# Bureau of Maine State Police v. Pratt

> Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · December 29, 1989 · 568 A.2d 501

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705934

## Case

- **Full name:** BUREAU OF MAINE STATE POLICE v. Michael C. PRATT, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
- **Decided:** December 29, 1989
- **Citations:** 568 A.2d 501; 1989 Me. LEXIS 333
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Clifford
- **Judges:** McKusick, Roberts, Wathen, Glassman, Clifford, Hornby, Collins
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705934

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reversing Superior Court's finding that arbitrator's award reinstating sergeant in Maine State Police violated public policy because although practical justifications may exist for preserving strict military chain of command, such a requirement is neither expressed nor defined…
- holding that arbitrator's reinstatement of officer who had sexual encounter with witness and then possibly perjured himself on the topic did not violate public policy

## Opinion text

CLIFFORD, Justice,
with whom McKUSICK, Chief Justice, joins, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
This matter was submitted to arbitration to determine whether there was just cause to dismiss Sergeant Pratt. The arbitrator never reached that issue, but instead held that Pratt had been reinstated by Lt. Holmes’ response to Pratt’s grievance. The result reached by the arbitrator is irrational, and I agree with the Superior Court that the arbitrator’s construction of the contract was “not possible under a fair interpretation of the contract....” West-brook School Comm. v. Westbrook Teachers Ass’n, 404 A.2d 204, 209 (Me.1979) (quotations omitted).
Article 7 of the collective bargaining agreement distinguishes between offenses for which a trooper may be suspended or dismissed, referring them for action by the Chief of the State Police, and less serious offenses that call for lesser sanctions, referring them for action by the trooper’s commanding officer. This provision recognizes and is consistent with the retained management rights of the state to “discipline and discharge employees for just cause” expressed in Article 8. 1
To interpret Step 1 of the grievance procedure set out in Article 9 of the collective bargaining agreement, as the arbitrator did here, to allow the commanding officer of a trooper dismissed by the Chief to reinstate that trooper with no appeal or other recourse by the Bureau, ignores Articles 7 and 8 and constitutes an irrational construction of the contract.
Moreover, the actual response to Pratt’s grievance, on which the arbitrator relied to find that Pratt had been reinstated, could not be interpreted fairly to constitute a reinstatement. In the response, Lt. Holmes expressed his “opinion” that Pratt should be reinstated. Lt. Holmes testified that he deliberately chose the word “opinion” because he did not believe he had the authority to reinstate Pratt.
I would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
. 25 M.R.S.A. § 1501 (1988) provides that the Chief of the State Police shall be the executive head of the Bureau of State Police.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705934. Public record. Not legal advice.