MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ANNUAL REPORT--Fiscal Year 2006

This report is submitted pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. §§ 968(7) and 979-J(1) (1988).

Introduction

The mission of the Maine Labor Relations Board and its affiliated organizations, the Panel of Mediators and the State Board of Arbitration and Conciliation, is to foster and improve the relationship between public employees and their employers. The Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board") protects the rights and enforces the responsibilities established by the four separate labor relations statutes covering Maine's public sector employees. The Board does this by creating bargaining units, conducting secret ballot elections to certify, change or decertify bargaining agents, and processing prohibited practice complaints. The Panel of Mediators and the State Board of Arbitration and Conciliation provide dispute resolution procedures, to assist parties in negotiating initial or successor collective bargaining agreements, and contract grievance arbitration services. The focus of this report is the activity of the Labor Board during the fiscal year.

During the past year, the Board had requests for services from most segments of the public sector that have statutorily conferred collective bargaining rights. As will be noted later in this report, demand for the Board's services was generally higher than in the previous year. The defining feature of the reporting period was the high degree of uncertainty in public finance. The continued public discourse regarding tax relief and spending caps were of concern to both labor and management.

Members of the Board are appointed by the Governor, confirmed by the Legislature, and serve four-year terms, with the term of office of each primary member expiring on September 30 of successive years. The terms of the alternate members expire at the same time as that of their respective primary member. Public Chair Peter T. Dawson of Hallowell, Employee Representative Carol B. Gilmore of Charleston, and Employer Representative Karl Dornish, Jr., of Winslow continued to serve throughout the year. Alternate Chairs Jared S. des Rosiers of Falmouth and Pamela D. Chute of Brewer, Alternate Employee Representatives Wayne W. Whitney of Brunswick and Robert L. Piccone of Portland, and Alternate Employer Representatives Edwin S. Hamm of Portland and Richard L. Hornbeck of Bowdoinham all continued to serve in their respective capacities.

As in past years, the staff of the Board handled a great many inquiries from public employers and employees or their representatives, the media, and members of the public. The staff is the primary source of information for persons interested in the operations and procedures of Maine's public sector labor laws. In instances that involved matters over which the Board has no jurisdiction, the staff continued the policy of providing some orientation for the inquirer, suggesting other agencies or organizations that might be of help, and making appropriate referrals.

The Board's web site continued to be the prime source for research of Board precedent. The site is equipped with a search engine and contains an extensive database of the Board's prohibited practice and representation appeals decisions, as well as Superior and Supreme Judicial Court opinions reviewing the Board's decisions. Access to this case law helps public employers and bargaining agents to know the parameters of required or permitted conduct and to use such information to avoid violating the law. The web site also includes links to the statutes administered by the Board, the complete text of the Board's Rules and Procedures, the Board's forms, a bulletin board of current activities, and links to other state and federal labor relations agency sites. Since its inception the web site has been maintained and updated by Board staff. The Board hasundertaken a project in collaboration with the Office of the Chief Information Officer to redesign the web site in order to bring it into compliance with the State accessibility standards. Over the years, the web site has been highly praised by the labor-management community.

Legislative Matters

One bill that had a minor impact on the Board's jurisdiction was enacted by the Legislature and became law this year. The measure, An Act To Improve Early Childhood Special Education, L.D. 1772, was enacted and became law as Chapter 662 of the Public Laws of 2005. The statute reorganized the responsibilities of the Department of Education in connection with the 16 regional sites of the Child Development Services System, provided the Commissioner of Education with the duty to determine and approve the budget for each of the regional sites, and created the Subcommittee to Study Early Childhood Special Education, with the expectation that the subcommittee would submit legislation no later than January 31, 2007, to implement the recommendations contained in its report. Section A-43 of the Law amended 26 M.R.S.A. § 962(7)(A), deleting from the definition of public employers, within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law, the boards of directors for the 16 Child Development Services sites.

A second bill, L.D. 430, An Act to Modify the Obligation to Bargain under the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law, was presented as a concept draft in the First Regular Session of the 122nd Legislature and was carried forward for consideration in this year's Second Regular Session. This concept draft was a placeholder for a proposal that would have changed the scope of mandatory bargaining for negotiations regarding K-12 teachers. It was introduced pending the outcome of the study conducted by the Task Force to Examine Issues Regarding Teacher Workload convened by the Commissioner of Education that was an outgrowth of L.D. 1344 of the 121st Legislature. After the task force issued its report, the sponsor of the bill recommended that the Joint Standing Committee on Labor vote the bill "ought not to pass" and they did so.

The Board did not present any testimony to any Legislative committee this year. The Board staff did monitor 7 bills in addition to the 2 discussed above, attending public hearings and work sessions, and otherwise assisting Legislative committees in their consideration of matters that might impact public sector collective bargaining or agency operations.

Bargaining Unit and Election Matters

During fiscal year 2006, the Board received 24 voluntary agreements or joint filings for the establishment of or change in collective bargaining units. There were 21 of these filings in FY 05, 24 in FY 04, 23 in FY 03, 19 in FY 02 and 21 in FY 01. Of the 24 FY 06 filings, 12 were for municipal or county government units, 9 for K-12 educational units, 1 for two Maine Maritime Academy units and 2 concerned State Executive Branch employees. The unit agreements were filed by the following employee organizations:

Employee Org.	Number of Agreements
Teamsters Union Local 340 (Sabattus Public Works Unit) (Mt. Desert Government Unit) (Kennebec Water District Operations Unit) (Fairfield Police Unit) (Mt. Desert Police Unit) (MSAD #71 Bus Aides Unit) (Kennebunkport Municipal Employees Unit) (Cumberland County Corrections Supervisors Unit) (Presque Isle Police Sergeants Unit) (Presque Isle Police Unit)	11 agreements
Maine Education Association/NEA(1) (East Millinocket Education al Technicians Unit) (Medway Educational Technicians Unit) (Old Town Educational Technicians Unit) (Maine School of Science and Mathematics Full-time Instructors Unit) (Boothbay/Boothbay Harbor Support Staff Unit) (Poland Regional High School Educational Support Staff Unit) (MSAD #72 Educational Support Staff Unit)	7 agreements
Maine State Employees Association (Maine Maritime Academy Dep. Heads, Supervisors & Managers Unit; Staff, Support & Professional Unit-1) (State of Maine Professional and Technical Services Unit-2)	3 agreements
AFSCME Council 93 (Penobscot County Clerical & Custodial Unit) (Cumberland County Sheriff's Department Unit)	2 agreements
Union 29 Central Office Support Staff Association (Union 29 Central Office Support Staff Unit)	1 agreement

Of the 24 filings, 12 were for new units and 12 were for changes to existing units.

(1) While reference is made to the Maine Education Association/NEA for sake of simplicity, the various activities described were undertaken by local associations which are affiliated with MEA.

Sixteen (16) unit determination or clarification petitions (submitted when there is no agreement on the composition of the bargaining unit) were filed in FY 06: 13 were for determinations and 3 were for clarifications. One of the new unit petitions went to hearing. Agreements were reached in 9 cases, 2 resulted in units deemed to be appropriate, 1 was withdrawn and 3 are pending. Once a unit petition and response are filed, a member of the Board's staff, other than the assigned hearing officer in the case, contacts the parties and attempts to facilitate agreement on the appropriate bargaining unit. This involvement, successful in 56.25% of the cases this year, saves substantial time and litigation costs for public employers and bargaining agents. There were 8 unit petitions filed in FY 05, 10 in FY 04, 15 in FY 03, 14 in FY 02 and 10 in FY 01. The unit determination/clarification requests were filed by the following employee organizations:

Employee Org.	Petitions
Teamsters Union Local 340 (Augusta Sanitary & Water Districts Unit) (Mount Desert Government Unit) (Ogunquit Clerical Unit) (Sabattus Public Works Unit) (Rangeley Professional Unit) (Mt. Desert Police Unit) (MSAD #71 Bus Aides Unit) (Cumberland County Sheriff's Dept. Corrections Supervisors)	8* petitions
Maine Education Association/NEA (Maine School of Science & Mathematics Faculty Unit) (Boothbay/Boothbay Harbor Support Unit) (MSAD #72 Ed Techs & Secretaries Unit) (Poland Regional High School Educational Support Staff Unit) (MSAD #32 Teachers Unit)	5 petitions
AFSCME Council 93 (Augusta Sanitary & Water Districts Unit) (South Portland Public Library Employees Unit) (Lincoln County Sheriff's Department Unit)	3* petitions
Maine State Employees Association (State of Maine Administrative Services Unit)	1 petition

*One case involved both Teamsters and AFSCME (Augusta Sanitary & Water Districts Unit).

After the scope and composition of the bargaining unit is established, either by agreement or by unit determination, a secret ballot bargaining agent election is conducted by the Board. An election is held to determine the desires of the employees, unless a bargaining agent is voluntarily recognized by the public employer. During FY 06 there were 3 voluntary recognitions filed, involving the following employee organizations:

Employee Org.	Voluntary Recognitions
Maine Education Association/NEA (Sanford Administrators Unit)	1 vol. recognition
Poland Regional High School Educational Support 1 Staff Association (Poland Regional High School Educational Support Staff Unit)	1 vol. recognition
Teamsters Union Local 340 (Cumberland County Sheriff's Department Corrections Supervisors Unit)	1 vol. recognition

Sixteen (16) bargaining agent election requests were filed in FY 06; 11 elections were held, including matters carried forward from FY 05, bargaining agents were voluntarily recognized in 2 cases, 1 request was withdrawn and 2 election matters are pending. The bargaining agent election petitions filed this year involved the following employee organizations:

Employee Org.	Election Petitions
Teamsters Union Local 340 (Augusta Sanitary & Water Districts Unit) (Mt. Desert Government Unit) (Ogunquit Clerical Unit) (Sabattus Public Works Unit) (Rangeley Professional Unit) (Mt. Desert Police Unit) (MSAD #71 Bus Aides Unit) (Cumberland County Sheriff's Dept. Corrections Supervisors Unit)	8 petitions*
Maine Education Association/NEA (East Millinocket Educational Technicians Unit) (Medway Educational Technicians Unit) (Old Town Educational Technicians Unit) (Maine School of Science & Mathematics Faculty Unit) (MSAD #72 Educational Technicians & Secretaries Unit) (Poland Regional High School Educational Support Staff Unit)	6 petitions
AFSCME Council 93 (Augusta Sanitary & Water Districts Unit) (South Portland Public Library Employees Unit)	2* petitions
Union 29 Central Office Support Staff Association (Union 29 Central Office Support Staff Unit)	1 petition

* One case involved both Teamsters and AFSCME (Augusta Sanitary & Water Districts Unit)

In FY 05, there was 1 voluntary recognition filed, 9 bargaining agent election requests received, and 9 elections held.

In addition to representation election requests, the Board received 5 requests for decertification/certification. This type of petition involves a challenge by the petitioning organization to unseat and replace an incumbent as bargaining agent for bargaining unit members. Three elections were held and 2 petitions are pending. The results of the decertification/ certification petitions were as follows:

Petitioner (Bargaining Unit)	Incumbent Agent	Prevailed
Maine State Law Enforcement Assn. (State of Maine Law Enforcement Services Unit)	MSEA	MSLEA
Maine Association of Police (Waterville Police Unit)	Teamsters Union Local 340	MAP
Maine Association of Police (Waterville Police Unit)	Teamsters Union Local 340	MAP

The Board received 1 straight decertification petition in FY 06. No new union is involved in this type of petition; rather, the petitioner is simply attempting to remove the incumbent agent. One (1) election was held. The decertification petition filed this year and the result is as follows:

Employee Organization	Unit	Outcome
AFSCME Council 93	East Millinocket Fire Dept. Unit	No Rep.

Three (3) straight decertification petitions were received in FY 05. No disclaimers of interest were filed this year. Disclaimers arise when a bargaining agent no longer wishes to represent a bargaining unit.

There were 3 election matters carried over from FY 05; consequently, there were 25 such matters requiring attention during the fiscal year. This compares with a total of 20 in FY 05, 23 in FY 04, 22 in FY 03, 18 in FY 02 and 17 in FY 01.

Dispute Resolution

The Panel of Mediators is the statutory cornerstone of the dispute resolution process for public sector employees. Its importance continues to be reflected in its volume of activity and in its credibility with the client community. The activities of the Panel are summarized in this report and are more fully discussed in the Annual Report of the Panel of Mediators.

Interest mediation is the process through which State mediators assist parties in negotiating initial or successor collective bargaining agreements. The number of new interest mediation requests received during the fiscal year increased marginally. There were 58 new requests filed this year compared with 55 last year. In addition to the new mediation requests received during FY 06, there were 36 matters carried over from FY 05 that required some form of mediation activity during the year. Thus the total number of mediation matters requiring the Panel's attention in this fiscal year was 94, up substantially from 78 in FY 05. During the downturn in the regional economy in the early 1990's, most parties were opting for one-year agreements, hoping that more favorable conditions would prevail the following year. As a result, many more agreements expired in FY 93 and FY 94 than would normally be expected. Beginning in mid-FY 1994, more parties resumed negotiating multi-year agreements. The increased demand for mediationservices this year is the result of one major factor. Last year, unsure of what resources would be available to fund any agreements, many parties deferred negotiations or extended their agreements for one year. As a result, more cases became "ripe" for mediation this year.

The settlement rate for cases where mediation was concluded this year, including carryovers from FY 05, decreased somewhat. This year's settlement rate was 77.8%. During the past 15 years, the settlement rate has ranged from 50% in FY 1995 to a high of 88.5% last year, with a mean of 76.74%. Anecdotal evidence from the mediators suggests that continued uncertainty regarding the impact of spending caps in the future and significant increases in health insurance premiums resulted in a more difficult bargaining climate this year. Since both new filings and cases carried over from prior years contributed to the actual workload of the Panel in the course of the twelve-month period, we have reported settlement figures that represent all matters in which mediation activity has been completed during the reporting period.

One request for preventive mediation services was received this year. Interest in non-confrontational, interest-based negotiations in the labor-management community has waned in the last three years, despite the effectiveness of the process in achieving settlements (57 settlements in 59 cases). In fact, prior to FY 02, all of the preventive mediation efforts had been successful. Preventive mediation is only undertaken upon the joint request of the parties; therefore, the fact that only one request for such services was received this year may be a negative development or it may just indicate parties' belief that their differences can be best addressed through traditional bargaining.

Fact finding is the second step in the three-step statutory dispute resolution process. In Fiscal Year 2006, 12 fact-finding requests were filed. Thirteen (13) requests were received in both FY 05 and FY 04. Considering all cases, including 6 carryovers from FY 2005, 10 requests went to hearing, 5 petitions were withdrawn or otherwise settled, and 3 petitions are pending hearing. In FY 05, 8 fact-finding hearings were held. The following employee organizations filed requests for fact-finding services this year:

Employee Organization	Fact-Finding Requests
Maine Education Association/MEA/NEA (Poland Teachers Unit) (Augusta Teachers Unit) (MSAD #62 Teachers Unit) (MSAD #15 Teachers Unit) (Lewiston Education Technicians Unit) (MSAD #49 Teachers Unit) University of Maine Professional Unit) (Southern Aroostook CSD #9 ESP Unit (University of Maine Faculty Unit)	9 requests
AFSCME Council 93 (MSAD #54 Support Unit)	1 request
Maine Association of Police (Cape Elizabeth Police Unit)	1 request

It is interesting to note that, although the demand for mediation services fell in the K-12 sector, 10 of the 11 requests for fact-finding concerned negotiations for units in that sector.

During the second half of the fiscal year, a number of questions arose concerning fact-finding practices and procedures, particularly those involving private fact-finders appointed pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 965(3)(B). The executive director concluded that certain aspects of the fact-finding process needed to be reviewed. As the first step in this inquiry, a meeting was held on June 16, 2006, including parties, practitioners, partisan fact-finders in the public sector labor-management community and members of the Board staff to examine whether problems exist, to identify the nature and scope of such issues, and to explore solution alternatives. At the time that this report was being prepared and in light of the comments and suggestions from the client community, the executive director was formulating proposals for improving the fact-finding process for consideration by the Board.

Interest arbitration is the third and final step in the statutory dispute resolution process. Under the provisions of the various public employee statutes administered by the Board and unless agreed otherwise by the parties, an interest arbitration award is binding on the parties on non-monetary issues. Unresolved questions concerning salaries, pensions and insurance are subject to interest arbitration, but an award on these matters is only advisory. In recent years the Board has received few interest arbitration requests. None have been received in the last five years. One was filed in FY 01, none in FY 00, 2 in FY 99, and 2 in FY 98.

The various labor relations statutes do not require parties to notify the Board when they are invoking mandatory interest arbitration. The statutes do require that arbitration awards be filed with the Board; however, they usually are not. This year, one interest arbitration decision was received. While we assume that this was the sole interest arbitration award in the public sector during the year, it may be that parties have simply failed to provide notification to the Board.

Prohibited Practices

One of the Board's main responsibilities in administering the public sector collective bargaining process is to hear and rule on prohibited practice complaints. Formal hearings are conducted by the full, three-person Board in such matters. Twenty-four (24) complaints were filed in FY 06. This represents a 100 percent increase over the FY 05 level. For the last six years, including the current year, the number of complaints filed each year has fluctuated from a low of 12 to a high of 24, with the mean being 19.33. Many of the complaints received during the past year charge violations of the duty to negotiate in good faith.

The most recent round of bargaining between the Maine State Employees Association and the State of Maine for the four Executive Branch bargaining units represented by MSEA resulted in successor collective bargaining agreements that each contained a "fair share" union security clause. Unlike the union security provision in the parties' prior agreements, those in the current agreements apply to all unit employees who are not members of the bargaining agent. These contract articles require that, as a condition of continued employment, non-members must pay to the bargaining agent a percentage of union dues, representing each individual's share of the cost incurred by the union in negotiating and administering the collective bargaining agreement. A group of objecting bargaining unit employees challenged the constitutionality of the specific provisions of the union security article in a highly publicized action in the United States District Court. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the challenge as being without merit. Daniel B. Locke, et al., v. Edward A. Karass, State Controller, et al., Case No. 05-CV-112-P-S (D. Maine, March 31, 2006).

While the "fair share" litigation in the Federal Court did not involve the Board, it was widely publicized and closely watched by the public sector labor-management community. While the case was pending before the Federal District Court, ten bargaining unit employees each filed identical prohibited practice complaints with the Board, charging that the "fair share" fee agreements between the State and MSEA and/or Council 93 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, violated a number of provisions of the State Employees Labor Relations Act. The executive director gave the complainants each a notice of procedural insufficiencies, all of which could clearly have been remedied through technical amendments to the complaints; however, since the respondents wished to be heard on whether the complaints (even if amended) stated claims upon which relief could be granted by the Board, the director suspended the complainants' obligation to amend the complaints until after the parties had been given the opportunity to be heard regarding legal sufficiency of the complaints and a sufficiency determination had been made. Of these 10 cases, 3 were subsequently withdrawn by the complainants and 7 were dismissed by the executive director who determined that they were legally insufficient. None of the dismissals were appealed to the Board.

In addition to the 24 complaints filed in FY 06, there were 7 carryovers from FY 05, compared with 12 complaints and 11 carryovers last year. Board panels conducted 1 evidentiary hearing during the year, compared with 5 in FY 05. The Board issued formal Decisions and Orders in 3 cases. Board chairs, sitting as prehearing officers, held conferences in 5 cases, compared with 9 in FY 05. Three (3) cases are being held in abeyance. Ten (10) complaints were dismissed or withdrawn at the request of the parties. Six (6) complaints await prehearing and/or hearing. Ten (10) cases were dismissed by the executive director, including the 7 State employee "fair share" cases discussed above. The executive director's dismissal of the complaint in William D. Neily v. State of Maine and MSEA, Case No. 06-13 (Exec. Dir. Feb. 14, 2006), was appealed to the Board on February 2, 2006. The Board issued a Decision on Appeal of Executive Director's Dismissal of Complaint on May 11, 2006. The complainant appealed the Board's decision to Superior Court on May 23, 2006. No. AP-06-35 (Me. Super. Ct., Ken. Cty.).

The executive director has continued to be actively involved settling prohibited practice cases through telephone conferences and personal meetings with the parties' representatives. Continuing a development introduced in FY 96, the services of the executive director or a Board attorney are offered on the day of the hearing to attempt to settle cases. If the parties either decline the Board's offer or if the effort is unsuccessful, the Board members are present, ready to convene a formal evidentiary hearing.

Prohibited practice complaints, with the respondent noted in parenthesis, were filed by the following this year:

Complainant	Complaints
Individuals (AFSCME) (MSEA) (State of Maine)	14 complaints
International Association of Firefighters (Brunswick) (Lincoln) (Sanford)	3 complaints
Maine Education Association/NEA (MSAD #29 Board of Directors) (MSAD #52 Board of Education) (Old Orchard Beach Board of Education)	3 complaints
Teamsters Union Local 340 (Jay School Department) (University of Maine System)	2 complaints
AFSCME Council 93 (Lincoln County Sheriff's Dept.)	1 complaint
Part-Time Faculty Association (AFT) (University of Maine System)	1 complaint

Appeals

Two appeals of Board decisions were pending in the Superior Court this year. As discussed in last year's report, an appeal to Superior Court was taken from the Board decision in Sharron V.A. Wood v. Maine Community College System and Maine Education Association, No. 03-06 (MLRB Apr. 21, 2005). That case, brought by a probationary employee whose individual employment contract was not renewed, charged interference, restraint and coercion against the employer, the Maine Community College System, and violation of the duty of fair representation against the individual's bargaining agent, the Maine Education Association. The Board held that neither respondent had violated the law. In response to the appellees' motions, the Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it was not filed within the time frame set forth in 26 M.R.S.A. § 1029(7). Sharron V.A. Wood v. Maine Education Association, et al., No. AP-05-29 (Me. Super. Ct., Ken. Cty., Oct. 6, 2005). The second case is the appeal of the dismissal of the complaint in the case of William D. Neily mentioned earlier. At the time of the preparation of this report, the record of the proceedings before the Board in the latter case had been filed with the Court, triggering the schedule pursuant to which the parties will present their respective positions. The matter will be reviewed by the Court in the coming year.

Summary

The following chart summarizes the filings for this fiscal year, along with the previous five years:

FY 2001

FY 2002

FY 2003

FY 2004

FY 2005

FY 2006

Unit Determination/
Clarification Requests
Number filed--

+40%

+7%

-33%

-20%

+100%

Agreements on
Bargaining Unit
(MLRB Form #1)
Number filed--

-9.5%

+21%

+4.3%

-12.5%

+14.3%

Voluntary Recognitions
(MLRB Form #3)
Number filed--

-57.1%

+167%

-75%

-50%

+200%

Bargaining Agent
Election Requests
Number filed--

+50%

+22%

-9.1%

-10%

+77.8%

Decertification
Election Requests
Number filed--

-50%

-100%

+300%

-66.7%

Decert./Certification
Election Requests
Number filed--

+150%

-40%

+233%

-80%

+150%

Mediation Requests
Number filed--

-11.5%

+18.5%

+1.6%

-15.4%

+5.4%

Fact Finding
Requests
Number filed--

+7.7%

+64%

-43.5%

-7.7%

Prohibited Practice
Complaints
Number filed--

-29.2%

+35.3%

-30.4%

-25%

100%

The above table indicates that the demand for the Board's different services increased during the fiscal year, perhaps reflecting pent-up employee expectations due to the uncertainties in public sector finance and structure in the past few years. For the past several years we have been predicting that public sector organizational activity may be nearing the point of saturation, given that the Board has been in existence since 1969 and many units, particularly education and firefighter units, predated the establishment of the agency. As the number of organized employees approaches the universe of those eligible, the number of new units created each year will decline. Contrary to last year's prediction, there was an increase in organizational activity this year and there are more units now than ever before. A larger number of units means more requests for changes in unit composition, more elections to change or oust bargaining agents, a greater potential for prohibited practice complaints, and increased demand for dispute resolution services in the future.

During FY 06, public sector labor-management relations in Maine continued to mature. Parties continue to rely on the statutory dispute processes to settle their differences, rather than resorting to self-help remedies. The development of more mature labor relations is evidenced by the strong demand for mediation services and the continued willingness by the parties to settle prohibited practice complaint cases. In sum, the Board's dispute resolution services fostered public sector labor peace throughout the fiscal year.

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 30th day of June, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

Marc P. Ayotte
Executive Director
Maine Labor Relations Board

Maine Labor Relations Board

PANEL OF MEDIATORS

Board of Arbitration and Conciliation

MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ANNUAL REPORT--Fiscal Year 2006