STATE OF MAINE                       MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
                                     Case No. 03-UD-02
                                     Issued:  October 28, 2002 

___________________________________
                                   )
RYAN ADAMS,                        )
                    Petitioner,    )
                                   ) 
     and                           )
                                   )
TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL NO. 340,     )                      
                                   )      UNIT DETERMINATION      
    Certified Bargaining Agent,    )            REPORT      
                                   )
     and                           )
                                   )
CITY OF WATERVILLE,                )
                                   )
                      Employer.    )
___________________________________)


                       PROCEDURAL HISTORY

     This unit determination proceeding was initiated on August 5,
2002, when Ryan Adams, an employee of the Waterville Parks and
Recreation Department, filed a petition for unit determination
with the Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board").  The petition
seeks a determination whether a unit consisting of the Parks
Foreman, Grounds Mechanic, and Parks Laborer should be severed
from the existing Waterville Departments of Public Works and 
Parks and Recreation Bargaining Unit, pursuant to Section 966 of
the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law ("MPELRL"). 
The Petitioner seeks to retain the same bargaining agent,
Teamsters Union Local No. 340 ("Teamsters" or "Union"), as the
agent for this smaller bargaining unit.  The Teamsters are the
certified bargaining agent for the Waterville Departments of
Public Works and Parks and Recreation Bargaining Unit.  Both the
City of Waterville ("City") and the Teamsters filed a timely
response to the petition.

                               [-1-]
__________________________________________________________________
     
     The hearing examiner conducted a prehearing conference by
telephone in this matter on September 18, 2002.  A hearing notice
was issued on September 11, 2002, and was posted for the benefit
of affected employees.  The hearing was conducted on September 26,
2002.  Petitioner Ryan Adams appeared on behalf of himself. 
Business Agent Kenneth Eaton appeared on behalf of the Teamsters. 
William Lee, Esq. appeared on behalf of the City.  The parties
were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to present evidence.  The following witnesses were
presented at the hearing:  for the Petitioner, Ryan Adams; for 
the Teamsters, Shop Steward Chris Blodgett; for the City,        
Director of Parks and Recreation Jim Toner.  The parties presented
written argument following the conclusion of the hearing, on
October 10, 2002.

                           JURISDICTION
                                 
     The jurisdiction of the hearing examiner to hear this  matter
and to make an appropriate unit determination lies in 26 M.R.S.A.
 966.

                            EXHIBITS

     The following exhibits were admitted to the record without
objection of the parties:

City of Waterville Exhibits

     1.   Unit & Departmental History (withdrawn)
     2.   Parks & Recreation Department-Code of Ordinance, City
          of Waterville
     3.   Public Works Department-Code of Ordinance, City of
          Waterville
     4.   Parks & Recreation Mission Statement
     5.   Public Works Mission Statement
     6.   Parks & Recreation Goals & Objectives
     7.   Parks & Recreation Employee Flow Chart
     8.   Public Works Employee Flow Chart
     9.   Parks & Recreation Parks Foreman Job Description
          (Grade 12)
     

                               -2-
_________________________________________________________________

     
     10.  Parks & Recreation Grounds Mechanic Job Description
          (Grade 10)
     11.  Parks & Recreation Laborer Job Description (Grade 7)
     12.  Public Works Bargaining Unit Job Descriptions
          12a)  Public Works Laborer (Grade 7)
          12b)  Custodian (Grade 7)
          12c)  Custodian Team Leader (Grade 7)
          12d)  Traffic Safety Maintenance Technician (Grade 8)
          12e)  Equipment Operator (Grade 10)
          12f)  Sanitation Equipment Operator (Grade 10)
          12g)  Facilities Maintenance Technician Apprentice      
                (Grade 10)
          12h)  Facilities Maintenance Technician (Grade 12)
          12i)  Labor Team Leader (Grade 12)
          12j)  Fleet Maintenance Technician (Grade 12)
          12k)  Airport Maintenance Team Leader (Grade 12)
          12l)  Traffic Safety Maintenance Team Leader Apprentice 
                (Grade 12 or 15)
          12m)  Fleet Maintenance Technician Advanced (Grade 14)
          12n)  Heavy Equipment Operator (Grade 15)
          12o)  Traffic Safety Maintenance Team Leader (Grade 16)
          12p)  Fleet Maintenance Team Leader (Grade 16)
          12q)  Master Electrician (Grade 16)
     13.  Collective Bargaining Agreement 7/1/99-6/30/02
     14.  Affidavit of Samuel Green
     15.  Affidavit of Andrew Mosher

Teamsters Union Local 340 Exhibits

     1.   Affidavit of Lawrence Meunier
     2.   Affidavit of Joey V. Meunier
     3.   Affidavit of Mark C. Isbell
     4.   Affidavit of Robert A. Mercier, II
     5.   Affidavit of Dennis Hosea
     6.   Affidavit of William E. Hapworth, Jr.
     7.   Affidavit of Richard Quirion
     8.   Affidavit of Larry Carver
     9.   Affidavit of Amos J. Roy
     10.  Affidavit of Chris DeMerchant
     11.  Affidavit of David Deschaine
     12.  Affidavit of Michael Folsom
     13.  Affidavit of Daniel Mills
     14.  Affidavit of Chris Blodgett
     15.  Affidavit of James C. Loisel
     16.  Affidavit of Armand L. Frappier
     17.  Affidavit of Daniel Main
     18.  Affidavit of Mark R. Clement
     19.  Affidavit of Paul Quirion

                               -3-
_________________________________________________________________

                          STIPULATIONS

     The parties agreed to the following factual stipulations on
the record: 

     1.  The City of Waterville is a public employer within the
meaning of 26 MRSA 962(7).

     2.  Teamsters Local No. 340 is a public employee
organization that is the certified bargaining agent for the
Waterville Departments of Public Works and Parks and Recreation
Bargaining Unit ("Bargaining Unit").

     3. The Bargaining Unit consists of all full-time, permanent,
hourly employees of the Waterville Departments of Public Works
and Parks and Recreation. 

     4.  The Petition filed by Ryan Adams on August 5, 2002,
seeks to create a new bargaining unit consisting of the Parks and
Recreation Department employees currently in the Bargaining Unit
and to sever this smaller unit from the larger Bargaining Unit.

     5.  The positions to be included in the proposed Parks and
Recreation Department bargaining unit are:  Parks Foreman,
Grounds Mechanic and Laborer.

     6.  There is no contract bar to this Petition.

     7.  The positions in the proposed Parks and Recreation
Department bargaining unit share a community of interest, as
defined by 26 MRSA  966(2) and Board Rule Chap. 11,  22(3).

                        FINDINGS OF FACT

     1.  Before 1988, the employees of the Waterville Public
Works Department performed all maintenance required for the
City's parks, which mostly entailed mowing and maintaining grass. 

                               -4-
_________________________________________________________________

Over the years, the City services grew to include more
recreational facilities and programs.  A separate Parks and
Recreation Department was then created.

     2.  The separation of departments was recognized by City
Ordinance in 1990.

     3.  Each department is overseen by its own director.  Both
the Public Works Director and the Parks and Recreation Director
report to the City Administrator; the City Administrator reports
to the Mayor and City Council.

     4.  Three bargaining unit members work in the Parks and
Recreation Department (Parks Foreman, Grounds Mechanic, and
Laborer).  Approximately 29 bargaining unit members work in the
Public Works Department (including a variety of positions such as
Equipment Operator, Fleet Maintenance Technician, Custodian, and
Laborer).

     5.  The primary mission of the Public Works Department is to
maintain the City streets, including snow removal.  Public Works
Department bargaining unit employees also collect refuse for the
City, maintain the City airport and maintain the City Hall.

     6.  The primary mission of the Parks and Recreation
Department is to maintain the parks, playing fields and other
recreational facilities in the City (such as the indoor family
aquatic center).  The Parks and Recreation Department oversees
recreational programming in the City, although most of the
recreational programs (day camps, sports programs) are conducted
by seasonal employees not in the bargaining unit.

     7.  Employees of the Public Works and the Parks and
Recreation Departments perform different day-to-day tasks,
depending on their position.  However, the positions are similar 

                               -5-
_________________________________________________________________

in that they all require manual semi-skilled to skilled labor.

     8.  Employees of the Public Works Department occasionally
perform Parks and Recreation Department work, and vice versa. 
For instance, Parks and Recreation employees sometimes help in
snow removal.  Public Works employees sometimes help with some
recreation facility maintenance, and setting up for City
festivals.

     9.  All employees in the Public Works and Parks and
Recreation Departments Bargaining Unit are paid on an hourly
basis and are eligible for over-time pay.  The Public Works
Department employees often have overtime work available in the
winter due to snow removal duties.  The Parks and Recreation
Department employees more often have overtime work available in
the summer due to summer programs and the increased use of
facilities in the summer.

    10.  The wage scale for all bargaining unit employees is set
by the collective bargaining agreement.  The wage scale includes
Grade 7 (Laborer, Custodian, Custodian Team Leader); Grade 8
(Traffic Safety Maintenance Laborer, Apprentice Equipment
Operator); Grade 10 (Sanitation Equipment Operator, Facility
Maintenance Technician Apprentice, Equipment Operator, Grounds
Mechanic); Grade 12 (Facility Maintenance Technician, Traffic
Safety Maintenance Team Leader Apprentice, Apprentice Heavy
Equipment Operator, Airport Maintenance Team Leader, Labor Team
Leader, Safety Inspector, Fleet Maintenance Technician, Parks
Foreman); Grade 14 (Fleet Maintenance Technician Advanced); Grade
15 (Heavy Equipment Operator); Grade 16 (Master Electrician,
Traffic Safety Maintenance Team Leader, Fleet Maintenance Team
Leader).  The range in wages for Step 1 from July 1, 2001 to June
30, 2002 was: $10.66/hour (Grade 7); $10.97/hour (Grade 8);
$11.68/hour (Grade 10); $12.30/hour (Grade 12); $13.44/hour 

                               -6-
_________________________________________________________________

(Grade 14); $14.08/hour (Grade 15); $14.58/hour (Grade 16).

    11.  Many of the jobs in the Public Works Department require 
operating equipment at varying levels of skill (such as operating
trucks of various tonnage with various attachments, rollers,
front end loaders, bulldozers).  Because of this, the Public
Works Department operates a training and apprenticeship program
whereby employees can train on higher-skill equipment and, if
they successfully complete the apprenticeship, can obtain a
higher paying position.

    12.  The work of the Parks and Recreation Department
employees does not involve such a variety of equipment operation. 
The Parks and Recreation Department does not have a training or
apprenticeship program.  If a Parks and Recreation Department
employee wanted to become, for example, a heavy equipment
operator, that employee would have to bid on and obtain a job in
the Public Works Department.

    13.  The employment benefits, hours and other terms of
employment for all bargaining unit members are similar as
determined by the collective bargaining agreement.  Public Works
employees sometimes work four ten-hour days, while the Parks and
Recreation employees do not usually work on this schedule.

    14.  All of the bargaining unit positions require a high
school education or, in some cases, a degree from a vocational
school.  All positions require the employee to have a driver's
license and, in many cases, a specialized driver's license (Class
B, D, etc.).  The equipment operator positions require experience
in operating the relevant equipment.  The master electrician
position requires the possession of a valid Master Electrician's
License.

                               -7-
_________________________________________________________________
   
    15.  The Parks and Recreation Department maintains it own
office on Western Avenue in Waterville.  The Public Works
Department operates out of the Public Works garage which is
located one to two miles away from the Parks and Recreation
Department office.  There is little interaction between the
employees of the two departments except when they put gas in
vehicles (all done at the Public Works garage), when they attend
Union meetings and when they perform "cross department" work.

    16.  This bargaining unit has been in existence at least 30
years, and has been represented by the Teamsters Local since that
Union was certified after election in 1978.

    17.  In the past ten years, the City and the Union have
ratified four collective bargaining agreements.  The most recent
three-year collective expired on June 30, 2002.  This agreement
was preceded by, in order, a three-year agreement, a one-year
agreement, and a three-year agreement. 

    18.  The City and the Union are currently in mediation to
negotiate a successor collective bargaining agreement.  In the
past, the parties have sometimes utilized mediation or fact-
finding prior to ratifying an agreement.   The primary issues in
dispute between the parties in the most recent collective
bargaining agreements have been wages and the cost of health
insurance.

    19.  The Petitioner (Mr. Adams) has been employed by the City
for about eight.  He was initially hired as a Public Works
Laborer, then worked as a Parks and Recreation Laborer, then
Grounds Mechanic, then Parks Foreman.  The Petitioner has held
the latter positions over two years.

    20.  The Petitioner became the Parks Foreman after the
individual (Mr. Blodgett) who held this position for eight years 

                               -8-
_________________________________________________________________

accepted a position with the Public Works Department as an
apprentice heavy equipment operator.  

    21.  Mr. Blodgett is the shop steward for the bargaining unit
and has held this position for about 10 years.  The position of
shop steward is an elected position.  No one other than 
Mr. Blodgett has expressed an interest in being the shop steward
during the past 10 years.

    22.  Various persons have held the position of assistant shop
steward in the past 10 years.  There have been periods where
there has been no assistant shop steward because no employee
wanted the job.  The current assistant shop steward has held the
position for about six months.  The current assistant shop
steward is an employee of the Public Works Department.

    23.  The shop steward approached some employees of the Parks
and Recreation Department to sign a petition to elect the current
assistant shop steward.  The election was complete after the shop
steward obtained the signatures of a majority of the members of
the bargaining unit.  The Petitioner (Mr. Adams) signed the
petition to elect the current assistant shop steward.

    24.  Union meetings for the bargaining unit employees are
held at the Public Works Department office, since a majority of
the bargaining unit employees work there.  Sometimes several
days' notice is given of these meetings, but sometimes only a few
hours' notice is given due to the schedule of the Business Agent
when he attends the meetings.

    25.  The shop steward and the assistant shop steward are the
only bargaining unit members assigned to the negotiating team. 
No other bargaining unit members are invited to be on the
negotiating team.  Potential contract proposals are solicited
from all bargaining unit members at union meetings held prior to 

                               -9-
_________________________________________________________________

and during the negotiations.  None of the Parks and Recreation
Department employees offered contract proposals for the current
negotiations.

    26.  The current employees of the Parks and Recreation
Department have never asked the union to present contract
proposals unique to their Department or positions.

    27.  Neither the Petitioner nor the other two current
employees of the Parks and Recreation Department have ever sought
to be a union officer, shop steward or assistant shop steward.

    28.  The Petitioner is unhappy with information that he has
received from the Union in the past about the health insurance
provided under the collective bargaining agreement from the
Northern New England Benefit Trust.  The Petitioner has been
given differing information from the Union in the past about
whether or not he can "opt out" from being covered by and paying
for this insurance.  He is currently covered by this health
insurance because he was advised by the Union that he could not
opt out.  At least one other member of the bargaining unit (a
Public Works employee) also wishes that there was an opt out
provision.

    29.  In current negotiations for a successor collective
bargaining agreement, the Union has proposed that no bargaining
unit member be allowed to opt out from health insurance coverage,
pursuant to the terms mandated by the Northern New England
Benefit Trust.

    30.  All three of the current bargaining unit members
employed in the Parks and Recreation Department would like to be
placed in a separate bargaining unit from the larger bargaining
unit containing both employees of the Parks and Recreation and
Public Works Departments.  The Parks and Recreation Department 

                               -10-
_________________________________________________________________

employees became particularly interested in severance upon
learning earlier this year that the City was facing budget
problems and that some City employees might be laid off.  Since
the collective bargaining agreement contains a "last-in-first-
out" provision, and since one seniority list is maintained for
the entire unit, the jobs of one or more Parks and Recreation
employees could be at risk if there are lay-offs.  Employees of
either department could, if laid off, "bump" less senior
employees of either department.

    31.  The Petitioner first approached the Business Agent about
the possibility of a separate bargaining unit for Parks and
Recreation Department employees several months before filing the
present petition.  The Bargaining Agent did not support the idea
and advised the Petitioner that the Union was not interested in
representing the Parks and Recreation Department employees if
they became a separate bargaining unit.

    32.  In current negotiations for a successor collective
bargaining agreement, the City has proposed that separate
seniority lists be maintained for the Public Works Department
employees, the Parks and Recreation Department employees, and
custodial employees, and that any reduction-in-force be carried
out along these department lines.  The Union opposes this
proposal.

    33.  The Director of the Parks and Recreation Department
would like the Parks and Recreation Department employees to be in
a separate bargaining unit with a separate seniority list.  In
part, the Director wants this separation in order to protect the
Parks and Recreation Department employees and to keep the
employees who are experienced in doing Parks and Recreation work
in their jobs.  There have been occasions where Public Works
employees have "bumped" into the Parks and Recreation Department 

                               -11-
_________________________________________________________________

in order to preserve employment, but really did not want to do
the work of the Parks and Recreation Department.

    34.  In the current contract negotiations, the City has
proposed establishing an outdoor ice rink.  The Parks and
Recreation Department employees would normally be in charge of
maintaining any such rink; such a rink has been part of the Parks
and Recreation Department's goals and objectives.  The Union has
thus far rejected this proposal, although none of the Parks and
Recreation Department bargaining unit members was consulted about
this.

    35.  The current Parks and Recreation Grounds Mechanic was
dissatisfied with the way the shop steward handled his request to
file a grievance when he was denied a job as a Public Works
laborer last year.  The shop steward advised the Grounds Mechanic
that the grievance had little merit, as seniority was not a
factor in obtaining an entry level position.  The shop steward
did not file the grievance in part because the shop steward was
sick on the last day to file and he missed the filing deadline.

    36.  There are currently four other active bargaining units
of City employees, in addition to the bargaining unit at issue. 
These include police officers, firefighters, a general government
unit (including Secretaries, the Deputy City Clerk and others),
and a supervisory unit (including a Code Enforcement Officer, the
Deputy Assessor, and others).  The Teamsters represent the police
officers and the firefighters; The American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees ("AFSCME") represents the two
other units.

                           DISCUSSION
                                
     The issue presented by this case is whether three positions
in the Waterville Parks and Recreation Department - Parks 

                               -12-
_________________________________________________________________

Foreman, Grounds Mechanic, and Parks Laborer - now a part of the
Waterville Departments of Public Works and Parks and Recreation
Bargaining Unit, should be allowed to sever from that unit and
become a separate bargaining unit.  The Petitioner seeks the
continuing representation of the Teamsters as the bargaining
agent, if this severance petition is granted.  The Petitioner
argues that the severance petition[fn]1 should be granted
because the Parks and Recreation employees share a clear
community of interest, and do not share a community of interest
with the larger existing bargaining unit.  The City concurs in
this argument.  The Teamsters argue that the severance petition
should be denied because the larger existing bargaining unit
shares a community of interest, has a long and stable history of
collective bargaining, and because the Teamsters have provided
adequate representation for the entire unit, including the Parks
and Recreation employees.
     The Board has ruled that a unit determination petition
accompanied by an adequate showing of interest is the proper
mechanism for attempting to sever a bargaining unit from an 
____________________

     1 As described more fully below, the proper mechanism to seek the
severance of a unit is to file a petition for a unit determination, as
the Petitioner has done here.  The Board Rules do not provide for a
"petition for severance" per se; however, for ease of reference, the
petition will be referred to as one for severance for the remainder of
the decision.
     Whether the Teamsters should continue as bargaining agent for the
smaller bargaining unit, if severed, is not an issue before the
hearing officer.  Board practice has been to find that a bargaining
agent, once certified, continues to remain the bargaining agent until
decertified or until the bargaining agent disclaims representation. 
In a previous severance petition where the severance was granted, a
decertification/bargaining agent election was held following the
severance and a new bargaining agent was elected and certified. 
Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and County of Cumberland and Council
No. 74, AFSCME, No. 84-UD-11 (MLRB March 16, 1984), aff'd, No.
84-A-04 (MLRB Apr. 25, 1984). In the present matter, the parties
have not yet ratified a successor agreement.  Under these
circumstances, the Board Rules appear to allow the Teamsters to
disclaim representing the smaller bargaining unit if the Teamsters
elect to do so.  Chap. 11,  81 of the Board Rules.

                               -13-
_________________________________________________________________

existing unit.  See Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and State of
Maine (Institutional Services Unit), et al., No. 84-A-02 (MLRB
Apr. 2, 1984); City of Bangor and Local 1599, IAAF, No. 80-A-03
(MLRB July 18, 1980).  The Petitioner here has presented a
sufficient petition accompanied by an adequate showing of
interest from employees currently holding the Parks and
Recreation positions at issue.  
     As a unit determination, this matter turns upon an         
evaluation of the presence or absence of a "clear and identifi-
able community of interest" per 26 M.R.S.A.  966(2).  In
determining whether employees share the requisite community of
interest in matters subject to collective bargaining, the
following factors, at a minimum, must be considered:  (1)
similarity in the kind of work performed; (2) common supervision
and determination of labor relations policy; (3) similarity in
the scale and manner of determining earnings; (4) similarity in
employment benefits, hours of work and other terms and conditions
of employment; (5) similarity in the qualifications, skills and
training among the employees; (6) frequency of contact or
interchange among the employees; (7) geographic proximity; (8)
history of collective bargaining; (9) desires of the affected
employees; (10) extent of union organization; and (11) the
employer's organizational structure.  Chap. 11, Sec. 22(3) of the
Board Rules.  The requirement that the hearing examiner examine
the extent of the community of interest was explained by the
Board over 20 years ago, and is still valid today:

     Title 26 M.R.S.A.  966(2) requires that the hearing
     examiner consider whether a clear and identifiable
     community of interest exists between the positions in
     question so that potential conflicts of interest among
     bargaining unit members during negotiations will be
     minimized.  Employees with widely different duties,
     training, supervision, job locations, etc., will in
     many cases have widely different collective bargaining
     objectives and expectations.  These different 


                               -14-
_________________________________________________________________

     objectives and expectations during negotiations can
     result in conflicts of interest among bargaining unit
     members.  Such conflicts often complicate, delay and
     frustrate the bargaining process.

AFSCME and City of Brewer, No. 79-A-01, slip op. at 4 (MLRB
Oct. 17, 1979).
     While a petition for severance entails the same analysis of
the community of interest factors as a unit determination
petition seeking creation of a new unit, the issues in a
severance petition are more complex.  The hearing examiner must
analyze both whether a community of interest exists amongst the
employee classifications in the proposed bargaining unit to be
severed, and also whether a community of interest exists amongst
the proposed bargaining unit and the larger existing unit.  As
the National Labor Relations Board has noted, in its seminal
severance case Mallinckrodt Chemical Works and IBEW, Local No. 1,
162 NLRB 387 (1966), a severance determination requires a
balancing of competing interests:

     The cohesiveness and special interest of a craft or
     departmental group seeking severance may indicate the
     appropriateness of a bargaining unit limited to that
     group.  However, the interests of all employees in
     continuing to bargain together in order to maintain
     their collective strength, as well as the public
     interest and the interests of the employer and the
     plant union in maintaining overall plant stability in
     labor relations and uninterrupted operation . . . may
     favor adherence to the established patterns of
     bargaining.

Mallinckrodt, at 392.

In addition, one of the eleven community of interest factors,
history of collective bargaining, receives heightened scrutiny in
a severance petition.  Previous MLRB decisions have deemed the
history of collective bargaining to be a "very important" and
sometimes the decisive element in severance petitions.  Cf.,
e.g., Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and Town of Winslow and 

                               -15-
_________________________________________________________________

Council No. 74, AFSCME, No. 84-UD-17, slip op. at 11 (MLRB May
31, 1984) (petition to sever fire fighters from public works unit
denied; bargaining history "long" and "fruitful"); Teamsters
Local Union No. 48 and County of Cumberland and Council No. 74,
AFSCME, No. 84-UD-11 (MLRB March 16, 1984), aff'd, No. 84-A-04
(MLRB Apr. 25, 1984) (petition to sever patrol positions from
corrections positions granted; two-year bargaining history
cited).  The NLRB also finds the history of collective bargaining
to be a key element in determining severance petitions.  See
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Independent Brotherhood of
Skilled Hospital Maintenance Workers, 312 NLRB 933, at 936 (1993)
(Board reluctant to disturb bargaining unit with long history of
continuous bargaining, even where Board would not have found the
unit appropriate if presented with the issue ab initio). 
     The burden on the petitioner seeking to sever positions out
of an existing unit is high.  While severance petitions resolved
by hearing have not been numerous before the Board, the hearing
examiner is aware of only one severance petition that has been
granted in the Board's history, the petition to sever the patrol
positions from the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office bargaining
unit which contained both patrol officers and corrections
officers.   Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and County of Cumberland
and Council No. 74, AFSCME, supra.  One MLRB hearing examiner
reviewed precedent from public sector labor boards in other
states, concluding that those cases reflected the " . . .
overwhelming view that severance petitions, while procedurally
permissible, must nevertheless overcome formidable standards for
success."  Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and Council No. 74,
AFSCME and City of Portland, No. 81-UD-10, slip op. at 15 (MLRB
July 10, 1981). The NLRB also has found that the party seeking
severance clearly bears a "heavy burden."  Kaiser Foundation
Hospitals, 312 NLRB at 935 fn.15.  A recent NLRB case affirmed by
that Board reviewed the history of severance cases, concluding 

                               -16-
_________________________________________________________________

that severance has been granted "sparingly" by the NLRB. 
Metropolitan Opera Ass'n and Operatic Artists of America, 327
NLRB 740, at 752 (1999). 
     In the present matter, the parties have stipulated that the
three positions in the proposed Parks and Recreation bargaining
unit share a community of interest.  This is a logical conclusion
considering most of the community of interest factors such as
common supervision, scale and manner of determining earnings, and
frequency of contact.  The question here remains, however,
whether these positions should be severed from the larger
bargaining unit.  This decision turns on a finding whether these
Parks and Recreation positions share a community of interest with
the remaining positions in the larger existing bargaining unit.
Below, the hearing examiner will more fully discuss each
community of interest factor as it relates to this ultimate
question.
     (1)  Similarity in kind of work performed.  This factor
(along with the "history of collective bargaining" factor) is key
to the present determination, judging by the evidence and
arguments presented by the parties.  Both the Petitioner and the
City argued that Parks and Recreation employees perform functions
very different from the Public Works employees because of the
type of work performed.  The Parks and Recreation employees
primarily maintain fields and recreation facilities; the Public
Works employees primarily maintain roads.  The City further
argued that not all bargaining unit employees "enjoy" or are
comfortable with performing Parks and Recreation work.  The Parks
and Recreation Director testified that Parks and Recreation
employees are not easily interchanged with Public Works
employees; the Petitioner testified, by analogy, that it would
make no sense if firefighters were allowed to "bump" police
officers. (Tr. 21, 52-53).  The Union, on the other hand, argued
that the work performed by the Parks and Recreation employees is 

                               -17-
_________________________________________________________________

similar to the work performed by employees in comparable
positions in the Public Works Department.  The Union argued that
the positions share similar tasks of many manual positions -
performing physical labor, maintaining equipment, driving trucks
and other machinery, and the like.
     In evaluating whether the Parks and Recreation positions
perform work similar to the Public Works positions, the hearing
officer first notes that this bargaining unit contains certain
positions that, when looked at in isolation, do not share common
work functions.  For instance, the day-to-day work of a City Hall
Custodian, a Parks Laborer, a Heavy Equipment Operator, or a
Master Electrician may be markedly different.  The Board has
recognized, however, that "similar work" does not mean "identical
work."  As the executive director has noted in a previous
decision, Auburn Education Ass'n/MTA/NEA and Auburn School
Committee, No. 91-UD-03, slip op. at 11 (Feb. 27, 1991):

     In comparing the nature of the work being performed by
     the various classifications under consideration, the
     essence or basic type of the functions being performed
     is far more important than the details of each
     position's work responsibilities.  Inherent in the
     existence of separate job classifications is a
     difference in the specific work assignment of each
     classification; however, such differences do not
     preclude the inclusion of various classifications in
     the same bargaining unit.

For this reason, bargaining units with sometimes very divergent
positions are approved by the Board because the essence of the
positions or the goal of the positions share a commonality --
such as supporting the educational process, serving to make City
operations run smoothly for its citizens, or working together to 

                               -18-
_________________________________________________________________

respond to emergency situations.[fn]2  
     When compared to bargaining units with such divergent
positions, the present bargaining unit appears quite homogenous,
with most positions requiring physical labor of various kinds and
the operation of various types of trucks, equipment and
machinery.  The goals of the Parks and Recreation Department and
the Public Works Department might be quite different, but both
Departments are required to provide essential City services, and
the employees of both Departments must usually perform physical
labor to provide these services.  The work required of employees
in these two Departments is much more similar than work required
of, for example, the City police or the City Hall file clerks.
     A comparison of written job descriptions supports this
conclusion.  Of the three Parks and Recreation positions at
issue, the position of "Laborer" is employed in both the Parks
and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. 
Separate job descriptions are maintained for the position in each
department (City Exhibits Nos. 11, 12a).  Both are paid at Grade
7 under the collective bargaining agreement.  Both jobs require a
High School degree or equivalent and a Class C Maine Driver's
License.  The working conditions for both describe the same
medium to heavy physical labor (frequent bending and stooping,
lifting and carrying objects up to 50 pounds, and the like). 
Both require manual work such as shoveling and raking.  Both 
____________________

     2 See, e.g., East Grand Teachers' Ass'n/MTA/NEA and SAD No. 14 
Board of Directors, No. 92-UD-01 (MLRB Oct. 1, 1991)(approving unit 
which consisted of such divergent positions as teachers' aides, school 
secretaries, the food service director, bus drivers and custodians); 
AFSCME Council 93 and Town of Sanford, No. 92-UD-03 (MLRB Feb. 21, 
1992) (approving unit which included the planning director, the
assessor, the code enforcement officer, the director of highways and 
sanitation, and the deputy fire chief); and Bangor Firefighters Ass'n, 
Local 772 and City of Bangor, No. 89-UD-06 (Me.L.R.B. Jan. 26, 1989) 
(approving the accretion of a mechanic to a unit consisting of
firefighters, dispatchers and inspection officers).

                               -19-
_________________________________________________________________

require the operation of hand-held powers tools and of light
trucks.  The job description for the Parks and Recreation Laborer
states that this Laborer may be required to operate Public Works
equipment during the winter months.  While the positions of Parks
Foreman and Grounds Mechanic have no exact comparable title in
the Public Works Department, many job functions and duties are
shared by these two positions with comparable positions in the
Public Works Department.  For instance, the positions of Parks
Foreman and Grounds Mechanic are required to operate various
types of machinery and trucks as do many positions in the Public
Works Department.  Both positions have some supervisory duties
(preparing work schedules, supervising crews), also a feature of
some positions in the Public Works Department (Custodian Team
Leader, Sanitation Equipment Operator, Labor Team Leader, and
others).  In summary, the functions of the three Parks and
Recreation Department positions are similar to many positions in
the Public Works Department, judging by the job descriptions.  
     The witnesses testified that, while the job descriptions are
accurate, the descriptions do not describe all the day-to-day
tasks of a position.  For instance, the Director of the Parks and
Recreation Department testified that the Parks and Recreation
Laborer is actually assigned a larger variety of day-to-day tasks
than the Public Works Laborer (Tr. 23).  The Parks and Recreation
Laborer performs a variety of tasks like mowing, field
maintenance, and facility maintenance.  The Parks and Recreation
Laborer sometimes serves as a de facto supervisor of some seasonal
help who maintain parks and playing fields.  On the other hand,
the Public Works Laborer is often assigned only to pick up trash
and sort recycling.  In part, this distinction is undoubtedly due
to the smaller numbers of Parks and Recreation employees, which
necessitates each employee to be assigned a wider variety of
tasks.  The hearing officer was not convinced, however, that this
demonstrated that the two positions did not perform "similar 

                               -20-
_________________________________________________________________

work" as that term has been interpreted by the Board.  The
essence of the basic work function of both jobs - manual labor
and equipment operation - is very similar, as demonstrated by the
job descriptions, even though individual assignments may vary
between departments.
     Finally, employees from both Departments are able to perform
some "cross-Department" work; if the work functions were so
dissimilar, this would not be possible.  Employees have been able
to transfer experience obtained in a position in one department
to a new position in the other department.  The Petitioner was
first employed as a Public Works Laborer before taking a similar
position as a Parks and Recreation Laborer; the Shop Steward was
initially a Public Works employee, then worked for the Parks and
Recreation Department for eight years, then returned to the
Public Works Department as an apprentice heavy equipment
operator.  These facts further support the conclusion that the
positions in the two departments perform similar work.[fn]3
     In summary, the positions in the Parks and Recreation
Department are similar to comparable positions in the Public
Works Department, as the Board has defined that term.  This
strongly supports a finding of a community of interest between
the positions in the larger existing bargaining unit.
     (2) Common supervision and determination of labor relations
policy.  All of the positions in the bargaining unit were, at one
time, supervised by the Director of the Public Works Department. 
However, the growth of recreational programs and facilities in 
____________________

     3 The fact that some City employees may face lay-offs (that may
result in cross-Department bumping) is quite obviously an impetus for
the filing of the present Petition.  The Director of the Parks and
Recreation Department would understandably like to keep the employees
he has in their positions due to their experience and present
knowledge of their respective jobs.  These facts do not establish,
however, that the job functions of the positions in the two
Departments are so dissimilar - only that it would be easier for many
concerned to be left in their current positions.

                               -21-
_________________________________________________________________

the City resulted in the creation of a separate Parks and
Recreation Department, with a separate Parks and Recreation
Department Director.  For over ten years now, the Parks and
Recreation Department employees have reported to the Parks and
Recreation Director (or intermediate supervisors) and the Public
Works Department employees have reported to the Public Works
Director (or immediate supervisors).  As noted above, however,
many functioning bargaining units contain divergent positions
within different immediate "chains of command."  This does not
necessarily create conflicts within a unit, particularly when the
ultimate supervisory authority rests in one person or entity. 
Here, both Department Directors report to the City Administrator,
and then to the Mayor/City Council.  The labor relations policy
is uniform for all bargaining unit positions, based upon the
collective bargaining agreement and other personnel policies. 
Since immediate supervision is not common, but ultimate
supervision and determination of labor relations policy is
common, this factor neither supports nor undermines a finding of
community of interest between the positions in the larger
existing bargaining unit.
     (3) Similarity in the scale and manner of determining
earnings.  All of the positions in the bargaining unit are paid
on an hourly basis, on a pay grade/step system.  Wages are also
subject to overtime provisions of the agreement.  The opportunity
for overtime pay differs between the Parks and Recreation
Department (which has more overtime in the summer) and the Public
Works Department (which has more overtime in the winter). 
However, all bargaining unit employees have a similar interest in
the issues of calculating and offering overtime.  The positions
in the unit are all placed in a total of seven pay grades,
ranging from an hourly (step 1) rate of $10.66 to $14.58.  While
the pay rate between certain positions differs to a degree, there
is similarity in the scale and manner of determining earnings, 

                               -22-
_________________________________________________________________

and this has been true through numerous collective bargaining
agreements for this unit.  This factor supports a finding of
community of interest between the positions in the larger
existing bargaining unit.
     (4) Similarity in employment benefits, hours of work and
other terms and conditions of employment.  The employment
benefits and other terms and conditions of employment for
positions in the bargaining unit are the same as defined by the
collective bargaining agreement.  The parties did not present
extensive evidence regarding the hours of work.  Apparently, some 
employees work four 10-hour days at certain times of the year. 
The witnesses did not identify differences in hours of work to be
any source of conflict amongst unit employees.  This factor
supports a finding of community of interest between the positions
in the larger existing bargaining unit.
     (5) Similarity in the qualifications, skills and training of
employees.  Certain positions in the bargaining unit require
specialized experience and training.  For instance, the Fleet
Maintenance Technician Advanced must have extensive knowledge of
large engine repair and body work.  The Master Electrician must
hold a valid Master Electrician's license.  Except for these
types of positions, however, the base qualifications, skills and
training are similar for positions within the bargaining unit. 
Most of the positions require a high school education or
equivalent, experience in some type of equipment operation and
the possession of a valid driver's license (of different
classes).  Most of the positions require the ability to lift and
perform other medium-to-heavy physical work.  The Parks and
Recreation Department positions do not "stand out" as requiring
unique qualifications, skills or training; these positions do not
make up a "distinct and homogenous group" separated by
qualifications, skills or training from the Public Works
Department positions.  Mallinckrodt Chemical Works and IBEW, 

                               -23-
_________________________________________________________________

Local No. 1, 162 NLRB at 397.  This factor supports a finding of
community of interest between the positions in the larger
existing bargaining unit.
     (6) Frequency of contact or interchange among the employees. 
 The Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments are
located in separate buildings and locations, therefore limiting
any frequent or daily interchange among the employees in the
unit.  The employees do have some opportunity for interchange,
such as at union meetings, at the gas depot, or when cross-
Department work is performed. This factor tends to undermine a
finding of a community of interest between the positions in the
larger existing bargaining unit.
     (7) Geographic proximity.  See discussion in section (6),
above.
     (8) History of collective bargaining.  This criterion, as
discussed earlier, is an important one in considering a petition
for severance.  Past MLRB hearing examiners have examined various
aspects of the collective bargaining history in evaluating this
criterion in severance petitions.  Teamsters Local Union No. 48
and County of Cumberland and Council No. 74, AFSCME, supra
(length and stability of bargaining relationship; participation
in union affairs by bargaining unit members seeking severance;
the offering of special proposals for the group at bargaining
table; whether unit created by agreement); Teamsters Local Union
No. 48 and Council No. 74, AFSCME and City of Portland, No. 81-UD-10 
(MLRB July 10, 1981) (adequacy of union representation in
grievances; length and stability of bargaining relationship; the
offering of special proposals for the group at bargaining table);
Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and State of Maine (Institutional
Services Unit), et al., No. 83-UD-25 (MLRB Jan. 10, 1984), aff'd, 

                               -24-
_________________________________________________________________

No. 84-A-02 (MLRB Apr. 2, 1984) (same).[fn]4  In the present
matter, the parties have had a lengthy history of collective
bargaining, over 20 years.  The parties have had relatively good
labor relations.  The parties have negotiated in recent years
three-year collective bargaining agreements and have needed only
limited third-party intervention in settling agreements.  In the
past four agreements, the parties have required fact-finding on
one occasion; that agreement was settled after one day of fact-
finding.  The Parks and Recreation Department Director (a member
of the management negotiating team for over ten years) testified
that he believed that contract negotiations have become more
difficult over the years and that the conflicting issues between
the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments has greatly
contributed to this increased difficulty (Tr. 85).  While the
hearing officer has no doubt that the Director sincerely holds
this belief, only the present negotiations for a successor
agreement seem to reflect any conflict between the parties over 
____________________

     4 Past hearing examiners have relied on National Labor Relations
Board precedent in finding that the history of collective bargaining
and adequacy of representation are important considerations in
severance petitions:

     The adequacy of representation by the incumbent bargaining
     agent is an important factor in the NLRB's consideration of
     severance petitions.  See, e.g., Bendix Corp., 227 NLRB
     1534, 1537-38 (1977); Beaunit Corp., 224 NLRB 1502, 1504-5
     (1976).  The NLRB holds, however, that 'a union that does
     not accede to all demands made upon it by the unit seeking
     to be severed cannot be accused of inadequately representing
     that unit based on that fact alone.'  Firestone Tire and
     Rubber Co., 223 NLRB 904, 906 (1976).  A number of factors
     are considered, including whether members of the proposed
     unit have participated in the affairs of the incumbent union
     by acting as stewards and bargaining team members, and
     whether any special provisions affecting the interests of
     the proposed unit have been included in bargaining
     agreements.  Bendix Corp., 227 NLRB at 1537; Beaunit Corp.,
     224 NLRB at 1504.
 
Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and State of Maine (Institutional
Services Unit),et al., No. 83-UD-25, slip op. at 14.

                               -25-
_________________________________________________________________

the separation of the Departments (for instance, the City has
proposed separate seniority lists for Departments).  Wages and
health insurance costs appear to have predominated discussions in
previous contract negotiations. 
     There was no real evidence presented that the Teamsters have
represented the Parks and Recreation Department employees in an
inadequate fashion in administering the contract or in handling
grievances.  For eight years, the Shop Steward was the Parks
Foreman, essentially giving the Parks and Recreation Department
employees ready access to this individual on matters of
interpreting the collective bargaining agreement, filing
grievances, and the like.  About two years ago, the Shop Steward
left the Parks and Recreation Department to take a position with
the Public Works Department, but he is still available to the
Parks and Recreation Department employees.  The Shop Steward has
processed several grievances over the years for Parks and
Recreation Department employees, both before and after his move
to the Public Works Department.  
     The Petitioner testified about one grievance that the Shop
Steward did not pursue or failed to pursue in a timely fashion on
behalf of the Grounds Mechanic.  The Petitioner did not seem to
have much information about this matter.  The City requested a
subpoena to have this employee testify, but chose instead to file
an affidavit from this employee only on the issue of his desire
for severance.  The Shop Steward's testimony about his handling
of this grievance was also rather vague and confused.  The
hearing officer was simply not offered sufficient evidence on
this issue to conclude that the Shop Steward handled this
grievance poorly or, more important to the present matter, that
he failed to give proper representation to this employee because
he was an employee of the Parks and Recreation Department.  
     The Petitioner also testified about his dissatisfaction with
the Union's position that all bargaining unit employees must 

                               -26-
_________________________________________________________________

participate in the health insurance package, with no opt-out.  At
least one other employee was identified as being dissatisfied
with this arrangement, although this employee works for the
Public Works Department.  This fact simply demonstrates that in
the collective bargaining process, the concerns of individual
unit members must at times give way to the concerns of the
majority.[fn]5  This is not an issue somehow peculiar to the
Parks and Recreation Department employees, nor does it
demonstrate inadequate representation on the part of the
Teamsters.
     The present Parks and Recreation Department employees have
done little to participate in union affairs.  None have served as
officers, shop stewards or assistant shop stewards, although
opportunities to serve in such positions have been available in
the past.  The Parks and Recreation Department employees have not
sought any special contract proposals during the present or past
contract negotiations.  Only very recently have the employees
even approached the Union to seek their representation for a
separate unit.  Participation in union affairs is often cited as
a factor in considering severance petitions.  For instance, in
Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and Town of Winslow and Council No.
74, AFSCME, No. 84-UD-17 (MLRB May 31, 1984), the hearing
examiner noted that the firefighters (who were seeking to be
separated from a larger bargaining unit also containing public
works employees) actively participated in the union, thereby
insuring that their unique circumstances and needs were reflected
in the various collective bargaining agreements; this was part of
a "long and fruitful collective bargaining history" which
supported the conclusion that the firefighters should not be 
___________________

     5 Ford Motor Company v. Hoffman, 345 U.S. 330, at 338 (1953)
("Inevitably differences arise in the manner and degree to which the
terms of any negotiated agreement affect individual employees and
classes of employees.  The mere existence of such differences does not
make them invalid.  The complete satisfaction of all who are
represented is hardly to be expected.")

                               -27-
_________________________________________________________________

severed.  Id. at 12. Conversely, when employees do not
participate in union affairs and do relatively little to have
their concerns addressed, as is the case in the present matter,
it is difficult to conclude in hindsight that those employees
have been inadequately represented at the bargaining table.
     Some evidence suggested that the Teamsters could do a better
job in making the Parks and Recreation Department employees feel
that they have a voice in their representation.  Only the Shop
Steward and the Assistant Shop Steward are placed on the
negotiating team.  Thus, employees who are not willing to commit
themselves to serve in these positions have no opportunity to be
on the team.  While the employees are given the opportunity at
meetings to give the team input on the negotiations, the Parks
and Recreation Department employees believe that their concerns
are not heard.  In the present negotiations, for instance, the
Union negotiating team rebuffed suggestions by the City that an
ice rink be established, even though the Parks and Recreation
Department employees would maintain such a rink and support the
idea.  Union meetings are always held at the Public Works
Department, sometimes with short notice.  While none of these
facts demonstrated that the Parks and Recreation Department
employees are being inadequately represented by the Teamsters,
this manner of doing business has fostered resentment which has,
in part, fueled this Petition.
     The hearing officer is nevertheless mindful that the primary
motivation for the Petition being filed at this time is the
current talk of lay-offs and the possibility that a Parks and
Recreation Department employee may be bumped or laid off due to
lack of seniority.  It can only be assumed that if the Parks and
Recreation Department employees had more seniority, the bumping
provisions of the collective bargaining agreement would allow
them to preserve their jobs at the expense of Public Works
Department employees with less seniority, and the desire for 

                               -28-
_________________________________________________________________

severance would be substantially decreased.  No one can predict
at this time whether or how many lay-offs will occur or how the
Departments will be affected, precisely.  This is a far too
temporal situation to cause the break-up of a bargaining unit
with a lengthy and fruitful history of collective bargaining. 
Accord Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and Town of Winslow and
Council No. 74, AFSCME, No. 84-UD-17, slip op. at 12; Teamsters
Local Union No. 48 and Council No. 74, AFSCME and City of
Portland, No. 81-UD-10, slip op. at 18-19.
     For all these reasons, the history of collective bargaining
strongly supports a finding that a community of interest exists
amongst the present bargaining unit and that severing the Parks
and Recreation Department employees would undermine a bargaining
relationship which has been long, stable and generally fruitful
for both sides.
     (9) Desires of the affected employees.  The parties agreed
in a prehearing conference that affidavits signed by employees in
the bargaining unit who either supported or opposed the severance
petition could be admitted into evidence, in lieu of testimony on
this issue.  The City offered the affidavits of two Parks and
Recreation Department employees who supported the severance
petition (City Exh. Nos. 14, 15).  This, in addition to the
testimony of the Petitioner established that all three current
Parks and Recreation Department employees support the severance
petition.  The Teamsters offered the affidavits of 19 Public
Works Department employees who opposed the severance petition
(Union Exh. Nos. 1 - 19).  Therefore, a significant number of
employees in the larger existing bargaining unit (but not
including the Parks and Recreation Department employees) oppose
the petition.
     This evidence raises an obvious question:  When determining
the desires of "affected employees," should the desires of all
the employees in the existing bargaining unit be considered, or 

                               -29-
_________________________________________________________________

only those employees who would be severed as the result of the
petition?  The hearing officer could find no past MLRB decisions
which directly dealt with this issue.  Several hearing officers
considered the desires of the employees in the unit to be
severed, but found that inconclusive evidence was presented on
this issue.  Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and Town of Winslow and
Council No. 74, AFSCME, No. 84-UD-11, slip op. at 13; Teamsters
Local Union No. 48 and County of Cumberland and Council No. 74,
AFSCME, supra, slip op. at 16.  This hearing officer was offered
conflicting affidavits only from the employees in the unit to be
severed, and found that the conflict further undermined the need
to sever the unit, in Corporals and Sergeants, Cumberland County
Sheriff's Office and Council No. 74, AFSCME and Cumberland County
Commissioners, No. 02-UD-03, slip op. at 39-41 (MLRB May 31,
2002).  One hearing officer suggested that the desires of both
the employees in the unit to be severed and in the larger unit
must be considered:

          With respect to the desires of the employees who
     support the instant petition, it is clear that their
     desires cannot transcend other interests of equal
     importance.  Not the least among these are the
     interests of the other employees in the existing unit
     and the interest of stability in the collective
     bargaining process.  The history of collective
     bargaining here has spanned 14 years.  This arrangement
     should not be disturbed lightly, particularly since it
     has worked reasonably well - albeit not perfectly.

Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and Council No. 74, AFSCME and City
of Portland, No. 81-UD-10, slip op. at 20.
     The Parks and Recreation Department employees here would
certainly be "affected" by a severance; they would need to
negotiate their own collective bargaining agreement for the first
time and they could possibly lose their bargaining agent. 
Whether such a small unit could negotiate as effectively as a
larger unit is unknown.  At the same time, some consideration
must be given to the desires of the bargaining unit members who 

                               -30-
_________________________________________________________________

would remain if the Parks and Recreation Department employees
were severed.  They, too, would be "affected" by the severance,
by possibly losing job opportunities, bumping rights, overtime or
other advantages provided by the present collective bargaining
agreement.  Considering both the desires of the employees to be
severed and the employees remaining in the unit is in keeping
with the balancing required by the NLRB.[fn]6  For these
reasons, the hearing officer believes that the desires of both
groups of employees must be considered and weighed.
     The Parks and Recreation Department employees are uniform in
their present desire to be severed from the larger unit.  The
large majority of Public Works Department employees oppose the
severance.  As has been mentioned already, the desires of all the
bargaining unit members at this time have been influenced,
perhaps in great part, by the recent specter of lay-offs.  If the
City were to announce that no lay-offs would be forthcoming, or
that these departments would be unaffected by any lay-offs, the
"desires" of these affected employees may well change. 
Particularly considering this, the hearing officer finds that the
desires of the Parks and Recreation Department employees (though
uniform at this time) should not be used to support a finding of
lack of community of interest amongst the larger existing unit. 
Any discontent amongst the Parks and Recreation Department
employees at this time is insufficient to break up a functioning
bargaining unit with a long and stable history.
    (10) Extent of union organization.  This criterion is not
particularly valuable in evaluating a severance petition.  
In addition to fire and police units, the City has at least 
____________________

     6 ". . .[T]he interests of all employees in continuing to bargain
together in order to maintain their collective strength . . . may
favor adherence to the established patterns of bargaining." 
Mallinckrodt Chemical Works and IBEW, Local No. 1, 162 NLRB 387, at
392 (1966).

                               -31-
_________________________________________________________________

three functioning bargaining units - the present one, a general
government unit and a government supervisory unit (the latter two
units represented by AFSCME).  If the Parks and Recreation
Department employees were to be severed, it is unclear whether
the Teamsters would continue to represent the unit, whether the
unit would represent itself, or whether the unit would elect to
have no bargaining agent.  The severance would have an unknown
effect upon the extent of union organization in the City.  This
factor neither supports nor undermines a finding of community of
interest.
    (11) The employer's organizational structure.  As already
discussed in criterion (2) Common Supervision, the bargaining
unit as presently configured contains employees from two
different departments.  However, both departments are ultimately
supervised by the City Administration, under common personnel
policies.  The hearing examiner was not provided with an overview
of the City's departmental structure.  However, a review of the
City's two government bargaining units (which contain such
diverse positions as Code Enforcement Officer, Highway Super-
visor, and Accountant/Tax Collector), suggests that employees
from more than one City Department can belong to the same unit
without unduly burdening the employer's organizational structure
or undermining the collective bargaining process.  The fact that
employees are employed in different departments in the circum-
stances does not in itself undermine a community of interest.
     In conclusion, a review of most of the community of interest
factors supports a finding that the Parks and Recreation
Department positions share a community of interest with the
positions in the existing bargaining unit.  As described more
fully above, the employees in the Parks and Recreation and the
Public Works Departments perform similar type of manual, semi-
skilled to skilled work (although different day-to-day tasks). 
The bargaining history of this unit has been a long and basically 

                               -32-
_________________________________________________________________

fruitful one.  These two factors especially distinguish it from
Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and County of Cumberland and Council
No. 74, AFSCME, supra, where patrol officers and detectives were
severed from a bargaining unit of corrections officers and
support personnel, after the unit had been in existence less than
three years.  While some factors superficially support a finding
of no community of interest (such as common supervision and
frequency of contact), such factors would be given more weight if
this were an initial unit determination petition, rather than a
petition to sever.  Considering all of the community of interest
factors, the hearing officer cannot find that the Parks and
Recreation Department positions should be severed from the
bargaining unit.
                                
                           CONCLUSION
                                
     The Petition for Unit Determination filed on August 5, 2002,
by Ryan Adams, seeking the severance of a unit consisting of the
Parks Foreman, Grounds Mechanic and Parks Laborer, from the
Waterville Departments of Public Works and Parks and Recreation
Bargaining Unit, is denied.  These positions will remain as part
of the presently-configured bargaining unit.

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 28th day of October, 2002.

                                MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD



                                /s/_________________________
                                Dyan M. Dyttmer
                                Hearing Examiner


The parties are hereby advised of their right, pursuant to
26 M.R.S.A.  968(4), to appeal this report to the Maine Labor
Relations Board.  To initiate such an appeal, the party seeking
appellate review must file a notice of appeal with the Board
within fifteen (15) days of the date of issuance of this report. 
See Chapter 10 and Chap. 11  30 of the Board Rules.

                               -33-
_________________________________________________________________