Communications Workers of America v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MAINE BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Cumberland, ss. CLAIMANTS REPRESENTED BY COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1400 and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 2327, Petitioners, Docket Nos. BCD-AP-17-07 / v. MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, Respondent, FAIRPOINT LOGISTICS, INC. and NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE OPERATIONS LLC (d/b/a FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATION-NSE), Parties-in-Interest. DECISION ON APPEAL AFTER REMAND This case presents an appeal from a decision of the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission ["the Commission"] denying unemployment compensation benefits to the Petitioners. 1 The 255 Petitioners are former or current employees of Parties-in-Interest FairPoint Logistics, Inc. and Northern New England Telephone Operations LLC, d/b/a FairPoint Communications-NSE [collectively "FairPoint"] The employees whose claims for unemployment compensation are at issue in this appeal are listed in the attachments to this Decision, which consist ofpages 023-041 and 1699-1700 of the Record on Appeal. 1 who were involved in a labor dispute during late 2014 and early 2015. See Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. S l, 2017), R. 1794-1850. 2 Oral argument on the appeal was held June 4, 2018. Based on the entire record, the court denies the appeal and affirms the Commission decision. The Initial Commission Decision and Initial Appeal The decision under appeal is the Commission's second decision on the Petitioners' claims. The initial decision denying Petitioners' claims was appealed to this court, which vacated the decision and remanded the claims to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with the court's ruling. See Decision on Appeal, Claimants Represented By Communications Workers Of America, Local 1400 And International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers, Local 2327 v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission, Me. Bus. & Cons. Ct. Docket Nos. BCD-AP-15-06 and -16-01 (Aug. 26, 2016), R. 2003-26. See also Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 15-C 03849 (Oct. 1, 2015), R. 2-22. The initial proceedings before the Commission and appeal to this court are hereinafter referred to as "Claimants I." This and similar citations herein are to the eight-volume Record on Appeal. The first six volumes of the Record on Appeal, R. 1-1793, consist of the same materials that were in the record on appeal in the initial appeal to this court. Volumes seven and eight, R. 1794-2448, consist of material that came into the record during the Commission proceedings after the court's remand. 2 2 This court's Decision on Appeal in Claimants I focused almost exclusively on legal issues, and concluded that the Commission's decision erred as a matter oflaw in several respects: • By placing the burden on the claimants to establish that they should not be disqualified for benefits due to a stoppage of work caused by the strike. See Claimants I Decision on Appeal at 14-19, R. 2016-21. • By failing to apply the "substantial curtailment" standard in determining the existence of a work stoppage. See Claimants I Decision on Appeal at 9-14, R. 2011-16. • By failing to making a separate determination, as to each week of the strike, whether a work stoppage occurred. See Claimants I Decision on Appeal at 22, R. 2024. The grounds for remand in Claimants I all involved issues of law. Although the Petitioners also challenged the Commission's factual findings, the remand on issues oflaw obviated any need to address that challenge. R. at 2010. The Commission's Decision on Remand On remand, the Commission re-evaluated the Petitioners' claims for unemployment benefits, based on the same evidentiary record developed during the Claimants I proceedings before the Commission, and again denied the Petitioners' claims. See Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. S l, 2017), R. 1794-1850. 3 The Commission's decision on remand contains the following components: • Procedural history: This entailed a summary of the initial proceedings before the Commission and the initial appeal. Id., R. 1794-8. • Issues Presented: The two issues framed were (1) whether the claimant's unemployment was due to a stoppage of work for purposes of26 M.R.S. § 1193(4) and whether the employers' experience rating should be charged for benefits paid to any eligible claimant. Id., R. 1798. • Methodology for Conducting Weekly Analysis on Remand: This section discussed how the Commission evaluated data and information in the record to comply with this court's directive that the Commission determine whether there was a work stoppage for each of the twenty Sunday-through-Saturday benefit weeks during all or part of which the strike occurred. Id., R. 1798-1800. s "["W]here possible," the Commission extrapolated weekly data from the existing record evidence. Id., R. 1799. • Legal Standard: This section discussed judicial precedent, up to and including this court's remand decision. Id., R. 1800-03. In this section, the Commission noted that its decision on remand places the burden on the employers, consistent with this court's remand. Id., R. 1801. Also, while the Commission continued to use the "failure to maintain substantially normal operations" as the standard for determining whether a work stoppage exists, it noted that its decision on remand "treats this standard as 3 The strike lasted for 18.5 weeks rather than 20 full weeks, but it began during a benefit week, continued for eighteen more benefit weeks, and ended during a benefit week, so it covered part or all of 20 weeks. See Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. 31, 2017), R. 1799. 4 synonymous with the 'substantial curtailment' standard, as determined by the Court in its remand decision." Id., R. 1803. Further, the Commission adopted "a multi-factor analysis, evaluating the following factors to determine whether or not there was a work stoppage in the case at bar: The strike's impact on business operations and production (including marketing/sales, installations, repairs, construction, maintenance of equipment, and number ofemployees as compared with normal levels); the strike' s impact on customer satisfaction; and the strike's impact on revenue. Id. Later in its Decision on remand, the Commission developed "metrics," or numerical measures of different aspects of FairPoint's operations, based on operations data in the record, and applied the metrics to these factors, along with witness testimony and other evidence. • Background and General Findings: This section of the decision contained the Commission's general findings concerning the parties; the history of labor negotiations, and an overview of the strike. Id., R. 1804-08. • Baseline Findings: This section contained the Commission's findings regarding the employers' "normal operations," i.e., the baseline that, as this court's remand decision pointed out, necessarily has to be established in order for there to be any determination of a "failure to maintain substantially normal operations." Id., R. 1808-19. See Claimants I Decision on Appeal, at 23, R. 2025. As a result of its baseline analysis, the Commission developed a baseline figure for each of the numerical metrics that the Commission identified as relevant to 5 determining whether there was a stoppage of work during each week. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 See Me. (Aug. 31, 2017), R. 1818-19. These metrics include average intervals for repairs and installations as well as the number of repairs and installations performed, as well as pending repairs, customer complaints to the Maine Public Utilities Commission, and revenues. Id. • Impact of the Strike, with Week by Week Analysis: The next thirty pages of the Commission's decision on remand set forth the Commission's analysis of evidence, beginning with evidence applicable to all weeks of the strike and continuing with a separate analysis as to each of the weeks of the strike. Id., R. 1819-49. The Commission found that FairPoint's operations declined on the first day of the strike; that delays and backlogs in installations and repairs climbed substantially; that FairPoint suffered substantial losses in terms of customers and revenues during the strike, and that the number of complaints to the Maine Public Utilities Commission rose significantly as a result of the strike. See id. • Conclusion: Based on its analysis, the Commission on remand concluded that the employers were not able to maintain substantially normal operations during any of the benefit weeks fully or partially covered by the strike period. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Commission concludes that the employers have met their burden to prove that a work stoppage existed due to the strike within the meaning of 26 M.R.S. Section 1193(4) for each of the benefit weeks fully or partially within the strike period. Id., R. 1849. The Commission went on to point out that, because it had concluded that there 6 was a stoppage of work throughout the strike, it was unnecessary to consider the alternate basis upon which a claimant may be disqualified during a strike-a stoppage of work would have existed had the employer not maintained substantially normal operations without hiring new employees to do work previously done by striking employees. Id. See 26 M.R.S. § 1193(4). Based on its conclusion, the Commission affirmed its initial decision and declared all of the Petitioners disqualified because their unemployment throughout the strike was due to a stoppage of work. See Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. s 1, 2017), R. 1849. The Petitioners have taken a timely appeal from the Commission's decision on remand. The Record on Appeal As noted above, most of the record on the present appeal-volumes one through six, covering pages R. 1 through R. 1793-consists of the same record on appeal in Claimants I. The additional components of the record in this appeal-in volumes seven and eight-?-re materials admitted or offered into the record before the Commission during the proceedings after remand. Because the Claimants I appeal and the present appeal involve virtually the same evidentiary record, this Decision on Appeal After Remand incorporates by reference the factual summary and legal analysis contained in this court's Decision on Appeal in Claimants I, R. 2002-22, and does not repeat them here. Issues on Appeal 7 Whereas the grounds for appeal in Claimants I consisted mainly of issues of law, the points that Petitioners raise in the present appeal are highly fact- and evidence-specific. The Petitioners' brief on appeal raises and addresses the following arguments: "A. The Commission erred in ignoring the totality of the evidence, which demonstrates that FairPoint maintained substantially normal operations during the strike." Petitioners' Brief at 8 "B. The Commission's determination of the impact of the strike on FairPoint during each week of the strike is not supported by substantial evidence and is premised on an error oflaw." Id. at 12 "C. The Commission's determination of FairPoint's 'substantially normal operations' prior to the strike is not supported by substantial evidence and is premised on an error oflaw." Id. at .20. "D. The record data as to installations concerns POTS, only one ofFairPoint's three main lines of business, and the Commission erred in relying on this data in determining whether there was a work stoppage because of the strike." Id. at .28. "E. The increase in PUC complaints was insignificant and the Commission erred in giving this data any weight in determining whether there was a work stoppage because of the strike." Id. at 29. "F. The Commission erred when it found that the labor dispute caused a work stoppage despite the impact of severe winter weather on the Company's operations." Id. at so. 8 "G. The employers failed to carry their burden of proving that they maintained substantially normal operations without hiring new personnel to perform work previously done by the striking employees." Id. at 35. The Commission and FairPoint dispute each of the Petitioners' contentions. The parties' arguments are addressed in the Analysis section, infra, in the order just indicated. Standard ofReview In reviewing decisions of the Commission, "it is critical that [the court] keep m mind the purposes of the Employment Security Act." Brousseau v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission, 470 A.2d 327, 329 (Me. 1984). Because the Act is remedial in nature, it "dictates a liberal construction in favor of the employee." Id. In general, the court reviews the administrative record "to determine whether the Commission correctly applied the law and whether its fact findings are supported by any competent evidence." McPherson Timberlands v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission, 1998 ME 177,, 6, 714 A.2d 818 Based on the nature of the issues raised in this appeal, this court's role in reviewing factual findings made by the Commission is of particular relevance. An administrative agency's findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, but the reviewing court "will not overrule findings of fact supported by substantial evidence, defined as 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the resultant conclusion."' Sinclair Builders, Inc. v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission, 2013 ME 76, , 9, 73 A.sd 1061 9 (quotation omitted). The fact that the record contains inconsistent evidence or the fact that inconsistent conclusions could be drawn from the record do not prevent the agency's findings from being supported by substantial evidence. See In re Me. Clean Fuels, Inc., 310 A.2d 736, 741 (Me. 1973). Questions as to the credibility of evidence are for the agency, as factfinder, not for the court, to resolve. See Merrow v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission, 495 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Me. 1985). It matters not whether the court would have assigned the same weight to evidence in the record or would have drawn the same inferences and conclusions from the evidence, as did the agency. The degree of deference that this court must accord to the Commission's interpretation and evaluation of the evidence means that the court must uphold the Commission's factual determinations "unless the record before the commission compels a contrary result." See McPherson Timberlands, 1998 ME 177, , 6, 714 A.2d 818. On the other hand, an administrative agency "must rely on evidence, not speculation, in fact-finding," Hannum v. Board 123, , 15 n.6, 832 A.2d 765. ef Environmental Protection, 2003 ME An administrative agency errs as a matter oflaw if its 10 findings of fact are based on speculation. See Uliano v. Board cif Environmental Protection, 2005 ME 88, , 19 n.6, 876 A.2d 16. Analysis With this framework in mind, this Decision On Appeal After Remand addresses each of the Petitioner's contentions on appeal. A. Whether the Totality of the Evidence Compelled the Commission to Decide In Favor of Petitioners Petitioners' first contention-that the Commission ignored the totality of the evidence in deciding against them, see Petitioners' Brief at 8-12-implicates the deferential standard of review just set forth. Although an administrative agency is required to consider all of the relevant evidence before it in an adjudicative proceeding, it is for the agency, not the reviewing court, to decide which evidence is of sufficient weight and probative value to figure in the agency's decision. Thus, judicial review focuses less upon whether an agency decision comports with the totality-meaning the greater quantity-of the evidence, and more upon whether there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the agency's findings of fact, even if other evidence does not support the findings. In any event, the evidence that the Petitioners argue that the Commission ignored falls into two categories-evidence that "FairPoint delivered services throughout the 18.5-week labor dispute on time to the vast majority of its 200,000 Maine customers," and evidence that FairPoint's management made statements indicating "how well the Company fared during the strike." 11 However, the Commission did address the timeliness of FairPoint's service to customers during the strike. It determined that "the totality of the evidence reflects that the employers were continued to struggle with completing services to customers in a reasonably timely manner," and pointed out that management's statements during an earnings call toward the end of the strike "further reflect that the employers believed that they had been unable to provide reasonable service levels during much of the strike period and had been unable to stabilize revenue." See Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. .31, 2017), R. 1806 n.14, 1807. Moreover, the Commission's week-by-week metrics analysis includes findings based on objective data, rather than subjective impressions, that FairPoint's service to customers, measured in terms of repair and installation times and order backlogs, declined substantially during the strike below the baseline levels that the Commission had developed. See id., R. 1819-49. (Petitioners challenge the metrics developed by the Commission as speculative and lacking support in record evidence, but this is a different issue and is discussed below). Thus, the totality of evidence is not so one sided that it compels a decision against FairPoint and in favor of the Petitioners. Admittedly, there is evidence in the record-including but not limited to the two categories of evidence cited by Petitioners-on which the Commission could have grounded its decision, but the court cannot say that the Commission was compelled to accept that evidence over the evidence that it chose instead to rely upon. Accordingly, this ground for the appeal does not justify setfrng aside the Commission's decision on remand. 12 B. Whether the Commission's determination of the impact of the strike on FairPoint during each week of the strike is speculative, not supported by substantial evidence and premised on an error oflaw. Petitioners contend that the Commission committed an error of law and also made findings not supported by substantial evidence, in purporting to develop weekly metrics data. Petitioners' Brief at 12-20. With one exception-trouble and order backlogs-the data in the record before the Commission was in monthly or bimonthly format rather than weekly format. The Commission's decision on remand addresses this issue in the Methodology for Conducting Weekly Analysis, see Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. 31, 2017), R. 1798-1800. The Commission indicated that it converted monthly or bimonthly data to weekly data in two different ways: lfit would not be appropriate to break the monthly total down and assign a portion of the monthly figure to individual benefit weeks, the Commission has used the monthly total for each of the benefit weeks that fall within that month.... If it would be appropriate to break the monthly total down and assign a portion of the monthly total to individual benefit weeks, the Commission has arrived at weekly data for the benefit weeks at issue in this matter by dividing the monthly figure by the number of days in the month and then multiplying by seven. Id., R. 1799-1800. In substance, the Commission extrapolated, in these two ways, weekly figures from monthly or bimonthly data to apply to its week-by-week analysis (as well as its determination of the operational baseline). The question presented on judicial review is whether the extrapolation was reasonable and yielded substantial evidence of 13 weekly operations levels, or whether it was unreasonable and resulted in speculation, as the Petitioners contend. As the Commission's brief points out, it was constrained to utilize the monthly or bimonthly data already in the record by the court's directive to reconsider its decision on remand based on the current record. See Brief on Behalf of Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission In Opposition to Rule SOC Petition ["Commission Brief'] at 14-15. Moreover, according to FairPoint's brief to the Commission, the evidence already in the record was "the best evidence available to evaluate the strike's effect on a week-by-week basis," because, with few exceptions, weekly data for the various metrics utilized by the Commission was not maintained during the strike. See Employers' Response to Procedural Order No. 2 at 5 & n.9, R. 1878 & n.9. The Petitioners' primary objection to the Commission's conversion of monthly or bimonthly data to weekly figures is that the conv,ersion assumes limited or no variation from week to week during the strike. On the other hand, Petitioners have not pointed to evidence in the record that there was, in fact, such variation in the various metrics from week to week as to render the Commission's averaging approach unreasonable and speculative. Averaging monthly or bimonthly data to develop weekly numbers is not an inherently irrational or unreasonable method, and in this case, it appears to have been the only way to develop weekly figures. The questions before the court are whether the Commission acted arbitrarily or capriciously in converting the monthly or bimonthly data to weekly data and was 14 compelled to decide that reliable weekly metrics could not be developed from the monthly and bimonthly data in the record. The court concludes that the Commission's method of developing weekly data for both the baseline periods and the weeks of the strike was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Thus, the court does not view the Commission's reliance on weekly data extrapolated from monthly data as grounds to set aside the Commission's decision. C. Whether the Commission's determination of FairPoint's 'substantially normal operations' prior to the strike is supported by substantial evidence or is premised on an error oflaw. The Petitioners challenge the Commission's determination of the baseline "substantially normal operations" that is a prerequisite for determining whether a stoppage of work due to the strike had occurred in any week. Petitioners' Brief at 20 28. Their challenge has several components. First, they point out that the Commission used data covering as many as 45 months and converted that data to a monthly average, and then converted the monthly average into weekly numbers. They say this approach ignores the fact that data for particular metrics can vary from month to month-as, for example, between seasons of the year-and can further vary from week to week. Thus, this argument rests on much the same foundation as their contention that the Commission should not have attempted to extrapolate weekly metrics from monthly or bimonthly data. Second, the Petitioners point out that the record contained only five weeks of pre-strike data for the two metrics for which weekly data exists in the record-the 15 trouble load and order load-and contend that five weeks of data is an insufficient predicate for a baseline determination. As a result, the Petitioners contend, the Commission engaged in speculation and thereby committed an error oflaw. Clear seasonal variations in the -monthly data might call into doubt the Commission's use of a single monthly average figure based on 12 or SS or 45 months of data and might indicate that the Commission should instead have focused on the data during the pre-strike period for the months of October through February-the same months as were encompassed by the strike. However, the monthly data in the record do not appear to reflect the kind of consistent seasonal variation that would call into question the Commission's use of a single monthly average based on 12 months or more of data. The monthly figures are reproduced in table format in the baseline section of the Commission's decision on remand. See Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. SI, 2017), R . 1809-14. The figures plainly show some monthly fluctuations over the course of the calendar year, but the fluctuations do not appear to be consistent or seasonal. Thus, it cannot be said the Commission acted unreasonably in using an average monthly figure to develop a baseline level for the various metrics. Regarding the five weeks of trouble load and order load data, the Commission could well have decided that the data were insufficient for purposes of developing a baseline operations level, but such a conclusion would have excluded just two of the metrics from the analysis. Moreover, the Commission could have decided that the 16 data, albeit quite limited in duration, were sufficiently representative of pre-strike operations to be serve as the basis for the baseline metrics for trouble load and order load. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those reflected in the court's analysis in the preceding section, the court concludes that the Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, or commit any error oflaw, in its baseline methodology, and that there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the Commission's baseline metrics. D. Whether the record data as to installations concerns POTS, only one of FairPoint's three main lines of business, and, if so, whether the Commission erred in relying on this data in determining whether there was a work stoppage because of the strike. Petitioners also say that the Commission should not have relied upon the installation metrics that it developed to measure the number and timing of residential and business installations, because the data underlying the metrics reflected only one of FairPoint's three lines of business-POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service). See Petitioners' Brief at 28-29. The other two lines are broadband service for residential and business customers and carrier Ethernet service for very large business customers. Assuming, as appears to be the case, that the installation metrics were based only on POTS installations as Petitioners contend, the metrics should not be given dispositive weight, because they reflect only a portion of FairPoint's operations. But that is as far as the Petitioners' argument goes . Given that the metrics were based on a reasonable extrapolation of installation data before and during the strike, the Commission did not err in considering them. The Commission decision indicates that 17 the Commission understood that the installation data related only to POTS installations. See R. 181.'3, 1815. In addition, as the Commission's brief points out, the Commission did address in its findings the other two lines ofFairPoint's business and found, based on FairPoint's testimony, that those lines, too, had been adversely affected during the strike. See Commission Brief at 16-17, citing Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-05251 (Aug. .'31, 2017), R. 1808. For these reasons, the court cannot say the Commission erred in analyzing and applying the installation metrics. E. Whether the Commission erred in giving the volume of PUC complaints any weight in determining whether there was a work stoppage because of the strike. F. Whether the Commission erred when it found that the labor dispute caused a work stoppage despite evidence regarding the impact of severe winter weather on FairPoint's operations. Petitioners' Brief contends that the Commission erred in its handling of two areas of evidence: evidence of an increase in customer complaints to the Maine PUC about FairPoint during the strike, and evidence of the effects of winter weather on FairPoint's operations. Petitioners' Brief at 29-.'34. The Petitioners argue that the Commission should have given less or no weight to the increase in PUC complaints, id. at 29 and should have given more or dispositive weight to the impact of winter weather upon FairPoint's operations. Id. at .'30-.'34. Both contentions are addressed together here because they implicate the same deferential standatd of review. In assessing whether the strike affected the number of customer complaints to the .PUC, the Commission found that the number of PUC complaints had increased by 18 multiples of up to seven in the course of the strike. This court is largely in agreement with the Petitioners that using raw data regarding customer complaints is not the best means of either developing a baseline of substantially normal operations or measuring the impact ofa strike on operations. The Commission's other metrics bear much more directly at the appropriate baseline level and at the effects of the strike. As Petitioners point out, "complaints are not proof of a work stoppage," Petitioners' Brief at 33 n.88. Absent evidence that the increase in PUC complaints was due to delays or other byproducts ofthe strike, the increase is better viewed as corroborative of other metrics rather than as probative in and of itself Still, there was an undeniable spike in the number ofcomplaints during the first month of the strike, in October 2014, and the number of complaints per month escalated each month until dropping in February, when the strike ended. See R. 1812 13. The court cannot say the Commission either erred or acted arbitrarily or capriciously in considering the increase as evidence that FairPoint was not operating at a substantially normal level. Similarly, this court might have evaluated the impact of winter weather on the strike differently. As Petitioners point out, FairPoint management specifically acknowledged that severe winter weather had delayed the company's restoration of normal operations. Petitioners' Brief at 33 n. 89. The Commission might have taken this evidence to indicate that, in the later weeks of the strike, FairPoint's failure to maintain substantially normal operations was due to adverse weather rather than due to the strike. 19 However, the Commission did consider the effects of the four major winter storms in November and December 2014 and January and February 2015. See id., R. 1826-29, 1833-34, 1835, 1843, 1846-47. The question on judicial review is whether the Commission was compelled by the evidence to make findings contrary to those it did make on this issue, and the court cannot say that it was . G. Whether the Commission should have determined that the employers failed to carry their burden of proving that they maintained substantially normal operations without hiring new personnel to perform work previously done by the striking employees. Petitioners say that the Commission should have addressed both of the section 1193(4) grounds for disqualifying a claimant due a strike. The two grounds are that "the claimant's total or partial unemployment is due to a stoppage of work that exists because of a labor dispute at the factory, establishment or other premises at which the claimant is or was employed, or there would have been a stoppage of work had substantially normal operations not been maintained with other personnel previously and currently employed by the same employer and any other additional personnel that the employer may hire to perform tasks not previously done by the striking employees." See 26 M.R.S. § 1193( 4). The Commission decided that FairPoint had proved that the Petitioners should be disqualified from benefits because there was a stoppage of work due to the strike throughout the 20-week benefit period at issue, and therefore decided that it did not need to address the question of whether there would have been a stoppage. See id., R. 1849. The Petitioners contend that the Commission shoul<l have found no stoppage of 20 work and should have gone on to address the second section 1193(4) ground for disqualification. Petitioners' Brief at 35-39. The Commission and FairPoint dispute this argument. The Commission's brief says that the court should affirm the Commission's Decision and not reach the alternative ground for disqualification under section 1193(4). See Commission Brief at 18-19. FairPoint's brief addresses the alternative provision of section 1193(4) on its merits, and contends that Petitioners would still be disqualified. Brief of Parties In-Interest at 4•-7. Given that the court is affirming the Commission's decision that FairPoint has proved that there was a work stoppage due to the strike during the benefit weeks at issue, the court sees no reason to go further and address issues relating to the second part of section 1193(4). 4 Conclusion For the reasons stated, the court concludes that the Commission's decision after remand was supported by substantial evidence in the record and was not arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion, and therefore should be affirmed. The Petitioners' Briefand FairPoint's Briefadvance differing interpretations ofthe alternative ground for disqualification contained in section 119.3(4). FairPoint's position is that the Petitioners would still be disqualified because there would have been a work stoppage had FairPoint not used non-striking employees and temporary workers to maintain substantially normal operations and because FairPoint did not permanently replace the striking employees. FairPoint Brief at 4-5 . Petitioners' position is that it does not matter whether they were permanently replaced-they would be entitled to benefits because, even if there would have been a work stoppage, FairPoint maintained substantially normal operations in part through the use of temporary workers hired to do work previously done by the striking employees. Which interpretation is correct need not be decided here. 4 21 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS: I. The appeal of the Claimants whose cases are listed in the attachment to this Decision from the denial of their claims for unemployment compensation is hereby denied. See Me. Unemp't. Ins. Comm'n. Dec. No. 16-C-0525 I 2. The (Aug. s 1, 2017). Commission decision denying the individual claims listed m the attachment to this Decision is hereby affirmed. See id. S. Judgment is hereby entered for the Defendant Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission. Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79( a), the Clerk is hereby directed to incorporate this Decision on Appeal After Remand by reference in the docket. ~ 6~ Dated June 5, 2018 A.M. Horton Justice, Business & Consumer Court En!~red on the Docket: a,~ ~ Copiee sent via Man .... E!ec1ronlca11y:?"' j 22 6 / 023 EXH IBIT 1 - A I B I C FAIRPOINT 1 Matter ID Cl ient Sort Matter Des cription (First Li!"e)_ 2015 C 04220 Adams, Melissa A Melissa A Adams v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04221 Allen, Shawna K Shawna K Allen v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04222 Amergian, Ani T Ani T Amergian v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04223 Amoroso, Julie M Julie M Amoroso v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04224 Anderson, Sarah L Sarah L Anderson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04225 Arnold, Robin M Robin M Arnold v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04226 Ashley, Jenni-lynn M Jenni-lynn M Ashley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04227 Baldwin, Kasey L Kasey L Baldwin v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04228 Baron, Susan A Susan A Baron v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04230 Beam, Mary E Mary E Beam v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04231 Beckwith-foster, Mary Mary Beckwith-foster v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04229 Bedard, Lynda V Lynda V Bedard v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04234 Bentley, Kimberly A Kimberly A Bentley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04232 Berry Clark, Elizabeth J Elizabeth J Berry Clark v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04235 Birney, Karen Karen Birney v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04236 Black, Susan J Susan J Black v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04237 Blake, Brooke A Brooke A Blake v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04238 Blomquist, Robert N Robert N Blomquist v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04239 Bogan, Elaine D Elaine D Bogan v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04240 Boles, Michele Michele Boles v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04241 Bolton, Linda D Linda D Bolton v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04243 Bourget, Jean C Jean C Bourget v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04244 Bradbury, Kathryn L Kathryn L Bradbury v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04245 Bragg, Randy E Randy E Bragg v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04246 Brayall, Danielle Danielle Brayall v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ii i2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ~ 024 B A C Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line) 2015 C 04247 Breslin, John T John T Breslin v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04250 Brichetto, Stacy M Stacy M Brichetto v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04252 Briggs, Gretchen L Gretchen L Briggs v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04253 Bronson, Elyse M Elyse M Bronson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C.04255 Brown, Ann M Ann M Brown v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04257 Brown, Dawn L Dawn L Brown v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04259 Brown, Jenna M Jenna M Brown v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04262 Brown, Marie T Marie T Brown v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04264 Brown, Rita A Rita A Brown v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04265 8uraau 1 Patrick N Patrick N Bureau v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04268 Burgess, Kimberley A Kimberley A Burgess v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04269 Cabot; Allison A Allison A Cabot v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04270 Campbell, Danielle Danielle Campbell v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04272 Cangley, Lori Lori Cangley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04274 Carr, Kathie A Kathie A Carr v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04276 Casale, Stacey H Stacey H Casale v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04279 Caswell, Terrence A Terrence A Caswell v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04280 Cerqueira, Mara L Mara L Cerqueira v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04281 Charpentier, Tina M Tina M Charpentier v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04283 Church, Rhonda L Rhonda L Church v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04286 Cloutier, Mark E Mark E Cloutier v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04287 Cloutier, Nicole P Nicole P Cloutier v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04288 Cogswell, Laurie L Laurie L Cogswell v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04289 Coleman, Herman L Herman L Coleman v Fairpoint"Logistics Inc 2015 C 04290 Conley, Kevin Kevin Conley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04291 Crabtree, Justin P Justin P Crabtree v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 .. " 50 51 52 53 i L 025 B A C Clienl,Sort Matter Description (Firs.I line) 2015 C 04292 Crosby, Jeffrey D Jeffrey D Crosby v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04293 Cunningham, Crystal M Crystal M Cunningham v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04294 Cunningham, Deborah L Deborah L Cunningham v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04295 Curtis, Brenda A Brenda A Curtis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04297 Curtis, Randall L Randall L Curtis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04298 Davis, Andrew J Andrew J Davis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04299 Davis, Jessica T Jessica T Davis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04300 Davis, Kathleen M Kathleen M Davis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04301 Davis, Paula L Paula L Davis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04303 Dempsey, Melissa A Melissa A Dempsey v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04306 Dennis, Lisa Lisa Dennis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04307 Deroche, Rebecca R Rebecca R Deroche v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04310 Desjardins, Paula A Paula A Desjardins v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04313 Dewolfe, Serina M Serina M Dewolfe v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04316 Difillipo, Danielle J Danielle J Difillipo v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04318 Dillingham, Davida L Davida L Dillingham v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04321 Dionne Neal, Cheri L Cheri L Dionne Neal v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04324 Dobrowolski, William D William D Dobrowolski v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04326 Dorazio, Mary M Mary M Dorazio v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 20 15 C 04328 Dubai!, Julie A Julie A Dubail v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04329 Dube, Tammy J Tammy J Dube v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04330 Dubois, Kelly M Kf:;IIY M Dubois v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 201 5 C 04331 Dugas, Renee A Renee A DL!gas v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04332 Dunphy, Michelle Michelle Dunphy v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 201 5 C 04333 Dur:shee, Randy Randy Dunshee v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04336 Elizabeth, Jennifer Jennifer Elizabeth v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc Matter ID 2 •' 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 026 B A C Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (Fir~t Line) 2015 C 04337 Elliott, Mary Jo Mary Jo Elliott v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04338 Emery, Christopher A Christopher A Emery v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04339 Enaire, Matthew L Matthew L Enaire v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04340 Ennis, Theresa P Theresa P Ennis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04341 Esposito, Estella J Estella J Esposito v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04342 Falconieri, Debra L Debra L Falconieri v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04343 Farley, Amy L Amy L Farley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04344 Feeney, Sara J Sara J Feeney v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04345 Fickett, Tina M Tina M Fickett v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04347 Fitts, Bethany J Bethany J Fitts v Fairpoint Logistics !nc 2015 C 04348 Flaherty, Janel M Janet M Flaherty v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04349 Florey, Richard W Richard W Florey v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04350 Foss, CandiT Candi T Foss v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04351 Gabri, Pamela Pamela Gabri v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04352 Gagne, Lance R Lance R Gagne v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04353 Gagnon, Larry G Lany G Gagnon v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04354 Getchell, Melissa M Melissa M Getchell v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04357 Gibson, April D April D Gibson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04358 GOodwin, Anna M Anna M Goodwin v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04360 Gosselin, Jennifer L Jennifer L Gosselin v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04361 Grandmont, Lynann M Lynann M Grandmont v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04362 Granger, Carol A Carol A Granger v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04363 Grant, Marci J Marci J Grant v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04364 Gray, Cheryl Cheryl Gray v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04365 Gray, Jennifer Jennifer Gray v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04367 Greenwood, Jean M Jean M Greenwood v Falrpoint Logistics Inc 2 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 -= 101 102 103 104 105 r·l 027 B A C Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line) 2015 C 04369 Grindle, Linda R Linda R Grindle v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04371 Grondin, Donna L Donna L Grondin v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04373 Guay, Cindy L Cindy L Guay v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04375 Gullatt, Mary C Mary C Gullatt v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04376 Gushee, Kelly A Kelly A Gushee v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04377 Hall, Charles J Charles J Hall v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04379 Hall, Loriann M Loriann M Hall v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04381 Hall-robinson, Deanna R Deanna R Hall-robinson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04382 Harmon, Colleen A Colleen A Harmon v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04383 Harrison, Joshua J Joshua J Harrison v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04384 Higgins, Vanessa L Vanessa L Higgins v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04387 Hill, Stephanie Stephanie Hill v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04388 Hill, Victoria L Victoria L Hill v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04385 Hilton, Amanda C Amanda C Hilton v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04390 Hoard, Cynthia J Cynthia J Hoard v Fairpoint Logistics inc 2015 C 04391 Hogan, Theresa Theresa Hogan v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04389 Howell, Heidi J Heidi J Howell v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04392 Jansmann, Irene Irene Jansmann v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04393 Jensen, Krista Krista Jensen v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04394 Johnson, Joshua S Joshua S Johnson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04395 Johnston, Nicole R Nicole R Johnston v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04396 Jones, Amanda Amanda Jones v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04398 . Jones, Cherie Lee 2 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 Cherie Lee Jones v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 128 2015 C 04400 Keams-rogers, Sandra Sandra Keams-rogers v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04171 Lacroix, Shelly Shelly Lacroix v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04172 Langlois, Claire M Claire M Langlois v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 129 130 131 ...___ 028 B A C Matter ID Client Sort Matter Des~ription (First Line) 2015 C 04173 Lawrence, Julie M Julie M Lawrence v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04174 Lebel, Patricia J Patricia J Lebel v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04175 Leicht, Peter L Peter L Leicht v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04176 Lemieux, Scot! A Scoll A Lemieux v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04177 Leonard, Jennifer A Jennifer A Leonard v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04178 Libby, Lori A Lori A Libby v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04179 Long, Michelle R Michelle R Long v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04180 Lyman, Amber L Amber L Lyman v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015C04181 Lynds, Laurieanne Laurieanne Lynds v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04182 Maguiie, Lisa M Lisa tv1 Maguire v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04183 Mank, Meghan P Meghan P Mank v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04184 Marquis, Brandy D Brandy D Marquis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04185 Martinson, Wade A Wade A Martinson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04187 Mcaloon, Theresa Theresa Mcaloon v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04200 Mcclelland, Barney F Barney F Mcclelland v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04188 Mcgowan, Jennifer E Jennifer E Mcgowan v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04189 Mcguire, Valerie L Valerie L Mcguire v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04190 Mckay, Michael E Michael E Mckay v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04192 Mckeever, Teresa E Teresa E Mckeever v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04201 Mcray, Francine M Francine M Mcray v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04202 Michaud, Denise M Denise M Michaud v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04203 Miller, Heather R Heather R Miller v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04204 Mills, Schuyler Schuyler Mills v Fairpoint Logistics·lnc 2015 C 04205 Morehead, Franklin B Franklin B Morehead v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04206 Morgan, Heather J Heather J Morgan v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04210 Morin, Lisa L Lisa L Morin v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 , 029 2 - C B A Matter ID Clienl Sort Maller Description (First Line) 2015 C 04211 Mosley, Michael W Michael W Mosley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04212 Mullen, Heather Heather Mullen v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04213 Munsen, Jonathan B Jonathan B Munsen v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04214 Murphy, Ann N Ann N Murphy v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04215 Murphy, Ellen L Ellen L Murphy v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04216 Murray, Glenn D Glenn D Murray v Fairpoint Logistics Inc · 2015 C 04217 Murray-palmer, Mistyn D Mistyn D Murray-palmer v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04218 Mutty-bessey, Robert M Robert M Mutty-bessey v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04219 Myrbeck, Laurie S Laurie S Myrbeck v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04249 N ad ea u. Angel A .~.nge! A Nedeau v Fe!rpo!nt Logistics Inc 2015 C 04251 Newcomb, Alec S Alec S Newcomb v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04254 Newey, Patricia J Patricia J Newey v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04256 Nice, Suzannah Suzannah Nice v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04258 Nordli, Susan A Susan A Nordli v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04260 Norton , Suzan L Suzan L Norton v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04261 Nunn, Erin Erin Nunn v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04263 Oconnor, Heather L Heather L Oconnor v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04266 Oneil , Tania Tania Oneil v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04271 Osmolski, Tricia M Tricia M Osmolski v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04273 Pascucci, Erica Erica Pascucci v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04275 Pavliska, Paulette Paulette Pavliska v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04278 Perkins, Mary L Mary L Perkins v Fairpoinl Logis_ tics Inc 2015 C 04282 Peterson, Robert A Robert A Peterson v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04284 Philpot, Ann M Ann M Philpot v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04285 Pierce, Elizabeth H Elizabeth H Pierce v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04302 Piersol, Brenda M Brenda M Piersol v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 • 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 . ~ ~ . ....... , 030 B A - C Matier ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line) 2015 C 04304 Pietrowicz, James James Pietrowicz v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04305 Provencher, Diane D Diane D Provencher v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04355 Raymond, Sandra L Sandra L Raymond v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04356 Rjce, Robin M Robin M Rice v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04359 Ricker, Roxanne M Roxanne M Ricker v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04366 Roberts, Travis W Travis W Roberts v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04368 Rosendo, Kim S Kim S Rosendo v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04370 Ross, Anthony M Anthony M Ross v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04372 Ruel , Robin Robin Ruel v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04374 Ruksznis, Danielle Danielle Ruksznis v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04378 Sabine, Alison R Alison R Sabine v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04380 Saldana, David David Saldana v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04399 Saunders, Patricia A Patricia A Saunders v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04401 Savage-wilson, Jodi Jodi Savage-wilson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04402 Sawtelle, Julie A Julie A Sawtelle v Fairpoint Logistics lnc 2015 C 04403 Scala, Julie Julie Scala v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04404 Scherer, Susan A Susan A Scherer v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04405 Segal, Joleen Joleen Segal v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04406 Segal, Maria J Maria J Segal v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04407 Shackley, Christine M Christine M Shackley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04408 Shackley, Richard A Richard A Shackley v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04409 Shain, Christopher T Christopher T Shain v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04410 Shea, Christopher E Christopher E Shea v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04411 Sheehan, Kandy-sue Kandy-sue Sheehan v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04412 Smith, Amie C Amie C Smith v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04413 Smith, Dawna M Dawna M Smith v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 -- ' 207 208 209 031 C B A Matter ID Client Sort Matier Description (First Line) 2015 C 04414 Smith, Shay F Shay F Smith v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04416 Spalding, Megan M Megan M Spalding v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04419 Sparks, Rita A Rita A Sparks v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04421 Stacy, Deborah A Deborah A Stacy v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04423 Stevens, Donna Donna Stevens v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04424 Stewart, Ronald W Ronald W Stewart v Fairpoint ~ogistics Inc 2015 C 04425 Sweret, Pamela Pamela Sweret v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04427 Talbot, Kimberly A Kimberly A Talbot v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04493 Tanguay, Janis E Janis E Tanguay v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04429 Tanous, Mary K Mary K Tanous v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04430 Tardif, Maureen A Maureen A Tardif v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04431 Tardiff, Karen A Karen A Tardiff v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04432 Taylor, Jennifer E Jennifer E Taylor v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04433 Telles, Amanda Amanda Telles v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04434 Teras, Nancy A Nancy A Teras v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04435 I hibodeau, Erin F Erin F Thibodeau v Fairpoint Logistics !nc 2015 C 04436 Thibodeau, Kristen M Kristen M Thibodeau v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04437 Tinto, Wendy E Wendy E Tinto v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04438 Tribou, Michael Michael I ribou v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04439 Trudeau, Deborah M Deborah M Trudeau v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04440 True, Melissa Melissa True v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04441 Tucci, Susan Susan Tucci v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04442 Turcotte, Angela L Angela L Turcotte v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04443 Twombly, Judith L Judith L Twombly v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04510 Vachon, Nancy L Nancy L Vachon v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04446 Vanduzer, Susan L Susan L Vanduzer v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 22_5 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 .. - ,~• ......... ~ 032 B A C Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line) 2015 C 04447 Waddell, Sheny L Sherry L Waddell v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04448 Wainer, Charlotte L Charlotte L Wainer v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04449 Wardwell, Evelyn G Evelyn G Wardwell v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04450 Ware, Barbara A Barbara A Ware v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04451 Walson, Linda G Linda G Watson v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04452 Watson, Tracy L Tracy L Watson v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04453 Webster, Deborah J Deborah J Webster v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04454 Wescott, Kristen M Kristen M Wescott v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04455 Wilcox, Cheryl A Cheryl A Wilcox v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04456 Willard, Joyce Joyce VV!!lard v Fairpolnt Logistics Inc 2015 C 04457 Willey, Renee M Renee M Willey v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 06192 Winn, Carol L Carol L. Winn v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04458 Wood, Nathaniel C Nathaniel C Wood v Fairpoinl Logistics Inc 2015 C 04459 Woodman, Todd H Todd H Woodman v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04460 Worcester, Brenda J Brenda J Worcester v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04461 Wyman, Susan E Susan E Wyman v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2015 C 04462 Yuill, Lisa Lisa Yuill v Fairpoint Logistics Inc 2 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 033 A I B ., C EXHIBIT NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND 1 2 I Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First line) 2015 C 03847 Adams, Cathleen F Cathleen F Adams v Northern New England 2015 C 03850 Alley, Sheldon E Sheldon E Alley v Northern New England 2015 C 03858 Arsenault, Robert C Robert C Arsenault v Northern New England 2015 C 03844 Aube, Cheryl L Cheryl L Aube v Northern New England 2015 C 03845 Aveau, Richard G Richard G Aveau v Northern New England 2015 C 03860 Ayers, Dale C Dale C Ayers v Northern New England 2015 C 03862 Balboni, Peter J Peter J Balboni v Northern New England 2015 C 03846 Bashaw, David E David E Bashaw v Northern New England 2015 C 03848 Beaulieu, Brian R Brian R Beaulieu v Northern New England 2015 C 03849 Beecy, Michael J Michael J Beecy v Northern New England 2015 C 04233 Belanger, Jaime L Jaime L Belanger v Northern New England 2015 C 03851 Bendure, Raymond B Raymond B Bendure v Northern New England 2015 C 03864 Bickford, Steven G Steven G Bickford v Northern New England 2015 C 03866 Bilodeau, Paul L Paul L Bilodeau v Northern New England 2015 C 03852 Blake, Jayson P Jayson P Blake v Northern New England 2015 C 03868 Blodgett, Herbert E Herbert E Blodgett v Northern New England 2015 C 03853 Bombardier, Kurt Kurt Bombardier v Northern New England 2015 C 03869 Botting, Dawn E Dawn E Botting v Northern New England 2015 C 03871 Boucher, Dale T Dale T Boucher v Northern New England 2015 C 03854 Boudreau, Scott D Scoll D Boudreau v Northern New England 2015 C 03855 Boutilier, Lindsay G Lindsay G Boutilier v Northern New England 2015 C 03873 Bowen, Mark W Mark W Bowen v Northern New England 2015 C 03874 Boyd, Melissa A Melissa A Boyd v Northern New England 2015 C 03877 Bryer, Kevin W Kevin W Bryer v Northern New England 2015 C 03856 Buhelt, Dennis A Dennis A Buhelt v Northern New England 2015 C 03857 Byrne, Thomas J Thomas J Byrne v Northern New England 20-15 C 03859 CaJden, Cathy A Cathy A Calden v Northern New England 2015 C 03861 Campbell, Richard G Richard G Campbell v Northern New England 2 3 4 5 6 7 . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _. ,..,. 26 27 28 29 30 034 B A 2 C Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line) 2015 C 03879 Cannell, Karen J Karen J Cannell v Northern New England 2015 C 03881 Caron, Carol Carol Caron v Northern New England 2015 C 03863 Carter, Dominic J Dominic J Carter v Northern New England 2015 C 03882 Caserio, Richard D Richard D Caserio v Northern New England 2015 C 03884 Cash, Dennis M Dennis M Cash v Northern New England 2015 C 03886 Casserly, Brian T Brian T Casserly v Northern New England 2015 C 03865 Celani, Dean Dean Celani v Nor1hern New England 2015 C 03888 Clement, Ronald A Ronald A Clement v Northern New England 2015 C 03867 Clockedile, Scott Scoll Clockedile v Northern New England 2015 C 03870 Colligan, Christopher Christopher Colligan v Northern New England 2015 C 03872 Collomy, Steven Steven Collomy v Northern New England 2015 C 03890 Cook, Robert J Robert J Cook v Northern New England 2015 C 03875 Coomey, James J James J Coomey v Northern New England 2015 C 03894 Copeland, Thomas A Thomas A Copeland v Northern New England 2015 C 03876 Crimp, Kevin P Kevin P Crimp v Northern New England 2015 C 03901 Cummings, Leonard W Leonard W Cummings v Northern New England 2015 C 03878 Currier, Charles H Charles H Currier v Northern New England 2015 C 03904 Dakin, Michael W Michael W Dakin v Northern New England 2015 C 03907 Damron, Robin C Robin C Damron v Northern New England 2015 C 03911 Darge, William E William E Darge v Northern New England 2015 C 03913 Dawkins, Julie L Julie L Dawkins v Northern New England 2015 C 03916 Demerchant, Adam L Adam L Demerchant v Northern New England 2015 C 03923 Dempsey, Wesley C Wesley C Dempsey v Northern New England 2015 C 03927 Densmore, William L 2015 C 03930 Denyer, Susan M Susan M Denyer v Northern New England 2015 C 03936 Devine, Rory J Rory J Devine v Northern New England 2015 C 03938 Dimodica, Philip V Philip V Dimodica v Northern New England 2015 C 03940 Dipierro, Charles E Charles E Dipierro v Northern New England 2015 C 03942 Dixon, David E David E Dixon v Northern New England 31 32 33 : 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 William L Densmore v Northern New England ... .. 54 55 56 57 58 59 ' . 035 B A 2 C Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (Firsl Line) 2015 C 03944 Donahue, Eleanor E Eleanor E Donahue v Northern New England 2015 C 03946 Dorn, Jeffrey A Jeffrey A Dom v Northern New England 2015 C 03880 Dow, Lewis H Lewis H Dow v Northern New England 2015 C 03948 Drake, Brent A Brent A Drake v Northern New England 2015 C 03950 Duchesne, James A James A Duchesne v Northern New England 2015 C 03883 Dunphy, Christopher Christopher Dunphy v Northern New England 2015 C 03953 Earley, Patrick Patrick Earley v Northern New England 2015 C 03955 Eckstein, Shannan M Shannan M Eckstein v Northern New England 2015 C 03956 Edwards, Adam K Adam K Edwards v Northern New England 2015 C 03885 Ehnstrom, Nils T Nils T Ehnstrom v Northern New England 2015 C 03887 Elrick, Stephen A Stephen A Elrick v Northern New England 2015 C 03959 Emery, Robin A Robin A Emery v Northern New England 2015 C 03891 Espling, Craig M Craig M Espling v Northern New England 2015 C 03961 Fagan, Michael J Michael J Fagan v Northern New England 2015 C 03893 Fairbanks, Kelley Kelley Fairbanks v Northern New England 2015 C 03896 Farrell, Donald J Donald J Farrell v Northern New England 2015 C 03899 Feeney, Catherine A Catherine A Feeney v Northern New England 2015 C 03963 Feeney, James H James H Feeney v Northern New England 2015 C 03965 Forni, Paul M Paul M Forni v Northern New England 2015 C 03905 Forslind, David B David B Forslind v Northern New England 2015 C 03925 Fowles, Paul A Paul A Fowles v Northern New England 2015 C 03968 Frank, Reid A Reid A Frank v Northern New England 2015 C 04195 Galipeau, Carol A Carol A Galipeau 2015 C 03931 Gallant, Mary L Mary L Gallant v Northern New England 2015 C 03935 Gibson, Brent Brent Gibson v Northern New England 2015 C 03969 Godin, Danielle S Danielle S Godin v Northern New England 2015 C 03937 Godin, Jami L Jami L Godin v Northern New England 2015 C 03972 Goodall, Thomas D Thomas D Goodall v Northern New England 2015 C 03939 Grant, Rebecca J Rebecca J Grant v Northern New England 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 - 79 80 81 v Northern New England 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 ... 036 2 C B A Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line) 2015C03941 Hall, Victoria L Victoria L Hall v Nor1hern New England 2015 C 03943 Hamblin, Mark E Mark E Hamblin v Nor1hern New England 2015 C 03947 Hanson, Kyle W Kyle W Hanson v Nor1hern New England 89 90 91 Steven D Hardwick v Northern New England 2015 C 04198 . Hardwick, Steven D 2015 C 03949 Harmon, Jason L Jason L Harmon v Nor1hern New England 2015 C 03951 Hartford, Daniel A Daniel A Hartford v Nor1hern New England 2015 C 03974 Haskell, James 0 James O Haskell v Nor1hern New England 2015 C 03976 Hauger, David S David S Hauger v Nor1hern New England 2015 C 03952 Hayes, Matthew J Matthew J Hayes v Northern New England 2015 C 03978 Helm, Jonathan R Jonathan R Helm v Northern New England 2015 C 03954 Hinkley, Tina J Tina J Hinkley v Nor1hern New England 2015 C 03957 Hixon, Steven C Steven C Hixcin v Northern New England 2015 C 03960 Hodgdon, Christopher Christopher Hodgdon v Northern New England 2015 C 03962 Holyoke, Jason B Jason B Holyoke v Nor1hern New England 2015 C 03980 Hopper, Mark K Mark K Hopper v Northern New England 2015 C 03981 Horne, Joel Joel Horne v Nor1hern New England 2015 C 03964 Hoskins, Kelly R Kelly R Hoskins v Nor1hern New England 2015 C 03966 Hubner, Karen A Karen A Hubner v Northern New England 2015 C 03967 Hughes, Shannon E Shannon E Hughes v Northern New England 2015 C 03982 Hurd, Scott A Scot! A Hurd v Northern New England 2015 C 03984 Hutchins, Heidi A Heidi A Hutchins v Northern New England 2015 C 03970 Hutchins, Samuel A Samuel A Hutchins v Northern New England 2015 C 03986 Israel, Matthew Matthew Israel v Northern New England 2015 C 03988 Jansmann, Andrew D 2015 C 03989 Johnson, Eric M Eric M Johnson v Northern New England 2015 C 03971 Johnson, Joel Joel Johnson v Northern New England 2015 C 03990 Johnson, Thomas A Thomas A Johnson v Northern New England 2015 C 03973 Jolin, Jon R Jon R Jolin v Northern New England 2015 C 03991 Jones, Bennie R Bennie R Jones v Northern New England 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 r • 100 101 102 103 . 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 .. 112 Andrew D Jansmann v Northern New England ' - 113 114 115 116 117 I I L 037 C B A Matter IQ Client Sort Matter Description (First Line) 2015 C 03992 Jones, Stephen B Stephen B Jones v Northern New England Jordan, Calvin A Calvin A Jordan v Northern New England Jordan, Jeffrey H Jeffrey H Jordan v Northern New England Jordon, Joshua J Joshua J Jordon v Northern New England Kalloch, Matthew W Matthew W Kalloch v Northern New England Kane, Daniel S Daniel S Kane v Northern New England Kaspala, Richard H Richard H Kaspala v Northern New England Kidney, Allen R Allen R Kidney v Northern New England Knutson, George A George A Knutson v Northern New England Lailer, Frank I Frank I Lailer v Northern New England 2015C04018 Lamoureux, Shawn M Shawn M Lamoureux v Northern New England 2015 C 04020 Laplante, John P John P Laplante v Northern New England Lapointe, Edward J Edward J Lapointe v Northern New England 2015 C 03979 Larochelle, Ryan N Ryan N Larochelle 2015 C 03983 Lawler, Matthew S Matthew S Lawler v Northern New England Lawler, Michael K Michael K Lawler v Northern New England Lawrence, Curtis C Curtis C Lawrence v Northern New England Leary, Stephen P Stephen P Leary v Northern New England Lefebvre, Todd M Todd M Lefebvre v Northern New England Lesniak, Patricia N Patricia N Lesniak v Northern New England Lessard, Neal J Neal J Lessard v Northern New England Levasseur, Peter A Peter A Levasseur v Northern New England Levesque, Scott V Scott V Levesque v Northern New England 2015 C 04081 Lindsay, Craig Craig Lindsay v Northern New England 2015 C 04082 Long, Kevin M Kevin M Long v.Northem New England Long, Ralph C Ralph C Long Long, Roger H Roger H Long v Northern New England Luiz, Tyler Tyler Luiz v Northern New England Lunney, Kelly Kelly Lu·nney v Northern New England 2 118 2015 C 03993 119 2015 C 03994 120 2015 C 04197 121 . 2015 C 03975 122 2015 C 03977 123 2015 C 04014 124 2015C04015 125 2015 C 04016 126 2015 C 04017 127 ~'10 ILU 129 2015 C 04021 130 v Northern New England 131 132 2015 C 03985 133 2015 C 03987 134 2015 C 04077 135 2015 C 04078 136 2015 C 04022 137 2015 C 04079 138 2015 C 04080 139 2015 C 04023 140 ... 141 142 2015 C 04083 v Northern New England 143 2015 C 04025 144 2015 C 04084 145 2015 C 04026 146 038 2 C B A Matter JD Clienl Sort Matter Descriplion (First Line) 2015 C 04029 Macfarlane, Jay D Jay D Macfarlane v Northern New England 2015 C 04085 Madden, Jesse J Jesse J Madden v Northern New England 2015 C 04086 Marden, Craig A Craig A Marden v Northern New England 2015 C 04030 Martin, Melissa L Melissa L Martin v Northern New England 147 148 149 - 150 2015 C 04031 Martin, Stephan-minh N Slephan-minh N Martin v Northern New England 2015 C 04032 Mar1itz, Norman E Norman E Martitz v Northern New England 2015 C 04033 Martitz, Sharon S Sharon S Martitz v Northern New England 2015 C 04034 Mccarthy, Holly M Holly M Mccarthy v Northern New England 2015 C 04035 Mccarthy, John K John K Mccarthy v Northern New England 2015 C 04036 Mccarthy, Stephen E Stephen E Mccarthy v Northern New England 2015 C 04087 Mcgill, James M James M Mcgill v Northern New England 2015 C 04088 Mclaughlin, Daniel S Daniel S Mclaughlin v Northern New England 2015 C 04037 Mclean, Timothy M Timothy M Mclean v Northern New England 2015 C 04038 Mcquillan, Tyler J Tyler J Mcquillan v Northern New England 2015 C 04039 Merrifield, Russell A Russell A Merrifield v Northern New England 2015 C 04090 Michaud, Scott A Scott A Michaud v Northern New England 2015 C 04040 Mitchell, Joshua P Joshua P Mitchell v Northern New England 2015 C 04091 Moffatt, Jason Jason Moffatt v Northern New England 2015 C 04207 Morin, Brian P Brian P Morin v Northern New England 2015 C 04041 Morin, Stephen L Stephen L Morin v Northern New England 2015 C 04092 Mulligan, Kevin P Kevin P Mulligan v Northern New England 2015 C 04093 Newell, Edward F Edward F Newell v Northern New England 2015 C 04043 Nostrom, Gary D Gary D Nostrom v Northern New England 2015 C 04094 Obrien, Dennis L Dennis L Obrien v Northern New England 2015 C 04044 O'brion, David C David C O'brion v Northern New England 2015 C 04095 Ordway, Leon E Leon E Ordway v Northern New England 2015 C 04045 Ouellette, Mark 0 Mark O Ouellette v Northern New England 2015 C 04096 Pallozzi, Michael J Michael J Pallozzi v Northern New England 2015 C 04046 Pellerin, Robert J Robert J Pellerin v Northern New England 151 152 153 154' 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 - •:. ....... -- .... 171 172 173 I l 174 175 L. 039 B A .. C Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line) 2015 C 04048 Perry, Paul E Paul E Perry v Northern New England 2015 C 04097 Petell, Raymond A Raymond A Petell v Northern New England 2015 C 04049 Pettengill, Lee H Lee H Pet1engill v Northern New England 2015 C 04050 Phillips, Anthony E Anthony E Phillips v Northern New England 2015 C 04098 Plourde, Mark A Mark A Plourde v Northern New England 2015 C 04099 Pooler, Richard D Richard D Pooler v Northern New England 2015 C 04100 Poto, Michael Michael Poto v Northern New England 2015C04101 Pratt, Daniel F Daniel F Pratt v Northern New England 2015C04102 Ramsay, Thomas E Thomas E Ra'.11say v Northern New England 2015 C 04103 Randall, Roberta J Roberta J Randall v Northern New England 2015 C 04104 Randolph, Christopher C Christopher C Randolph v Northern New England 2015 C 04105 Raynes, David L David L Raynes v Northern New England 2015 C 04051 Raynes, Todd E Todd E Raynes v Northern New England 2015 C 04052 Reynolds, Carol L Carol L Reynolds v Northern New England 2015 C 04053 Rizza, Maria G Maria G Rizza v Northern New England 2015 C 04054 Rogan, Michael J Michael J Rogan v Northern New England 2015 C 04107 Rossignol, Norman R Norman R Rossignol v Northern New England 2015 C 04108 Roy, Lori A Lori A Roy v Northern New England 2015 C 04109 Roy, Marcel Y Marcel Y Roy v Northern New England 2015 C 04110 Rugh, George J George J Rugh v Northern New England 2015 C 04194 Sage, David David Sage v Northern New England 2015 C 04111 Samiya, Howard Howard Samiya v Northern New England 2015 C 04112 Sanborn, Amy L Amy L Sanborn v Northern New England 2015 C 04055 Sands, James M James M Sands v Northern New England 2015 C 04058 Scala, John L John L Scala v Northern New England 2015 C 04113 Scala, Tracey L Tracey L Scala v Northern New England 2015 C 04059 Shane, Patrick A Patrick A Shane v Northern New England 2015 C 04060 Sherman, Cody A Cody A Shennan v Northern New England 2015C04114 Sherman, Philip J Philip J Sherman v Northern New England 2 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 040 2 C B A Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line) 2015 C 04061 Small, Mark Mark Small v Northern New England 2015 C 04115 Smith, Adam L Adam L Smith v Northern New England 2015C04116 Smith, Dirk A Dirk A Smith v Northern New England 2015C04117 · Smith, Mark A Mark A Smith v Northern New England 2015C04119 Spaulding, Brent E Brent E Spaulding v Northern New England 2015 C 04120 Stein-berthiaume, Angela M Angela M Stein-berthiaume v Northern New England 2015 C 04062 Stewart, Scott H Scott H Stewart v Northern New England 2015 C 04121 Sullivan, Brian E Brian E Sullivan v Northern New England 2015 C 04063 Sullivan, Jamie Jamie Sullivan v Northern New England 2015 C 04122 Tabun, Peter A Peter A Tabun v Northern New England 2015 C 04123 Talbot, Timothy A Timothy A Talbot v Northern New England 2015 C 04124 Tandy, Lorne E Lorne E Tandy v Northern New England 2015 C 04064 Teehan, Mary A Mary A Teehan v Northern New England 2015 C 04125 Therault, David R David R Theraull v Northern New England 2015 C 04065 Theriault, Jessica L Jessica L Theriault v Northern New England 2015 C 04126 Thornton, Lynelle B Lynette B Thornton v Northern New England 2015 C 04066 Todd, James B James B Todd v Northem New England 2015 C 04127 Townsend, Susan B Susan B Townsend v Northern New England 2015 C 04128 Treadwell, Steven S Steven S Treadwell v Northern New England 2015 C 04067 Turgeon, Scott A Scott A Turgeon v Northern New England 2015 C 04129 Twitchell, Benjamin B Benjamin B Twitchell v Northern New England 2015 C 04130 Urnel, Benjamin K Benjamin K Umel 2015 C 04068 Umel, Christina S Christina S Umel v Northern New England 2015 C 04131 Van Toi, Alan Alan Van Toi v Northern New England 2015-C 04069 Ver-egge, Steven P Steven P Veregge 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 2·15 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 v Northern New England 226 227 228 .. v Northern New England 229 -- - · • l 2015 C 04070 Violette, Eric Eric Violette v Northern New England 2015 C 04132 Ward, Cynthia A Cynthia A Ward v Northern New England 2015 C 04133 Watson, Robert J Robert J Watson 2015 C 04134 Way, Amanda L Amanda L Way v Northern New England 230 231 - '- · v Northern New England 232 233 041 B A C Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description (First Line) 2015 C 04135 Webb, Santiba Santiba Webb v Northern New England Wentworth, Mark A Mark A Wentworth v Northern New England Whalen, James James Whalen v Northern New England Whidden, Christopher J Christopher J Whidden v Northern New England Whitcomb, Joshua L Joshua L Whitcomb v Northern New England White, Bryan Bryan White v Northern New England Whitney, Patrick C Patrick C Whitney v Northern New England 2015 C 04140 Williams, Christina M Christina M Williams v Northern New England 2015 C 04073 Williams, Steven C Steven C Williams v Northern New England Willwerth, William T William T Willwerth v Northern New England Wood, Nathaniel C Nathaniel C Wood v Northern New England Woodward, Car1 C Carl C Woodward v Northern New England Worcester, Stephen D Stephen D Worcester v Northern New England 2 234 2015 C 04071 235 2015 C 04136 236 2015 C 04137 237 2015 C 04138 238 2015 C 04139 239 2015 C 04072 240 241 242 2015 C 04074 243 2015 C 04075 244 2015 C 04141 245 2015 C 04142 246 No. Matter ID Client Sort Matter Description 253 lSwC-07444 Doherty, Andrea L. Andrea L. Doherty v_ FairPoint Logistics, Inc. 254 15-C-07223 Hannan, Donna J. Donna J. Harman v. FairPoint Logistics, Inc. 255 15-C-07445 Jeffers, Jenny L. Jenny L. Jeffers v. FairPoint Logistics, Inc. 0: « " 7"..f::S':''..-;~~,:"" No. Matter ID Client Sort 247 15-C-07442 Austin, Kurt L. 248 15-C-07443 Irish, Patrick 15-C-07446 Rowe, Mark R. 15-C-07408 Szylvian, Ann M. 249 250 Matter Description Kurt L. Austin v. Northern New England Patrick Irish v. Northern New England Mark R. Rowe v. Northern New England Ann M. Szylvian v. Northern New England -', -.J 0 0 ·, BCD-AP-2017-07 Claimants Represented by Communications Workers of America, Local 1400, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2327 v. State of Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission and Fairpoint Logistics, Inc. and Northern New England Telephone Operations LLC (d/b/a Fairpoint Communications-NNE) Petitioners Claimants Roberta De Araujo, Esq. Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq. 160 Capitol St., STE 3 Augusta, ME 04332 Respondents State Insurance Commission Nancy Macirowski, AAG 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333 Parties-in-Interest Fairpoint Logistics Catherine Conners, Esq. 254 Commercial Street Portland, ME 04101 pro hac f/ice: Arthur Telegen Esq. Seaport East 2 SeaPort Lane, STE 300 Boston, MA 02210-2028 Augusta, ME 04333
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
