for Review of Final Agency Action, filed. s/Khiel, Esq.
(filed 1/10/01)
Certificate of Service, filed. s/Khiel, Esq.
1/17/01 Letter entering appearance, filed. s/Belcher, Esq.
1/17/01 Letter entering appearance on behalf of the Maine Labor Relations
Board, filed on 1/16/01. s/L. Copenhaver, Esq.
1/17/01 Record, filed. s/L. Copenhaver, Esq. (record in vault)
1/18/01 Notice of briefing schedule mailed to attys of record.
1/19/01 Copy of notice of briefing schedule mailed to atty Belcher.
2/20/01 Petitioner's Motion for Enlargement of Time Within which to File Brief,
s/Khiel, Esq.
Certificate of Service, filed. s/Khiel, Esq.
3/7/01 PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT, Studstrup, J. (dated 3/2/01)
Motion for enlargement granted. (March 28, 2001)
Copies mailed to attys of record.
3/28/01 Brief of Petitioner, filed. s/Khiel, Esq.
5/1/01 Brief of Respondent Maine State Employees Association, Seiu Local 1989 in
Opposition to Petition for Review, filed. s/Belcher, Esq. (filed 4/30/01)
------ Brief of Respondent Maine Labor Relations Board,filed. s/Copenhaver, Esq.
Appendix, filed. (filed 4/30/01)
5/10/01 Letter informing the court that Petitioner will not file a Reply Brief,
but rather address the issues during oral argument, filed. s/Khiel, Esq.
7/10/01 Hearing had on 7/3/01. Hon. Kirk Studstrup Presiding. No courtroom clerk
present.
Case taken under advisement