ALFRED — The County of York is asking a judge to decide whether an arbitrator exceeded her authority in connection with a labor dispute over reclassifying workers at the York County Registry of Deeds.

In an Aug. 3  filing at York County Superior Court in Alfred, the county government argues that the arbitrator, attorney Sheila Mayberry, overstepped her authority when she determined that County Manager Greg Zinser acted in bad faith by his alleged undermining of the employee reclassification process.  

The motion by the county government to vacate the arbitration award claims there was no contractual provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the county and the Maine State Employees Association that requires the county manager to process any request for reclassification. Instead, the county claims the pivotal initial role for the reclassification process is played by the department head. The county reasons that because there was no contractual involvement or obligation of the county manager, the arbitrator is without the authority to impose such a requirement, and therefore it claims the arbitrator’s finding is beyond her authority.

The MSEA submitted a reclassification request to Register of Deeds Debra Anderson on Oct. 22, 2014, based on their belief that changes in the jobs at the deeds registry were enough to warrant an increase to the next pay grade. The changes were made after the county laid off a dozen registry employees in 2009. In the spring of 2010, four employees were called back to work and cross-training commenced, according to the arbitration decision and award document. On Dec. 11 that year, Anderson determined the changes made to the job functions were significant enough to warrant an increase from Grade 4 to Grade 5, based on the reduction in staff, cross-training and other training requirements.

The arbitrator’s report said Zinser and Anderson disagreed that the increase was warranted and so they agreed to submit two different budgets — one containing the reclassification and one without.

Anderson submitted her budget request to to the county manager. According to the arbitration document, that was not passed on to county commissioners and minutes from their meetings do not reflect discussion about the  reclassification request. Anderson later brought the reclassification request to the county budget committee, but no funds were added to the department and after a public hearing the budget was approved.

The union contract expired June 30, 2015, and a grievance was filed on the matter July 30, 2015. It was denied by the county manger in September, 2015, and by county commissioners on Nov. 4, 2015. Commissioners concluded there was insufficient evidence that there was a material change in the job duties of employees to warrant an upgrade.

Mayberry, the arbitrator, agreed that the county commissioners acted in good faith and did not violate the collective bargaining agreement that was in effect at the time.

The arbitrator went on to say she believed the county manager intentionally did not review the merits of the reclassification request or have it reviewed by county commissioners until a year after the initial reclassification request was made.

Mayberry pointed out that the contract language was unclear about how reclassifications were finalized and funded. 

The arbitrator directed the county to partially reimburse the union for costs and time related to processing the grievance.

The county then filed a motion with the arbitrator, asking her  to modify her award because of what it described as a mistake in the description of the process that was followed and the omission of the sequence of events that transpired when the upgrade was discussed between the register and county manager in the spring of  2015. 

The county pointed out that neither side had asked for costs and no provision for costs in the collective bargaining agreement. 

The county argues that according to the contract, if the union did not feel its reclassification was adequately addressed by the department head, that action would be the one that triggered the grievance process.

“Because there is no contractual involvement or obligation of the county manager, the arbitrator is without the authority to effectively impose a contractual requirement on him to process the Register’s request,” the county wrote in its motion to the court. “As a result, the arbitrator’s finding in that regard is beyond her authority.”

The MSEA has asked the court to extend the time period to respond to the county’s motion.

— Senior Staff Writer Tammy Wells can be contacted at 324-4444 (local call in Sanford) or 282-1535, ext. 327 or [email protected].