Opinion ID: 1561088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Boardan aggrieved party

Text: Prior to the report of the case, the defendant Association had moved to dismiss the plaintiff Board's complaint for declaratory judgment respecting the validity of the agency shop provision of the agreement. The presiding Justice denied the Association's motion, but at the same time he refused to grant the Board's request for a stay of the order to submit the alleged grievance to arbitration. For aggrievement by a judgment or order, such judgment or order must operate prejudicially and directly upon a party's property, pecuniary or personal rights. Jamison v. Shepard, 1970, Me., 270 A.2d 861, 862. Although the Justice's ruling on the motion to dismiss the Board's complaint was unfavorable to the Association, it is clear, in the light of 26 M.R.S.A., § 970 which compelled the arbitrator to assume the validity of the agency shop provision of the agreement, that the Court was actually sustaining the Association's contentions on that issue. The Justice's simultaneous denial of a stay of the arbitration process unmistakably characterizes his overall action as an adjudication prejudicially and directly adverse to the rights of the Board. We conclude that the Board was an aggrieved party within the meaning of Rule 72(c), M.R.C.P. See Blaney v. Rittall, 1973, Me., 312 A.2d 522.