KENap-17-29
Me. Super. CtJan 30, 2018Background
- Madison's collective bargaining agreement with MAP expired in 2010; FOP replaced MAP as bargaining agent in 2012 and negotiated into 2014–15.
- A major local tax loss in 2014 led the Town to propose dissolving the Madison Police Department and contracting policing to the Somerset County Sheriff; voters approved the plan on June 8, 2015, effective July 1, 2015.
- Former Madison officers (including Trask, a 27‑year sergeant) were hired by the County as new deputies, losing rank, seniority, and more generous town health coverage.
- FOP sought some impact bargaining after the vote, consulted state and national counsel, worked with the Sheriff on some transition issues, but declined to press further bargaining or litigation against the Town.
- Trask filed a prohibited practice complaint alleging FOP breached its duty of fair representation by failing to aggressively pursue impact bargaining (especially over health premiums and loss of rank/seniority); the MLRB dismissed the complaint.
- On judicial review, the Superior Court affirmed the MLRB, finding the Board’s factual findings supported by competent and substantial evidence and that FOP’s conduct fell within a wide range of reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trask) | Defendant's Argument (FOP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FOP breached duty of fair representation by failing to pursue impact bargaining after Town voted to dissolve police dept. | FOP should have demanded/pressed bargaining to protect members' rank, seniority, and health benefits. | FOP reasonably concluded further bargaining or litigation was unlikely to succeed, had little leverage, and relied on legal advice. | Board and court: No breach; union conduct was within wide range of reasonableness. |
| Whether FOP acted arbitrarily (legal standard) | Trask: Union’s inaction was irrational given harms to long‑service members. | FOP: Decisions were reasonable given factual/legal landscape (budget shortfall, vote, uncertain statutory obligations). | Held: Board’s determination that conduct was not arbitrary is supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether FOP’s conduct was discriminatory/invidious toward Trask | Trask: Actions resulted in significant disparate harm to him due to seniority/rank. | FOP: No evidence of invidious or targeted discrimination. | Held: No evidence of discriminatory intent; claim fails. |
| Timeliness / scope: whether claim about bargaining over Town’s contract with County was before Board | Trask: FOP should have demanded bargaining over terms of Town–County arrangement once public. | FOP/Board: That specific claim was not raised in amended complaint and was untimely. | Held: Court agrees issue was not timely raised before Board and dismissal was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (recognizes union duty of fair representation standard)
- Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 379 U.S. 203 (discusses employer obligations and plant-closing/contracting contexts)
- First Nat'l Maintenance Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 452 U.S. 666 (addresses bargaining obligations when operations change)
- Langley v. MSEA, 791 A.2d 100 (Me. 2002) (interprets duty of fair representation in Maine context)
- Passadumkeag Mountain Friends v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 102 A.3d 1181 (Me. 2014) (describes deferential standard for judicial review of agency decisions)
- City of Bangor v. Maine Labor Relations Bd., 658 A.2d 669 (Me. 1995) (agency review and labor‑board precedents)
- Seider v. Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 762 A.2d 551 (Me. 2000) (competent and substantial evidence standard for upholding agency factfinding)