Windham School Committee v. Windham Educators' Assoc., No. 87-14 and -15, 
aff'd CV-87-153

STATE OF MAINE                                  MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
						Case Nos. 87-14 and -15
						Issued: April 17, 1987

		   Complainant, )
v.                              )
		   Respondent.  )
________________________________)               DECISION AND ORDER
		   Complainant, )
v.                              )
		   Respondent.  )
     On February 18, 1987, the Windham School Committee (Committee)
duly filed with the Maine Labor Relations Board (Board) a prohibited
practice complaint alleging both that the Windham Educators'
Association (Association) has engaged in a work stoppage, slowdown or
strike within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)(C)(1), (2) and (3)
(1974) and that the Association has refused to bargain within the
meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)(B) (1974) by failing to comply with
collective bargaining obligations set forth in 26 M.R.S.A.  965(1)
(C) and (E) (Pamph. 1986).  More specifically, the Committee contends
that members of the Association engaged in concert in unlawful "job
actions" consisting of refusals to escort students en route to lunch,
refusals to work on assigned accreditation projects during school
hours and refusals to attend staff meetings.  The Committee's refusal-
to-bargain charge is based upon the Committee's allegations that
during mediation and during the pendency of a request for fact-finding
the Association breached a ground rule prohibiting certain press


releases, that members of the Association's negotiating team "solic-
ited and urged" the membership's rejection of a tentative collective
bargaining agreement, that the Association sent a communication to
all teachers intentionally mischaracterizing Committee actions in an
attempt to undermine the Committee's negotiating team and that the
Association instituted prohibited "job actions" to coerce the
Committee in contract negotiations.

     On February 20, 1987, the Association duly filed a prohibited
practice complaint with the Board which alleges that the Committee
violated 26 M.R.S.A.  964(1)(A) (1974) by threatening and imposing
the suspension of classes, and by issuing a letter of reprimand
threatening loss in pay and legal action, in retaliation for the par-
ticipation of Association members in the above-mentioned "job actions"
and for the purpose of coercing the Association in contract nego-
tiations.  The Association's complaint additionally alleges that the
Committee's actions in this regard constitute a refusal to bargain
within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  964(1)(E) (1974) and a violation
of the bargaining obligations set forth in 26 M.R.S.A. S 965(1)(C) and
(E) (1974).

     The Association's February 23, 1987 response to the Committee's
complaint answers that the ground rules prohibited only news releases
about negotiations and not others, that in light of the Association's
notice to the Committee the failure or refusal of teachers to escort
children to lunch was not unilateral, that members of the
Association's negotiating team did not actively solicit and urge
rejection of the tentative agreement on or before February 6, 1987,
and that it has not always been the duty of Manchester/Arlington
School elementary teachers to escort their children to lunch.  Also on
February 23, 1987, the Association submitted a request that its
complaint be amended to reflect an allegation that the Committee and
its Superintendent have dominated and interfered with the existence
and administration of the Association in violation of 26 M.R.S.A.
 964(C) [sic].  The Association filed an amendment to its response on
February 25, 1987.

     The Committee's February 25, 1987 response denies the
Association's contentions that the Committee has never had an escort

policy and that the Committee has nine staff members at Manchester/
Arlington who are available to escort children en route to lunch.
Further refinement of the parties' positions at hearing and in their
briefs revealed the following.  The Committee contends that the activ-
ities which were halted by the teachers were not voluntary but were
duties established through past practice, the performance of which may
be curtailed only through agreement reached in negotiations for a suc-
cessor collective bargaining agreement.  The Association contends that
implementation of its "job actions" constituted a permissible
bargaining tactic and that the Committee's actions taken in opposition
thereto constitute unlawful retaliation for participation in pro-
tected Association activity.

     Each party requests that the Board find the prohibited practices
which it alleges the opposing party has committed, that the Board
order the opposing party to cease and desist therefrom, and that the
Board award costs and attorneys fees.  The cases were consolidated for
hearing in light of the commonality of nearly all the factual and
legal issues.  Because of the nature of the allegations in the
complaints, the Board, consisting of Chairman Edward S. Godfrey, pre-
siding, Thacher E. Turner, Employer Representative, and George W.
Lambertson, Employee Representative, convened an expedited full hear-
ing on both complaints on February 27, 1987, without any prehearing
conference.  At the Board's request, briefs arguing issues raised at
the hearing were filed by March 5, 1987, and the Board deliberated
over the cases at a conference held March 10, 1987.


     The Board has jurisdiction to hear and determine these cases and
to render a decision and order as provided in 26 M.R.S.A.  968(5)
(1974 & Pamph. 1986).


     Upon review of the entire record, the Board makes the following
findings of fact. The Committee is the public employer, within the
meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  962(7) (Pamph. 1986), of the employees in the


certified professional employee bargaining unit represented by the
Windham Educators' Association.  The Association is the duly certified
collective bargaining agent of those employees within the meaning of
26 M.R.S.A.  962(2) (1974).  The Committee and the Association were
parties to a collective bargaining agreement in effect from
September 1, 1983, through August 31, 1986.  That agreement is part of
the record in this case.  It contains the following language con-
cerning duty-free lunches:

	  Teachers shall have a duty-free lunch period of at
     least the following lengths:

	  1.  Elementary teachers will have a duty-free lunch
     period of one hour except that one teacher per grade level
     per school day will assist with noon time supervision.

	  2.  Junior and Senior High School - 20 minutes.

     The Committee and the Association began collective bargaining
negotiations for a new contract on June 4, 1986, in a meeting at which
they agreed upon certain ground rules.  One of those ground rules was
that no news release about negotiations would be made except by mutual
agreement between the parties.  The parties met and negotiated
thereafter on June 11, June 18, July 22, July 29, August 5, August 12,
August 19 and August 26.  After the August 26 negotiating session the
parties reached impasse and agreed that a mediator should be requested.
On September 16, 1986, the Committee filed a Mediation Request Form
with the Executive Director of the Board.  Jane Roy, a mutually accep-
table mediator, was appointed and the parties met for mediation
sessions on October 21, November 12, November 25, December 4 and
December 16, 1986.  Roy was to speak with the Association after the
parties' December 16 session and it was the Committee negotiating
team's understanding that if Roy thought it would be fruitful she
would schedule a January 4, 1987 meeting during the Christmas break.
Superintendent Gary Moore sent a letter to Association Chief
Negotiator Philip Moody on December 30, 1986, purporting to
memorialize the Committee's understanding of the state of nego-
tiations resulting from the December 16 meeting. That letter stated,
in pertinent part:

	  This is to confirm that at the December 16, 1986
     mediation session the School Committee offered to refer to


     impartial fact finders and/or arbitrators the WEA's proposal
     to submit School Committee decisions on just cause to
     arbitration and the School Committee's proposal to reduce the
     elementary duty-free lunch period.  This would have permitted
     settling the rest of the contract immediately, implementing
     pay raises and awarding all retroactive back pay.

	  The School Committee's suggestion was to resolve all
     other language questions on the basis agreed to by the WEA at
     the December 4, 1986 mediation session and to implement base
     pays of $14,600 for 1986-87 and $15,800 for 1987-88.  The
     WEA negotiating team, however, withdrew its acceptance of
     provisions which it had agreed to on December 4 and sought
     further language changes to the existing contract, which left
     the entire contract unsettled.

     On or about December 17, 1986, Emery Stevens of the Portland
Evening Express reported that Association President Harold Leighton
had stated that an Association opinion letter would be sent to parents
and citizens of Windham apprising them that Association "members have
been working without a contract since September, haven't received pay
increases agreed to in the previous contract and have spent many
hours in negotiations and mediation."  The article also reported that
Leighton had stated that since the Association has had no "success in
drawing up a contract with the School Committee" it would "be taking
steps to encourage a satisfactory settlement," including the cessation
of "volunteer work after school hours" and cessation of "volunteer com-
mittee and club work" and work "on a pilot teacher certification pro-
ject."  Finally, the article reported that Leighton would not discuss
either what the Association "is asking in its contract proposals or
what caused an impasse, explaining that both sides had agreed not to
discuss it publicly."

     Identical letters, one to the editor of the Windham Courier Free
Press, written by Association Chief Negotiator Phil Moody and printed
on December 16, 1986, and one written by Leighton and printed in the
Westbrook American Journal on December 17, 1986, stated that the
"[tleachers in the Windham school system have been working without a
contract since September" and "without pay increases already agreed to
in the previous contract."  The letters stated that members of the
Association have "spent many hours in negotiations and in mediation
. . . have not had success in drawing up a contract with the School


Committee," and [c]onsequently . . . will be taking steps to encourage
a satisfactory settlement," including "stopping volunteer committee
and club work."  The letters also stated that "[wlhile we are pre-
vented by law from discussing specific contract proposals, we will be
discussing the underlying issues and why they are important enough for
us to take this action" at "an educational 'coffee', at which members
will speak."  Neither in the letters nor in the interview were any
details of the contract negotiations between the Association and
Committee discussed.

     After these articles ran, Moore began receiving inquiries from
teachers, parents, other newswriters and reporters, who asked, "What
are these problems . . . why can't you resolve them?" and "Why won't
you attend the coffees like the teachers and explain your side of the
story?"  Moore did not respond to these questions because he felt he
could not in light of the ground rule.  By an undated communication
addressed to "Dear Colleague" and sent out in late December or early
January, the Association placed blame for the slowness of progress in
contract negotiations on the Committee.  The letter also made a
disparaging reference to the attorney for the Committee, who is also a
member of the Committee's negotiating team.

     The Windham School District has four administrative units:
Manchester/Arlington School, Senior High School, Junior High School
and the K-2 School, which includes the Kindergarten building and
grades one and two in the Field Allen and John Andrews schools.  The
Manchester/Arlington School houses all of grades three, four, five and
six for the Windham School District.  Manchester/Arlington is
comprised of two buildings separated by a parking lot.  Arlington, a
smaller building supplemented by two portable classrooms, has ten
teachers and a total of 250 students, who comprise eight third-grade,
two fourth-grade and three special education classes.  Thirty-five of
these students are either emotionally or physically handicapped.  The
Arlington School also houses one speech therapist area.  Located in
the Manchester building, separated from the Arlington School by a
parking lot, are the cafeteria, a special education room, an art room
and 400 students composed of the balance of Windham's fourth-grade
students, seven fifth-grade classrooms, seven sixth-grade classrooms


and eighteen teachers.  Arlington has typical elementary classrooms
while Manchester has open-learning areas.  At the Manchester School, a
person directly outside a classroom can look into the classroom over a
five-foot wall.

     The lunch period at the Manchester/Arlington School is from 11:30
a.m. to 1:00 p.m.  During this period at any one time there are
approximately three hundred children in the cafeteria, along with four
teachers on duty to assist with noon time supervision--consisting of
one teacher per grade level in grades three, four, five and six.
Noon-aides perform their lunch time duties both on the playground and
in the cafeteria.  There are four noon-aides presently working at the
Manchester/Arlington School.  Because of difficulty in recruiting
individuals to fill the vacancies, two noon-aide positions are pre-
sently vacant.  There are also two or three special education aides,
two secretaries, and five or six reading specialists at the Manchester/
Arlington School.  Before the "job action" Manchester/Arlington School
Principals Garrow and Hamlyn ordinarily devoted their time during the
lunch period to meetings with parents and dealing with the Committee
on other matters.

     Teachers in the Manchester building of the Manchester/Arlington
School had escorted students to lunch for some time prior to the "job
action."  Prior to March of 1986 at the Arlington building, aides came
to bring the children to lunch two classrooms at a time.  At that
point the teachers' duty-free time began when the aides took charge of
the children.  In March of 1986, due in part to the slowness of the
aides escort procedure, a change in the lunch hour, and also to cour-
tesy and a desire on the part of the teachers that their classes not
disturb the classes of others, the teachers volunteered to begin per-
sonally escorting their students to the lunchroom.

     The escorting of children en route to lunch since that time has
always been accomplished during and as a part of the duty free lunch
period.  Prior to the "job action," the classroom teachers took care
before their students' lunch period to assure that their students
washed up and had their lunches or lunch tickets.

     The time required to escort the students to lunch at the
Manchester/Arlington School varies from one to ten minutes per


classroom.  During the "job action," because it took eight to ten
minutes for members of the administration and their assistants to
release all of the classes, some classes were unattended for eight to
ten minutes.  Due to the shortage of supervisory personnel created by
the "job action," the student restrooms were inadequately supervised.
During the first few days of the "job action" some students were not
taken to the lavatories before lunch.  Additionally, coincident with
the "job action" the number of students sent to lunch-time detention
and study hall nearly tripled, making adequate supervision difficult.

     After lunch in the Manchester/Arlington School, the children go
unescorted out to recess in small groups.  When the bell rings, they
line up unescorted outside the particular classrooms or learning areas
in which their classes will resume.  They are then let into the
classrooms by their teachers.  In cold weather, Manchester students
return unescorted to the learning areas where their coats and boots
are located, before going outside.  Students from Arlington, who are
prepared for the outside before leaving for lunch, keep their coats
with them at lunch and are released to the playground.  During ex-
tremely cold weather the Arlington students return directly from lunch
across the parking lot, unsupervised, to their classrooms where noon-
aides are present to supervise them.

     The Committee requested appointment of a fact-finding board on
January 8, 1987.  On January 14 and 16, 1987, Leighton sent a letter
to each of the four Windham Principals apprising them of "job actions"
which the Association intended to implement on January 20, 1987, as a
result of a vote of the Association held on January 13, 1987.
Principal Garrow at the Manchester School was notified, in pertinent
part, that:

     All k-6 W.E.A. members, who are not scheduled for duty, will
     be taking their duty free lunch hours in its entirety and
     will not be available to escort their students to or from
     the cafeteria.  These members will also be unavailable to
     work with students during this time period.  It will be time
     for teachers to use as they see fit.

	  Item two relates to non-contractual committee work.
     The W.E.A. k-6 members will cease all committee work during
     and after school.  Attendance at scheduled and unscheduled
     staff meetings will also stop.


          The last job action voted upon by the members was the
     elimination of all work and support of the accreditation
     process for k-6.

Principal Gendron, who administers the K-2 program in the Kindergarten
Building, the Field Allen and the John Andrews schools, was notified,
in pertinent part, that:

     All k-6 W.E.A. members, who are not scheduled for duty, will
     be taking their duty free lunch hour in its entirety and
     will not be available to escort their students to or from the
     cafeteria.  These members will also be unavailable to work
     with students during this time period.  It will be time for
     teachers to use as they see fit.

	  Item two relates to non-contractual committee work.
     The W.E.A. k-6 members will cease all committee work during
     and after school.  Attendance at scheduled and unscheduled
     staff meetings will also stop.

	  Item three addresses the subject of professional obser-
     vations from other schools.  Until such time as a contrac-
     tual settlement occurs, we will not host said visits.

	  The last job action voted upon by the members was the
     elimination of all work and support of the accreditation
     process for k-6.

Junior High School Principal Shortsleeve was notified, in pertinent
part, that:

	  Item one concerns activity periods.  All non-contractual
     activities will no longer be performed by W.E.A. members.
     We suggest this time revert to classroom teaching.

	  Item two relates to non-contractual committee work.
     The W.E.A. 7-12 members will cease all committee work during
     and after school. Attendance at scheduled and unscheduled
     staff meetings will also stop.

	  The last job action voted upon by the members was the
     elimination of all work and support of the accreditation
     process for 7-12.

Senior High School Principal Timmons was notified, in pertinent part,
	  Item one concerns activity periods.  All non-contractual
     activities will no longer be performed by W.E.A. members.
     We suggest this time revert to classroom teaching.

	  Item two relates to non-contractual committee work.
     The W.E.A. 7-12 members will cease all committee work during


     and after school. Attendance at scheduled and unscheduled
     staff meetings will also stop.

	  The last job action voted upon by the members was the
     elimination of all work and support of any accreditation/re-
     accreditation process for 7-12.

     Although each of these letters notifying the Principals of "job
actions" was marked for distribution to Moore, he did not receive a
copy of any of these notices directly from the Association.  Rather,
he was notified by telephone of their receipt by one or two of the
Principals, and was, on February 14, provided copies by the Princioals,
who sought direction from him in light of the threatened "job actions."
Moore's response was to instruct the Principals not to respond to the
letters and to refrain, if possible, from precipitating confrontation
with the Association's members over activities involved in the
threatened "job actions."  In an effort to avoid confrontation and
controversy, the Superintendent directed that the scheduling of
meetings be postponed until after the conclusion of negotiations,
which he anticipated to be imminent.

     On January 15, 1987, Moore notified the Manchester/Arlington
faculty, in writing, of his receipt of a copy of Leighton's January 14,
1987 letter to Principal Garrow.  On January 16, 1987, Moore notified
the K-2 faculty, in writing, of his receipt of a copy of Leighton's
January 16, 1987 letter to Principal Gendron.  Both of these letters
instructed the respective faculties as follows:

     The safety and welfare of the children require that the
     current and historical practice of teachers escorting
     children to and from the cafeteria be continued.  Thus, you
     are directed to continue that practice.

     Additionally, it is expected that staff meetings will be
     attended by you when these meetings are called for by the
     building administrator.

     Work on the accreditation process is critical to the devel-
     opment of our school improvement plan and to the degree
     that this effort has been provided for by the release of
     students on Wednesday afternoons, you are directed to par-
     ticipate in this task.

In addition, the K-2 letter contained the following instructions:

     Regarding your refusal to permit professional observations
     from other school systems, those programs which are offi-


     cially designated as demonstration sites or where funding by
     grant money is contingent upon being open for professional
     visitation will remain available for visits.  Mrs. Gendron
     and I have agreed that other scheduled visitations will be
     postponed until an atmosphere more conducive to these activ-
     ities is re-established.

     On January 16, 1987, Moore notified the Junior High faculty, in
writing, of his receipt of Leighton's January 14, 1987 letter to
Shortsleeve.  This letter contained the following instructions to
the facultly.

     Conducting activities during activity period during the
     school day is a part of your assigned responsibility, and
     you are directed to meet that responsibility.

     Attendance at staff meetings as called by the administration
     is expected.

     Work on the accreditation process is critical to the devel-
     opment of our school improvement plan.  To the degree that
     this effort has been provided for with release time, you
     must participate.

     As a result of a unanimous Association vote, the Association's
"action committee" drafted the following letter to parents.  The
letter was mailed on January 16, 1987, to the parents of students, in
envelopes addressed by the teachers of each individual student.

	  This letter is to inform you of a job action that the
     K-6 Windham Educators' Association members voted and agreed
     upon at their meeting held on January 13, 1987.  Our
     adminstration [sic] has been notified of this step as of
     January 14, 1987.  This action will become effective as of
     Tuesday January 20, 1987.

	  We are taking this action in response to unprecedented
     action by the School Committee which threatens our financial
     security and professional integrity.

	  All K-6 W.E.A. members who are not scheduled for duty
     will be taking their duty free lunch hour in its entirety
     and will not be available to perform the usual voluntary
     noontime activities as have been provided in the past.

	  These activities include:

	  A.  parental contacts
	  B.  grade level planning
	  C.  professional grade level and staff meetings
	  D.  preparation and making of classroom materials


	  E.  budget meetings
	  F.  teachers' counseling of students
	  G.  make-up work for individual absences
	  H.  disciplinary follow-up
	  I.  correcting
	  J.  clubs
	  K.  activities
	  L.  use of library

	  You may wish to show your support by calling a School
     Committee member.

     Moore spoke with Moody during the workweek prior to the "job
action" in an effort to delay its implementation until after the
next-planned negotiating session.  Moore attempted unavailingly to
reach Leighton and Moody during the weekend immediately prior to
January 20.  Moore sent no letters to the Association but did speak
with Ms. Brooks Robinson, a member of the Association's negotiating
team and urged her to do her best to have the Association refrain from
the anticipated "job action," which Moore characterized to Robinson as
likely illegal.  Robinson seemed sympathetic to Moore's suggestion of
a need to reduce the level of tension but made no guarantee.

     On January 20, 1987, the first day of the "job action," the
information Moore received from his Principals indicated that there
was not a problem relating to the escorting of children in the Field
Allen, the John Andrews or the Kindergarten School.  In these schools
the "job action" was apparently only marginally implemented.  Teachers
at the Field Allen, John Andrews and Kindergarten schools apprised
Principal Gendron of an alternative plan they had devised which
satisfied her that the children would be adequately supervised.  The
"job action," as implemented at those schools, did not create problems
of supervision.  At the Field Allen and John Andrews schools the
children were lined up in the hall and taken to lunch by aides; the
teachers walked down the same halls as the students while going to the
teachers' lounge, keeping the children under watchful eye.

     During the first lunch shift on January 20, students at
Manchester were left unattended in a large number of classrooms.  Some
teachers did, however, remain in classrooms with their students.  On
the same day in the Arlington School most teachers brought their
students down to the hallway closest to the Manchester School, lined
them up and waited.  A few teachers at Arlington did not join in the


"job action."

     Moore received reports from Principal Garrow and Vice Principal
Hamlyn at the Manchester/Arlington School and from various Committee
members that children were being left unattended in their classrooms
when lunch began.  Committeewoman Rebecca Keary visited the Superin-
tendent's office twice, once on January 26, 1987, to speak about her
own children being left unattended.[fn]1  The number of teachers who par-
ticipated in the cessation of the escort of children en route to lunch
increased from the commencement of the "job action" until the closing
of the Manchester/Arlington School at the end of the day on
February 12, 1987.  The Principal and Vice Principal and eventually
aides, assistants and parents at the Manchester/Arlington School were
used to escort children to the cafeteria.  At the Manchester School,
as days went by, the students increasingly failed to stay in their
seats.  The noise level in both the classrooms and in the cafeteria
escalated with the passage of time.

     During the discussions between Moore and Moody regarding arrange-
ments for the parties' next negotiating session, Moody insisted that
if there was a meeting the parties meet face to face without Mediator
Roy.  At the parties' next negotiating session, held on January 29,
1987, at which MTA representative George Luse was in attendance, the
parties reached a tentative agreement.  The tentative agreement was
unanimously ratified by the Committee on February 4, 1987.  Soon
thereafter Moody arranged a meeting involving Moody, Moore and several
negotiating team members, at which he informed Moore that a hand vote
by 157 Association members on February 4, 1987, had unanimously called
for rejection of the tentative agreement.  At this straw ballot
Leighton voted against the tentative contract after listening to the
Association members' reasons for not wanting it.  There is no evidence
that Leighton urged or solicited rejection of the tentative agreement.
As a result of this vote Moody suggested that Moore call for a meeting
     1 The record establishes that after leaving their classrooms
teachers either frequented the teachers' lounge, left the school
grounds or returned to their classrooms after the children had


with the Committee. However, Moore refused to resubmit any contract
matters to the Committee and demanded Moody submit the tentative
agreement to a formal Association vote.

     The School Committee had been involved within the past year in a
legal action involving a claim for damages flowing from alleged injury
to a student during a physical education class supervised by a trained
instructor.  As a result of this and a similar incident in Augusta
teachers have been spoken to concerning the issues of liability, the
supervision of students, and the maintenance of a safe atmosphere.

     Moore went to Manchester/Arlington School in the early morning on
Monday, February 9, 1987, to investigate reports that student behavior
there was deteriorating.  When Moore asked which teachers he might
speak with to dissuade them from continuing their refusals to escort
children to the lunchroom, he was told by Garrow that the entire
teaching staff had become involved.  Moore returned to his office,
directed the Curriculum Director to attend the lunch hour that day at
Manchester/Arlington to observe the actual conditions, and met in his
office with Vice Principal Hamlyn.  Hamlyn requested that Moore do
something to resolve the matter.  The Curriculum Director's recapitu-
lation of lunch time conditions at the school included a report that
one classroom had been overlooked for approximately fifteen minutes.
This classroom, located at the rear of the school, was missed by
Garrow and Hamlyn in the process of releasing the classrooms to lunch.
After Hamlyn left, Moore called the Committee's attorney for legal
advice concerning procedures to employ to persuade the Association to
call off the "job action."  The Committee's attorney contacted MTA
Representative George Luse to request his intervention with the

     The Committee's attorney wrote Luse on February 10, 1987, to con-
firm the conversation of the ninth.  The letter states:

	  The Superintendent has directed the teachers to continue
     to see to the safety of the children by escorting them to the
     cafeteria as has always been done in the past.  This directive,
     however, is not being followed.

	  The school administration will be required to take imme-
     diate action to safeguard the children.  I am hopeful,


     however, that you might be able to persuade the WEA teachers
     not to leave the children unsupervised and to escort them
     safely to the cafeteria as they always have.  As you know,
     it is not for the teachers to decide when a duty-free lunch
     is to be scheduled; teachers have their contractual
     grievance procedures to protect them from any deviation from
     contract terms by the administration.

The Association conducted a secret ballot ratification vote on
February 10, 1987, at which time the contract was formally rejected by
a vote of 157 to six.

     On Wednesday afternoons K-6 students are sent home.  In their
absence teachers have, for years, engaged in planning work, committee
work or curriculum matters.  A large portion of such Wednesday after-
noon activity is devoted to accreditation work performed by teachers
in small committees and aimed at developing reports concerning curri-
culum, staffing patterns and community relations.  These reports,
which are reviewed by an outside agency, are used by the Committee to
satisfy the needs assessment portion of the School Improvement Plan
required by educational reform legislation.  This accreditation work
was curtailed by teachers as part of their "job action."

     The fourth period on Wednesdays is an activities period at
Windham Junior High School.  Although some previous activities periods
had been cancelled in hope that pending negotiations would result in
an agreement, resumption of the conduct of activities periods com-
mencing with that scheduled for February 11, 1987, was announced to
teachers by Principal Shortsleeve on Monday, February 9.  In support
of the Association's "job action" six Junior High School teachers
refrained from performing their scheduled activities on February 11.
The Junior High School handbook contains the following language con-
cerning the activities period:

     Activity period is an extension of the junior high curricu-
     lum.  It is in keeping with the general philosophy and con-
     cept of the junior high/middle school program.  The purpose
     is to provide exposure and new experiences to as many stu-
     dents as possible.  All teachers will be involved in
     offering activities throughout the school year.

     The parties' 1983-1986 agreement, in Article 11 entitled
Professional Development and Educational Improvement, contains the


     following language regarding attendance at meetings:

	  Teachers will attend all meetings as required by any of
     their supervisors and/or the Committee unless excused by
     their principal or supervisor.

This same Article contains the following language pertinent to
Committee policies, rules and regulations:

	  Teachers will adhere fully and promptly to all School
     Committee policies and administrative rules and regulations
     when they have been provided in writing.

     The Committee's Manchester/Arlington policy handbook contains the
following language, regarding the supervision of students, designated
as "Regulation 7216":


	  We must be sure students are not left unsupervised or
     inadequately supervised at any time.  These points will be
     discussed at length with the noon aides, however, when you
     are assigned to be responsible, such as morning inside
     recess, outside recesses, and other specific times, be sure
     you are on duty PROMPTLY and REMAIN throughout the designated

There is no evidence establishing that any such policy was "provided
in writing" to the Manchester/Arlington teachers as is contemplated by
the parties' agreement.  At least one teacher at Manchester who has
seen the handbook did not notice the school policy on supervision.
She had, however, been notified by school officials that children
should not be left unsupervised.

     On Wednesday, February 11, Moore went to the Manchester/Arlington
School for the purpose of making a personal appeal to the faculty for
the resumption of lunch time escort duties.  At a 1:00 p.m. faculty
meeting Moore asked, then ordered, the teachers to resume the
escorting of students en route to lunch.  At this meeting Moore
informed the teachers that if they did not resume the requested duties
he would suspend classes at the school, issue letters of reprimand and
suspend pay during the closure.  Moore also advised the teachers that
he was contemplating initiating injunction proceedings to compel the


escorting of students en route to lunch.  Moore was uncertain on
leaving whether the teachers would comply.  The teachers remained
after the meeting to caucus.  The result of this caucus was a decision
by the teachers that beginning on February 12, 1987, they would line
their children up in the hall at lunch time.

     On Thursday, February 12, 1987, Moore was supplied with a
memorandum, received by Garrow, in which the Association announced:

     In accordance with K-3 procedure, beginning Thursday,
     February 12th, the following procedure will be followed:

     At 11:30 AM, Grades 5 & 6 will be lined up by teachers in
     the hall, on the fifth grade side of the building.  Aides
     who are on duty will escort the children to the lunchroom,
     under administrative direction.

     At 12:00 PM, the same procedure will take place with the 4th
     grade, on the fourth grade side of the building.

Moore informed members of the Committee that he was on the brink of
meting out the disciplinary measures referred to above, which he had
previously told them he would implement if circumstances demanded.
Moore then called Garrow and asked to be kept informed of conditions
during that day's lunch period.  On February 12, in the Arlington
School, as had been the case throughout the "job action," the teachers
stayed in the hallways with the students until their escorts arrived.
On the other hand, at the Manchester School, due to the change in tac-
tics, the teachers began lining up their children in the hallways
where, in many cases, the children were left unattended.  Shortly
after the lunch period began, Garrow called Moore and informed him
that students were being lined up and then left in the hallways out-
side their classrooms by the majority of Manchester teachers.  Garrow
also advised Moore that the behavior of students had improved somewhat
possibly due to the novelty of this procedure.  Committeewoman Donna
Aldritch was at the Manchester/Arlington School and assisted in the
escort and supervision of students.

     Moore conferred with the Committee's attorney and a fellow
administrator and then drafted and distributed a letter to the
Manchester/Arlington faculty.  That letter apprised teachers of his
knowledge of the institution of the line-up procedure announced in the


Association's February 11, 1987 memorandum and stated:

     As you were told yesterday, letters of reprimand will be
     prepared and placed in your personnel folders in the manner
     prescribed by school department procedures.

     Also, as you were told would be the case, classes at
     Manchester/Arlington School will be suspended effective at
     the close of school today, February 12, 1987.

     Appropriate reductions in your pay will be made for the days
     which school is not held.

     It is important for you to consider as well, that the
     willful failure of a teacher to provide adequate supervision
     may well expose the teacher to unlimited personal liability
     in the event of a student injury.

Moore had the Committee informed of his actions and, at approximately
1:15 P.M., drafted and delivered to students the following note
addressed to the "Parents of Manchester/Arlington Students":

     Classes at the Manchester/Arlington school have been
     suspended as of the close of school today, 2/12/87.  The
     reason for this action is the refusal of the teaching staff
     to provide adequate and safe student supervision.  Be
     assured that we will work diligently to resolve this matter
     as swiftly as possible.

School buses were detained slightly to permit the distribution of the
notices.  Moore also advised local radio and TV stations of the school
closing.  At no time prior to the closing did Moore permanently
engage additional employees to assist with the escort of children en
route to lunch.  There were no classes scheduled during the winter
break, February 16 through 20, 1987.  At a regular meeting attended by
250 members of the public the Committee unanimously decided, without
formal vote, to reopen the Manchester/Arlington School on Monday,
February 23, 1987.  Moore engaged two staff members to assist with
supervision during the closure on February 13.  Additionally, in order
to guarantee the opening of school Moore hired substitutes, arranged
for the use of volunteers including parents, and assigned two central
office employees (the Special Education and Curriculum directors) to
noon-time supervisory duties commencing with the opening of school on
February 23.  The cost attributable to the provision of supervisory
services by additional staffing was $373.55.


     On the resumption of classes on February 23, 1987, Moore received
a short memorandum from Leighton which stated, "Effective Monday,
February 23, 1987, the Windham Educators' Association members will
resume all duties."  Leighton delivered the note on Monday, February
23, 1987.  This notice constituted the first mention of the teachers'
resumption of the duties at issue.  The Association promulgated a
memorandum to its members dated February 23, 1987, which stated:

     Effective today, WEA members will resume duties as directed
     by Supt. Gary Moore in his letters to faculty dated January 15
     and 16, 1987:

	  K-2 Staff - escorting children to and from the cafeteria
		      attend staff meetings
		      attend accredidation [sic] meetings
	  Manchester-Arlington Staff
		      escorting children to and from the cafeteria
		      attend staff meetings
		      attend accredidation [sic] meetings
	  Junior and Senior high Staff
		      conduct activities during the activity period
		      attend staff meetings
		      attend accredidation [sic] meetings

     We will not resume the sponsoring of club and volunteer
     activities for which their [sic] is no contractual obli-

     As indicated in the accompanying press release concerning
     the Manchester-Arlington situation, this is a three week
     suspension to give the community, the Association, the
     school board, interested parents, and the Maine Labor
     Relations Board time to resolve the negotiations dispute and
     related problems.  We will evaluate our position periodi-
     cally to determine whether or not the Superintendaent [sic]
     is willing or not to resolve the problems.

     We find that there were no injuries to students as a result of
failure of supervision during the entire "job action," and that neither
the Association nor the teachers themselves ever filed a grievance
concerning the escorting of children en route to lunch.  It is unclear
whether the pay of any teacher at Manchester/Arlington was reduced as
a result of the suspension of classes which would have been conducted
on February 13, 1987.  Although Windham school teachers are on salary
and are not paid hourly wages, teachers have traditionally been docked
pay for unexcused absences.  If the Manchester/Arlington teachers are
required to make up the day of classes they missed due to the closure,


they will be paid for the make-up day.  They will be required to make
up that day, however, only if the three snow days built into the
calendar are exhausted.


     As is more fully explained below, we find (1) that certain
aspects of the Association's "job action" constitute both an unlawful
work stoppage and an improper negotiating tactic prohibited by the
Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law and (2) that the
actions of the Committee complained of by the Association do not
constitute prohibited practices proscribed by that Law.

     We shall first discuss the Committee's contentions that the
teachers' concerted "job action" constitutes an unlawful work stoppage
and a refusal to bargain.  The illegal "job actions" are alleged to
include failures or refusals by teachers to attend meetings called by
their supervisors, to escort children en route to lunch, to conduct
Wednesday afternoon activities periods, to conduct or permit pro-
fessional observations by other school systems, and to engage in
accreditation activities.

     The duty of teachers to "attend all meetings as required by any
of their supervisors and/or the Committee" is established by Article
11 of the parties' agreement, entitled Professional Development and
Educational Improvement.  The right of the Committee to compel the
attendance of teachers at meetings required pursuant to this contrac-
tual provision survived the expiration of their agreement and was in
effect at the time of the "job actions."  As we said in Teamsters
Local Union No. 48 v. Boothbay/Boothbay Harbor Community School
District, No. 86-02, slip op. at 11 (Me.L.R.B. Mar. 18, 1986):

     During the interval between the expiration of a collective
     bargaining agreement and the execution of a successor
     agreement, the "static status quo" must be maintained.  Upon
     the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, the
     wages, hours, working conditions, and contract grievance
     procedure established in the expired agreement must remain
     in effect until they are superseded by the successor
     agreement.  Sanford Fire Fighters Ass'n v. Sanford Fire
     Commission, MLRB No. 79-62, slip op., at 10 (Dec. 5, 1979);
     Easton Teachers Ass'n v. Easton School Committee, MLRB No.
     79-14, slip op., at 5 (Mar. 13, 1979).


We find nothing in the record that would justify the Association's
unilateral curtailment of this duty of teachers.  To the extent that
any teacher had refused to attend any meetings required pursuant
to this contractual provision during the "job action," such refusal
would constitute an unlawful work stoppage within the meaning of 26
M.R.S.A.  964(2)(C)(1) (1974).  However, the record contains no evi-
dence establishing that any teacher failed to attend any meeting
called pursuant to this contractual provision.

     We see merit in the contention of the Committee that unless
otherwise contractually permitted, teachers may not, even with ade-
quate notice, unilaterally cease the long-standing performance of
"traditional" teaching duties, even though those duties are not
expressly required by the terms of an applicable collective bargaining
agreement.[fn]2  Such an application of the principle of "past practice"
would promote the improvement of the employment relationship by incor-
porating those aspects of the parties' employment obligations that
have been traditionally and tacitly performed into the terms of the
parties' written collective bargaining agreement.  See Coulombe v.
City of South Portland, No. 86-11 (Me.L.R.B. Dec. 29, 1986); Lenox
Education Association v. Labor Relations Commission, 471 N.E.2d 81
(Mass. 1984).  We need not decide in this case, however, whether
escorting children en route to lunch, participation in Wednesday
afternoon activities periods and participation in accreditation
periods are traditional activities engaged in by Windham teachers
generally, or whether they are, instead, unique to and voluntary on
the part of those teachers who have unilaterally refused to perform
them.  Such an inquiry might be necessary if those activities
were mandatorily negotiable.  That inquiry is not required in this
case because those activities do not constitute mandatorily negotiable
subjects of bargaining.

     We have previously held that "questions as to when [a] duty free
lunch should occur involve educational policy." M.S.A.D. No. 43

     2 The terms of a collective bargaining agreement concerning man-
datory subjects are applicable both during the term of an executed
agreement and, unless otherwise agreed, after contract expiration as
part of the static status quo.

Board of Directors v. M.S.A.D. No. 43 Teachers Association, Nos.
79-36, -39, -45, and -47, slip op. at 14-15 (Me.L.R.B. Aug. 24, 1979).
Moreover, it is equally well established that "duties relating to the
attendance of teachers at school at times when students will be in
attendance are matters of educational policy and intended to remain
outside the scope of mandatory collective bargaining."  Ingerson v.
Millinocket School Committee, No. 77-39, slip op. at 4 (Me.L.R.B.
Oct. 19, 1977).  In Peru Teachers Association and Peru School
Committee, Interpretative Ruling (Me.L.R.B. July 10, 1978) reviewing
the negotiability of proposed contractual provisions concerning the
"supervision of school buildings and playgrounds during recess and
daily lunch periods" we stated, at page 3:

	  We believe that our interpretative ruling on the clause
     in the contract provision concerning teacher supervision of
     school buildings and playgrounds during recess and lunch
     periods is governed by our holding in Bradford Ingerson and
     Millinocket Education Ass'n, supra.  As was the case in
     Bradford Ingerson and Millinocket Education Ass'n, we
     believe that a substantial "managerial" consideration - over
     and above encroachment upon managerial supervision, organi-
     zation, direction and distribution of personnel - is
     involved in the question of teacher supervision of students.
     This consideration is the necessity that school districts
     and towns take all possible steps to avoid both civil lia-
     bility for injuries to students as well as damage to school
     buildings and equipment while the students are present at
     school.  We believe that the qualitative importance of this
     consideration overrides the prima facie eligibility for
     collective bargaining of questions concerning teacher super-
     ision of school buildings and playgrounds while students
     are in attendance.  Consequently, we interpretatively rule
     that the clause "supervision of school buildings and play-
     grounds during recess and daily lunch periods" involves a
     matter of educational policy which, under 26 M.R.S.A.  965
     (1)(C), remains outside the scope of mandatory collective

	  We do not, however, find any similar substantial intru-
     sions into policy areas associated with the assignments
     described in the remaining contractual language.  Unlike the
     supervising of students, tasks involving menial, administra-
     tive duties such as collecting milk and lunch money or
     distributing milk and lunch to students do not, we believe,
     involve any managerial functions significant enough to over-
     ride the prima facie eligibility of these duties for collec-
     tive bargaining.  Although these tasks may encroach somewhat
     upon managerial organization, supervision, direction or
     distribution of working personnel, such encroachment by


     itself clearly is not sufficient to negate collective
     bargaining on these matters.  We accordingly interpreta-
     tively rule that the contractual clause "collecting of milk
     and lunch money, distribution of milk and lunch" involves a
     "working condition" of teachers about which the public
     employer is obligated to negotiate, should the public
     employer desire that such duties be performed by teachers.
     We believe that a contrary ruling could, in Justice
     Wernick's words in City of Biddeford, supra, "transform
     teacher collective bargaining . . . into a litany noble in
     sound but hollow in reality" (304 A.2d at 419).

We find that in matters involving the supervision of students during
the school day, qualitative and quantitative educational policy con-
siderations are of a magnitude sufficient to negate any otherwise
negotiable teacher interests.

     While it is true that the contract provides for a duty-free
lunch, the question of when that duty-free lunch will be observed is a
matter within the educational policy discretion of the Committee.  See
M.S.A.D. No. 43 Board of Directors v. M.S.A.D. No. 43 Teachers
Association, Nos. 79-36, -39, -45, and -47, slip op. at 14 (Me.L.R.B.
Aug. 24, 1979).  Therefore, regardless of the nature of the rights and
responsibilities of the parties which existed prior to January 16,
1987, there can be no doubt that upon the direction of the
Superintendent that teachers resume their practice of escorting stu-
dents en route to lunch the teachers were obliged to comply.  Any
redress for infringement of such a directive upon the full duty-free
lunch granted in the parties' agreement appears to have been cogni-
zable under the Grievance Procedure Article of the parties' agreement.
The Association's use of "self help" to determine when the contractual
duty-free lunch would occur constitutes an unlawful "work stoppage"
within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)(C)(1) (1974).  See Sanford
Highway Unit v. Town of Sanford, 411 A.2d 1010, 1016 (Me. 1980).

     The Association presented no evidence concerning the Committee's
allegation that a number of teachers refused in concert to participate
in a scheduled Wednesday afternoon activities period, in violation of
the directives of both the Junior High School Principal and the
Superintendent.  The Committee adduced evidence that these activities
periods, conducted during the fourth period of the normal school day
on Wednesdays, constituted part of the academic curriculum of Junior

High School students.  We find that the directives of the Principal
and Superintendent in this regard involved matters of educational
policy and that the teachers were obligated to comply therewith.
Their refusal constitutes an unlawful work stoppage within the meaning
of 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)(C)(1) (1974).

     There is no evidence that any professional observation sessions
involving other school systems were missed and no evidence that the
Association requested the Committee "meet and consult" concerning any
of the education policies directives of the Superintendent.  There is
also no allegation or evidence that the teachers actually ceased "all
committee work during and after school," as threatened in the
Association's January 14 and 16 letters.  The evidence does establish
that for some time prior to the "job action" groups of elementary
teachers engaged in work on accreditation matters involving "needs
assessment" for the Windham School Department.  The Committee has pro-
vided time for teachers to devote to these accreditation matters
through early release of students on Wednesday afternoons.  The record
establishes that as a result of the "job action" work on accreditation
matters was halted by the teachers.  We find that the teachers'
actions in this regard constitute an unlawful work stoppage.

     Windham's teachers are peculiarly qualified to participate in the
assessment of their school's curriculum, staffing and community rela-
tions.  Their extensive personal contact with parents and other mem-
bers of the community, their perceptions concerning the depth and
breadth of learning inspired in each student by previous educators and
their direct experience with teaching techniques make them the most
valid and reliable source of "needs assessment" available to the
Committee.  We conclude that their participation in such matters is so
indispensable for the formulation of educational policy that the
question whether teachers shall participate therein must be classified
as a matter of educational policy not subject to mandatory collective

     We have previously held that the refusal of a teacher to par-
ticipate, as requested, in the planning for a new kindergarten program
constitutes a "blatant violation" of 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)(C) (1974).


See Southern Aroostook Teachers Association v. Southern Aroostook
Community School Committee, Nos. 80-35 and 80-40 (Me.L.R.B. Apr. 14,
1982).  In Southern Aroostook, at page 27, we held that the meet and
consult process does not suspend the duty of a teacher "to perform all
duties preparatory to implementation of educational policy."  After
thorough consideration we determine that the participation of teachers
in diagnostic activities preparatory to the formulation of educational
policy implicate substantial qualitative considerations which, when
weighed against the legitimate teacher interests concerned, override
any prima facie eligibility of the matter for collective bargaining
and binding arbitration.

     The Committee alleges that the Association's conduct in the
instant case constitutes not only a work stoppage within the meaning
of 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)(C)(1) (1974) but also bargaining in bad faith
and a refusal to bargain within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)(B)
(1974).  The resolution of a bad faith bargaining charge requires that
we examine the totality of the charged party's conduct to decide
whether the party's actions during the pendency of negotiations indi-
cate a present intention to find a basis for a negotiated agreement.
See Washburn Teachers Association v. Barnes, No. 83-21 (Me.L.R.B.
Aug. 24, 1983); Waterville Teachers Association v. Waterville Board
of Education, No. 82-11 (Me.L.R.B. Feb. 4, 1982).  The Association
employed the unlawful work stoppage for the purpose of coercing the
Committee into concluding an agreement it might not otherwise make.
Because any agreement resulting from such prohibited tactics cannot
reasonably be termed "bargained," use of a work stoppage for such a
purpose constitutes bad faith bargaining per se.

     We turn now to a consideration of the Association's complaint
against the Committee, which alleges violations of 26 M.R.S.A.
 964(l)(A), (C) and (E) (1974).  The gravamen of the Association's
complaint of interference, restraint or coercion is that the Committee
was retaliating against the Association when it closed the Manchester/
Arlington School and threatened disciplinary measures against the
teachers for their participation in allegedly protected activity.  The
Association has presented insufficient evidence to prove its allega-


tion of retaliation by the Committee.  While it is true that in cer-
tain circumstances evidence of disciplinary measures disproportionate
to the harm purportedly sought to be avoided would support an
inference that the ostensible justification for the discipline was
pretextual, we find no such circumstances present in the instant case.
This does not mean that we believe the Superintendent adopted the only
possible correct course of action.  Rather, we merely determine on the
record that his course of action was neither plainly unreasonable nor
violative of the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law.

     Moreover, the mere fact that he closed the Manchester/Arlington
School two days after the February 10, 1987 contract rejection is
insufficient, without more, to serve as the basis for a finding of pro-
hibited practice.  See M.S.E.A. v. State Development Office, No.
84-21, slip op. at 9 (Me.L.R.B. July 6, 1984), aff'd, 499 A.2d 165
(Me. 1985).  We cannot say that in the totality of the circumstances
the Superintendent's actions were so unreasonable as to create an
inference of a purpose to retaliate.

     We find that the Superintendent's letters of January 15 and 16,
1987, and ultimate closure of the Manchester/Arlington School were
motivated by the desire first to prevent and later to halt the
unlawful "job action" and not by a desire to retaliate against the
Association membership for rejecting the tentative agreement or for
any other protected activity.  Such motivation does not violate any
provision of the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law.  The
Association has euphemistically labeled its activity during the "job
action" as "working to rule."  However, since "working to rule" would
in this case include not only strict compliance with contractual pro-
visions but also compliance with the Superintendent's directives con-
cerning matters of educational policy, the Association's characteriza-
tion is erroneous.

     The Association's final contention against the Committee is that
the Committee's conduct violated 26 M.R.S.A.  964(l)(C) (1974).  We
have repeatedly noted that that section of the Act "is directed at the
evil of too much financial or other support of, encouraging the for-
mation of, or actually participating in the affairs of the union and


thereby potentially dominating it."  AFSCME Council 93 v. Maynard,
Nos. 86-22, 86-25 and 86-A-03, slip op. at 14 (Me.L.R.B. Mar. 10,
1987) (quoting Teamsters Local Union No. 48 v. Town of Fort Fairfield,
No. 86-01, slip op. at 13 (Me.L.R.B. Jan. 24, 1986); and Teamsters Local
Union No. 48 v. Eastport School Department, No. 85-18, slip op. at 8
(Me.L.R.B. Oct. 10, 1985)).  The Association has failed to prove that
any agent of the Committee acting on its behalf participated in or
otherwise supported the activities of the Association or of any other
employee organization.  Therefore we find that the Committee did not
violate 26 M.R.S.A.  964(1)(C) (1974).

     Finally, we note that although both the issuance of written
reprimands to teachers involved in the "job actions" and the with-
holding of one day of pay was seriously contemplated by the Committee,
as of the date of the hearing it was unclear whether either of these
actions had occurred.  Accordingly, we make no decision as to the
propriety of either of these actions and do not intend for this order
to operate to bar any action before the courts, under the contract's
terms, or otherwise, which the Association may desire to institute
based upon the imposition of either disciplinary action.  Any
disciplinary action must comply of course with the appropriate consti-
tutional and statutory provisions and the provisions of the parties'
collective bargaining agreement.


     On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and discussion 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(5)(C) (1974),
it is hereby ORDERED:

     1.  That the Windham Teachers Association and its members
	 cease and desist from refusing to comply with adminis-
	 trative directives (1) to escort children en route to
	 lunch, (2) to participate in Wednesday afternoon activi-
	 ties periods and (3) to participate in accreditation

	 activities, in violation of 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)(C)(1)

     2.  That the Windham Teachers Association and its members
	 cease and desist from failing or refusing to bargain in
	 good faith with the Committee as required by 26 M.R.S.A.
	  965(1)(C) (Pamph. 1986), in violation of 26 M.R.S.A.
	  964(2)(B) (1974), by employing unlawful work stoppages
	 in an effort to coerce the Committee in negotiations.

     3.  That the Windham Teachers Association pay to the Windham
	 School Committee the sum of $373.55 to reimburse the
	 Committee for the personnel expenses incurred by the
	 Committee during the "job action."

     4.  That all other allegations of Prohibited Practices by
	 the parties, alleged in the Complaints of the Committee
	 and the Association that are not specifically addressed
	 in paragraphs one and two above be and hereby are
Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 17th day of April, 1987.


The parties are advised           Edward S. Godfrey
of their right pursuant           Chairman
to 26 M.R.S.A.  968(5)(F)
(Pamph. 1986) to seek review
of this decision and order
by the Superior Court by          /s/_____________________________
filing a complaint in             Thacher E. Turner
accordance with Rule 80B          Employer Representative
of the Rules of Civil
Procedure within 15 days
of the date of this
decision.                         /s/_____________________________
				  George W. Lambertson 
				  Employee Representative