 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
BROWN v. MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ASS'N2/14/1997
[ 1] Ronald Brown appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Hancock County, Mead, J.) dismissing his complaint against the Maine State Employees Association (MSEA) seeking to recover for his damages flowing from the alleged negligent failure on the part of an attorney for the union to file in a timely manner a demand for arbitration of Brown's grievance with the Maine Labor Relations Board. On appeal, Brown contends, inter alia, that he has pleaded a viable cause of action and that the court erred in dismissing his complaint for the failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Unpersuaded by Brown's contentions, we affirm the judgment.
[ 2] Brown worked as the director of the psychology department at the Bangor Mental Health Institute from 1989 until 1993. In October 1993, Brown was the subject of a disciplinary action and, following that action, was reprimanded, suspended, and demoted. Brown subsequently began a grievance pursuant to a procedure that existed in the
[ 3] On February 20, 1996, without filing a complaint with the Board regarding the attorney's conduct, Brown filed suit in the Superior Court against the MSEA and the lawyer alleging they had committed professional malpractice by failing to file in a timely fashion the demand for arbitration. Brown amended the complaint to add a second count alleging that the union had breached its duty of fair representation. Subsequently, Brown and the MSEA stipulated to a dismissal of the lawyer from the suit.
[ 4] After a hearing, the court granted the MSEA's motion to dismiss both counts. The court concluded that Count I should be dismissed because "no independent tort for professional (legal) negligence exists where an employee of a union commits a negligent act in the representation of an employee pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement." The court declined to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the Board over Count II, alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, and in any event, found that it was time barred by the six-month statute of limitations for filing a complaint with the Board as provided in the State Employees Labor Relations Act, 26 M.R.S.A. § 979 to 979-Q (1988 & Supp. 1996). Brown's appeal followed.
[ 5] A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Plimpton v. Gerrard, 668 A.2d 882, 885 (Me. 1995). We review a judgment granting a motion to dismiss by treating the material allegations of the complaint as true and examining the complaint in the light most "favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it alleges the elements of a cause of action against the defendant or alleges facts that could entitle the plaintiff to relief under some legal theory[.]" Id. (citing Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods, Inc., 486 A.2d 97, 99 (Me. 1984)).
[ 6] The relationships among the employee, the public employer, and the union are governed by the statutory scheme set out in the State Employees Labor Relations Act, 26 M.R.S.A. § 979 to 979-Q (1988 & Supp. 1996). The Legislature has granted the Board jurisdiction over both the employer and the union to remedy prohibited practices. 26 M.R.S.A. § 979-H(1) (1988). A complainant must file a prohibited practices complaint with the executive director of the Board no later than six months after its alleged occurrence. 26 M.R.S.A. § 979-H(2) (1988). Prohibited practices include prohibiting a union from " nterfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 979-B . . . ." 26 M.R.S.A. § 979-C(2)(A).
[ 7] We have said that a union commits a prohibited practice by breaching its statutory duty to fairly represent its members. Lundriga
Page 1 2 3 Maine Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|