STATE OF MAINE                                     MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
                                                               Case No. 78-34
_______________________________
                               )
SANFORD SCHOOL COMMITTEE,      )
                               )
             Complainant,      )
                               )
  v.                           )
                               )
SANFORD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION   )                 DECISION AND ORDER
                               )
  and                          )
                               )
FREDERICK BROWN,               )
                               )
             Respondents.      )
_______________________________)

     This case comes to the Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board") by way of a
prohibited practice complaint filed May 15, 1978 by Thomas E. Humphrey,
Esquire, attorney for the Sanford School Committee.  A response to the com-
plaint was filed June 2, 1978 by Shirley E. Randall, UnlServ Director for the
Sanford Teachers Association.

     A pre-hearing conference on the matter was held in Augusta, Maine on
June 27, 1978 by Alternate Chairman Donald W. Webber.  As a result of this
pre-hearing conference, Alternate Chairman Webber issued on June 29, 1978 a
Pre-Hearing Conference Memorandum and Order, the contents of which are
incorporated herein by reference.

     The parties agreed at the pre-hearing conference that since no factual
issues were raised requiring a fact hearing before the Board, the matter would
be submitted to the Board on briefs.  All briefs were filed by September 12,
1978, and the Board proceeded to deliberate on the case on September 21, 1978
at a conference held in Augusta, Maine, Chairman Edward H. Keith presiding,
with Paul D. Emery, 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 juris-
diction to hear and render a decision in this case as provided in 26 M.R.S.A.
 968(5).

                               FINDINGS OF FACT

     Upon review of the Pre-Hearing Conference Memorandum and Order, the
Exhibits submitted at the June 27, 1978 pre-hearing conference and the
pleadings, the Board finds that:

          1.  Complainant Sanford School Committee ("School Committee"), a
              duly authorized body acting on behalf of the Town of Sanford,
              Maine, is a public employer within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.
               962(7).

                                     -1-
______________________________________________________________________________


          2.  Respondent Sanford Teachers Association ("Teachers Association")
              was at all times material herein the exclusive bargaining agent
              as defined in 26 M.R.S.A.  962(2) for the teachers employed by
              the Sanford School Committee.

          3.  Respondent Frederick Brown, at all times material herein Presi-
              dent of Respondent Sanford Teachers Association, is a public
              employee within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  962(6).

          4.  At all times material herein, the School Committee and Teachers
              Association were conferring and negotiating with respect to
              wages, pay and fringe benefit increases for the teachers
              employed by the School Committee.

          5.  On or about May 8, 1978, Respondents filed with the Town of
              Sanford's Selectmen's Office a petition to be placed as an
              Article in the Warrant of a Special Town Meeting scheduled for
              May 31, 1978.

          6.  The petition filed by Respondents states in part that

                   "We, the undersigned, citizens and voters of said Town
                    of Sanford, hereby request that the following petition
                    be inserted in the Warrant for the . . . Special Town
                    Meeting of 1978, to wit:

                   "To see if the Town will vote to raise or appropriate for
                    the Instruction, Line Budget Account numbered as follows,
                    for the period of July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1979.
                    . . .
                          "213 Teachers . . . . . . . .       2,397,971.00"

              The petition was signed by 19 persons, and was placed as Article
              20 in the Warrant of the Special Town Meeting.

          7.  On May 8, 1978 Complainant submitted its proposed 1978-79 school
              budget to the Selectmen's Office for consideration at the
              Special town Meeting.  Complainant's proposed school budget
              requested that the sum of $2,235,671.76 be raised or
              appropriated for line budget item 213 (teachers).

          8.  In explanation of the sum of money requested for teachers in
              Respondents' petition, Respondent Frederick Brown stated that
              the difference between the figure contained in Complainant's
              budget proposal and the amount requested in Respondents'
              petition is approximately the amount which Respondents
              calculate would be needed to fund salary increases which
              Respondents were seeking to obtain for teachers through the
              collective bargaining process.


                                  DECISION

     Complainant has charged that Respondents violated 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)(B)
when Respondents, during contract negotiations, drafted, circulated and caused
to be placed as an Article In the Warrant of the Special Town Meeting a peti-
tion seeking an appropriation for the teacher's salary line budget item an
amount approximating the sum which would be needed to fund salary increases
which Respondents were seeking to obtain through the collective bargaining
process.  Complainant argues that Respondents' actions in effect constitute
an attempt to circumvent negotiations with the School Committee by obtaining
desired salary increases directly from the Town Meeting members.  The result
of Town Meeting approval of Respondents' requested appropriation, Complainant
contends, would be to place undue public pressures and burdens on the School
Committee to accede to Respondents' salary proposals.  In light of the undue
public pressures to which

                                     -2-
______________________________________________________________________________


the School Committee would be subject, Complainant asserts, the practical and
legal effect of Respondents' actions is negotiation of certain provisions of
the teachers' collective bargaining agreement between Respondents and the
citizenry, thereby bypassing the public employer's duly authorized bargaining
body in violation of Section 964(2)(B).  Respondents contend that the exercise
of the right to petition one's government is not a per se violation of the
obligation to bargain set forth in 26 M.R.S.A.  965, and that the record does
not contain evidence showing bad faith or unlawful refusal to bargain on the
part of Respondents.

     The question presented for our determination, then, is whether
Respondents' actions in drafting, circulating and placing a petition in the
Warrant of the Special Town Meeting amounted to an attempt to circumvent the
School Committee in collective bargaining matters.  After carefully reviewing
the record, we are of the opinion that the evidence does not support a finding
that the Respondents' actions were an attempt to circumvent the collective
bargaining process, particularly in light of our view that the actions in
placing a petition in the Warrant of the Special Town Meeting are protected by
the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

     There is no question that the Teachers Association continued to meet,
confer and negotiate with the School Department throughout this controversy.
Paragraph No. 4 of the Complaint states that "[a]t all times relevant hereto,
the Complainant and the Respondent . . . were and now are conferring and
negotiating with respect to wages, pay and fringe benefit increases."
Complainant's initial brief contains a similar statement.  The record there-
fore does not provide a basis for a finding that Respondents broke off
negotiations with the School Committee and appealed directly to the members
of the Town Meeting for satisfaction of their bargaining proposals.

     The record also does not contain evidence which suggests that Respondents
thought or represented to think that they were bargaining or attempting to
bargain with the members of the Town Meeting when Respondents placed their
petition in the Warrant of the Town Meeting.  Neither is there evidence indi-
cating that the Town Meeting members believed that they were somehow nego-
tiating with Respondents in considering whether to approve the Article
requested by Respondents.  As was the case in Caribou Board of Education v.
Caribou Teachers Association, M.L.R.B. Case No. 74-01 (1973), the activities
pursued by Respondents in placing their petition in the Warrant were not
activities typically related to the collective bargaining process.  In
Caribou, the Teachers Association formally requested during contract nego-
tiations that the City Council reinstate a cut in the school budget.  The
Board of Education filed a prohibited practice complaint alleging that the
Teachers Association's actions constituted a violation of 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)
(B).  We dismissed the complaint, finding that the evidence did not support a
holding that the request to reinstate the school budget cut amounted to a
violation of Section 964(2)(B).

     We believe that our decision in Caribou is relevant here.  Because our
critical findings in Caribou were that the actions of the Teachers Association
did not constitute an attempt to circumvent the collective bargaining process,
we do not find persuasive Complainant's attempts to distinguish our decision
in Caribou from the instant case on the grounds that Sanford operates on a
line item budget rather than

                                     -3-
______________________________________________________________________________


a lump sum budget or that the Sanford School Committee has no authority to
determine how gross sums in the budget will be spent.  The relevant inquiry
is whether or not Respondents engaged in activities which suggest that they
were seeking to negotiate with entities other than the employer's authorized
bargaining body.  In the absence of evidence indicating such impermissible
bargaining was attempted, we cannot find that Respondents violated Section
964(2)(8) by attempting to circumvent Complainant.

     Our conclusion regarding the effect of Respondents' actions is not
changed by Complainant's contention that the result of approval of the
requested appropriation would be to place undue pressure on the School
Committee to accede to Respondents' salary proposals.   Collective bargaining,
while it is a fragile process, does not take place in a vacuum free of
pressures or interruptions from the outside world.  In N.L.R.B. v. Insurance
Agents International Union, AFL-CIO, 361 U.S. 477, 488-489 (1960), holding
that employees may exert economic pressures upon employers during contract
negotiations, the Supreme Court stated:

          "It must be realized that collective bargaining, under a
           system where the Government does not attempt to control
           the results of negotiations, cannot be equated with an
           academic collective search for truth - or even with what
           might be thought to be the ideal of one.  The parties -
           even granting the modification of views that may come from a
           realization of economic interdependence - still proceed from
           contrary and to an extent antagonistic viewpoints and concepts
           of self-interest.  The system has not reached the ideal of the
           philosophic notion that perfect understanding among people would
           lead to perfect agreement among them on values.  The presence
           of economic weapons in reserve, and their actual exercise on
           occasion by the parties, is part and parcel of the system . . ."

School committees and teacher associations are always subject to various
pressures from the citizenry during contract negotiations.   Any pressures
created by the fact that increased appropriations for teacher salaries were
approved should not constitute extraordinary or undue pressure on the School
Committee to accede to Respondents' proposal.  The fact that the budget
contains sufficient money is no more of a requirement to negotiate raises than
is the fact that the budget contains no money a release from the obligation to
bargain.  We consequently conclude that a finding that the School Committee
would suffer undue pressure due to Town Meeting approval of the requested
appropriation would not correspond to the reality of the collective bargaining
process.

     The most significant reason why we find that Respondents' actions do not
constitute a violation of 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)(B), however, is that we believe
that Respondents' actions in petitioning the Town Meeting to approve the
increased appropriation is protected by the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution.  The right to petition one's government is one of the
most fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  A citizen does not
lose this right upon assumption of the occupation of teacher.  Were we to
order Respondents and their agents, servants, and representatives to cease and
desist for engaging in any further petitioning activities, our order might
well run afoul of the Constitutional guarantee.

     For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Respondents' actions
in placing a petition in the Warrant of the Special Town Meeting did not
constitute a

                                     -4-
______________________________________________________________________________


violation of 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)(B), and that the prohibited practice com-
plaint filed by Complainant with the Board on May 15, 1978 must be dismissed.


                                    ORDER      

     On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and by virtue of and
pursuant to the powers granted to the Maine Labor Relations Board by the
provisions of 26 M.R.S.A.  968, it is hereby ORDERED:

          That the prohibited practice complaint filed on May 15,
          1978 by the Sanford School Committee against the Sanford
          Teachers Association be and hereby is DISMISSED.

Dated at Augusta, Maine this l9th day of October, 1978.

                                       MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD


                                       /s/____________________________________
                                       Edward H.  Keith,
                                       Chairman


                                       /s/____________________________________
                                       Paul D. Emery,
                                       Employer Representative


                                       /s/____________________________________
                                       Michael Schoonjans,
                                       Employee Representative

                                     -5-
______________________________________________________________________________