Opinion ID: 2324296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: PSC Statement of Union Position

Text: In Order 83137 the Commission at one point stated that the Union stopped short of asking us to reject the Proposal entirely, and, at another point, the Commission observed that [n]o party contended that we should reject the Proposal completely[.] CWA then points to the testimony of its witness concerning the second settlement offer, and to statements in its brief before the PSC, urging that the proposal be rejected. It seems to us that the Commission was saying that CWA was not objecting to each and every aspect of the entire settlement package while the Union was saying that, because of the reasons that it gave, the proposal should be completely rejected. The dispute is immaterial to the merits of our judicial review. The power of the Commission is not restricted by a need for the consent of intervenors before adopting an AFOR, and reading Order 81317 as a whole makes plain that the result was not intended to be dependent on the Union's approval. It is sufficient that there was substantial evidence to support that order and that the Commission made no error of law.