STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MLRB No. 76-IR-02 ___________________________________ ) BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MAINE ) ) SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT ) INTERPRETATIVE RULING ) NO. 33 ) ___________________________________) The Maine Labor Relations Board received a request for an Interpretative Ruling dated January 15, 1976, from Joel R. Leblanc, Esquire, Attorney for the Board of Directors of Maine School Administrative District No. 33. Pursuant to the authority granted to the Board under [Section] 968, Paragraph 3, of the Public Employees Labor Relations Act, we have addressed ourselves to the following question: Does the refusal of public employees to accept voluntary extra-curricular duties constitute a work stoppage, slowdown or strike as defined by 26 M.R.S.A. [Section] 964(2)(c)? The Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act provides in [Section] 964(2)(c) as follows: 2. Public employee prohibitions. Public employee, public employee organizations, their agents, members and bargaining agents are prohibited from: C. Engaging in: (1) A work stoppage; (2) A slowdown; (3) A strike; or (4) The blacklisting of any public employer for the purpose of preventing it from filling employee vacancies. The provisions of the Act we are concerned with in this question are work stoppage, slowdown and strike. Each term connotes a concerted effort on behalf of or by employees. If one of the employees refused to accept a voluntary extra- curricular duty, the element of concerted activity would be absent and a pro- hibited practice charge alleging a violation of 26 M.R.S.A. [Section] 964(2)(c) would fail. If the element of concerted activity was present, then a violation of the Act would depend on the presence of such other factors either together or individ- ually as (1) whether the extra-curricular duty is set forth in a contract provision, (2) whether the duty was otherwise negotiated, (3) whether a past practice exists of accepting the duty or (4) whether the duty has been or may be performed by workers outside the bargaining unit. -1- The above factors would have to be examined and viewed in light of a specific fact situation, such as a pattern of events including a provocation of an extreme nature by the public employer or his agents. This opinion is advisory only, since binding determinations by the Board are restricted by statute to actual cases presented to it. Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 9th day of December 1976. /s/________________________________________ Walter E. Corey, Chairman /s/________________________________________ Robert D. Curley, Employer Representative /s/________________________________________ Michael Schoonjans, Employee Representative -2-