The opinion
STATE OF MAINE BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT
Cumberland, ss.
CLAIMANTS REPRESENTED BY COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 1400 and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 2327,
Petitioners,
v. Docket Nos. BCD-AP-17-07 /
MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION,
Respondent,
FAIRPOINT LOGISTICS, INC. and NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND
TELEPHONE OPERATIONS LLC
(d/b/a FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATION-NSE),
Parties-in-Interest.
DECISION ON APPEAL AFTER REMAND
This case presents an appeal from a decision of the Maine Unemployment
Insurance Commission ["the Commission"] denying unemployment compensation
benefits to the Petitioners. 1 The 255 Petitioners are former or current employees of
Parties-in-Interest FairPoint Logistics, Inc. and Northern New England Telephone
Operations LLC, d/b/a FairPoint Communications-NSE [collectively "FairPoint"]
1 The employees whose claims for unemployment compensation are at issue in this appeal are
listed in the attachments to this Decision, which consist ofpages 023-041 and 1699-1700 of the
Record on Appeal.
who were involved in a labor dispute during late 2014 and early 2015. See Me.
Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. S l, 2017), R. 1794-1850. 2
Oral argument on the appeal was held June 4, 2018.
Based on the entire record, the court denies the appeal and affirms the
Commission decision.
The Initial Commission Decision and Initial Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Commission's second decision on the
Petitioners' claims. The initial decision denying Petitioners' claims was appealed to
this court, which vacated the decision and remanded the claims to the Commission for
further proceedings consistent with the court's ruling. See Decision on Appeal,
Claimants Represented By Communications Workers Of America, Local 1400 And
International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers, Local 2327 v. Maine Unemployment
Insurance Commission, Me. Bus. & Cons. Ct. Docket Nos. BCD-AP-15-06 and -16-01
(Aug. 26, 2016), R. 2003-26. See also Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 15-C
03849 (Oct. 1, 2015), R. 2-22.
The initial proceedings before the Commission and appeal to this court are
hereinafter referred to as "Claimants I."
2 This and similar citations herein are to the eight-volume Record on Appeal. The first six
volumes of the Record on Appeal, R. 1-1793, consist of the same materials that were in the record
on appeal in the initial appeal to this court. Volumes seven and eight, R. 1794-2448, consist of
material that came into the record during the Commission proceedings after the court's remand.
2
This court's Decision on Appeal in Claimants I focused almost exclusively on
legal issues, and concluded that the Commission's decision erred as a matter oflaw in
several respects:
• By placing the burden on the claimants to establish that they should not be
disqualified for benefits due to a stoppage of work caused by the strike. See
Claimants I Decision on Appeal at 14-19, R. 2016-21.
• By failing to apply the "substantial curtailment" standard in determining the
existence of a work stoppage. See Claimants I Decision on Appeal at 9-14,
R. 2011-16.
• By failing to making a separate determination, as to each week of the strike,
whether a work stoppage occurred. See Claimants I Decision on Appeal at
22, R. 2024.
The grounds for remand in Claimants I all involved issues of law. Although
the Petitioners also challenged the Commission's factual findings, the remand on
issues oflaw obviated any need to address that challenge. R. at 2010.
The Commission's Decision on Remand
On remand, the Commission re-evaluated the Petitioners' claims for
unemployment benefits, based on the same evidentiary record developed during the
Claimants I proceedings before the Commission, and again denied the Petitioners'
claims. See Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. S l, 2017), R.
1794-1850.
3
The Commission's decision on remand contains the following components:
• Procedural history: This entailed a summary of the initial proceedings before
the Commission and the initial appeal. Id., R. 1794-8.
• Issues Presented: The two issues framed were (1) whether the claimant's
unemployment was due to a stoppage of work for purposes of26 M.R.S. § 1193(4) and
whether the employers' experience rating should be charged for benefits paid to any
eligible claimant. Id., R. 1798.
• Methodology for Conducting Weekly Analysis on Remand: This section
discussed how the Commission evaluated data and information in the record to comply
with this court's directive that the Commission determine whether there was a work
stoppage for each of the twenty Sunday-through-Saturday benefit weeks during all or
part of which the strike occurred. Id., R. 1798-1800. s "["W]here possible," the
Commission extrapolated weekly data from the existing record evidence. Id., R. 1799.
• Legal Standard: This section discussed judicial precedent, up to and including
this court's remand decision. Id., R. 1800-03. In this section, the Commission noted
that its decision on remand places the burden on the employers, consistent with this
court's remand. Id., R. 1801. Also, while the Commission continued to use the "failure
to maintain substantially normal operations" as the standard for determining whether
a work stoppage exists, it noted that its decision on remand "treats this standard as
3
The strike lasted for 18.5 weeks rather than 20 full weeks, but it began during a benefit week,
continued for eighteen more benefit weeks, and ended during a benefit week, so it covered part
or all of 20 weeks. See Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. 31, 2017), R. 1799.
4
synonymous with the 'substantial curtailment' standard, as determined by the Court
in its remand decision." Id., R. 1803.
Further, the Commission adopted "a multi-factor analysis, evaluating the
following factors to determine whether or not there was a work stoppage in the case
at bar: The strike's impact on business operations and production (including
marketing/sales, installations, repairs, construction, maintenance of equipment, and
number ofemployees as compared with normal levels); the strike' s impact on customer
satisfaction; and the strike's impact on revenue. Id. Later in its Decision on remand,
the Commission developed "metrics," or numerical measures of different aspects of
FairPoint's operations, based on operations data in the record, and applied the metrics
to these factors, along with witness testimony and other evidence.
• Background and General Findings: This section of the decision contained the
Commission's general findings concerning the parties; the history of labor
negotiations, and an overview of the strike. Id., R. 1804-08.
• Baseline Findings: This section contained the Commission's findings
regarding the employers' "normal operations," i.e., the baseline that, as this court's
remand decision pointed out, necessarily has to be established in order for there to be
any determination of a "failure to maintain substantially normal operations." Id., R.
1808-19. See Claimants I Decision on Appeal, at 23, R. 2025.
As a result of its baseline analysis, the Commission developed a baseline figure
for each of the numerical metrics that the Commission identified as relevant to
5
determining whether there was a stoppage of work during each week. See Me.
Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. 31, 2017), R. 1818-19. These
metrics include average intervals for repairs and installations as well as the number of
repairs and installations performed, as well as pending repairs, customer complaints
to the Maine Public Utilities Commission, and revenues. Id.
• Impact of the Strike, with Week by Week Analysis: The next thirty pages of
the Commission's decision on remand set forth the Commission's analysis of evidence,
beginning with evidence applicable to all weeks of the strike and continuing with a
separate analysis as to each of the weeks of the strike. Id., R. 1819-49. The
Commission found that FairPoint's operations declined on the first day of the strike;
that delays and backlogs in installations and repairs climbed substantially; that
FairPoint suffered substantial losses in terms of customers and revenues during the
strike, and that the number of complaints to the Maine Public Utilities Commission
rose significantly as a result of the strike. See id.
• Conclusion: Based on its analysis, the Commission on remand concluded that
the employers were not able to maintain substantially normal
operations during any of the benefit weeks fully or partially
covered by the strike period. Based on the totality of the evidence,
the Commission concludes that the employers have met their
burden to prove that a work stoppage existed due to the strike
within the meaning of 26 M.R.S. Section 1193(4) for each of the
benefit weeks fully or partially within the strike period.
Id., R. 1849.
The Commission went on to point out that, because it had concluded that there
6
was a stoppage of work throughout the strike, it was unnecessary to consider the
alternate basis upon which a claimant may be disqualified during a strike-a stoppage
of work would have existed had the employer not maintained substantially normal
operations without hiring new employees to do work previously done by striking
employees. Id. See 26 M.R.S. § 1193(4).
Based on its conclusion, the Commission affirmed its initial decision and
declared all of the Petitioners disqualified because their unemployment throughout
the strike was due to a stoppage of work. See Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No.
16-C-05251 (Aug. s 1, 2017), R. 1849.
The Petitioners have taken a timely appeal from the Commission's decision on
remand.
The Record on Appeal
As noted above, most of the record on the present appeal-volumes one through
six, covering pages R. 1 through R. 1793-consists of the same record on appeal in
Claimants I. The additional components of the record in this appeal-in volumes
seven and eight-?-re materials admitted or offered into the record before the
Commission during the proceedings after remand.
Because the Claimants I appeal and the present appeal involve virtually the
same evidentiary record, this Decision on Appeal After Remand incorporates by
reference the factual summary and legal analysis contained in this court's Decision on
Appeal in Claimants I, R. 2002-22, and does not repeat them here.
Issues on Appeal
7
Whereas the grounds for appeal in Claimants I consisted mainly of issues of
law, the points that Petitioners raise in the present appeal are highly fact- and
evidence-specific. The Petitioners' brief on appeal raises and addresses the following
arguments:
"A. The Commission erred in ignoring the totality of the evidence, which
demonstrates that FairPoint maintained substantially normal operations during the
strike." Petitioners' Brief at 8
"B. The Commission's determination of the impact of the strike on FairPoint
during each week of the strike is not supported by substantial evidence and is premised
on an error oflaw." Id. at 12
"C. The Commission's determination of FairPoint's 'substantially normal
operations' prior to the strike is not supported by substantial evidence and is premised
on an error oflaw." Id. at .20.
"D. The record data as to installations concerns POTS, only one ofFairPoint's
three main lines of business, and the Commission erred in relying on this data in
determining whether there was a work stoppage because of the strike." Id. at .28.
"E. The increase in PUC complaints was insignificant and the Commission
erred in giving this data any weight in determining whether there was a work
stoppage because of the strike." Id. at 29.
"F. The Commission erred when it found that the labor dispute caused a work
stoppage despite the impact of severe winter weather on the Company's operations."
Id. at so.
8
"G. The employers failed to carry their burden of proving that they maintained
substantially normal operations without hiring new personnel to perform work
previously done by the striking employees." Id. at 35.
The Commission and FairPoint dispute each of the Petitioners' contentions.
The parties' arguments are addressed in the Analysis section, infra, in the order just
indicated.
Standard ofReview
In reviewing decisions of the Commission, "it is critical that [the court] keep
m mind the purposes of the Employment Security Act." Brousseau v. Maine
Unemployment Insurance Commission, 470 A.2d 327, 329 (Me. 1984). Because the Act is
remedial in nature, it "dictates a liberal construction in favor of the employee." Id.
In general, the court reviews the administrative record "to determine whether
the Commission correctly applied the law and whether its fact findings are supported
by any competent evidence." McPherson Timberlands v. Maine Unemployment Insurance
Commission, 1998 ME 177,, 6, 714 A.2d 818
Based on the nature of the issues raised in this appeal, this court's role in
reviewing factual findings made by the Commission is of particular relevance.
An administrative agency's findings of fact must be supported by substantial
evidence in the record, but the reviewing court "will not overrule findings of fact
supported by substantial evidence, defined as 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support the resultant conclusion."' Sinclair Builders,
Inc. v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission, 2013 ME 76, , 9, 73 A.sd 1061
9
(quotation omitted). The fact that the record contains inconsistent evidence or the
fact that inconsistent conclusions could be drawn from the record do not prevent the
agency's findings from being supported by substantial evidence. See In re Me. Clean
Fuels, Inc., 310 A.2d 736, 741 (Me. 1973).
Questions as to the credibility of evidence are for the agency, as factfinder, not
for the court, to resolve. See Merrow v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission, 495
A.2d 1197, 1201 (Me. 1985). It matters not whether the court would have assigned the
same weight to evidence in the record or would have drawn the same inferences and
conclusions from the evidence, as did the agency.
The degree of deference that this court must accord to the Commission's
interpretation and evaluation of the evidence means that the court must uphold the
Commission's factual determinations "unless the record before the commission
compels a contrary result." See McPherson Timberlands, 1998 ME 177, , 6, 714 A.2d
818.
On the other hand, an administrative agency "must rely on evidence, not
speculation, in fact-finding," Hannum v. Board ef Environmental Protection, 2003 ME
123, , 15 n.6, 832 A.2d 765. An administrative agency errs as a matter oflaw if its
10
findings of fact are based on speculation. See Uliano v. Board cif Environmental
Protection, 2005 ME 88, , 19 n.6, 876 A.2d 16.
Analysis
With this framework in mind, this Decision On Appeal After Remand addresses
each of the Petitioner's contentions on appeal.
A. Whether the Totality of the Evidence Compelled the Commission to Decide
In Favor of Petitioners
Petitioners' first contention-that the Commission ignored the totality of the
evidence in deciding against them, see Petitioners' Brief at 8-12-implicates the
deferential standard of review just set forth.
Although an administrative agency is required to consider all of the relevant
evidence before it in an adjudicative proceeding, it is for the agency, not the reviewing
court, to decide which evidence is of sufficient weight and probative value to figure in
the agency's decision. Thus, judicial review focuses less upon whether an agency
decision comports with the totality-meaning the greater quantity-of the evidence,
and more upon whether there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the
agency's findings of fact, even if other evidence does not support the findings.
In any event, the evidence that the Petitioners argue that the Commission
ignored falls into two categories-evidence that "FairPoint delivered services
throughout the 18.5-week labor dispute on time to the vast majority of its 200,000
Maine customers," and evidence that FairPoint's management made statements
indicating "how well the Company fared during the strike."
11
However, the Commission did address the timeliness of FairPoint's service to
customers during the strike. It determined that "the totality of the evidence reflects
that the employers were continued to struggle with completing services to customers
in a reasonably timely manner," and pointed out that management's statements during
an earnings call toward the end of the strike "further reflect that the employers
believed that they had been unable to provide reasonable service levels during much
of the strike period and had been unable to stabilize revenue." See Me. Unemp't. Ins.
Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. .31, 2017), R. 1806 n.14, 1807.
Moreover, the Commission's week-by-week metrics analysis includes findings
based on objective data, rather than subjective impressions, that FairPoint's service to
customers, measured in terms of repair and installation times and order backlogs,
declined substantially during the strike below the baseline levels that the Commission
had developed. See id., R. 1819-49. (Petitioners challenge the metrics developed by
the Commission as speculative and lacking support in record evidence, but this is a
different issue and is discussed below). Thus, the totality of evidence is not so one
sided that it compels a decision against FairPoint and in favor of the Petitioners.
Admittedly, there is evidence in the record-including but not limited to the
two categories of evidence cited by Petitioners-on which the Commission could have
grounded its decision, but the court cannot say that the Commission was compelled to
accept that evidence over the evidence that it chose instead to rely upon. Accordingly,
this ground for the appeal does not justify setfrng aside the Commission's decision on
remand.
12
B. Whether the Commission's determination of the impact of the strike on
FairPoint during each week of the strike is speculative, not supported by
substantial evidence and premised on an error oflaw.
Petitioners contend that the Commission committed an error of law and also
made findings not supported by substantial evidence, in purporting to develop weekly
metrics data. Petitioners' Brief at 12-20. With one exception-trouble and order
backlogs-the data in the record before the Commission was in monthly or bimonthly
format rather than weekly format.
The Commission's decision on remand addresses this issue in the Methodology
for Conducting Weekly Analysis, see Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251
(Aug. 31, 2017), R. 1798-1800. The Commission indicated that it converted monthly
or bimonthly data to weekly data in two different ways:
lfit would not be appropriate to break the monthly total down and assign
a portion of the monthly figure to individual benefit weeks, the
Commission has used the monthly total for each of the benefit weeks that
fall within that month....
If it would be appropriate to break the monthly total down and assign a
portion of the monthly total to individual benefit weeks, the Commission
has arrived at weekly data for the benefit weeks at issue in this matter by
dividing the monthly figure by the number of days in the month and then
multiplying by seven.
Id., R. 1799-1800.
In substance, the Commission extrapolated, in these two ways, weekly figures
from monthly or bimonthly data to apply to its week-by-week analysis (as well as its
determination of the operational baseline). The question presented on judicial review
is whether the extrapolation was reasonable and yielded substantial evidence of
13
weekly operations levels, or whether it was unreasonable and resulted in speculation,
as the Petitioners contend.
As the Commission's brief points out, it was constrained to utilize the monthly
or bimonthly data already in the record by the court's directive to reconsider its
decision on remand based on the current record. See Brief on Behalf of Maine
Unemployment Insurance Commission In Opposition to Rule SOC Petition
["Commission Brief'] at 14-15. Moreover, according to FairPoint's brief to the
Commission, the evidence already in the record was "the best evidence available to
evaluate the strike's effect on a week-by-week basis," because, with few exceptions,
weekly data for the various metrics utilized by the Commission was not maintained
during the strike. See Employers' Response to Procedural Order No. 2 at 5 & n.9, R.
1878 & n.9.
The Petitioners' primary objection to the Commission's conversion of monthly
or bimonthly data to weekly figures is that the conv,ersion assumes limited or no
variation from week to week during the strike. On the other hand, Petitioners have
not pointed to evidence in the record that there was, in fact, such variation in the
various metrics from week to week as to render the Commission's averaging approach
unreasonable and speculative. Averaging monthly or bimonthly data to develop
weekly numbers is not an inherently irrational or unreasonable method, and in this
case, it appears to have been the only way to develop weekly figures.
The questions before the court are whether the Commission acted arbitrarily
or capriciously in converting the monthly or bimonthly data to weekly data and was
14
compelled to decide that reliable weekly metrics could not be developed from the
monthly and bimonthly data in the record. The court concludes that the
Commission's method of developing weekly data for both the baseline periods and the
weeks of the strike was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Thus, the court
does not view the Commission's reliance on weekly data extrapolated from monthly
data as grounds to set aside the Commission's decision.
C. Whether the Commission's determination of FairPoint's 'substantially
normal operations' prior to the strike is supported by substantial evidence
or is premised on an error oflaw.
The Petitioners challenge the Commission's determination of the baseline
"substantially normal operations" that is a prerequisite for determining whether a
stoppage of work due to the strike had occurred in any week. Petitioners' Brief at 20
28. Their challenge has several components.
First, they point out that the Commission used data covering as many as 45
months and converted that data to a monthly average, and then converted the monthly
average into weekly numbers. They say this approach ignores the fact that data for
particular metrics can vary from month to month-as, for example, between seasons
of the year-and can further vary from week to week. Thus, this argument rests on
much the same foundation as their contention that the Commission should not have
attempted to extrapolate weekly metrics from monthly or bimonthly data.
Second, the Petitioners point out that the record contained only five weeks of
pre-strike data for the two metrics for which weekly data exists in the record-the
15
trouble load and order load-and contend that five weeks of data is an insufficient
predicate for a baseline determination.
As a result, the Petitioners contend, the Commission engaged in speculation
and thereby committed an error oflaw.
Clear seasonal variations in the -monthly data might call into doubt the
Commission's use of a single monthly average figure based on 12 or SS or 45 months
of data and might indicate that the Commission should instead have focused on the
data during the pre-strike period for the months of October through February-the
same months as were encompassed by the strike.
However, the monthly data in the record do not appear to reflect the kind of
consistent seasonal variation that would call into question the Commission's use of a
single monthly average based on 12 months or more of data. The monthly figures
are reproduced in table format in the baseline section of the Commission's decision on
remand. See Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. SI, 2017), R .
1809-14. The figures plainly show some monthly fluctuations over the course of the
calendar year, but the fluctuations do not appear to be consistent or seasonal. Thus,
it cannot be said the Commission acted unreasonably in using an average monthly
figure to develop a baseline level for the various metrics.
Regarding the five weeks of trouble load and order load data, the Commission
could well have decided that the data were insufficient for purposes of developing a
baseline operations level, but such a conclusion would have excluded just two of the
metrics from the analysis. Moreover, the Commission could have decided that the
16
data, albeit quite limited in duration, were sufficiently representative of pre-strike
operations to be serve as the basis for the baseline metrics for trouble load and order
load.
Accordingly, for reasons similar to those reflected in the court's analysis in the
preceding section, the court concludes that the Commission did not act arbitrarily or
capriciously, or commit any error oflaw, in its baseline methodology, and that there
is substantial evidence in the record supporting the Commission's baseline metrics.
D. Whether the record data as to installations concerns POTS, only one of
FairPoint's three main lines of business, and, if so, whether the Commission
erred in relying on this data in determining whether there was a work
stoppage because of the strike.
Petitioners also say that the Commission should not have relied upon the
installation metrics that it developed to measure the number and timing of residential
and business installations, because the data underlying the metrics reflected only one
of FairPoint's three lines of business-POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service). See
Petitioners' Brief at 28-29. The other two lines are broadband service for residential
and business customers and carrier Ethernet service for very large business customers.
Assuming, as appears to be the case, that the installation metrics were based
only on POTS installations as Petitioners contend, the metrics should not be given
dispositive weight, because they reflect only a portion of FairPoint's operations. But
that is as far as the Petitioners' argument goes . Given that the metrics were based on
a reasonable extrapolation of installation data before and during the strike, the
Commission did not err in considering them. The Commission decision indicates that
17
the Commission understood that the installation data related only to POTS
installations. See R. 181.'3, 1815. In addition, as the Commission's brief points out,
the Commission did address in its findings the other two lines ofFairPoint's business
and found, based on FairPoint's testimony, that those lines, too, had been adversely
affected during the strike. See Commission Brief at 16-17, citing Me. Unemp't. Ins.
Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. .'31, 2017), R. 1808.
For these reasons, the court cannot say the Commission erred in analyzing and
applying the installation metrics.
E. Whether the Commission erred in giving the volume of PUC complaints
any weight in determining whether there was a work stoppage because of
the strike.
F. Whether the Commission erred when it found that the labor dispute caused
a work stoppage despite evidence regarding the impact of severe winter
weather on FairPoint's operations.
Petitioners' Brief contends that the Commission erred in its handling of two
areas of evidence: evidence of an increase in customer complaints to the Maine PUC
about FairPoint during the strike, and evidence of the effects of winter weather on
FairPoint's operations. Petitioners' Brief at 29-.'34. The Petitioners argue that the
Commission should have given less or no weight to the increase in PUC complaints,
id. at 29 and should have given more or dispositive weight to the impact of winter
weather upon FairPoint's operations. Id. at .'30-.'34. Both contentions are addressed
together here because they implicate the same deferential standatd of review.
In assessing whether the strike affected the number of customer complaints to
the .PUC, the Commission found that the number of PUC complaints had increased by
18
multiples of up to seven in the course of the strike. This court is largely in agreement
with the Petitioners that using raw data regarding customer complaints is not the best
means of either developing a baseline of substantially normal operations or measuring
the impact ofa strike on operations. The Commission's other metrics bear much more
directly at the appropriate baseline level and at the effects of the strike. As Petitioners
point out, "complaints are not proof of a work stoppage," Petitioners' Brief at 33 n.88.
Absent evidence that the increase in PUC complaints was due to delays or other
byproducts ofthe strike, the increase is better viewed as corroborative of other metrics
rather than as probative in and of itself
Still, there was an undeniable spike in the number ofcomplaints during the first
month of the strike, in October 2014, and the number of complaints per month
escalated each month until dropping in February, when the strike ended. See R. 1812
13. The court cannot say the Commission either erred or acted arbitrarily or
capriciously in considering the increase as evidence that FairPoint was not operating
at a substantially normal level.
Similarly, this court might have evaluated the impact of winter weather on the
strike differently. As Petitioners point out, FairPoint management specifically
acknowledged that severe winter weather had delayed the company's restoration of
normal operations. Petitioners' Brief at 33 n. 89. The Commission might have taken
this evidence to indicate that, in the later weeks of the strike, FairPoint's failure to
maintain substantially normal operations was due to adverse weather rather than due
to the strike.
19
However, the Commission did consider the effects of the four major winter
storms in November and December 2014 and January and February 2015. See id., R.
1826-29, 1833-34, 1835, 1843, 1846-47. The question on judicial review is whether
the Commission was compelled by the evidence to make findings contrary to those it
did make on this issue, and the court cannot say that it was .
G. Whether the Commission should have determined that the employers failed
to carry their burden of proving that they maintained substantially normal
operations without hiring new personnel to perform work previously done
by the striking employees.
Petitioners say that the Commission should have addressed both of the section
1193(4) grounds for disqualifying a claimant due a strike. The two grounds are that
"the claimant's total or partial unemployment is due to a stoppage of work that exists
because of a labor dispute at the factory, establishment or other premises at which the
claimant is or was employed, or there would have been a stoppage of work had
substantially normal operations not been maintained with other personnel previously
and currently employed by the same employer and any other additional personnel that
the employer may hire to perform tasks not previously done by the striking
employees." See 26 M.R.S. § 1193( 4).
The Commission decided that FairPoint had proved that the Petitioners should
be disqualified from benefits because there was a stoppage of work due to the strike
throughout the 20-week benefit period at issue, and therefore decided that it did not
need to address the question of whether there would have been a stoppage. See id., R.
1849. The Petitioners contend that the Commission shoul<l have found no stoppage of
20
work and should have gone on to address the second section 1193(4) ground for
disqualification. Petitioners' Brief at 35-39.
The Commission and FairPoint dispute this argument. The Commission's
brief says that the court should affirm the Commission's Decision and not reach the
alternative ground for disqualification under section 1193(4). See Commission Brief
at 18-19. FairPoint's brief addresses the alternative provision of section 1193(4) on
its merits, and contends that Petitioners would still be disqualified. Brief of Parties
In-Interest at 4•-7.
Given that the court is affirming the Commission's decision that FairPoint has
proved that there was a work stoppage due to the strike during the benefit weeks at
issue, the court sees no reason to go further and address issues relating to the second
part of section 1193(4). 4
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the court concludes that the Commission's decision after
remand was supported by substantial evidence in the record and was not arbitrary or
capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion, and therefore should be affirmed.
4 The Petitioners' Briefand FairPoint's Briefadvance differing interpretations ofthe alternative
ground for disqualification contained in section 119.3(4). FairPoint's position is that the
Petitioners would still be disqualified because there would have been a work stoppage had
FairPoint not used non-striking employees and temporary workers to maintain substantially
normal operations and because FairPoint did not permanently replace the striking employees.
FairPoint Brief at 4-5 . Petitioners' position is that it does not matter whether they were
permanently replaced-they would be entitled to benefits because, even if there would have been
a work stoppage, FairPoint maintained substantially normal operations in part through the use
of temporary workers hired to do work previously done by the striking employees. Which
interpretation is correct need not be decided here.
21
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS:
I. The appeal of the Claimants whose cases are listed in the attachment to
this Decision from the denial of their claims for unemployment
compensation is hereby denied. See Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No.
16-C-0525 I (Aug. s 1, 2017).
2. The Commission decision denying the individual claims listed m the
attachment to this Decision is hereby affirmed. See id.
S. Judgment is hereby entered for the Defendant Maine Unemployment
Insurance Commission.
Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79( a), the Clerk is hereby directed to incorporate this
Decision on Appeal After Remand by reference in the docket.
Dated June 5, 2018 ~ 6~
A.M. Horton
Justice, Business & Consumer Court
j
En!~red on the Docket: a,- 6 / ~ ~
Copiee sent via Man .... E!ec1ronlca11y:?"'
22
023
EXH IBIT
1 ~
-
A I B I C
1 FAIRPOINT
Matter ID Cl ient Sort Matter Des cription (First Li!"e)_
2
2015 C 04220 Adams, Melissa A Melissa A Adams v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
3
2015 C 04221 Allen, Shawna K Shawna K Allen v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
4
2015 C 04222 Amergian, Ani T Ani T Amergian v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
5
2015 C 04223 Amoroso, Julie M Julie M Amoroso v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
6
2015 C 04224 Anderson, Sarah L Sarah L Anderson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
7
2015 C 04225 Arnold, Robin M Robin M Arnold v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
8
2015 C 04226 Ashley, Jenni-lynn M Jenni-lynn M Ashley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
9
2015 C 04227 Baldwin, Kasey L Kasey L Baldwin v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
10
2015 C 04228 Baron, Susan A Susan A Baron v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
ii
2015 C 04230 Beam, Mary E Mary E Beam v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
i2
2015 C 04231 Beckwith-foster, Mary Mary Beckwith-foster v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
13
2015 C 04229 Bedard, Lynda V Lynda V Bedard v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
14
2015 C 04234 Bentley, Kimberly A Kimberly A Bentley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
15
2015 C 04232 Berry Clark, Elizabeth J Elizabeth J Berry Clark v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
16
2015 C 04235 Birney, Karen Karen Birney v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
17
2015 C 04236 Black, Susan J Susan J Black v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
18
2015 C 04237 Blake, Brooke A Brooke A Blake v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
19
2015 C 04238 Blomquist, Robert N Robert N Blomquist v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
20
2015 C 04239 Bogan, Elaine D Elaine D Bogan v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
21
2015 C 04240 Boles, Michele Michele Boles v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
22
2015 C 04241 Bolton, Linda D Linda D Bolton v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
23
2015 C 04243 Bourget, Jean C Jean C Bourget v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
24
2015 C 04244 Bradbury, Kathryn L Kathryn L Bradbury v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
25
2015 C 04245 Bragg, Randy E Randy E Bragg v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
26
2015 C 04246 Brayall, Danielle Danielle Brayall v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
27
024
A B C
Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line)
2
2015 C 04247 Breslin, John T John T Breslin v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
28
2015 C 04250 Brichetto, Stacy M Stacy M Brichetto v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
29
2015 C 04252 Briggs, Gretchen L Gretchen L Briggs v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
30
2015 C 04253 Bronson, Elyse M Elyse M Bronson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
31
2015 C.04255 Brown, Ann M Ann M Brown v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
32
2015 C 04257 Brown, Dawn L Dawn L Brown v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
33
2015 C 04259 Brown, Jenna M Jenna M Brown v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
34
2015 C 04262 Brown, Marie T Marie T Brown v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
35
2015 C 04264 Brown, Rita A Rita A Brown v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
36
2015 C 04265 8uraau 1 Patrick N Patrick N Bureau v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
37
2015 C 04268 Burgess, Kimberley A Kimberley A Burgess v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
38
2015 C 04269 Cabot; Allison A Allison A Cabot v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
39
2015 C 04270 Campbell, Danielle Danielle Campbell v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
40
2015 C 04272 Cangley, Lori Lori Cangley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
41
2015 C 04274 Carr, Kathie A Kathie A Carr v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
42
2015 C 04276 Casale, Stacey H Stacey H Casale v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
43
2015 C 04279 Caswell, Terrence A Terrence A Caswell v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
44
2015 C 04280 Cerqueira, Mara L Mara L Cerqueira v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
45
2015 C 04281 Charpentier, Tina M Tina M Charpentier v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
46
2015 C 04283 Church, Rhonda L Rhonda L Church v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
47
2015 C 04286 Cloutier, Mark E Mark E Cloutier v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
48
2015 C 04287 Cloutier, Nicole P Nicole P Cloutier v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
49
2015 C 04288 Cogswell, Laurie L Laurie L Cogswell v Fairpoint Logistics Inc .. "
50
2015 C 04289 Coleman, Herman L Herman L Coleman v Fairpoint"Logistics Inc
51
2015 C 04290 Conley, Kevin Kevin Conley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
52
2015 C 04291 Crabtree, Justin P Justin P Crabtree v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
53
i
L
025
A B C
Matter ID Clienl,Sort Matter Description (Firs.I line)
2 •'
2015 C 04292 Crosby, Jeffrey D Jeffrey D Crosby v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
54
2015 C 04293 Cunningham, Crystal M Crystal M Cunningham v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
55
2015 C 04294 Cunningham, Deborah L Deborah L Cunningham v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
56
2015 C 04295 Curtis, Brenda A Brenda A Curtis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
57
2015 C 04297 Curtis, Randall L Randall L Curtis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
58
2015 C 04298 Davis, Andrew J Andrew J Davis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
59
2015 C 04299 Davis, Jessica T Jessica T Davis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
60
2015 C 04300 Davis, Kathleen M Kathleen M Davis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
61
2015 C 04301 Davis, Paula L Paula L Davis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
62
2015 C 04303 Dempsey, Melissa A Melissa A Dempsey v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
63
2015 C 04306 Dennis, Lisa Lisa Dennis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
64
2015 C 04307 Deroche, Rebecca R Rebecca R Deroche v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
65
2015 C 04310 Desjardins, Paula A Paula A Desjardins v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
66
2015 C 04313 Dewolfe, Serina M Serina M Dewolfe v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
67
2015 C 04316 Difillipo, Danielle J Danielle J Difillipo v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
68
2015 C 04318 Dillingham, Davida L Davida L Dillingham v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
69
2015 C 04321 Dionne Neal, Cheri L Cheri L Dionne Neal v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
70
2015 C 04324 Dobrowolski, William D William D Dobrowolski v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
71
2015 C 04326 Dorazio, Mary M Mary M Dorazio v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
72
20 15 C 04328 Dubai!, Julie A Julie A Dubail v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
73
2015 C 04329 Dube, Tammy J Tammy J Dube v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
74
2015 C 04330 Dubois, Kelly M Kf:;IIY M Dubois v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
75
201 5 C 04331 Dugas, Renee A Renee A DL!gas v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
76
2015 C 04332 Dunphy, Michelle Michelle Dunphy v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
77
201 5 C 04333 Dur:shee, Randy Randy Dunshee v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
78
2015 C 04336 Elizabeth, Jennifer Jennifer Elizabeth v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
79
026
A B C
Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (Fir~t Line)
2
2015 C 04337 Elliott, Mary Jo Mary Jo Elliott v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
80
2015 C 04338 Emery, Christopher A Christopher A Emery v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
81
2015 C 04339 Enaire, Matthew L Matthew L Enaire v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
82
2015 C 04340 Ennis, Theresa P Theresa P Ennis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
83
2015 C 04341 Esposito, Estella J Estella J Esposito v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
84
2015 C 04342 Falconieri, Debra L Debra L Falconieri v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
85
2015 C 04343 Farley, Amy L Amy L Farley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
86
2015 C 04344 Feeney, Sara J Sara J Feeney v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
87
2015 C 04345 Fickett, Tina M Tina M Fickett v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
88
2015 C 04347 Fitts, Bethany J Bethany J Fitts v Fairpoint Logistics !nc
89
2015 C 04348 Flaherty, Janel M Janet M Flaherty v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
90
2015 C 04349 Florey, Richard W Richard W Florey v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
91
2015 C 04350 Foss, CandiT Candi T Foss v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
92
2015 C 04351 Gabri, Pamela Pamela Gabri v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
93
2015 C 04352 Gagne, Lance R Lance R Gagne v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
94
2015 C 04353 Gagnon, Larry G Lany G Gagnon v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
95
2015 C 04354 Getchell, Melissa M Melissa M Getchell v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
96
2015 C 04357 Gibson, April D April D Gibson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
97
2015 C 04358 GOodwin, Anna M Anna M Goodwin v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
98
2015 C 04360 Gosselin, Jennifer L Jennifer L Gosselin v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
99
2015 C 04361 Grandmont, Lynann M Lynann M Grandmont v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
100 -=
2015 C 04362 Granger, Carol A Carol A Granger v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
101
2015 C 04363 Grant, Marci J Marci J Grant v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
102
2015 C 04364 Gray, Cheryl Cheryl Gray v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
103
2015 C 04365 Gray, Jennifer Jennifer Gray v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
104 r·l
2015 C 04367 Greenwood, Jean M Jean M Greenwood v Falrpoint Logistics Inc
105
027
A B C
Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line)
2
2015 C 04369 Grindle, Linda R Linda R Grindle v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
106
2015 C 04371 Grondin, Donna L Donna L Grondin v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
107
2015 C 04373 Guay, Cindy L Cindy L Guay v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
108
2015 C 04375 Gullatt, Mary C Mary C Gullatt v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
109
2015 C 04376 Gushee, Kelly A Kelly A Gushee v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
110
2015 C 04377 Hall, Charles J Charles J Hall v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
111
2015 C 04379 Hall, Loriann M Loriann M Hall v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
112
2015 C 04381 Hall-robinson, Deanna R Deanna R Hall-robinson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
113
2015 C 04382 Harmon, Colleen A Colleen A Harmon v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
114
2015 C 04383 Harrison, Joshua J Joshua J Harrison v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
115
2015 C 04384 Higgins, Vanessa L Vanessa L Higgins v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
116
2015 C 04387 Hill, Stephanie Stephanie Hill v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
117
2015 C 04388 Hill, Victoria L Victoria L Hill v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
118
2015 C 04385 Hilton, Amanda C Amanda C Hilton v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
119
2015 C 04390 Hoard, Cynthia J Cynthia J Hoard v Fairpoint Logistics inc
120
2015 C 04391 Hogan, Theresa Theresa Hogan v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
121
2015 C 04389 Howell, Heidi J Heidi J Howell v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
122
2015 C 04392 Jansmann, Irene Irene Jansmann v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
123
2015 C 04393 Jensen, Krista Krista Jensen v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
124
2015 C 04394 Johnson, Joshua S Joshua S Johnson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
125
2015 C 04395 Johnston, Nicole R Nicole R Johnston v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
126
2015 C 04396 Jones, Amanda Amanda Jones v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
127 ...___
2015 C 04398 . Jones, Cherie Lee Cherie Lee Jones v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
128
2015 C 04400 Keams-rogers, Sandra Sandra Keams-rogers v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
129
2015 C 04171 Lacroix, Shelly Shelly Lacroix v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
130
2015 C 04172 Langlois, Claire M Claire M Langlois v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
131
028
A B C
Matter ID Client Sort Matter Des~ription (First Line)
2
2015 C 04173 Lawrence, Julie M Julie M Lawrence v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
132
2015 C 04174 Lebel, Patricia J Patricia J Lebel v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
133
2015 C 04175 Leicht, Peter L Peter L Leicht v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
134
2015 C 04176 Lemieux, Scot! A Scoll A Lemieux v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
135
2015 C 04177 Leonard, Jennifer A Jennifer A Leonard v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
136
2015 C 04178 Libby, Lori A Lori A Libby v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
137
138
2015 C 04179 Long, Michelle R Michelle R Long v Fairpoint Logistics Inc ,
2015 C 04180 Lyman, Amber L Amber L Lyman v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
139
2015C04181 Lynds, Laurieanne Laurieanne Lynds v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
140
2015 C 04182 Maguiie, Lisa M Lisa tv1 Maguire v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
141
2015 C 04183 Mank, Meghan P Meghan P Mank v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
142
2015 C 04184 Marquis, Brandy D Brandy D Marquis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
143
2015 C 04185 Martinson, Wade A Wade A Martinson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
144
2015 C 04187 Mcaloon, Theresa Theresa Mcaloon v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
145
2015 C 04200 Mcclelland, Barney F Barney F Mcclelland v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
146
2015 C 04188 Mcgowan, Jennifer E Jennifer E Mcgowan v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
147
2015 C 04189 Mcguire, Valerie L Valerie L Mcguire v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
148
2015 C 04190 Mckay, Michael E Michael E Mckay v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
149
2015 C 04192 Mckeever, Teresa E Teresa E Mckeever v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
150
2015 C 04201 Mcray, Francine M Francine M Mcray v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
151
2015 C 04202 Michaud, Denise M Denise M Michaud v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
152
2015 C 04203 Miller, Heather R Heather R Miller v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
153
2015 C 04204 Mills, Schuyler Schuyler Mills v Fairpoint Logistics·lnc
154
2015 C 04205 Morehead, Franklin B Franklin B Morehead v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
155
2015 C 04206 Morgan, Heather J Heather J Morgan v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
156
2015 C 04210 Morin, Lisa L Lisa L Morin v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
157
029
A B C
Matter ID Clienl Sort Maller Description (First Line)
2
-
2015 C 04211 Mosley, Michael W Michael W Mosley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
158
2015 C 04212 Mullen, Heather Heather Mullen v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
159
2015 C 04213 Munsen, Jonathan B Jonathan B Munsen v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
160
2015 C 04214 Murphy, Ann N Ann N Murphy v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
161
2015 C 04215 Murphy, Ellen L Ellen L Murphy v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
162
2015 C 04216 Murray, Glenn D Glenn D Murray v Fairpoint Logistics Inc ·
163
2015 C 04217 Murray-palmer, Mistyn D Mistyn D Murray-palmer v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
164
2015 C 04218 Mutty-bessey, Robert M Robert M Mutty-bessey v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
165
2015 C 04219 Myrbeck, Laurie S Laurie S Myrbeck v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
166
2015 C 04249 N ad ea u. Angel A .~.nge! A Nedeau v Fe!rpo!nt Logistics Inc
167
2015 C 04251 Newcomb, Alec S Alec S Newcomb v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
168
169
2015 C 04254 Newey, Patricia J Patricia J Newey v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
•
2015 C 04256 Nice, Suzannah Suzannah Nice v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
170
2015 C 04258 Nordli, Susan A Susan A Nordli v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
171
2015 C 04260 Norton , Suzan L Suzan L Norton v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
172
2015 C 04261 Nunn, Erin Erin Nunn v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
173
2015 C 04263 Oconnor, Heather L Heather L Oconnor v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
174
2015 C 04266 Oneil , Tania Tania Oneil v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
175
2015 C 04271 Osmolski, Tricia M Tricia M Osmolski v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
176
2015 C 04273 Pascucci, Erica Erica Pascucci v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
177
2015 C 04275 Pavliska, Paulette Paulette Pavliska v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
178
2015 C 04278 Perkins, Mary L Mary L Perkins v Fairpoinl Logis_
tics Inc
179
2015 C 04282 Peterson, Robert A Robert A Peterson v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc . ~ ~ . .......
,
180
2015 C 04284 Philpot, Ann M Ann M Philpot v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
181
2015 C 04285 Pierce, Elizabeth H Elizabeth H Pierce v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
182
2015 C 04302 Piersol, Brenda M Brenda M Piersol v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
183
030
A B C
- Matier ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line)
2
2015 C 04304 Pietrowicz, James James Pietrowicz v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
184
2015 C 04305 Provencher, Diane D Diane D Provencher v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
185
2015 C 04355 Raymond, Sandra L Sandra L Raymond v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
186
2015 C 04356 Rjce, Robin M Robin M Rice v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
187
2015 C 04359 Ricker, Roxanne M Roxanne M Ricker v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
188
2015 C 04366 Roberts, Travis W Travis W Roberts v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
189
2015 C 04368 Rosendo, Kim S Kim S Rosendo v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
190
2015 C 04370 Ross, Anthony M Anthony M Ross v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
191
2015 C 04372 Ruel , Robin Robin Ruel v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
192
2015 C 04374 Ruksznis, Danielle Danielle Ruksznis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
193
2015 C 04378 Sabine, Alison R Alison R Sabine v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
194
2015 C 04380 Saldana, David David Saldana v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
195
2015 C 04399 Saunders, Patricia A Patricia A Saunders v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
196
2015 C 04401 Savage-wilson, Jodi Jodi Savage-wilson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
197
2015 C 04402 Sawtelle, Julie A Julie A Sawtelle v Fairpoint Logistics lnc
198
2015 C 04403 Scala, Julie Julie Scala v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
199
2015 C 04404 Scherer, Susan A Susan A Scherer v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
200
2015 C 04405 Segal, Joleen Joleen Segal v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
201
2015 C 04406 Segal, Maria J Maria J Segal v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
202
2015 C 04407 Shackley, Christine M Christine M Shackley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
203
2015 C 04408 Shackley, Richard A Richard A Shackley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
204
2015 C 04409 Shain, Christopher T Christopher T Shain v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
205
2015 C 04410 Shea, Christopher E Christopher E Shea v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
206 -- '
2015 C 04411 Sheehan, Kandy-sue Kandy-sue Sheehan v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
207
2015 C 04412 Smith, Amie C Amie C Smith v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
208
2015 C 04413 Smith, Dawna M Dawna M Smith v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
209
031
A B C
Matter ID Client Sort Matier Description (First Line)
2
2015 C 04414 Smith, Shay F Shay F Smith v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
210
2015 C 04416 Spalding, Megan M Megan M Spalding v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
211
2015 C 04419 Sparks, Rita A Rita A Sparks v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
212
2015 C 04421 Stacy, Deborah A Deborah A Stacy v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
213
2015 C 04423 Stevens, Donna Donna Stevens v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
214
2015 C 04424 Stewart, Ronald W Ronald W Stewart v Fairpoint ~ogistics Inc
215
2015 C 04425 Sweret, Pamela Pamela Sweret v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
216
2015 C 04427 Talbot, Kimberly A Kimberly A Talbot v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
217
2015 C 04493 Tanguay, Janis E Janis E Tanguay v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
218
2015 C 04429 Tanous, Mary K Mary K Tanous v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
219
2015 C 04430 Tardif, Maureen A Maureen A Tardif v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
220
2015 C 04431 Tardiff, Karen A Karen A Tardiff v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
221
2015 C 04432 Taylor, Jennifer E Jennifer E Taylor v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
222
2015 C 04433 Telles, Amanda Amanda Telles v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
223
2015 C 04434 Teras, Nancy A Nancy A Teras v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
224
2015 C 04435 I hibodeau, Erin F Erin F Thibodeau v Fairpoint Logistics !nc
22_5
2015 C 04436 Thibodeau, Kristen M Kristen M Thibodeau v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
226
2015 C 04437 Tinto, Wendy E Wendy E Tinto v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
227
2015 C 04438 Tribou, Michael Michael I ribou v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
228
2015 C 04439 Trudeau, Deborah M Deborah M Trudeau v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
229
2015 C 04440 True, Melissa Melissa True v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
230
2015 C 04441 Tucci, Susan Susan Tucci v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
231
2015 C 04442 Turcotte, Angela L Angela L Turcotte v Fairpoint Logistics Inc .. - ,~• ......... ~
232
2015 C 04443 Twombly, Judith L Judith L Twombly v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
233
2015 C 04510 Vachon, Nancy L Nancy L Vachon v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
234
2015 C 04446 Vanduzer, Susan L Susan L Vanduzer v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
235
032
A B C
Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line)
2
2015 C 04447 Waddell, Sheny L Sherry L Waddell v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
236
2015 C 04448 Wainer, Charlotte L Charlotte L Wainer v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
237
2015 C 04449 Wardwell, Evelyn G Evelyn G Wardwell v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
238
2015 C 04450 Ware, Barbara A Barbara A Ware v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
239
2015 C 04451 Walson, Linda G Linda G Watson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
240
2015 C 04452 Watson, Tracy L Tracy L Watson v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
241
2015 C 04453 Webster, Deborah J Deborah J Webster v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
242
2015 C 04454 Wescott, Kristen M Kristen M Wescott v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
243
2015 C 04455 Wilcox, Cheryl A Cheryl A Wilcox v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
244
2015 C 04456 Willard, Joyce Joyce VV!!lard v Fairpolnt Logistics Inc
245
2015 C 04457 Willey, Renee M Renee M Willey v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
246
2015 C 06192 Winn, Carol L Carol L. Winn v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
247
2015 C 04458 Wood, Nathaniel C Nathaniel C Wood v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc
248
2015 C 04459 Woodman, Todd H Todd H Woodman v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
249
2015 C 04460 Worcester, Brenda J Brenda J Worcester v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
250
2015 C 04461 Wyman, Susan E Susan E Wyman v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
251
2015 C 04462 Yuill, Lisa Lisa Yuill v Fairpoint Logistics Inc
252
033
.,
A I B I C
EXHIBIT
1 NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND
Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First line)
2
2
2015 C 03847 Adams, Cathleen F Cathleen F Adams v Northern New England
3
2015 C 03850 Alley, Sheldon E Sheldon E Alley v Northern New England
4
2015 C 03858 Arsenault, Robert C Robert C Arsenault v Northern New England
5
2015 C 03844 Aube, Cheryl L Cheryl L Aube v Northern New England
6
2015 C 03845 Aveau, Richard G Richard G Aveau v Northern New England
7
2015 C 03860 Ayers, Dale C Dale C Ayers v Northern New England
8 .
2015 C 03862 Balboni, Peter J Peter J Balboni v Northern New England
9
2015 C 03846 Bashaw, David E David E Bashaw v Northern New England
10
2015 C 03848 Beaulieu, Brian R Brian R Beaulieu v Northern New England
11
2015 C 03849 Beecy, Michael J Michael J Beecy v Northern New England
12
2015 C 04233 Belanger, Jaime L Jaime L Belanger v Northern New England
13
2015 C 03851 Bendure, Raymond B Raymond B Bendure v Northern New England
14
2015 C 03864 Bickford, Steven G Steven G Bickford v Northern New England
15
2015 C 03866 Bilodeau, Paul L Paul L Bilodeau v Northern New England
16
2015 C 03852 Blake, Jayson P Jayson P Blake v Northern New England
17
2015 C 03868 Blodgett, Herbert E Herbert E Blodgett v Northern New England
18
2015 C 03853 Bombardier, Kurt Kurt Bombardier v Northern New England
19
2015 C 03869 Botting, Dawn E Dawn E Botting v Northern New England
20
2015 C 03871 Boucher, Dale T Dale T Boucher v Northern New England
21
2015 C 03854 Boudreau, Scott D Scoll D Boudreau v Northern New England
22
2015 C 03855 Boutilier, Lindsay G Lindsay G Boutilier v Northern New England
23
2015 C 03873 Bowen, Mark W Mark W Bowen v Northern New England
24
2015 C 03874 Boyd, Melissa A Melissa A Boyd v Northern New England
25 _. ,..,.
2015 C 03877 Bryer, Kevin W Kevin W Bryer v Northern New England
26
2015 C 03856 Buhelt, Dennis A Dennis A Buhelt v Northern New England
27
2015 C 03857 Byrne, Thomas J Thomas J Byrne v Northern New England
28
20-15 C 03859 CaJden, Cathy A Cathy A Calden v Northern New England
29
2015 C 03861 Campbell, Richard G Richard G Campbell v Northern New England
30
034
A B C
Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line)
2
2015 C 03879 Cannell, Karen J Karen J Cannell v Northern New England
31
2015 C 03881 Caron, Carol Carol Caron v Northern New England
32
2015 C 03863 Carter, Dominic J Dominic J Carter v Northern New England
33
2015 C 03882 Caserio, Richard D Richard D Caserio v Northern New England :
34
2015 C 03884 Cash, Dennis M Dennis M Cash v Northern New England
35
2015 C 03886 Casserly, Brian T Brian T Casserly v Northern New England
36
2015 C 03865 Celani, Dean Dean Celani v Nor1hern New England
37
2015 C 03888 Clement, Ronald A Ronald A Clement v Northern New England
38
2015 C 03867 Clockedile, Scott Scoll Clockedile v Northern New England
39
2015 C 03870 Colligan, Christopher Christopher Colligan v Northern New England
40
2015 C 03872 Collomy, Steven Steven Collomy v Northern New England
41
2015 C 03890 Cook, Robert J Robert J Cook v Northern New England
42
2015 C 03875 Coomey, James J James J Coomey v Northern New England
43
2015 C 03894 Copeland, Thomas A Thomas A Copeland v Northern New England
44
2015 C 03876 Crimp, Kevin P Kevin P Crimp v Northern New England
45
2015 C 03901 Cummings, Leonard W Leonard W Cummings v Northern New England
46
2015 C 03878 Currier, Charles H Charles H Currier v Northern New England
47
2015 C 03904 Dakin, Michael W Michael W Dakin v Northern New England
48
2015 C 03907 Damron, Robin C Robin C Damron v Northern New England
49
2015 C 03911 Darge, William E William E Darge v Northern New England
50
2015 C 03913 Dawkins, Julie L Julie L Dawkins v Northern New England
51
2015 C 03916 Demerchant, Adam L Adam L Demerchant v Northern New England
52
2015 C 03923 Dempsey, Wesley C Wesley C Dempsey v Northern New England
53
2015 C 03927 Densmore, William L William L Densmore v Northern New England
54 ... ..
2015 C 03930 Denyer, Susan M Susan M Denyer v Northern New England ' .
55
2015 C 03936 Devine, Rory J Rory J Devine v Northern New England
56
2015 C 03938 Dimodica, Philip V Philip V Dimodica v Northern New England
57
2015 C 03940 Dipierro, Charles E Charles E Dipierro v Northern New England
58
2015 C 03942 Dixon, David E David E Dixon v Northern New England
59
035
A B C
Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (Firsl Line)
2
2015 C 03944 Donahue, Eleanor E Eleanor E Donahue v Northern New England
60
2015 C 03946 Dorn, Jeffrey A Jeffrey A Dom v Northern New England
61
2015 C 03880 Dow, Lewis H Lewis H Dow v Northern New England
62
2015 C 03948 Drake, Brent A Brent A Drake v Northern New England
63
2015 C 03950 Duchesne, James A James A Duchesne v Northern New England
64
2015 C 03883 Dunphy, Christopher Christopher Dunphy v Northern New England
65
2015 C 03953 Earley, Patrick Patrick Earley v Northern New England
66
2015 C 03955 Eckstein, Shannan M Shannan M Eckstein v Northern New England
67
2015 C 03956 Edwards, Adam K Adam K Edwards v Northern New England
68
2015 C 03885 Ehnstrom, Nils T Nils T Ehnstrom v Northern New England
69
2015 C 03887 Elrick, Stephen A Stephen A Elrick v Northern New England
70
2015 C 03959 Emery, Robin A Robin A Emery v Northern New England
71
2015 C 03891 Espling, Craig M Craig M Espling v Northern New England
72
2015 C 03961 Fagan, Michael J Michael J Fagan v Northern New England
73
2015 C 03893 Fairbanks, Kelley Kelley Fairbanks v Northern New England
74
2015 C 03896 Farrell, Donald J Donald J Farrell v Northern New England
75
2015 C 03899 Feeney, Catherine A Catherine A Feeney v Northern New England
76
2015 C 03963 Feeney, James H James H Feeney v Northern New England
77
2015 C 03965 Forni, Paul M Paul M Forni v Northern New England
78
Forslind, David B
-
David B Forslind v Northern New England ...
2015 C 03905
79
2015 C 03925 Fowles, Paul A Paul A Fowles v Northern New England
80
2015 C 03968 Frank, Reid A Reid A Frank v Northern New England
81
2015 C 04195 Galipeau, Carol A Carol A Galipeau v Northern New England
82
2015 C 03931 Gallant, Mary L Mary L Gallant v Northern New England
83
2015 C 03935 Gibson, Brent Brent Gibson v Northern New England
84
2015 C 03969 Godin, Danielle S Danielle S Godin v Northern New England
85
2015 C 03937 Godin, Jami L Jami L Godin v Northern New England
86
2015 C 03972 Goodall, Thomas D Thomas D Goodall v Northern New England
87
2015 C 03939 Grant, Rebecca J Rebecca J Grant v Northern New England
88
036
A B C
Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line)
2
2015C03941 Hall, Victoria L Victoria L Hall v Nor1hern New England
89
2015 C 03943 Hamblin, Mark E Mark E Hamblin v Nor1hern New England
90
2015 C 03947 Hanson, Kyle W Kyle W Hanson v Nor1hern New England
91
2015 C 04198 . Hardwick, Steven D Steven D Hardwick v Northern New England
92
2015 C 03949 Harmon, Jason L Jason L Harmon v Nor1hern New England
93
2015 C 03951 Hartford, Daniel A Daniel A Hartford v Nor1hern New England
94
2015 C 03974 Haskell, James 0 James O Haskell v Nor1hern New England
95
2015 C 03976 Hauger, David S David S Hauger v Nor1hern New England
96
2015 C 03952 Hayes, Matthew J Matthew J Hayes v Northern New England
97
2015 C 03978 Helm, Jonathan R Jonathan R Helm v Northern New England
98
2015 C 03954 Hinkley, Tina J Tina J Hinkley v Nor1hern New England
99
2015 C 03957 Hixon, Steven C Steven C Hixcin v Northern New England r •
100
2015 C 03960 Hodgdon, Christopher Christopher Hodgdon v Northern New England
101
2015 C 03962 Holyoke, Jason B Jason B Holyoke v Nor1hern New England
102
2015 C 03980 Hopper, Mark K Mark K Hopper v Northern New England
103
2015 C 03981 Horne, Joel Joel Horne v Nor1hern New England
.
104
2015 C 03964 Hoskins, Kelly R Kelly R Hoskins v Nor1hern New England
105
2015 C 03966 Hubner, Karen A Karen A Hubner v Northern New England
106
2015 C 03967 Hughes, Shannon E Shannon E Hughes v Northern New England
107
2015 C 03982 Hurd, Scott A Scot! A Hurd v Northern New England
108
2015 C 03984 Hutchins, Heidi A Heidi A Hutchins v Northern New England
109
2015 C 03970 Hutchins, Samuel A Samuel A Hutchins v Northern New England
110
2015 C 03986 Israel, Matthew Matthew Israel v Northern New England
111
2015 C 03988 Jansmann, Andrew D Andrew D Jansmann v Northern New England
112 .. '
2015 C 03989 Johnson, Eric M Eric M Johnson v Northern New England -
113
2015 C 03971 Johnson, Joel Joel Johnson v Northern New England
114
2015 C 03990 Johnson, Thomas A Thomas A Johnson v Northern New England
115
2015 C 03973 Jolin, Jon R Jon R Jolin v Northern New England
116
2015 C 03991 Jones, Bennie R Bennie R Jones v Northern New England
117
I
I
L
037
A B C
Matter IQ Client Sort Matter Description (First Line)
2
2015 C 03992 Jones, Stephen B Stephen B Jones v Northern New England
118
2015 C 03993 Jordan, Calvin A Calvin A Jordan v Northern New England
119
2015 C 03994 Jordan, Jeffrey H Jeffrey H Jordan v Northern New England
120
2015 C 04197 Jordon, Joshua J Joshua J Jordon v Northern New England
121
. 2015 C 03975 Kalloch, Matthew W Matthew W Kalloch v Northern New England
122
2015 C 03977 Kane, Daniel S Daniel S Kane v Northern New England
123
2015 C 04014 Kaspala, Richard H Richard H Kaspala v Northern New England
124
2015C04015 Kidney, Allen R Allen R Kidney v Northern New England
125
2015 C 04016 Knutson, George A George A Knutson v Northern New England
126
2015 C 04017 Lailer, Frank I Frank I Lailer v Northern New England
127
2015C04018 Lamoureux, Shawn M Shawn M Lamoureux v Northern New England
~'10
ILU
2015 C 04020 Laplante, John P John P Laplante v Northern New England
129
2015 C 04021 Lapointe, Edward J Edward J Lapointe v Northern New England
130
2015 C 03979 Larochelle, Ryan N Ryan N Larochelle v Northern New England
131
2015 C 03983 Lawler, Matthew S Matthew S Lawler v Northern New England
132
2015 C 03985 Lawler, Michael K Michael K Lawler v Northern New England
133
2015 C 03987 Lawrence, Curtis C Curtis C Lawrence v Northern New England
134
2015 C 04077 Leary, Stephen P Stephen P Leary v Northern New England
135
2015 C 04078 Lefebvre, Todd M Todd M Lefebvre v Northern New England
136
2015 C 04022 Lesniak, Patricia N Patricia N Lesniak v Northern New England
137
2015 C 04079 Lessard, Neal J Neal J Lessard v Northern New England
138
2015 C 04080 Levasseur, Peter A Peter A Levasseur v Northern New England
139
2015 C 04023 Levesque, Scott V Scott V Levesque v Northern New England
140
2015 C 04081 Lindsay, Craig Craig Lindsay v Northern New England
141 ...
2015 C 04082 Long, Kevin M Kevin M Long v.Northem New England
142
2015 C 04083 Long, Ralph C Ralph C Long v Northern New England
143
2015 C 04025 Long, Roger H Roger H Long v Northern New England
144
2015 C 04084 Luiz, Tyler Tyler Luiz v Northern New England
145
2015 C 04026 Lunney, Kelly Kelly Lu·nney v Northern New England
146
038
A B C
Matter JD Clienl Sort Matter Descriplion (First Line)
2
2015 C 04029 Macfarlane, Jay D Jay D Macfarlane v Northern New England
147
2015 C 04085 Madden, Jesse J Jesse J Madden v Northern New England
148
2015 C 04086 Marden, Craig A Craig A Marden v Northern New England
149
2015 C 04030 Martin, Melissa L Melissa L Martin v Northern New England
150 -
2015 C 04031 Martin, Stephan-minh N Slephan-minh N Martin v Northern New England
151
2015 C 04032 Mar1itz, Norman E Norman E Martitz v Northern New England
152
2015 C 04033 Martitz, Sharon S Sharon S Martitz v Northern New England
153
2015 C 04034 Mccarthy, Holly M Holly M Mccarthy v Northern New England
154'
2015 C 04035 Mccarthy, John K John K Mccarthy v Northern New England
155
2015 C 04036 Mccarthy, Stephen E Stephen E Mccarthy v Northern New England
156
2015 C 04087 Mcgill, James M James M Mcgill v Northern New England
157
2015 C 04088 Mclaughlin, Daniel S Daniel S Mclaughlin v Northern New England
158
2015 C 04037 Mclean, Timothy M Timothy M Mclean v Northern New England
159
2015 C 04038 Mcquillan, Tyler J Tyler J Mcquillan v Northern New England
160
2015 C 04039 Merrifield, Russell A Russell A Merrifield v Northern New England
161
2015 C 04090 Michaud, Scott A Scott A Michaud v Northern New England
162
2015 C 04040 Mitchell, Joshua P Joshua P Mitchell v Northern New England
163
2015 C 04091 Moffatt, Jason Jason Moffatt v Northern New England
164
2015 C 04207 Morin, Brian P Brian P Morin v Northern New England
165
2015 C 04041 Morin, Stephen L Stephen L Morin v Northern New England
166
2015 C 04092 Mulligan, Kevin P Kevin P Mulligan v Northern New England
167
2015 C 04093 Newell, Edward F Edward F Newell v Northern New England
168
2015 C 04043 Nostrom, Gary D Gary D Nostrom v Northern New England
169
2015 C 04094 Obrien, Dennis L Dennis L Obrien v Northern New England
170
2015 C 04044 O'brion, David C David C O'brion v Northern New England - •:. ....... -- ....
171
2015 C 04095 Ordway, Leon E Leon E Ordway v Northern New England
172
2015 C 04045 Ouellette, Mark 0 Mark O Ouellette v Northern New England
173 I
2015 C 04096 Pallozzi, Michael J Michael J Pallozzi v Northern New England l
174
2015 C 04046 Pellerin, Robert J Robert J Pellerin v Northern New England
175
L.
039
A B C
..
Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line)
2
2015 C 04048 Perry, Paul E Paul E Perry v Northern New England
176
2015 C 04097 Petell, Raymond A Raymond A Petell v Northern New England
177
2015 C 04049 Pettengill, Lee H Lee H Pet1engill v Northern New England
178
2015 C 04050 Phillips, Anthony E Anthony E Phillips v Northern New England
179
2015 C 04098 Plourde, Mark A Mark A Plourde v Northern New England
180
2015 C 04099 Pooler, Richard D Richard D Pooler v Northern New England
181
2015 C 04100 Poto, Michael Michael Poto v Northern New England
182
2015C04101 Pratt, Daniel F Daniel F Pratt v Northern New England
183
2015C04102 Ramsay, Thomas E Thomas E Ra'.11say v Northern New England
184
2015 C 04103 Randall, Roberta J Roberta J Randall v Northern New England
185
2015 C 04104 Randolph, Christopher C Christopher C Randolph v Northern New England
186
2015 C 04105 Raynes, David L David L Raynes v Northern New England
187
2015 C 04051 Raynes, Todd E Todd E Raynes v Northern New England
188
2015 C 04052 Reynolds, Carol L Carol L Reynolds v Northern New England
189
2015 C 04053 Rizza, Maria G Maria G Rizza v Northern New England
190
2015 C 04054 Rogan, Michael J Michael J Rogan v Northern New England
191
2015 C 04107 Rossignol, Norman R Norman R Rossignol v Northern New England
192
2015 C 04108 Roy, Lori A Lori A Roy v Northern New England
193
2015 C 04109 Roy, Marcel Y Marcel Y Roy v Northern New England
194
2015 C 04110 Rugh, George J George J Rugh v Northern New England
195
2015 C 04194 Sage, David David Sage v Northern New England
196
2015 C 04111 Samiya, Howard Howard Samiya v Northern New England
197
2015 C 04112 Sanborn, Amy L Amy L Sanborn v Northern New England
198
2015 C 04055 Sands, James M James M Sands v Northern New England
199
2015 C 04058 Scala, John L John L Scala v Northern New England
200
2015 C 04113 Scala, Tracey L Tracey L Scala v Northern New England
201
2015 C 04059 Shane, Patrick A Patrick A Shane v Northern New England
202
2015 C 04060 Sherman, Cody A Cody A Shennan v Northern New England
203
2015C04114 Sherman, Philip J Philip J Sherman v Northern New England
204
040
A B C
Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line)
2
2015 C 04061 Small, Mark Mark Small v Northern New England
205
2015 C 04115 Smith, Adam L Adam L Smith v Northern New England
206
2015C04116 Smith, Dirk A Dirk A Smith v Northern New England
207
2015C04117 · Smith, Mark A Mark A Smith v Northern New England
208
2015C04119 Spaulding, Brent E Brent E Spaulding v Northern New England
209
2015 C 04120 Stein-berthiaume, Angela M Angela M Stein-berthiaume v Northern New England
210
2015 C 04062 Stewart, Scott H Scott H Stewart v Northern New England
211
2015 C 04121 Sullivan, Brian E Brian E Sullivan v Northern New England
212
2015 C 04063 Sullivan, Jamie Jamie Sullivan v Northern New England
213
2015 C 04122 Tabun, Peter A Peter A Tabun v Northern New England
214
2015 C 04123 Talbot, Timothy A Timothy A Talbot v Northern New England
2·15
2015 C 04124 Tandy, Lorne E Lorne E Tandy v Northern New England
216
2015 C 04064 Teehan, Mary A Mary A Teehan v Northern New England
217
2015 C 04125 Therault, David R David R Theraull v Northern New England
218
2015 C 04065 Theriault, Jessica L Jessica L Theriault v Northern New England
219
2015 C 04126 Thornton, Lynelle B Lynette B Thornton v Northern New England
220
2015 C 04066 Todd, James B James B Todd v Northem New England
221
2015 C 04127 Townsend, Susan B Susan B Townsend v Northern New England
222
2015 C 04128 Treadwell, Steven S Steven S Treadwell v Northern New England
223
2015 C 04067 Turgeon, Scott A Scott A Turgeon v Northern New England
224
2015 C 04129 Twitchell, Benjamin B Benjamin B Twitchell v Northern New England
225
2015 C 04130 Urnel, Benjamin K Benjamin K Umel v Northern New England
226
2015 C 04068 Umel, Christina S Christina S Umel v Northern New England
227
2015 C 04131 Van Toi, Alan Alan Van Toi v Northern New England
228 .. - ·
2015-C 04069 Ver-egge, Steven P Steven P Veregge v Northern New England --
•
229 l
2015 C 04070 Violette, Eric Eric Violette v Northern New England
230
2015 C 04132 Ward, Cynthia A Cynthia A Ward v Northern New England
231 - '- ·
2015 C 04133 Watson, Robert J Robert J Watson v Northern New England
232
2015 C 04134 Way, Amanda L Amanda L Way v Northern New England
233
041
A B C
Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line)
2
2015 C 04135 Webb, Santiba Santiba Webb v Northern New England
234
2015 C 04071 Wentworth, Mark A Mark A Wentworth v Northern New England
235
2015 C 04136 Whalen, James James Whalen v Northern New England
236
2015 C 04137 Whidden, Christopher J Christopher J Whidden v Northern New England
237
2015 C 04138 Whitcomb, Joshua L Joshua L Whitcomb v Northern New England
238
2015 C 04139 White, Bryan Bryan White v Northern New England
239
2015 C 04072 Whitney, Patrick C Patrick C Whitney v Northern New England
240
2015 C 04140 Williams, Christina M Christina M Williams v Northern New England
241
2015 C 04073 Williams, Steven C Steven C Williams v Northern New England
242
2015 C 04074 Willwerth, William T William T Willwerth v Northern New England
243
2015 C 04075 Wood, Nathaniel C Nathaniel C Wood v Northern New England
244
2015 C 04141 Woodward, Car1 C Carl C Woodward v Northern New England
245
2015 C 04142 Worcester, Stephen D Stephen D Worcester v Northern New England
246
No. Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description
253 lSwC-07444 Doherty, Andrea L. Andrea L. Doherty v_ FairPoint Logistics, Inc.
254 15-C-07223 Hannan, Donna J. Donna J. Harman v. FairPoint Logistics, Inc.
255 15-C-07445 Jeffers, Jenny L. Jenny L. Jeffers v. FairPoint Logistics, Inc.
0:
«
"
7"..f::S':''..-;~~,:""
No. Matter ID Client Sort
Matter Description
247 15-C-07442 Austin, Kurt L.
Kurt L. Austin v. Northern New England
248 15-C-07443 Irish, Patrick
Patrick Irish v. Northern New England
249 15-C-07446 Rowe, Mark R.
Mark R. Rowe v. Northern New England
250 15-C-07408 Szylvian, Ann M.
Ann M. Szylvian v. Northern New England
-',
-.J
0
0
·,
BCD-AP-2017-07
Claimants Represented by Communications Workers of America,
Local 1400, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2327
v.
State of Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission
and
Fairpoint Logistics, Inc. and Northern New England Telephone
Operations LLC (d/b/a Fairpoint Communications-NNE)
Petitioners
Claimants Roberta De Araujo, Esq.
Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
160 Capitol St., STE 3
Augusta, ME 04332
Respondents
State Insurance Commission Nancy Macirowski, AAG
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
Parties-in-Interest
Fairpoint Logistics Catherine Conners, Esq.
254 Commercial Street
Portland, ME 04101
pro hac f/ice:
Arthur Telegen Esq.
Seaport East
2 SeaPort Lane, STE 300
Boston, MA 02210-2028
Augusta, ME 04333