Case No. 94-34
                                   Issued:  April 14, 1994

                    Complainant,  )
               v.                 )      DECISION AND ORDER
                                  )          (DEFAULT)
COUNTY of SOMERSET,               )
                    Respondent.   )

     On February 1, 1994, Teamsters Union Local No. 340
("Teamsters") filed a prohibited practice complaint with the
Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board") alleging that the County of
Somerset ("County"), through its agents and representatives, had
violated section 964(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), and (F) of the
Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law ("MPELRL"),     
26 M.R.S.A.  964(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), and (F) (1988), by a
variety of acts.  On February 2, 1994, the executive director
sent a notification letter to the chairman of the Somerset County
Commissioners, informing him of the deadline within which a
response had to be filed (February 24, 1994).  The chairman was
also notified that failure to file a timely response could result
in a default judgment.  No response was ever received.  

     By letter dated March 2, 1994, a copy of which was served on
the chairman, the Teamsters moved for a default judgment against
the County.  The Board waited a reasonable time for the County 
to respond to the motion; no response was filed.  The Board,
consisting of Chair Peter T. Dawson, Employer Representative
Howard Reiche, Jr., and Alternate Employee Representative
Gwendolyn Gatcomb, held deliberations on the Teamsters' motion
for default on April 12, 1994.



     The Teamsters are the bargaining agent, within the meaning
of 26 M.R.S.A.  962(2) (1988), for a unit of employees in the
Somerset County Sheriff's Department.  The County is the public
employer, within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  962(7) (Supp.
1993), of the employees in that unit.  The jurisdiction of the
Board to hear this case and to render a decision and order lies
in 26 M.R.S.A.  968(5) (1988 & Supp. 1993).

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

     Upon review of the entire record, the Board finds:
     1.   By letter of December 6, 1993, the Teamsters trans-
mitted a grievance to Sheriff Havey regarding routine patrolling
by Chief Deputy Michael Brown.  The grievance report, including
notations regarding its final resolution, reads as follows:

                         TEAMSTERS UNION
                           LOCAL #340
                        GRIEVANCE REPORT


     DATE:    12/02/93           EMPLOYER:   Somerset S.O.   
     On 12/02/93 Chief Deputy Michael Brown was performing
     duties of a patrolman by going on routine patrol.

                                        (Sgt. Wilfred Hines)

     This grievance is being filed on behalf of unit members
     for violation of performing bargaining unit work by
     denying work opportunities to dept. unit members.

          Commissioners agree with Union 12-15-93
     propriety of interest - ECIII

     SIGNED:  12-15-93            SIGNED: 
     (Ernest Canelli III)              (Sgt. Wilfred Hines)
     _________________________    _________________________
     Business Agent Local #340    Shop Steward               


     2.   By letter dated December 13, 1993 (prior to the
granting of the grievance by the commissioners on December 15th),
Sheriff Havey responded to the grievance as follows:

     Dear Ernie:

     Concerning the grievance filed by Sgt. Hines on
     December 2, 1993, I am issuing the following response:

     1.  Wilfred Hines did not use the proper grievance      
         procedures by coming to myself to discuss the issue 
         of Chief Deputy Brown patrolling.

     2.  It is part of my Chief Deputy's responsibilities to 
         get out and see what's happening in the county.

     3.  Chief Deputy Brown was ordered by me to get out and 
         patrol at least once a week to be able to under-    
         stand what the patrol duties functions are and      
         to follow-up with what is happening in that depart- 

     4.  The fact that I and the Chief Deputy are going to   
         do this more often, it is up to us to decide        
         whether or not we should patrol.

     5.  If I was forcing someone to stay home and not get   
         paid then I would possibly see an issue, however,   
         the duties of myself and my Chief Deputy are        
         assigned by me since I am the elected Official and  
         I am in charge of the Somerset County Sheriff's     

     I find this grievance frivolous and unfounded.  Give me
     a call if you wish to discuss this further.

     Yours truly,

     Spencer R. Havey

     P.S.  Check with Kennebec County, I believe you'll find 
           that the Chief Deputy patrols quite often in that 
           area, even if he doesn't, mine will, as part of   
           our community policing program. 


     3.   By notarized letter,1 Shop Steward Wilfred B. Hines
notified Business Agent Ernest Canelli, III, as follows:
     So that you are aware, on 11/16/93[fn2] all sergeants and
     lieutenants were required to attend a mandatory meeting
     at 0900 hrs in the sheriff's conference room.  At this
     time we received training from Chief Deputy Brown on
     performance appraisals, which I feel is way overdue. 
     In my opinion an appraisal system is necessary as long
     as it is based on job performance and not personality.

     During the training Chief Deputy Brown handed out a
     form called and (sic) employee/employer constructive
     criticism from and stated that from this point forward
     this would be department policy, and that anyone found
     to be discussing department issues would face discipli-
     nary action if for one they did not fill out one of
     these forms, take it directly to his immediate super-
     visor and then forward a copy to the sheriff or chief
     deputy for discussion.

     It is my opinion and the opinion of others that we are
     not (sic) longer able to discuss department issues with
     union stewards or representatives without first making
     out this form, thus taking away the rights of bargain
     (sic) unit members to ask questions in regards to the
     bargaining agreement, it would also lead one to believe
     that if a union steward gives advise to a unit member
     in regards to the bargaining agreement he would be
     labeled a disruptive employee and would face disci-
     plinary action.  I feel that this is nothing more than
     an attempt a union lockout and that it takes away ones
     (sic) right to freedom of speech under the First
     Amendment and also takes away the rights of union
     members, shop stewards, and union representatives to
     discuss departmental issues under the bargaining unit
     without fear of disciplinary action or getting labeled
     as a disruptive employee.

     1The date on the letter, November 17, 1993, appears to be an
error, since it was notarized on December 20, 1993, and addresses
matters that, according to other evidence in the record, arose in
December of 1993.   

     2According to other evidence in the record, this meeting
took place on December 16th, not November 16th.

Attached to the letter was a copy of the criticism form:


     I.   Describe a recurring situation in which you need   
          to provide criticism:

          Situation:  _____________________________________  
          People Involved:  _______________________________

     II.  When and where would be the best time for you to
          provide feedback?
          When:  __________________________________________
          Where: __________________________________________  

     III. What specific behavior(s) would you like changed?
          What are the results of the problematic behavior?
          How do you feel about the situation?  ___________

      IV. What specific changes would you like to see as a
          result of providing this criticism?
          What are you willing to do to help affect (sic)
          positive behavior change?  ______________________

      NAME OF PERSON GIVING CRITICISM _____________________
      DATE:                           _____________________
      DATE RECIEVED (sic):            _____________________
      RECIEVED (sic) BY               _____________________

     4.   Mr. Canelli sent Sheriff Havey the following letter
dated December 16, 1993:

          On Wednesday the 24th of November a grievance
     meeting was held in the Office of the Somerset
     Commissioners regarding several grievances filed by the
     County Employees relating to their vehicles being taken
     away and clothing allowances disallowed.  The
     Commissioners stated the reason for the problem stemmed
     from a far overdrawn budget.  Your Chief Deputy Brown
     was in attendance at that meeting and offered no
     resolution.  The Union stated the act of passing the
     buck and the responsibility to overcome the mishandled
     budget onto the backs of the employees was unacceptable
     at any level.  Also that the problem would be much
     better addressed mutually, other than by resistance.  A
     meeting was then scheduled for Wednesday, December 15
     to allow for alternative solutions to be brought
     forward.  On the morning of the 15th I went to your
     office and asked yourself and Chief Deputy Brown to
     participate, you both chose to refuse.

          The meeting then took place with the Commis-
     sioners.  Many extremely helpful suggestions were made
     by Bill Trussell, Wilfred Hines, Bud Hall and Bruce
     Bristoe and I commend their actions in the face of your
     retroactions, as other employees were afraid to

          The Commissioners agreed at that meeting to re-
     instate the patrol cars to those employees who had had
     those cars taken away.  The Commissioners agreed with
     the Union that Chief Deputy Brown does not belong on
     patrol, has never been on patrol and patrol work is the
     propriety of the bargaining unit.  Although we have all
     heard your dictator proclamation that the Union has no
     say and "you will do whatever you want" that is no
     argument of substance.  It creates the following

     1.  If routine patrol was always required for the Chief
     Deputy, was he not and therefore you, negligent in your
     duty as he was not qualified to do so during the major
     part of his tenure as Chief Deputy?

     2.  And though rumored as such, is the purpose for the
     Chief Deputy's patrol efforts to allow exposure for
     campaign purposes, as he is an announced candidate?

          Most troubling is the captive audience meeting
     held December 16, 1993 from 4:30 to 7:00 PM.  Several
     members were threatened at that meeting.  They were
     told that legitimate complaints could no longer be
     expressed publicly.  They were told you were
     unilaterally implementing a form which was to be used


     prior to a grievance being filed over contract issues -
     a violation of law which shall be part of the
     Prohibitive Practice Complaint filed by this office. 
     Employees were also told they were to be placed into
     one of (2) categories and those labeled as
     "troublemakers" would receive discipline, while those
     labeled as pro Spence and Mike would not.

          It is my understanding that you clearly made the
     statement you have nothing to lose, your political
     career is over.  Need I remind you that the County has
     plenty to lose and the people the County serves have
     plenty to lose.  The people of Somerset County  and
     your employees have suffered enough.  I ask you not to
     perpetrate any more upon them.  If you truly intend to
     finish your term we should all work together at
     correcting the damage that has evolved to the people,
     the employees, the budget and the respect of the
     Department.  I would expect, if I were in your
     position, that I would like to leave based upon
     personal achievement attained, rather than a county
     wide sigh of relief.

          The current practice of Chief Deputy Brown and
     yourself of dominating or interfering with the
     bargaining unit violates MRSA Chapter 9A.  Title 26
     Section 963 and Section 964 SS 1A, C, D, and E, and
     shall be brought forward in a Prohibitive Practice

          I truly feel that although your actions exemplify
     the immunity you have to any recourse as - The County
     Pays therefore the Taxpayers - you should be held to
     some responsibility even if only morally.

          I apologize for the expenses which this action
     will impose upon the County and an already overdrawn
     budget, however, I will do my job in representing my

     5.   On December 22, 1993, Mr. Canelli sent the following
letter to Charles Carpenter, chairman of the Somerset County

          After several conversations with the Sheriff
     regarding filling of the position of Director of
     Corrections, this position still remains unfilled.  As
     you know the position has been filled by someone from
     the bargaining unit since the time the responsibilities


     were severed from the Chief Deputy.  My suggestion is
     to fill the position as required by the collective
     bargaining agreement.  Hopefully the Sheriff is not
     holding the position as a safety net for candidate
     Brown as his seniority as a Union member and a bargain-
     ing unit member ceased when he became management and
     therefore he would have no bumping rights.  Another
     concern would be as this position had been funded where
     have the funds gone?

          This situation demonstrates additional violations
     of the Act and shall be included in a Prohibitive
     Practice Complaint currently being prepared.

     6.   The following notarized letter, dated December 21,
1993, and signed on December 30, 1993, was sent to Mr. Canelli by
Officer Rene P. Guay:
     Enclosed are statement's (sic) of facts in which I have
     discussed with you by phone.  The facts commence on 12-
     02-93.  Facts and dates could be given that go as far
     back as 1992, but it is my understanding that the most
     recent are what you request.

     I do want you to understand that I do feel a certain
     amount of fear of retaliation from certain members of
     the administration by persuing (sic) the correcting of
     wrongdoing towards myself and fellow officers. 
     Basically I can only keep my faith by the continued
     belief in what my father raised me on.  As he did to
     secure our freedom during W.W.II.

     I believe my reasons for fearing retaliation will be
     self explanatory by the end of this letter.

     December 2, 1993

     Sgt. Hines advised me that a department official
     advised him that that (sic) while he was walking in the
     conference room at the S.O. he over heard a conver-
     sation between the Sheriff and Chief Deputy Brown. 
     Apparently this official heard a statement from the
     Sheriff that he wanted to fire me.

     December 3, 1993

     I called this official at his residence.  He advised me
     that on 12-01-93 at approx. 0900 hrs while he was
     walking through the conference room, the Sheriff was
     exiting his office and walking by C.D. Brown's office.


     C.D. Brown asked the Sheriff, "Sheriff are you going to
     Jackman today and talk with Rene?"  The Sheriff
     replied, "No, if I talk to him, I'll fire him".

     December 15, 1993   

     Deputy MacDaide and C.D. Brown came to Jackman in
     reference to the Dare program.  I met with them at the
     Four Season's Restaraunt (sic).  C.D. Brown explained
     his plans for 1994, in correcting problems amd (sic)
     problem people within the organization.  He emphasized
     the problem of "Individualism" within the organization,
     and how an "Individual" can be disruptive to an
     organization.  By eliminating the "Individual"
     attitudes he would succeed in creating "Team Work".  He
     stated that he knew who the trouble maker was in the
     department and that it was not anyone in "This" room. 
     He stated that particular individual would be dealt
     with.  C.D. Brown also mentioned that a certain
     individual had a problem with him patrolling.  C.D.
     Brown mentioned a couple of times of the possibility of
     him being the next Sheriff.

     We left the restaraunt (sic) and stood outside for a
     short period of time.  C.D. Brown stated to me that he
     did not like it when I went to the papers, and he felt
     that it was "politically motivated".  I assured C.D.
     Brown that the only reason I did so was because, he and
     the Sheriff "Stroked" me when I went to them, last
     spring.  C.D. Brown and Dep MacDaide then went to
     Forest Hills Highschool (sic).

     December 16, 1993

     I attended a patrol meeting at the S.O. conference
     room.  Present were:  Sheriff Havey, C.D. Brown, LT
     Robertson, Sgt. Emery, Sgt. Rodrique, Dep Kline, Dep
     MacDaide, Dep Baker, Dep Wing and myself.

     The Sheriff opened the meeting stating that there was
     an "Individual" in this room who thinks I want to fire
     him.  He reassurred (sic) that he was not going to fire
     anyone as long as they did there (sic) job.  He stated
     that he ordered C.D. Brown to straighten the
     organization or else.  He emphasized the fact that his
     political career was over and that he had "Nothing to
     loose (sic) at this point."  "I have nothing to loose
     (sic)" was repeated several times.  
     C.D. Brown took over the meeting.  He explained about a
     new policy which was in effect immediately.  The
     policy, "Employee/Employer Constructive Criticism Form


     is to be used by employees and given to his/her
     immediate supervisor.  Problems the employee describing
     on the form with any person or situation would be
     solved by using the chain of command, commencing with
     the immediate supervisor.  C.D. Brown explained what an
     "Individual" was, and the meaning of "Positive
     discipline vs. Negative discipline".  Individual's
     (sic) or disruptive employee's (sic) would be dealt
     with negative discipline.

     I raised the new "Criticism" form and asked C.D. Brown,
     "Is this a ticket to enter the "Negative discipline
     category?"  C.D. Brown responded angrily, "That is a
     negative statement, it may be in the form of a
     question, but it is a statement and it is negative".

     Deputy MacDaide asked if this form was to be used prior
     to filing a grievance with the Union.  C.D. Brown and
     Sheriff Havey stated that there were three steps to
     filing a grievance and this was one of them.  My
     interpertation (sic) to MacDaides (sic) question was

     A non union deputy made the remark that the Teamsters
     should be replaced.  C.D. Brown then replied something
     to the effect that the Teamsters were a bunch of
     crooks, and how rediculous (sic) it was that they were
     representing law enforcement agencies.

     Sheriff Havey stated that he was going to make Ernie
     Canelli earn his money in 94.

     After the meeting C.D. Brown called me into his office. 
     He advised me that when he went to Forest Hills High
     school the day before he spoke with a lady there.  "The
     lady defended you" he said, "When I explained to her
     what I was going to do in regards to the organization". 
     He told me after he stated his future plans to her she
     identified herself as Anna Begin and that she was your
     sister in law.  She stated according to C.D. Brown,
     that "Rene tried to talk to you people, but nothing
     happened, so he had to go to the papers".  C.D. Brown
     suggested to me that I "Set him up" when he went to the
     school.  I advised C.D. Brown that I did not have the
     devious type of mind it takes to "Set people up" and
     assurred (sic) him that I did not set him up.

     C.D. Brown then went on to say that he thought I may
     need some physchological (sic)  counseling as some of
     the things I was doing recently showed some type of
     mental disorder.  He said just to let him know and he
     would set up an oppointment (sic) with Dr. Devine.  I


     assurred (sic) C.D. Brown that I felt I was fine.

     December 17, 1993
     0715 hrs
     I called my sister in law, Anna Begin in ref. to the
     conversation she had with C.D. Brown the day before. 
     She advised that C.D. Brown identified himself as Chief
     Deputy Michael Brown of S.S.O.  He explained to her
     what he was going to do to straighten the organization
     out.  This included of constructing an "Inner Circle"
     which would eliminate leaks to the press.  Anna felt
     that C.D. Brown's statements were directed towards me,
     and then she started to defend me.

     Apparently C.D. Brown can speak in detail to anyone in
     the public sector, even at a high school about
     department issues, department personell (sic), and what
     ever else he sees fit.  But under his directive, dated
     September 20, 1993 if any other employee does so they
     will pay "Serious consequences".

     During the meeting it was quite apparent that the
     Sheriff was blaming me for all his political
     misfortunes.  and he had nothing to lose by getting
     revenge.  It was also apparent that the Sheriff and
     C.D. Brown blamed all of the organization's problems on
     the union, it's (sic) members, and the County
     Commisioners (sic).

     I spoke with another Union member after the meeting. 
     He felt as I did that if we ever had to file a
     grievance, we would be faced with consequences.  In
     fact no matter what we do or don't do at this point,
     certain union members have been and will continue to be
     targeted.  This union member would like to write a
     similar letter, but fears severe retaliation.  As I'm
     sure most members share the same feelings.

     7.   The current contract between the Teamsters and the
County, signed by the commissioners, expires on December 31,
1994.  The grievance procedure in that contract reads as follows:

                       Grievance Procedure

     Section 1.  A grievance is defined as a dispute
     concerning the interpretation or application of a
     specific written term of this agreement.  Any grievance
     shall be processed in the following manner:


          Step 1  If an employee feels that a grievance
     exists he or she or the shop steward shall discuss it
     with the Sheriff in an effort to resolve it informally. 
          Step 2  If the aggrieved employee is not satisfied
     with the outcome of the informal procedures, he or she
     may present the grievance, in writing, to the Sheriff
     within 10 days after the reason for the grievance has
     occured (sic), or the grievance shall be deemed to have
     been waived.

          Step 3  If the aggrieved employee is not satisfied
     with the disposition of the grievance at Step 2, he or
     she may present the grievance to the Union which, if it
     feels the grievance is meritorious may present it to
     the commissioners or their designee within ten (10)
     days after the decision at Step 2.  Access to and
     copies of, all pertinent records shall be presented to
     the Steward and/or Local Union at the time of denial at
     step #2.

          Following receipt of the appeal, the commissioners
     or their designee shall take the matter up with the
     employee and/or Union in an effort to resolve the
     grievance.  Within ten (10) working days after such
     meeting, the Commissioners shall render a decision on
     the grievance.    

          Step 4  In the event that the decision of the
     Commissioners, rendered in step 4 above, is not
     acceptable to the Union, the Union may within ten (10)
     days thereafter request in writing to the board that
     the matter be referred to arbitration, but shall not be
     required to do so if the Union does not feel that the
     grievance is meritorous (sic).  A representative of the
     board and a representative of the Union shall attempt
     to agree on the selection of an arbitrator within ten
     (10) days after the request is submitted to the board,
     but if they are unable to agree on an arbitrator the
     Union may within five (5) workin (sic) days thereafter
     request the Maine Board of Arbitration and Conciliation
     to arbitrate the grievance.

          The arbitrator shall have no authority to add to,
     subtract from, or modify the provisions of the Agree-
     ment, and shall confine his decision to the terms of
     this Agreement.  The arbitrator shall be without power
     to make any decisions (sic) which is contrary to law,
     which requires Commission (sic) of an act prohibited by
     Law, or which violates the terms of this Agreement. 
     The arbitrators (sic) decision shall be binding,
     subject to appeal as provided by law.


     Section 2 - Miscellaneous

          (a)  The Board and the Union shall equally bear
     the cost, fees and expenses of the arbitrator.

          (b)  Any grievance shall be submitted in writing
     on forms to be developed by the Commissioners and the
     Union, and shall specify the article, clause, section,
     and alleged violation of the Agreement, as well as
     including a statement of facts surrounding the issue
     and the remedial action, if any, requested.

          (c)  Any employee has the right to Union repre-
     sentation at any stage of the grievance procedure.


     The Teamsters have moved for a default judgment against the
County.  Under Rule 4.05(B) of the Board's Rules and Procedures, 

     Failure to file a response as provided herein shall  
     be grounds for the Board to render a default order
     against the respondent unless the Board finds that  
     the respondent's failure to answer is the result of
     excusable neglect.  The default shall be with
     prejudice, unless the order provides otherwise. 
     Failure to file a timely response shall be deemed to
     constitute an admission of the properly pleaded
     material facts alleged in the complaint. 

The County has responded neither to the complaint itself, nor to
the motion for default judgment.  The Teamsters' motion will be

     In the complaint, which was accompanied by copies of the
correspondence itemized in our findings of fact, the Teamsters
allege that the County, through its agents, has violated section
964(1)(A), (B), (C), (D) and (F) of the MPELRL by threatening
employees who file grievances or other complaints (including
labeling such employees as troublemakers); unilaterally changing
the grievance procedure in the parties' contract; making
disparaging remarks about the Teamsters to employees in the unit,
including new reserves; allowing the chief deputy, a non-


bargaining unit employee of the Sheriff's Department, to perform
routine patrol duties after having granted the Teamsters'
grievance over this matter; and blaming the Teamsters for budget
and administrative shortfalls in the Sheriff's Department. 

     Preliminarily, we note that no basis appears in the
pleadings or accompanying exhibits for the alleged (1)(B),
(1)(C), (1)(D) and (1)(F) violations.  Section 964(1)(B)
prohibits discrimination for the purpose of encouraging or
discouraging membership in an employee organization.  As we have
stated on occasions too numerous to mention, the prohibition in
section 964(1)(C)[fn]3 "is directed at the evil of too much financial
or other support of, encouraging the formation of, or actually
participating in, the affairs of the union and thereby
potentially dominating it."  Teamsters Local 48 v. City of
Calais, No. 80-29, slip op. at 5, 2 NPER 20-11018 (Me.L.R.B. May
13, 1980).  Section 964(1)(D)[fn]4 protects from discrimination
employees who participate in Board proceedings.  Teamsters Local
Union No. 48 v. Town of Kittery, No. 84-25, slip op. at 5, 7 NPER
20-15018 (Me.L.R.B. July 13, 1984).  Section 964(1)(F), which 
prohibits "blacklisting of any employee organization or its
members for the purpose of denying them employment," is, by its
own terms, directed toward an employer's attempts to dissuade
another employer from hiring an employee on the basis of union
affiliation.  Teamsters Local Union No. 48 v. Town of Wells,   
No. 84-29, slip op. at 17, 7 NPER 20-16002 (Me.L.R.B. Oct. 9,

     3That section prohibits a employer from "dominating or
interfering with the formation, existence or administration of
any employee organization."  

     4Section 964(1)(D) prohibits an employer from "discharging
or otherwise discriminating against an employee because he has
signed or filed any affidavit, petition or complaint or given any
information or testimony under this chapter."


     We do agree with the Teamsters that four of the five actions
complained of have a reasonable tendency to interfere with,
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in section 963, and therefore violate section 964(1)(A).  Threats
to employees who file grievances, veiled or otherwise, strike at
the heart of the grievance process.  Making unilateral changes in
the grievance process itself, and granting a grievance and then
failing to correct the activity complained of in the grievance,
are no less serious.  We find particularly egregious the chief
deputy's statements about the Teamsters:  that they are a bunch
of crooks and how ridiculous it is that they represent law
enforcement agencies.  Such statements can have no purpose other
than to undermine the authority of the bargaining agent in the
eyes of those it represents and will soon represent.5

     Accordingly, we will order the County and its agents and
representatives to cease and desist from the actions just
described.  We will also order the County to sign, date and post
the attached notice for a period of two weeks, and to notify the
executive director, in writing, within 25 calendar days of the
issuance of this decision and order, of the steps taken to comply
with the order.    


     On the basis of the foregoing facts 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)(1988 &
Supp. 1993) and the Board's Rules and Procedures, it is hereby

     5We have no context within which to determine whether 
portraying the union as the cause of budget and administrative
shortfalls had a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of protected rights.  The
statement by itself has no such tendency.    

     1.  That the County of Somerset and its representatives and
agents shall:

          a.  Cease and desist from interfering with,        
              restraining or coercing employees of the       
              Somerset County Sheriff's Department by:

              i.   threatening employees who file 

              ii.  unilaterally changing the grievance            
                   procedure in the parties' contract;

              iii. making disparaging remarks about the           
                   Teamsters to employees who are or will         
                   be members of the bargaining unit; and

              iv.  allowing the deputy chief to perform           
                   routine patrol duties after having             
                   granted the Teamsters' grievance               
                   complaining of same.

          b.  Take the following affirmative actions that 
              are necessary to effectuate the policies of         
              the MPELRL:

              i.   Sign, date and post, within 10 calendar        
                   days of the date of issuance of this           
                   decision and order, at all locations where     
                   notices to Sheriff's Department employees      
                   are customarily posted, copies of the          
                   attached "Notice."  The Notice shall           
                   remain posted for a period of two weeks.  

              ii.  Notify the executive director, in writing,     
                   within 25 calendar days of the issuance of     
                   this decision and order, of the steps that     
                   have been taken to comply with this order.

     2.  That complainant's remaining allegations are dismissed.

Issued at Augusta, Maine, this 14th day of April, 1994.

                                   MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

The parties are hereby advised    
of their right, pursuant to
26 M.R.S.A.  968(5)(F) (Supp.     /s/________________________
1993), to seek review of this      Peter T. Dawson
decision and order by the          Chair
Superior Court.  To initiate
such a review, an appealing
party must file a complaint        /s/________________________
with the Superior Court within     Howard Reiche, Jr.
fifteen (15) days of the date      Employer Representative
of issuance of this decision
and order, and otherwise 
comply with the requirements       /s/________________________
of Rule 80C of the Maine Rules     Gwendolyn Gatcomb
of Civil Procedure.                Alternate Employee 


                       NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES



     We will cease and desist from interfering, restraining and coercing members           
of the Somerset County Sheriff's Department bargaining unit by:

           1.   threatening employees who file grievances;

           2.   unilaterally changing the grievance  procedure in the parties' contract;

           3.   making disparaging remarks about the Teamsters to employees who          
                are or will be members of the bargaining unit; and

           4.   allowing the deputy chief to perform routine patrol duties after               
                having granted the Teamsters' grievance complaining of same.

     We will post this notice for two weeks.

     We will notify the Board of the date of posting and of compliance with its order.   

                                         County of Somerset
Dated:                                   ____________________________
                                         Charles Carpenter

Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to:

                      STATE HOUSE STATION 90
                       AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333
                          (207) 289-2015