In 1987, did Maine have to bargain over standards for creating state job classifications?

Plain-English summary

The Maine Attorney General concluded in 1987 that the state was not required to bargain collectively over standards used to prepare job-classification specifications.

Section 979-D listed the employment matters subject to collective bargaining and did not mention the establishment of classification standards. A 1986 provision in Section 7061 made the Human Resources Director's classification work subject to Section 979-D, but the AG did not read that cross-reference as adding every classification responsibility to the bargaining list.

Instead, the opinion read the provision as requiring the Director's classification actions to remain consistent with collective bargaining agreements reached under Section 979-D. The AG also said pending LD 1689, which would expressly add classification standards to the mandatory subjects, would have legal effect rather than duplicate existing law.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later
AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current
legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy
mentioned here.

Common questions

Were job-classification standards listed as a mandatory bargaining subject?

No. The opinion found no reference to those standards in Section 979-D's detailed list.

Did Section 7061's cross-reference expand the bargaining subjects?

No. The AG concluded that it required consistency with collective bargaining agreements but did not add all classification duties to the bargaining list.

Why did the opinion reject a broader reading?

The broader reading would have made every classification responsibility of the Human Resources Director a bargaining subject, a major change unsupported by the provision's text or legislative history.

Would LD 1689 have changed the law?

Yes. Because the AG found that classification standards were not already mandatory subjects, the bill's express addition would have had legal effect.

Background and statutory framework

The chair of a legislative committee asked whether standards for creating state job-classification specifications were already subject to mandatory collective bargaining.

The opinion compared the Director's classification authority in 5 M.R.S.A. § 7061 with the bargaining subjects in 26 M.R.S.A. § 979-D and examined the 1985 and 1986 legislative changes.

Citations discussed

• 5 M.R.S.A. § 7061, describing the Human Resources Director's classification authority
• 26 M.R.S.A. § 979-D, listing collective bargaining subjects for state employees
• State of Maine v. Maine State Employees Association, cited for declining to add an unlisted mandatory bargaining subject

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/1987/ag_19870615.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

87-9
JAMES E. TIERNEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE HOUSE STATION 6
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333

June 15, 1987

Honorable Dan A. Gwadosky
Chairman, Joint Standing Committee on
State and Local Government
Maine House of Representatives
State House Station #2
Augusta, Maine 04333
Dear Representative Gwadosky:
I am writing in response to your letter of this date, inquiring whether the establishment of standards for the creation of job classification specifications by the Director of the Bureau of Human Resources, pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A.
( § 7061, is under current law a mandatory subject of collective bargaining, pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 979-D. For the reasons which follow, it is the Opinion of this Department that the establishment of such standards is not at present a subject required by law to be collectively bargained.
In 1974, the Maine Legislature enacted the "State Employees Labor Relations Act," P.L. 1973, ch. 774, which, among other things, enacted 26 M.R.S.A. § 979-D, concerning the conduct of collective bargaining for state employees generally.
Subsection (1)(E) of that section deals with the question of the specific employment matters which are to be the subject of collective bargaining. The subsection was the subject of one substantive amendment, which occurred·in 1985. P.L. 1985, ch.
289. The subsection is quite detailed in its enumeration of the specific matters that are to be the subject of collective bargaining, but nowhere on its face makes any reference to the establishment by the Bureau of Human Resources (or its predecessor, the Department of Personnel) of standards for the creation of job classification specifications. Therefore, it is quite clear that as the law stood in 1985, there was no requirement that the State Government collectively bargain over the establishment of such standards.
 -2-

..
The question which you raise involves determining the
(
meaning of a provision which was added to the State Personnel
.
:. . .
Laws as part of a major reorganization of the personnel functions of the State which occurred in 1986. This provision, which appears as the last paragraph of 5 M.R.S.A. § 7061,!/ specifies that in setting the duties and responsibilities for all positions in the state service and in establishing classes for those positions, the Director of the Bureau of Human Resources shall be "subject to the requirements of Title 26, section 979-D, subsection 1, paragraph E." The question presented is whether, in enacting this new provision, the Legislature intended to add the establishment of standards for the preparation of job classification specifications to the list of collective bargaining subjects contained in Section 979-D.
The legislative history concerning the addition of this provision to the Personnel Laws is silent as to the Legislature's specific intention. Nonetheless, the full context of the provision, as well as its plain meaning, make it clear to this office that the provision was not intended to expand the list of subjects of collective bargaining contained
in Section 979-D.
·
The section in which the provision appears, 5 M.R.S.A.
§ 7061, is the section which gives the Director of the Bureau of Human Resources all of his basic powers with regard to the
(
establishment of job classifications for the state service.
Thus, if the provision were read to add the matter of establishing standards for the preparation of job classification specifications to the list of collective bargaining subjects, it would also have to be read to add every other responsibility of the Director concerning the classification process to the list of collective bargaining subjects as well. Such a reading would effect a major alteration in the relation between the State Government and its employees who are members of collective bargaining units. In the absence of some indication that the Legislature intended such a significant consequence, this Department cannot read as much into its enactment of the provision in question. cf.
State of Maine v. Maine State Employees Association, 443 A.2d 948 (Me. 1982) (Law Court declines to add to list of mandatory bargaining subjects contained in Section 979-D a subject not specifically mentioned therein). Rather, it would appear that the provision was simply designed to insure that whatever

!/ Section 7061 replaced without other amendment 5 M.R.S.A.
§ 633, which was first enacted in 1937, P.L. 1937, ch. 221, § 9, and was not amended in substance until its replacement.
 -3- action the Director takes with regard to the classification C process is not inconsistent with any collective bargaining agreement reached pursuant to Section 979-D.
This Department understands that the reason why the question which you pose has arisen is that a bill is at present pending before the Legislature which would expressly add the matter of the establishment of standards for the preparation of job classification specifications to the list of mandatory collective bargaining subjects contained in Section 979-D. See Legislative Document No. 1689, "AN ACT to Amend the Civil Service Law to Set Standards for the Creation of Job Classification Specifications." If this matter is already the subject of collective bargaining, by virtue of the reference to Section 979-D contained in Section 7061, then this legislation would be unnecessary. Since this Department is of the view, however, that the reference to Section 979-D in Section 7061 was not intended to expand the list of matters subject to collective bargaining, the enactment of the bill would have legal effect.
I hope the foregoing answers your question. Please feel free to reinquire if further clarification is necessary.

Sincerely,

JAMES E. TIERNEY
Attorney General
JET/ec cc: Rep. John L. Martin,
Speaker,Maine House of Representatives
Sen. John L. Tuttle, Jr.
Senate Chairman, Joint Standing
Committee on State and Local Government
Sen. Beverly M. Bustin
Rep. Elaine Lacroix
Rep. Omar P. Norton
Co-sponsors of L.D. 1689