Entitlement of employees classified as "court reporters" to increases awarded as a result of collective bargaining

MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) RICl-iARD s. COHliN ATTORNEY GENERAL S·rA'I'E oir MA1N1s D.b:PAH.'l'M.b:N'l' 01•' THC: A'lvl'OH.N.b:Y G~NBH.AL AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333 Jadine O'Brien, Commissioner Department of Personnel State Office Building Augusta, Maine 04333 Dear Commissioner O'Brien: June 26, 1979 MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL SrnPHEN L. D1AMOND JOHN S. GLEASON JOHN M. R. PATERSON ROBERT J. STOLT DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL This will respond to your inquiry of May 4, 1979, asking whether or not employees in the classification 11Court Reporters" are entitled to receive. increases awarded as a result· of the collective bargaining process in view of the "language of tho fiscal note attached to C: 709, P.L. of 1977. · · On June 19, 1978, we gave you our opinion as to the rela- tionship of chapter 709, P.L. of 1977, to the personnel law. (copy attached) In that opinion we reviewed the significance to be given fiscal notes and the rules of statutory construc- tion to be applied in instances where, such as this, a particu- lar legislative enactment appears to be inconsistent with the general body of 1law. Those rules apply to the question which you now raise.!L As we said then, "where Chapter 709 and existing law converge, they are to be interpreted and imple- mented to give maximum effect to both." Our interpretation was that the intent of Chapter 709 could be implemented con- sistent with existing law, "[b]y adopting a new classifica- tion for reporters and assigning such classification a salary grade which most nearly [approximated] ·the [then existing Superior] Court reporter salary." 1/ We declined to answer this question when originally raised (our opinion of June 19, i978, supra) because at that time it was hypothetical. Page 2 Here the problem·is tne "giving of maximum effect" to both c. 709 and the State.Employees Labor Relations Act, 26 M.R.S.A. § 979, et seq. ("the Act") under which the contract which provides for the salary increases in question was negotiated. The purpose of tne Act is to provide ·the basis for a uniform consistent relati~nship between the·State and its employees in bargaining units,· see § 979. It would run counter to this purpose to remove particular classifications or positions from the coverage of the Act unless there is a clear indication of legislative intent that the particu~~r classifications or positions are not within its scope.~ Nothing in·c. 709 indicates that the positions in question are to be excluded. Nor is there any indication that employees in these positions are to be treated differently.from other included employees with respect to salary increases. It appears, :that,· as our earlier opinion suggests, the effect of c. 709 is to attach a one-time salary· increase to_·these posi- tions with no explicit or implicit ramification affecting their treatment under the Act. Accordingly, employees in these positions are entitled to receive salary increases awarded by the collective bargaining contractU negotiated under the Act. . . . . . - General RJS/ec Enclosure 2/ 3/ Tho SBLRA excludes certain classes of employees from tho defiuition of "state employee" and thus from the coverage of the Act. § 979-A(6). The positions in question are not among those so excluded. They are in fact included in a bargaining unit. It should be noted that in neither the contract nor the law which implements it, P.L. 1979, c. 269, is there any indication that these positions are to be excluded or treated differently from other included positions.