Communications Workers of America v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: June 5, 2018
• Docket: CUMbcd-ap-17-07
• Status: Unpublished

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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