STATE OF MAINE                                  MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD            
                                                      Case No. 78-25
_____________________________________
                                     ) 
WESTBROOK POLICE UNIT of Local 1828, ) 
Council No. 74, American Federation  ) 
of State, County and Municipal       ) 
Employees, AFL-CIO,                  )
                                     )
                      Complainant,   )
                                     )               
                v.                   )                  DECISION AND ORDER
                                     ) 
CITY OF WESTBROOK, Westbrook City    ) 
Council                              )          
                                     )
               and                   )
                                     )   
Robert Curley, Michael Cooper,       ) 
Leroy Darling and Carmine Russo,     )    
                                     )
                      Respondents.   )
_____________________________________)


     This case comes to the Maine Labor Relations Board by way of a prohibited 
practice complaint filed on February 27, 1978 by Kenneth Walo, Field Representative, 
Council No. 74, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-
CIO.  The City of Westbrook's response to the complaint was filed on March 15, 1978 
by James E. Gagan, City Solicitor.      

     A pre-hearing conference was held in the matter on April 18, 1978 in Augusta, 
Maine, with Alternate Chairman Donald W. Webber presiding.  As a result of this 
pre-hearing conference, Alternate Chairman Webber issued on April 20, 1978 a Pre-
Hearing Conference Memorandum and Order, the contents of which are incorporated 
herein by reference.      

     A hearing on the case was held on June 6, 1978 in Augusta, Maine.  All legal 
briefs on the matter were submitted by July 18, 1978, and the Board proceeded to 
deliberate on the case on August 2, 1978, Alternate Chairman Donald W. Webber 
presiding, with Kenneth T. Winters, Alternate Employer Representative and Michael
Schoonjans, Employee Representative. 

                                 JURISDICTION 
    
     Neither party has challenged the jurisdiction of the Maine Labor Relations 
Board in this matter, and we conclude that this Board has jurisdiction to hear 
and render a decision in this case as provided in 26 MRSA  968(5).

                               FINDINGS OF FACT 

     Upon review of the testimony given at the hearing as well as the Pre-Hearing
Conference Memorandum and Order and the pleadings, the Board finds:

          1.  Complainant Local 1828, Council No. 74, American Federation 
              of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO ("Council              
              No. 74") was at all time material herein the certified

                                      [-1-]
______________________________________________________________________________ 
             
              bargaining agent for a bargaining unit composed of certain              
              employees of the City of Westbrook Police Department.           

          2.  Respondent City of Westbrook ("City") is a public employer              
              as defined by 26 MRSA  962(7), with an address of City      
              Hall Building, Westbrook, Maine 04092. 

          3.  On or about August 1, 1977, Council No. 74 forwarded to the              
              City proposals concerning a collective bargaining agreement              
              covering the City's Police Department bargaining unit.
    
          4.  By letter dated August 9, 1977, the City informed Council               
              No. 74 of the names of the four members of the City's              
              negotiating team.  Designated as spokesman for the City's              
              negotiating team in the August 9, 1977 letter was a pro-              
              fessional negotiator.  The City had never before hired a             
              professional negotiator to represent it in contractual              
              negotiations with Council No. 74.           

          5.  The first negotiating session was conducted on August 22,     
              1977, at which time the City's professional negotiator              
              stated that he would not serve as an "errand boy" to the              
              City Council, and that the City's negotiating team had the              
              authority to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement              
              within certain cost guidelines with Council No. 74.           

          6.  The City's professional negotiator also stated at the              
              August 22, 1977 session that he realized that reduction              
              in the number of years required for retirement would be              
              a major issue for negotiations, and indicated that the             
              City's team was authorized to negotiate over the retirement              
              issue.  Prior to commencement of negotiations in August, 1977,              
              the City's negotiating team was not authorized to negotiate              
              and agree upon contracts for the City's employees, but instead              
              was required by the Westbrook City Council to carry each pro-      
              posal and counterproposal back and forth from the City              
              Council to the bargaining table.           

          7.  Ground rules to govern the subsequent conduct of negotiating              
              sessions were also discussed at the August 22, 1977 session.       
              Among the ground rules discussed were those concerning rati-              
              fication of any tentative agreement reached by the negotiating              
              teams.  Council No. 74's negotiating team indicated that the              
              members of the police unit would have to ratify any agreement              
              reached by the negotiators before the agreement became final,              
              while the City's team indicated that the City Council would             
              have to ratify any tentative agreement by approving the monies              
              necessary to fund the agreement.  No written ground rules              
              were prepared.           

          8.  Following the first negotiating session, the City's negotiating              
              team on August 22, 1977 met for the first time with members of              
              the City Council.  At the meeting, the City Council authorized              
              the City's negotiating team to reach tentative agreement with              
              Council No. 74 on a collective bargaining agreement if the
              cost of the agreement amounted to no more than a 6  - 7             
              percent increase per year over the term of the agreement.  At              
              the conclusion of the meeting, the Chairman of the City Council's             
              Finance Committee indicated that the City's team could reach 
              tentative agreement on a reduction in the number of years 
              required for retirement so long as the cost of such reduction 
              was within the 6  - 7 percent guideline established by the 
              City.
   
          9.  As a result of the August 22, 1977 meeting between the City's 
              negotiating team and the City Council, the professional nego-              
              tiator hired to represent the City understood that the City's              
              team had been authorized to reach tentative agreement with              
              Council No. 74 on a contract, even if the contract reduced              
              the number of years required for retirement, if the cost of  
 
                                  -2-
______________________________________________________________________________ 
            
              the contract was within the 6  - 7 percent guideline.              
              The professional negotiator reasonably understood that if              
              the cost of the contract was within the guideline, then              
              ratification by the City Council would be perfunctory.
     
         10.  Negotiating sessions between the City's team and Council              
              No. 74's team were also held on September 12, October 5,              
              October 24, November 23, December 20, 1977, and on              
              January 5, 1978.          

         11.  At the September 12, 1977 negotiation session, the City's              
              team presented a cost study of 20, 21 and 22 year retire-              
              ment plans, and an actuarial study of the additional costs     
              to the City of 20, 21 and 22 year retirement plans.
          
         12.  At the December 20, 1977 negotiation session, the City's              
              team submitted a written proposal for a 2  year con-              
              tract (January 1, 1978 to July 1, 1980) to Council No. 74.     
              Included in the proposal was a provision reducing the              
              amount of time necessary to achieve retirement from 23              
              years to 22 years as of January 1, 1979, and 21 years              
              as of January 1, 1980.  Negotiations over the City's pro-   
              posals ensued, with Council No. 74 making counterproposals.
          
         13.  At the January 5, 1978 negotiation session, the City's              
              team submitted another written proposal for a 2  year              
              contract.  This proposal reduced the amount of time neces-              
              sary for retirement to 22 years as of July 1, 1978, and to             
              21 years as of the end of the contract.  Council No. 74              
              then submitted a counterproposal, which was followed by the              
              submission by the City's team of a counterproposal which              
              reduced the cost of the proposed contract during its second              
              year.  The City's team characterized this counterproposal             
              as the City's "last best offer."  Council No. 74's negotiating              
              team accepted this offer and stated that the proposed contract              
              would be presented to the unit membership for ratification.              
              The contract subsequently was ratified by the unit membership.          

         14.  At the close of the January 5, 1978 session, a member of the              
              City's team indicated to Council No. 74's team that the pro-             
              posed contract would also have to be ratified by the City Council.
         
         15.  In a letter dated January 28, 1978 to the chief negotiator for              
              Council No. 74's team, the professional negotiator who repre-              
              sented the City stated, "The Westbrook City Council at its              
              meeting of January 23, 1978 rejected the negotiated Police              
              package presented by the City Negotiating Team.  In particular,              
              the City Council rejected the adjustment of the Police retire-     
              ment from 23 years down to 21 years. . . ." 

         16.  In a letter dated February 17, 1978 to the chief negotiator for              
              Council No. 74's team, the City's professional negotiator stated              
              that ". . . the City Council, . . .reconsidered the 'authority'              
              granted the City Negotiator in dealing with the Police Union.                   
                   "The City Council unanimously reaffirmed that the issue     
              of Police retirement was not within the grant of authority              
              given to the Chief Negotiator. . . .  Therefore, the retire-              
              ment offer made at the bargaining table was beyond my capacity              
              to grant or agree to at the table."  (emphasis in original)          

         17.  The cost of the agreement which the City Council refused to              
              ratify exceeded the 6  - 7 percent cost guideline estab-           
              lished for the City's negotiating team by the City Council              
              by approximately $2,000.

                                   DECISION      

     Complainant has charged that Respondent Westbrook City Council violated 
26 MRSA  964(1)(E) by (1) refusing to execute the collective bargaining agreement                                      

                                       -3-
______________________________________________________________________________   

negotiated by the City's and Council No. 74's negotiating teams, as required by 
26 MRSA  965(1)(D), and (2) bargaining in bad faith contrary to its obligation 
set forth in 26 MRSA  965(1)(C).  Respondents contend that the agreement nego-
tiated by the bargaining teams is not binding upon the City without ratification 
by the City Council, and that Respondents are not guilty of bad faith bargaining.  
For the reasons discussed below, we find that Respondents did not violate Section 
964(1)(E) of the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act by refusing to 
execute the agreement negotiated by the bargaining teams, but that Respondents 
are guilty of bad faith bargaining in violation of Section 964(1)(E).  We accord-
ingly order an appropriate remedy.                            

                                       I

     This case is one in a long series of cases before this Board which raise 
issues concerning the authority of bargaining teams to negotiate and agree upon 
the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.  As was the case in many of 
these previous instances, there were no written ground rules prepared at the 
commencement of negotiations in the instant case.  In our opinion, the failure 
of the negotiating teams in the instant case to prepare written ground rules is 
inexcusable.  The simple act of preparing such written ground rules would in all
likelihood have obviated the need for the prohibited practice complaint which 
initiated this proceeding, thereby sparing all parties concerned considerable 
effort and resources.      

     We have in our previous decisions relied upon several well-settled principles 
of labor law which are pertinent to the present case.  Among these principles is 
that absent a ground rule governing the binding effect of any agreement reached 
by negotiators, we find a strong presumption that the tentative agreement is 
binding on the parties, Karen O'Neil v. MSAD No. 64 Board of Directors, MLRB 
Case No. 77-06 (1977); John Glover v. MSAD No. 68 Board of Directors, MLRB Case 
No. 77-07 (1977); Van Buren Education Ass'n v. MSAD No. 24, MLRB Case No. 76-08 
(1976).  The parties may of course reserve the power of the principals to ratify 
any tentative agreement reached by the negotiators, although in such a case the 
negotiators must be clothed with sufficient knowledge, guidelines and authority 
to reach at least tentative agreement, Biddeford Unit of Local 1828, Council No. 
74, AFSCME v. City of Biddeford, MLRB Case No. 75-33 (1975).  As we stated in 
Biddeford Unit of Local 1828, supra: 

               "At the commencement of negotiations, a sound collective          
          bargaining process would have each party reveal what steps,          
          if any, are required after tentative agreement is reached,         
          before final ratification.  The other party should request    
          such information if it is not volunteered.  Such a practice    
          would alleviate misunderstandings and avoid the unwarranted
          delay and expense of the parties in this case."      

     Once a party has reserved the power of the principal to ratify any tentative 
agreement, the agreement will not be concluded and binding until it is ratified 
by the principal who must abide by the agreement, Arundel Teachers Ass'n v. David 
Majercik, MLRB Case No. 73-08 (1973).  On the other hand, the principal may delegate

                                      -4-
______________________________________________________________________________   

the authority to reach final, binding agreement to its negotiators, Local 1601, 
International Ass'n of Firefighters, AFI-CIO v. Rumford Board of Selectmen, MLRB 
Case No. 73-07 (1973).  Once the authority of the negotiator has been established, 
it is incumbent upon the principal to inform immediately the other parties to the 
negotiations of any subsequent changes in the negotiator's authority.  Such a 
change requires actual or constructive notification before it becomes effective, 
MSAD No. 38 Board of Directors v. MSAD No. 38 Teachers Ass'n, MLRB Case No. 76-20 
(1976).
                                       
                                      II  

1.  The allegation concerning the failure to execute the agreement.      
     With the above legal principles in mind, it is apparent that two of the 
critical factual issues in this case are 1) what authority did the City Council 
delegate to the City's negotiating team regarding the team's power to reach binding 
agreement with Council No. 74, and 2) what representations did the City's team make 
to Council No. 74's negotiators concerning the City team's authority to reach 
binding agreement?  After careful consideration of the testimony and exhibits, 
we conclude that the City Council did not in fact delegate the authority to enter 
into binding agreements to the City's bargaining team, and that the City team's 
representations were not sufficient to cause Council No. 74's negotiators reason-
ably to expect that any agreement reached by the negotiating teams would not have 
to be ratified by the City Council.

     Testimony at the hearing established that in all previous contract negotiations 
between the City and Council No. 74, the City's negotiating team essentially served 
as a conduit between the City Council and the bargaining table.  The City nego-
tiators merely transmitted proposals to and from the City Council to the table, 
and in all probability were not authorized to reach even tentative agreement on
proposed contractual provisions.  Ratification by the City Council was always 
required before an agreement became binding.      

     With the hiring of a professional negotiator to represent the City in the 
1978 collective bargaining negotiations, the authority of the City's negotiating 
team changed, however.  At the August 22, 1977 meeting between the City Council 
and the City's bargaining team, the City's team was authorized to reach agreement 
with Council No. 74 on a collective bargaining agreement so long as the cost of
the agreement amounted to no more than a 6  - 7 percent increase per year. 

     We do not believe that the City team's authorization to reach agreement with 
Council No. 74 included the power to enter into a binding agreement, however.  
Unlike the facts in Local 1601, International Ass'n of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, 
supra, there is no suggestion in the record that the City's team was expressly 
delegated the authority to enter into binding agreements on behalf of the City.  
In light of the circumstances, we are convinced that the City Council's grant 
of authority at the August 22, 1977 meeting empowered the City team only to
reach tentative agreement with Council No. 74.  Unlike the previous negotiations 
between the City and Council No. 74, the City's negotiators were not to serve 
                      
                                      -5-
______________________________________________________________________________   

as "errand boys" during the negotiations, but were instead granted real authority 
to reach tentative agreement on the various contractual provisions. Such a grant 
of authority constitutes a material change in the City Council's methods of parti-
cipating in collective bargaining negotiations, but it cannot be said to amount 
to an abdication of the City Council's power to ratify the agreement reached by 
the negotiating teams.  

     Complainant contends on brief, however, that Council No. 74's negotiating 
team was led to believe by the City team's representations that the City nego-
tiators were in fact authorized to reach a binding agreement.  Complainant alleges 
that Council No. 74's negotiators relied upon such representations in making con-
cessions to the bargaining demands of the City negotiators.  We agree with Com-
plainant's contention that if the City team did induce reliance by Council No. 
74's negotiators through its representations concerning its authority, then the 
City should be held to be bound by the agreement reached by the negotiators.      

     We do not agree, however, that the representations made by the City's nego-
tiators were sufficient to mislead or otherwise prejudice the bargaining positions 
of Council No. 74's negotiators.  The City's professional negotiator stated at 
the initial negotiating session on August 22, 1977 that he was not going to serve 
as an "errand boy" for the City Council during the negotia- tions, and that the 
City's team had been authorized to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement 
within certain cost guidelines with Council No. 74.  These assertions were repeated 
during subsequent negotiating sessions. Complainant in effect alleges that these 
assertions, in conjunction with the fact that the City had abandoned its previous
negotiating procedure and hired a professional negotiator, and the alleged fact 
that the City negotiators did not affirmatively state that any agreement reached 
was subject to City Council ratification, reasonably led Council No. 74's nego-
tiators to understand that any agreement reached would be binding on the City, 
without the need for ratification by the City Council.  There is no indication 
in the record, nor does Complainant contend, that the City negotiators affirm-
atively stated that any agreement reached would not have to be ratified by the 
City Council.  

     We cannot accept Complainant's allegation for several reasons.  First, the 
record indicates that Council No. 74's negotiators were informed at the initial 
bargaining session that approval by the City Council was necessary before any
agreement became final and binding.  Witnesses for both parties testified that 
ground rules were discussed at the initial negotiating session on August 22, 1977.  
As we previously noted, a written document itemizing the ground rules discussed 
and agreed upon was not prepared.  However, Complainant's Exhibit No. 10, a hand-
written copy of the City professional negotiator's agenda for the August 22, 1977 
meeting, indicates that the fourth item among the ground rules discussed at the 
meeting was the issue of "ratification-process."  It is clear that Council No. 74's 
negotiators stated that any agreement reached by the bargaining teams would have 
to be ratified by the unit membership before the agreement was binding on the 
union.  We therefore find that ratification was among the ground rules discussed

                                      -6-
______________________________________________________________________________   

at the August 22nd session. 

     As for what was stated by the City's team concerning ratification at the 
August 22nd meeting, Complainant's witnesses testified that the City negotiators 
did not say that an agreement would be subject to City Council ratification, while 
the City's professional negotiator testified that he stated that he would have to 
seek ratification from the City Council in the form of an appropriation of money 
to fund the agreement.  In resolving this apparent conflict in testimony, we 
find, after careful consideration of the testimony and documentary evidence, 
that the professional negotiator believed that City Council ratification of any 
agreement within the cost guidelines would be perfunctory.  We also find that 
the professional negotiator conveyed this belief to Council No. 74's negotiators 
not only during the August 22nd session but also during subsequent bargaining 
sessions.  The conveyance of this belief to Council No. 74's negotiators may 
explain why Council No. 74 believed that ratification by the City Council would 
not be required.  Nonetheless, we credit the professional negotiator's testimony, 
and find that Council No. 74's negotiators were informed that City Council ratifi-
cation, however perfunctory, would be required before the agreement became binding.      

     Second, the City Council retained its power to ratify or reject the tentative 
agreement because the agreement exceeded the City Council's cost guidelines by 
some $2,000.  Complainant contends that Council No. 74's belief that any agree-
ment reached by the negotiating teams would be binding is premised in part on the 
professional negotiator's assertions that he had the authority to negotiate an 
agreement within certain cost guidelines.  That the agreement reached by the bar-
gaining teams exceeded these cost guidelines is not controverted.  Accepting 
arguendo Complainant's contention that Council No. 74's negotiators were misled
by the professional negotiator's assertions, there is no reason to believe that 
Council No. 74's negotiators did not understand that the City Council would have 
to ratify the agreement if it exceeded the cost guidelines.  We consequently 
conclude that the City Council's power to ratify was preserved when the agreement 
reached by the bargaining teams exceeded the City Council's guidelines. 

     Finally, we would be surprised indeed if Council No. 74's negotiators were 
truly misled by the City negotiator's assertions into making concessions which 
otherwise would not have been made.  At least two members of Council No. 74's 
team were experienced in negotiations with the City, and were aware that ratifi-
cation by the City Council had always been required in the past.  The chief nego-
tiator for Council No. 74 is particularly experienced and well- respected as a
negotiator.  We would expect such a negotiator to clarify any ambiguities con-
cerning the question of ratification at the outset of negotia- tions, and, if he 
was informed that the long-established practice of City Council ratification had 
been abandoned, to insist that such a change in past practice be formalized as a 
written ground rule, see Biddeford Unit of Local 1828, Council No. 74, AFSCME, 
supra.  In short, Complainant's contention that Council No. 74's negotiating team 
was so easily misled strains our credulity, given the experience and expertise 
of some of the members of the bargaining team.                     

                                      -7-
______________________________________________________________________________  

     For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Council No. 74's belief 
that any agreement reached by the negotiating teams would be binding without 
City Council ratification is not supported by the record.  Because the power of 
the City Council to ratify any tentative agreement was reserved, the agreement 
is not binding until ratified by the City Council, see Arundel Teachers Asso-
ciation, supra, and the City Council's refusal to execute the agreement does not 
constitute a violation of 26 MRSA  964(1)(E).  

2.  The allegation concerning bad faith bargaining.
     Turning to the allegation that Respondents violated 26 MRSA  964(1)(E) by 
failing to negotiate in good faith as required by 26 MRSA  965(1)(C), we find 
the City Council engaged in bad faith bargaining when it failed to clothe its
negotiators with sufficient guidelines governing the negotiation of the retirement
provision in the tentative bargaining agreement. 

     It was evident from the outset of negotiations that reduction in the number 
of years required for retirement would be a major issue in the 1977 contract 
negotiations.  At the August 22, 1977 session the City's professional negotiator 
acknowledged the importance of the retirement issue, and stated that the City's 
negotiators were authorized to negotiate over the issue. Later on August 22 at 
the conclusion of the meeting between the City Council and the City's bargaining 
team, the Chairman of the City Council's Finance Committee indicated that the 
City's team could reach tentative agreement on the retirement issue so long as 
the cost of such agreement did not cause the total package to exceed the 6  - 
7 percent guidelines.  That the City negotiators understood that they had been 
authorized to negotiate the retirement issue is established by Complainant's 
Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, which are City cost and actuarial studies 
and various City counterproposals concerning the retirement issue.  However, 
Joint Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3, letters dated January 28 and February 17, 1978 from
the City's professional negotiator to Council No. 74's chief negotiator, show 
that at least one of the reasons why the City Council refused to ratify the 
agreement was dissatisfaction with the retirement provision.  Joint Exhibit No. 3 
indicates that the City Council had reconsidered the authority granted to the 
professional negotiator, and states in part that "The City Council unanimously 
reaffirmed that the issue of Police retirement was not within the grant of 
authority given to the City Negotiator. . ." (emphasis in original)      

     It therefore is apparent that there was a break-down in communications 
between the City Council and the City's negotiators over the issue of the nego-
tiators' authority to negotiate a retirement provision.  For nearly six months 
the four-person City negotiation team bargained with the mistaken belief that it 
was authorized to negotiate over the retirement issue, only to learn after nego-
tiations were concluded that it had not received such authorization.  If the City 
negotiators' authority was changed during negotiations, the City Council was 
obligated to inform the parties to the negotiations of the change in authority 
immediately, MSAD No. 38 Board of Directors, supra.  We find that the City nego-
tiators reasonably believed that they had been authorized to negotiate over the 
        
                            -8-
______________________________________________________________________________   

retirement issue, and hold the City Council responsible for not clarifying their 
negotiators' authority concerning the retirement issue prior to the conclusion 
of negotiations.  The City Council's ambiguity concerning the authority of its 
negotiators to bargain over retirement, which confused its own negotiators, was 
not conducive to the orderly functioning of the collective bargaining process, 
and clearly amounts to an instance of bad faith bargaining.  As we stated in 
Biddeford Unit of Local 1828, Council No. 74, AFSCME, supra, a principal's 
failure to clothe its negotiators with sufficient guidelines to negotiate a 
contract is evidence of bad faith bargaining.  Such a failure in the present
case resulted in considerable misunderstanding and in unnecessary delay in the 
collective bargaining process.  We consequently find that the City Council's 
failure to provide its negotiators with sufficient guidelines regarding negotiation 
of the retirement issue amounted to bad faith bargaining under 26 MRSA  965(1)(C), 
in violation of 26 MRSA  964(1)(E).

                                      III      

     Upon finding that a party has engaged in a prohibited practice, this Board 
is empowered by 26 MRSA  968(5)(C) to order such party to take such affirmative 
action "as will effectuate the policies of this chapter."  Because we found that 
Respondents did not violate 26 MRSA  964(1)(E) by refusing to ratify the tentative 
agreement, it would not effectuate the policies of the Municipal Public Employees 
Labor Relations Act ("Act") to order Respondents to execute the tentative agree-
ment.  An appropriate remedy in light of Respondents bad faith bargaining violation 
of the Act is to order Respondents to cease and desist from the acts prohibited
by  964(1) of the Act, and to hold Complainant free of all reasonable expenses 
incurred in the prosecution of this prohibited practice complaint.  Accordingly, 
we will order not only that Respondents cease and desist from engaging in all 
prohibited acts but also that Respondent City of Westbrook reimburse Complainant 
for all reasonable costs incurred in the prosecution of this complaint, including 
reasonable attorneys' and witnesses' fees.  Because we believe it important that 
Complainant and Respondents reach agreement in the near future on a collective 
bargaining agreement for the Westbrook Police Unit, we will also order that the 
parties make arrangements within 30 days from the date of this Decision and Order 
to resume negotiations over an agreement.  Ordering the remedies outlined above 
will, we believe, best effectuate the policies of the Act.  

                                
                                     ORDER      

     On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and by virtue or and pursuant
to the powers granted to the Maine Labor Relations Board by the provisions of 
 968 of the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act, it is ORDERED:                

               1.  That Respondents and their representatives and                   
                   agents cease and desist from engaging in any of                   
                   the acts prohibited by 26 MRSA  964(1) and                    
                   especially from refusing to bargain in good                   
                   faith as required by 26 MRSA  965.

                                      -9-
______________________________________________________________________________ 
             
               2.  That Respondent City of Westbrook reimburse Com-                   
                   plainant for all reasonable costs incurred by                   
                   Complainant in the bringing of this prohibited                   
                   practice complaint, including reasonable attorneys'            
                   and witnesses' fees.                

               3.  That the parties to this case arrange within 30                   
                   days of the date of this Order to resume nego-
                   tiations over a collective bargaining agreement                   
                   for the Westbrook Police Unit.

               4.  That Respondents within 30 days from the date of                  
                   this Order notify in writing the Maine Labor                   
                   Relations Board at its office in Augusta, Maine                   
                   of the steps they have taken to comply with this 
                   Order.  

Dated at Augusta, Maine this 5th day of September, 1978.           

                                       MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD                                     
     
                                       /s/___________________________________           
                                       Donald W. Webber
                                       Alternate Chairman                             


                                       /s/___________________________________                                      
                                       Michael Schoonjans
                                       Employee Representative 


           
                                       /s/___________________________________                         
                                       Kenneth T. Winters
                                       Employer Representative

                                     -10-
______________________________________________________________________________