Opinion

State v. Maine State Employees Ass'n

  • 443 A.2d 948
  • 113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2089
  • 1982 Me. LEXIS 635
Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Filed
Apr 6, 1982
Status
Published
Author
Godfrey
On the bench
Godfrey, McKusick, God-Frey, Nichols, Roberts, Carter, Wathen
Cited by
3 cases

statute establishing reclassification procedures excludes the subject from mandatory bargaining

How later courts described this case

  • statute establishing reclassification procedures excludes the subject from mandatory bargaining
  • courts must attribute to statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

GODFREY, Justice,

concurring:

I concur in the result on the ground that the ad hoc determination of questions of classification and allocation that would result from the collective bargaining process would be inconsistent with the systematic resolution of such questions contemplated by the personnel laws, particularly 5 M.R. S.A. §§ 593, 633 & 634. Collective bargaining over classifications and allocations seems to me to be barred by operation of subsection 2 of 26 M.R.S.A. § 979-D(l)(E), which provides as follows:

(2) Paragraph E subparagraph (1) shall not be construed to be in derogation of or contravene the spirit and intent of the merit system principles and personnel laws.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.