Hancock County v. Teamsters Union Local 34
This text of Hancock County v. Teamsters Union Local 34 (Hancock County v. Teamsters Union Local 34) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT HANCOCK, ss DOCKET NO. CV-09-67 1
HANCOCK COUNTY Plaintiff
V.
TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 34 olblo Natalie Walker Defendant
DECISION AND ORDER
Defendant Teamsters brought a claim regarding overtime payment due to Natalie Walker under a collective bargaining agreement between the Plaintiff Hancock County and Defendant Teamsters Union Local 340.
Plaintiff brought a claim pursuant to 14 M.R.S. §5928(2) [Uniform Arbitration Act], to stay an arbitration proceeding. That statute provides in part that the IJ •••
court may stay an arbitration proceeding commenced or threatened on a showing that there is no agreement to arbitrate." Counsel have provided a copy of the labor agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant together with supporting affidavits and documentation as well as written argument. This matter was orally argued on January 29, 2010.
Plaintiff submitted evidence that Natalie Walker was employed for less then six months at the time the alleged overtime pay was due to her. While the Defendant does not concede this point, it offers no evidence in opposition to the length of time this employee was employed. The Defendant argues that the language in the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act at §962, definitions, requires an interpretation of the contract favoring arbitrations. In particular the Defendant relies on the language lJ(a)s used in this chapter the following terms
1 shall, unless the context requires a different interpretation, have the following meanings ... " Defendant argues that this language permits/compels the underlying contract to be interpreted in favor of allowing an arbitrator to determine if the term 'public employee' can be interpreted based on past business practice to have been amended to include a part time employee.
The Court agrees that the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant that provides for arbitration (See Article 46), is predicated on and draws its meaning from the Maine Public Employees Labor Relations Law. That statute provides in short sentences that a part time employee is not a Public Employee, as that term is used in the Act. City of Bangor v. AFSCME Council 74, 449 A.2d 1129 (ME. 198:2).
This Court views Defendant as not requesting an expansive interpretation of the language of the Maine Public Employees Labor Relations Law, but asking that it be re-written. It is for the legislature to provide the relief requested by the Defendant, not this Court.
The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has met its burden of showing that there is no agreement to arbitrate because it has shown that the employee is not a covered Public Employee such that this dispute qualifies for arbitration under the agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant.
The Motion to Stay Arbitration proceedings between Plaintiff and Defendant with respect to this claim is granted. It is ORDERED that any arbitration proceedings that have been commenced or are threatened to be commenced with respect to this claim are hereby stayed
February 23, 2010
2 HANCOCK COUNTY - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT HANCOCK, ss. Attorney for: HANCOCK COUNTY Docket No ELLSC-CV-2009-00067 TIMOTHY A PEASE - RETAINED 11/09/2009 RUDMAN & WINCHELL 84 HARLOW ST DOCKET RECORD PO BOX 1401 BANGOR ME 04402-1401
Attorney for: HANCOCK COUNTY DEBRA REECE - RETAINED 01/12/2010 RUDMAN & WINCHELL 84 HARLOW ST PO BOX 1401 BANGOR ME 04402-1401
vs TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 340 - DEFENDANT
Attorney for: TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 340 HOWARD REBEN - RETAINED 11/25/2009 REBEN, BENJAMIN & MARCH 97 INDIA STREET PO BOX 7060 PORTLAND ME 04112-7060
Attorney for: TE.AMSTERS UNION LOCAL 340 ADRIENNE COHEN HANSEN - RETAINED 01/08/2010 REBEN, BENJAMIN & MARCH 97 INDIA STREET PO BOX 7060 PORTLAND ME 04112-7060
Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF Filing Date: 11/09/2009
Docket Event~s: 11/12/2009 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 11/09/2009
11/12/2009 Party(s): ~,COCK COUNTY ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 11/09/2009 Plaintiff's Attorney: TIMOTHY A PEASE
11/12/2009 Party(s): HANCOCK COUNTY MOTION - MOTION STAY OF PROCEEDINGS FILED ON 11/09/2009 TO STAY ARBITRATION, W/AFFIDAVIT OF CYNTHIA A. DE PRENGER
11/12/2009 CERTIFY/NOTIFICATION - CASE FILE NOTICE SENT ON 11/12/2009
11/23/2009 Party(s): HANCOCK COUNTY SUMMONS/SERVICE - PROOF OF SERVICE SERVED ON 11/16/2009 ON TEAMSTERS' UNION ....
Page 1 of 3 Printed on: 02/24/2010
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hancock County v. Teamsters Union Local 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hancock-county-v-teamsters-union-local-34-mesuperct-2010.