STATE OF MAINE                              MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
                                            Case No. 92-IR-01
                                            Issued:  July 13, 1992
______________________________________
                                      )                
In Re: PETITION FOR INTERPRETIVE      )
       RULING OF MILLINOCKET SCHOOL   )         INTERPRETIVE RULING
       COMMITTEE                      )
______________________________________)


     On April 2, 1992, the Millinocket School Committee ("School Committee")
filed a petition for interpretive ruling pursuant to Rule 7.09 of the Rules
and Procedures of the Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board").  Specifically,
"in order to determine its rights in this matter, and to provide guidance
in connection with collective bargaining in the future," the School Commit-
tee seeks a ruling as to whether the subject of school board payment of
health insurance for retirees is an illegal or non-mandatory (permissive)
subject of collective bargaining under section 965(1)(C) of the Municipal
Public Employees Labor Relations Law ("MPELRL"), 26 M.R.S.A.  965(1)(C)
(1988).  It is the School Committee's position that the subject of payment
of health insurance for retirees is permissive as a general matter, and
that for school boards it is an illegal subject because school boards are
without the statutory authority to agree to such payments.

     Since the Millinocket Education Association ("Association") is party to
a collective bargaining agreement with the School Committee that contains a
provision addressing health insurance benefits after retirement, the School
Committee served a copy of its petition on the Association pursuant to Rule
7.09(A)(4) of the Board's Rules and Procedures; the Association filed a
responsive memorandum taking the position that the subject of school board
payment of health insurance for retirees is a mandatory subject.[fn]1
_________________________

     1 The Board posted the petition at its offices and provided a copy for
posting to the Maine State Law and Legislative Library in accordance with
Rule 7.09(B).  However, no other memoranda were received.

                                   -1-
                     
     Pursuant to Rule 7.09(C) of the Board's Rules and Procedures, both the
School Committee and the Association requested a hearing on the petition.
Said hearing was convened on Wednesday, May 20, 1992, before the Board's
designated agent, staff attorney Judith A. Dorsey.  Hugh G.E. McMahon,
Esquire, represented the School Committee, and Shawn C. Keenan, Esquire,
represented the Association.  The parties were given full opportunity to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, introduce documentary evidence, and
make oral argument.  The parties filed posthearing briefs and replies, the
last of which was received on June 23, 1992.[fn]2  The Board completed deliber-
ations on the matter on July 10, 1992.

                               JURISDICTION

     The Millinocket School Committee is a government body within the
meaning of Rule 7.09(A)(1) of the Board's Rules and Procedures.  The
Millinocket Teachers Association is an employee organization, within the
meaning of Rule 7.09(E), for a bargaining unit of teachers employed by
the Millinocket School Committee.  The jurisdiction of the Board to issue
an interpretive ruling lies in 26 M.R.S.A.  968(3) (1988).

                             FINDINGS OF FACT

     Upon review of the entire record, the Board finds:

     1.  The School Committee and the Association are parties to a
teachers' collective bargaining agreement ("1991-92 agreement") that
expires on August 31, 1992.  Article XVII of the 1991-92 agreement states:

                                RETIREMENT

     A.  The Committee shall pay retirees health insurance premium
         after retirement to the extent not paid by the State of Maine
         or the Maine State Retirement System and pay for accumulated
         sick leave upon retirement as follows:

               Eleven (11) days sick leave at the per diem rate plus
               an additional twelve (12) days if employee has accumu-
_________________________
                         
     2 The Association elected not to file a posthearing reply brief.
                                        
                                        -2-

               lated 200 days sick leave.  These benefits to be appli-
               cable to employees who meet the qualifying length of
               service in the Millinocket School System.

     B.  Qualifying length of service to be 20 years of service in the
         Millinocket School System.

     It is understood by the parties that during the period of this
     Agreement, the Committee may initiate proceedings with the Maine
     Labor Relations Board to seek a ruling as to whether this article
     contains any terms which are either not mandatorily negotiable or
     are illegal.  In the event that it is finally determined by the
     MLRB, and if applicable reviewing court(s) having jurisdiction,
     that any provisions of this article are illegal, the parties shall
     act in accordance with Article VI.  Nothing in the above prohibits
     continuation of such proceedings upon expiration of this Agree-
     ment if such proceedings have not been concluded.

     2.  Article VI of the 1991-92 agreement states:

                               SAVINGS CLAUSE

          If any provision of this Agreement or any application there-
     of to any teacher or group of teachers is found contrary to law,
     then such provision or application will be valid and subsisting
     only to the extent permitted by law but all other provisions or
     applications will continue in full force and effect.  In the event
     any provision of the Agreement is held to be invalid by a court
     decision, then the parties shall meet within ten (10) working
     days after such a decision to renegotiate such provision, unless
     mutual agreement is reached to renegotiate such a provision at a
     date to be determined by both parties.

     3.  The four prior collective bargaining agreements between the par-
ties all include a provision that addresses retirement.  In the 1983-85
agreement, Article XVII provides:

          A.  Any teacher who retires with 25 years or more of service
     in the Millinocket School Department, shall be granted $1,000.00
     additional salary during the last year worked.  The Superinten-
     dent's Office shall be notified of the intent to retire on or
     before April 1 of the year prior to retirement.

          B.  Insurance - Any teacher who retires with 25 or more years
     of service in the Millinocket School System shall be granted one-
     half (1/2) the premium cost of the medical insurance in effect at
     the time of retirement.
     
                                      -3-

Article XVII of the 1985-87 agreement reads:

          A.  Any teacher who retires with 25 or more years of service
     in the Millinocket School Department shall be granted $1,000.00
     additional salary during the last year worked.  The Committee
     further agrees to add an additional $1,000.00 to the last contract
     if the teacher has at least two hundred (200) sick leave days
     accumulated at the beginning of the last year of teaching in the
     school system.

     The Superintendent's Office shall be notified on or before April 1
     prior to the year of retirement.

          B.  Insurance - Any teacher who retires with 25 or more years
     of service in the Millinocket School System shall be granted full
     premium cost of the medical insurance in effect at the time of
     retirement.

Article XVII of the 1987-89 agreement is identical to Article XVII of the
1985-87 agreement, except that the figure of $1,000.00 is increased to
$1,500.00 in both places it appears.

     4.  At the time of the negotiations for the 1989-91 agreement, the
Association informed the School Committee that the State was (and had been
for some time) authorized to pay a percentage of the retired teacher's
share of health insurance benefits provided through the Maine State
Retirement System.  Accordingly, in order to avoid unnecessary expense to
the School Committee, the parties amended Article XVII to read as follows
in the 1989-91 agreement:

     The Committee shall pay retirees health insurance premium after
     retirement to the extent not paid by the Maine State Retirement
     System and pay for accumulated sick leave upon retirement as
     follows:

          Eleven (11) days sick leave at the per diem rate plus an
     additional twelve (12) days if employee has accumulated 200 days
     sick leave.  These benefits to be applicable to employees who
     meet the qualifying length of service in the Millinocket School
     System.
     
     Qualifying length of service to be:
     
          25 years of service in the Millinocket School System during
             1989-90

          20 years of service in the Millinocket School System during
             1990-91

                                    -4-
     
     5.  The parties have stipulated that there are nine former teachers
whose health insurance is currently being paid by the School Committee
"under Article XVII of the 1991-92 Agreement."  Retirement dates range from
July 1, 1986, to September 1, 1991.

     6.  There are 17 former Millinocket School Department non-teacher
employees whose health insurance is to some extent currently being paid by
the School Committee.  They include former school administrators, former
custodians, and a former school nurse.  Retirement dates for these former
employees range from November 13, 1966, to September 1, 1991.

     7.  Administrators employed by the School Committee (principals,
assistant principals and the director of school services) are not organized
for the purposes of collective bargaining.  The individual contract
currently used for these administrators contains the following provision:

     The Administrative Team shall be provided the highest full coverage
     for hospital, surgical and major medical insurance.  Any Team
     member who retires with ten (10) years of service in the Milli-
     nocket School Department, and qualifying for retirement status in
     the Maine State Retirement System, shall have the above insurance
     premiums, for hopital, surgical and major medical insurance paid
     for life.  Said premiums shall be limited to no more than the
     couple plan.  The full cost of the long-term disability insurance
     will be provided all members of the Administrative Team.

     8.  On August 8, 1991, the Town of Millinocket amended its written
personnel policy, to reflect unwritten policy, as follows:

     IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that Section A128-17 of the Personnel Policy
     is amended by adding subsection D as follows:
     
     SA 128-17.  Benefits

             D.  Employees, other than school department employees,
                 who retire from Town service and qualify for retire-
                 ment or disability benefits under the Maine State
                 Retirement System shall continue as members of the
                 Town's group hospitalization plan, at the Town's
                 expense, to the same extent as current employees.
                 The Town shall also pay for coverage for the former
                 employee's spouse.  This benefit shall apply to former
                 union employees of the Town as well as non union
                 employees.  The Town reserves the right to change this
                 benefit in the future as circumstances require.  Any
                 such changes shall apply only to employees hired after
                 August 8, 1991.

                                    -5-
                                  .  .  . 

     Note:  This reflects past and current policy of the Town.  It is
            not new and should be in writing in the Personnel Policy.

                                 DISCUSSION

Motion to Dismiss

     As an initial matter, the Association requests that the petition for
interpretive ruling be dismissed on the grounds that 1) it fails to estab-
lish that a controversy or doubt has arisen regarding the applicability of
a specific statute, Board order or rule, pursuant to Rule 7.09; and 2) an
interpretive ruling would only be appropriate if and when a court decision
affirms that Article XVII of the parties' 1991-92 agreement is illegal,
resulting in renegotiation of that article of the Agreement pursuant to
Article VI, Savings Clause.

     The School Committee's stated reason for filing the petition is that
it is contemplating refusing to bargain over the issue of health insurance
premiums for retirees during negotiations for a successor contract.  It
would be legally entitled to do so if the subject is either a permissive or
an illegal subject of bargaining.  It would not, if the subject is man-
datory.  We view the question of future bargaining responsibilities as pre-
cisely the type of question contemplated by the Board's rule on requests
for interpretive rulings -- a party may seek the advice of the Board before
taking action that might result in the filing of a prohibited practice
case.  Accordingly, we reject the Association's first ground for requesting
dismissal of the petition.

     The Association's second ground for seeking dismissal must also be
rejected.  In making this argument, the Association suggests that issuance
of an interpretive ruling will interfere with its right to have the par-
ties' collective bargaining agreement interpreted by an arbitrator under
the grievance procedure.  In response, we must point out first that our
interpretive ruling is not binding.  Therefore, if the Association at any
time believes the contract is being violated, it is free to file a griev-
ance under the parties' grievance procedure.  Second, the question we are

                                   -6-

being asked to address is not simply what Article XVII means, but rather,
whether one of the subjects of that Article -- health insurance for teacher
retirees -- is a mandatory, permissive or illegal subject of bargaining.
The issue of the future obligation to bargain would not be reached by an
arbitrator if the School Committee decided to stop paying health insurance
premiums for anyone who has retired under the 1991-92 agreement, and the
Association filed a grievance.

     The Association also suggests that Article XVII by its own terms does
not require that that article be renegotiated unless the subject of health
insurance for retirees is found to be an illegal subject of bargaining in a
proceeding that is reviewable by the courts.  Since an interpretive ruling
is not reviewable, the Association argues, it is not appropriate for the
Board to issue an interpretive ruling until the parties have completed
renegotiations, if and when they are necessary.

     Although it is unclear what would be left for the Board to address at
that point, the Board agrees as a general matter that making a finding on
illegality of a contract provision, while the contract is still in effect,
is not appropriate through the vehicle of an interpretive ruling.  In the
interest of peace and contract stability, the Board will normally decline,
through an interpretive ruling, to involve itself in an attempt by one
party to a contract to back out of a provision of that contract mid-term.

     In the matter before us we make an exception to this general policy for
the following reason.  Were we to find simply that the subject at issue is
a permissive one under all circumstances, there would be no need to go
further, since in order to legally refuse to bargain over this subject for
a successor contract, the School Committee need only know that the subject
is permissive.  However, as we will explain, we find that in some circum-
stances the subject is mandatory.  More specifically, it appears to us
that the retiree health insurance provision that the parties have negotiated
addresses a mandatory subject for public employers in general.  Our refusal
to determine whether for school committees it is illegal -- for lack of
statutory authority -- would put the employer in the awkward position of
risking a prohibited practice charge if it doesn't bargain, and of bargain-
ing over an illegal subject if it does.  Since we find that it is not
illegal, the Association's concern that an interpretive ruling of illegal-

                                    -7-

ity is not reviewable by a court need not be addressed.

Merits

     Retiree health insurance in general

     The School Committee asserts in its petition and supporting memorandum
that as a general matter, the subject of payment of health insurance for
retirees is permissive.  In support of this position it cites Allied
Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157 (1971).  As
the School Committee points out, the Court in that case found that retirees
are not employees within the meaning of the collective bargaining obliga-
tions of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), and that retirees'
health insurance benefits do not "vitally" affect the terms and conditions
of employment for employees.  Consequently, the Court found, retirees'
health insurance benefits are not a mandatory subject of bargaining under
the NLRA.  Although we are not bound by decisions rendered under the NLRA,
"where the question is one of first impression, we will 'look for guidance
to parallel federal law, found in the National Labor Relations Act and
decisions thereunder' in reaching our conclusion."  Teamsters Local Union
48 v. Eastport School Dept., No. 85-18,, slip op. at 5, 8 NPER ME-17003
(Me.L.R.B. Oct. 10, 1985), quoting Baker Bus Service v. Keith, 428
A.2d 55, 56 n.3 (Me. 1981).

     In response, the Association suggests that 1) to the extent that
employer contributions for retirees' health insurance "may be described as
a 'pension,'" they are a mandatory subject; and 2) even if these contribu-
tions are characterized as insurance, the reference in the MPELRL (section
965(4)) to insurance makes it a negotiable (mandatory) subject; and 3) the
benefit in question was negotiated not for retirees, but for members of the
bargaining unit who will eventually become retirees.  Finally, the
Association questions the motive of the School Committee in filing its
petition for an interpretive ruling, since the School Committee has made no
move to discontinue this benefit for unorganized School Committee employees
or to raise the issue with organized support personnel (whose contract pro-
vides similar health insurance benefits and does not expire until 1993).
The Association points out that the Town of Millinocket is paying the bene-
fit to municipal retirees as well.

                                   -8-

     While it is true that insurance is a mandatory subject of bargaining
under the MPELRL, it is the declared purpose of that statute to recognize
the right of "public employees to . . . be represented by [labor] organiza-
tions in collective bargaining for terms and conditions of employment."
26 M.R.S.A.  961 (1988) (emphasis added).  Retirees are not "public
employees" under section 962(6) of the MPELRL; consequently, employers
subject to the MPELRL are not obligated to bargain over benefits for per-
sons who have already retired from employment.

     That does not end the inquiry, however.  Certainly the parties to a
contract may, if they so choose, "agree to the accrual of rights during the
term of an agreement and their realization after the agreement has expired."
Nolde Bros. v. Local No. 358, Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union, 430
U.S. 243, 249 (1977) (regarding severance pay, a benefit realized when a
company goes out of business and its employees are terminated), quoting
John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 555 (1964) (concerning bene-
fits such as severance pay and retirement pension).  More specifically,
they may agree to the accrual of rights during the term of an agreement and
their realization upon or after retirement -- pensions, for instance, are
clearly a mandatory subject of bargaining under the MPELRL if they are
bargained for on behalf of employees -- persons who eventually will retire
from employment, but have not yet done so.  Thus, if an employer and a
bargaining agent bargain over retiree health insurance so as to make it
clear that they are doing so on behalf of (for the benefit of) bargaining
unit members, Pittsburgh Plate Glass is inapplicable.

     In Pittsburgh Plate Glass, the union attempted to stop the employer
from going directly to persons already retired and offering them pension
options other than those they were entitled to under contracts negotiated
while they were employees.  As the Court pointed out, pensioners had no
obligation to agree to any changes, and could pursue enforcement of their
contracts with the employer in court, if necessary.  Pittsburgh Plate
Glass, 404 U.S. at 181, n.20.  However, the union had no authority to
pursue the matter on behalf of the pensioners, since as retirees, they were
no longer represented by the union.  Nevertheless, in so holding, the Court
recognized that "[tlo be sure, the future retirement benefits of active
workers are part and parcel of their overall compensation and hence a well-

                                   -9-

established statutory subject of bargaining."  Id. at 180.

     In the collective bargaining agreement presented to us by the School
Committee, the article at issue appears to have been negotiated for and was
meant to benefit members of the bargaining unit.  First and foremost, the
language of Article XVII itself makes that clear.  It provides that the
School Committee shall pay a portion of the health insurance premium
after retirement, and only for "employees who meet the qualifying length of
service in the Millinocket School System."  [Emphasis added.]  The quali-
fying length of service is 20 years.  Likewise, in previous contracts
between the parties, Article XVII refers to teachers as the beneficiaries
of the provision, if they meet requirements for qualifying length of ser-
vice.  There is no difference between the way the parties have structured
this benefit, and the way that pension benefits normally are structured --
the contract requires an extended term of service as an employee of the
employer.  As with pension benefits, the health insurance benefit in the
contract is a future retirement benefit negotiated for active workers, and
not a benefit negotiated for persons who are already retired.

     In addition, Article XVII is very similar in nature to the health
insurance provision in the individual contract utilized by the School
Committee for administrative staff.  That provision specifies that any
administrator who retires with ten years of service with the Millinocket
School Department and otherwise qualifies for retirement status with the
Maine State Retirement System will have health insurance premiums paid for
life.  Since it appears in individual contracts of active workers, there
can be no argument that this provision is for the benefit of persons
already retired rather than for active workers.

     Finally, we wish to point out that the School Committee's reference to
26 M.R.S.A.  9 (1988), which allows bargaining agents in the private sector
(and not the public sector) to negotiate on behalf of retired former
employees with respect to pensions, retirement benefits and other benefits,
is not helpful.  We have found that the provision negotiated by the parties
before us is not on behalf of or for the benefit of persons already
retired, but rather on behalf of and for the benefit of current employees.
Consequently, the omission of public sector bargaining agents from 26

                                   -10-

M.R.S.A.  9 is irrelevant to our inquiry.

     In sum, we find that the parties have negotiated over retiree health
insurance in such a way as to make it, as a general matter, a mandatory
subject under the MPELRL.  Before we turn to the question of whether, for
school boards, the subject is illegal, we wish to point out that the
disagreement between the parties on this issue appears to arise at least in
part from their failure to focus, in practice, on the employee/retiree
distinction outlined above.

     The parties submitted a stipulation stating that there are nine former
teachers whose health insurance is currently being paid by the School
Committee "under Article XVII of the 1991-92 Agreement."[fn]3  This is so even
though at least five of those teachers retired while previous contracts
were in force.[fn]4  As a practical matter, the parties' reference to the
1991-92 agreement in connection with these retirees matters little to the
retirees themselves, since under all of the contracts in force at the time
they retired, health insurance premiums are paid either in full by the
School Committee, or are paid by the School Committee to the extent that
they are not paid for by the State.

     That may not be the case in the future, however.  Teachers who retire
under a particular contract, and who have met the time-in-service require-
ments of Article XVII of that contract, upon retirement have "vested" bene-
fits that cannot be unilaterally changed by the employer.  Pittsburgh Plate
Glass, 404 U.S. at 181, n.20.  Certainly there is nothing to prevent the
parties from negotiating to increase, decrease or even omit the retirement
health insurance benefit, in future contracts, for persons not yet retired.
However, those changes would not affect the benefits of persons who retired
under previous contracts, unless the parties (with the permission of
_________________________
                         
     3 It was submitted to clarify the record on the issue of whether or not
the School Committee had been providing health insurance to retired
teachers even before the parties' first contract was negotiated in 1983.

     4 The other four teachers retired on September 1, 1991, the date the
1991-92 agreement went into effect.  Consequently, all nine may have
actually retired under previous contracts.

                                   -11-

affected retirees) so negotiated.  Of course, neither party is required to
negotiate over changes in benefits for persons already retired, since that
is a permissive subject.  Pittsburgh Plate Glass.  Changes that are nego-
tiated should be clearly designated as such in any written contract or
other document.

     Retiree health insurance for teachers

     The School Committee asserts that for school boards, the subject of
retiree health insurance is an illegal one, because school boards are not
specifically authorized by statute to pay this benefit.  In making this
argument, the School Committee points to Churchill v. S.A.D. #49 Teachers
Association, 380 A.2d 186 (Me. 1977), which states that:

     [P]ublic bodies or officers[] may exercise only that power which
     is conferred upon them by law.  The source of that authority
     must be found in the enabling statute either expressly or by
     necessary inference as an incidence essential to the full exer-
     cise of the powers specifically granted. [Citations omitted.]

Id. at 192.[fn]5  This statement by the Court is made in connection with its
interpretation of the MPELRL.  Since the MPELRL requires that parties
confer and negotiate in good faith with respect to "wages, hours, working
conditions and contract grievance arbitration," 26 M.R.S.A.  965(1)(C)
(1988), and employee benefits, including future benefits for active
workers, are almost universally considered to be mandatorily negotiable
compensation, the issue appears at first blush to be resolved by our
earlier determination that as a general matter payment of retiree health
insurance, if negotiated on behalf of employees rather than persons already
retired, is a mandatory subject.

     The School Committee argues, however, that since 20-A M.R.S.A. 1001(5)
(Supp. 1991) specifies in detail what insurance premiums and other employee
benefits school boards may pay, that statute both "defines and limits" the
_________________________
                        
     5 The School Committee cites several other cases as well, but all address
the improper delegation of statutorily granted authority.  Since we are not
faced with that situation, those cases are irrelevant to our inquiry.

                                   -12-

scope of school board authority in this area.  While we find the School
Committee's argument persuasive, we also find that the payments in question
are in fact authorized by section 1001(5).

     Part A of section 1001(5) reads as follows:

          5.  Insurance premiums and employee benefits.  They [school
     boards] may:
             A.  Pay the premiums of life, health, dental, disability,
             accident, hospitalization, major medical and such other
             types of insurance as may be provided to employees and
             their families from time to time;

In suggesting that this provision and its legislative history[fn]6 make it
clear that health insurance payments for retirees are not authorized, the
School Board overlooks Part D of section 1001(5), which the Legislature
added to section 1001(5) in 1989.  Part D states that school boards may:

             D.  Provide such other employee benefits, directly or
             indirectly, to their employees as any school board
             determines from time to time, upon such terms and
             conditions and in such manner as the school board deter-
             mines, subject to the requirements of all applicable
             laws.

Although Part A may arguably be interpreted not to include future retire-
ment benefits for current employees, we do not find that to be the case for
Part D, which appears to us to be a catch-all grant of authority to pay for
whatever other employee benefits school boards may negotiate or otherwise
provide.  As the Association points out, the Statement of Fact contained in
the original bill (L.D. 516) adding Part D to section 1001(5) supports this
interpretation.[fn]7  The Statement of Fact states, in part:

     . . . In addition, because employee benefits is a changing area
     the law and because school boards should be in as flexible a
_________________________
                         
    6 Part A was expanded in 1989 to cover employees and their families and
not just employees.  P.L. 1989, c. 425.

    7 Although Part D in L.D. 516 was somewhat shorter than the version that
finally emerged as law, the intent in both is the same.  The original Part
D stated:

         D.  Provide such other employee benefits to their employees
         as any school board determines from time to time.

                                   -13-

     position as possible to provide benefits in as efficient a form as
     possible, the bill authorizes school boards, at their discretion,
     to provide employees with such benefits as are customarily pro-
     vided by employers.

          Section 1 clarifies the types of insurance schools can pro-
     vide for their employees, authorizes the implementation of re-
     imbursement programs and confirms that school boards may provide
     their employees with such employee benefits as the board and the
     employees may agree upon from time to time.

     The School Committee suggests that the Statement of Fact is not useful,
because it refers to benefits for employees and not benefits for retirees.
However, since the benefit negotiated in the parties' 1991-92 agreement was
negotiated on behalf of and for the benefit of current employees, and not
on behalf of and for the benefit of persons who are already retired, we do
not believe that 20-A M.R.S.A.  1001(5) bars the parties from negotiating
a similar provision in successor contract negotiations.

     Finally, a suggestion to the parties is in order.  The Association has
questioned the motives of the School Committee in seeking this interpretive
ruling, and the School Committee has responded that its interest is simply
in moving toward resolution of a problem that the parties have been unable
to resolve.  As we said earlier, it appears to us that the problem is not
what the law does or does not allow or require to be negotiated, but rather
the failure of the parties to make the legal distinctions necessary to
comply with the law.  Once these distinctions are made, the parties should
be able to accurately reflect their intentions in a written agreement.

                                 -14-

Consequently, we urge the parties, in future negotiations, to be as clear
as possible about what they are negotiating and on whose behalf.

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 13th day of July, 1992.

                                   MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
                                   
                                   /s/_____________________________
                                   Peter T. Dawson
                                   Chair

                                   /s/_____________________________
                                   Howard Reiche, Jr.
                                   Employer Representative

                                   /s/_____________________________
                                   George W. Lambertson
                                   Employee Representative

                                -15-