STATE OF MAINE

MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case No. 84-UD-17
Issued: May 31, 1984

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 48, )
STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND )
UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES,
Petitioner,

and

TOWN OF WINSLOW
Public Employer,

and

COUNCIL NO. 74, AMERICAN FEDERATION )
OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL )
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
Certified Bargaining Agent.

 

UNIT DETERMINATION REPORT

     This unit determination proceeding was initiated on April 6, 1984 when Teamsters Local Union No. 48 ("Local 48") filed a petition for appropriate unit determination, pursuant to Title 26 M.R.S.A. Section 966. A hearing on the petition was conducted by the undersigned hearing examiner for the Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board") on May 17, 1984, in the Bureau of Labor Standards Conference Room, seventh floor, State Office Building, Augusta, Maine. Local 48 was represented at the hearing by its Secretary-Treasurer, Walter J. Stilphen, Jr. The currently certified bargaining agent for the Winslow Public Works and Fire Departments bargaining unit, Council No. 74, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO ("Council 74"), was represented by Lawrence T. Potter, Esq. The Town of Winslow ("Employer") appeared and was represented at the hearing by George Hunter, Labor Relations Consultant.

      Local 48's petition seeks to carve out a fire department bargaining unit from the existing Winslow Public Works and Fire Departments bargaining unit. The proposed bargaining unit would consist of the following positions: fireman and captain. Local 48 urges the granting of its petition on the grounds that

     [end of page 1]

the employees in the proposed bargaining unit share a clear and identifiable community of interest and that said employees do not share a community of interest with the other employees in the present bargaining unit. Council 74 opposes Local 48's petition on the grounds that both the firefighters and the public works employees have been fairly represented within the existing bargaining unit. The Employer opposes Local 48's petition for the following reasons: (1) there has been a long and substantial collective bargaining history for the current unit,(2) all of the employees in the present unit share a clear and identifiable community of interest, and (3) creation of the proposed unit would be contrary to the Board's policy of discouraging the proliferation of small bargaining units through fragmentation.

     At the outset of the hearing, the hearing examiner suggested that the parties attempt to reach stipulations in those areas which were not in dispute. The parties raised no objections to this suggestion. Through the diligent effort and cooperation of all parties, the hearing examiner was able to ascertain those areas where no issues of fact existed and the factual area which was in dispute. The parties were then able to focus their inquiries upon the latter. Local 48 presented the following witness:

John Spenard Firefighter and President of the Winslow
Public Works and Fire Departments bargaining unit

Neither Council 74 nor the Employer presented any witnesses at the hearing. The following documents were admitted, into the record:

Joint Exhibit No. l
1982 - 1984 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Employer and Council 74

Joint Exhibit No. 2
1980 - 1982 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Employer and Council 74

Joint Exhibit No. 3
1978 - 1980 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Employer and Council 74

These were the only documents offered at the hearing. The parties were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence, and to make argument.

JURISDICTION

     Teamsters Local Union No. 48 is a labor. organizatior. engaged in the business of organizing and representing public employees for purposes of collective bargaining,

     [end of page 2]

within the meaning of the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act ("Act"), 26 M.R.S.A. Section 961, et seq. Council No. 74, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, is the certified bargaining agent, within the definition of Section 962(2) of the Act, for the current Winslow Public Works and Fire Departments bargaining unit. All employees, whose job classifications presently constitute the Winslow Public Works and Fire Departments bargaining unit, are public employees, within the definition of Section 962(6) of the Act. The Town of Winslow is the public employer, within the meaning of Section 962(7) of the Act, all of the employees whose job classifications presently constitute the Hinslow Public Works and Fire bepartment bargaining unit. The jurisdiction of the hearing examiner tci hear this matter and to make an appropriate unit determination herein lies in 26 M.R.S.A. Section 966.

FINDINGS OF FACT

     Upon review of the entire record, the hearing examiner finds:

     1. Teamsters Local Union No. 48 is a labor organization engaged in the business of organizing and representing public employees for purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act, Title 26 M.R.S.A. Section 961, et seq.

     2. Council No. 74, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, is the certified bargaining agent, within the definition of 26 M.R.S.A. Section 962(2), for the current Winslow Public Works and Fire Departments bargaining unit.

     3. All employees, whose job classifications presently constitute the Winslow Public Works and Fire Departments bargaining unit, are public employees, within the definition of 26 M.R.S.A. Section 962(6).

     4. The Town of Winslow is the public employer, within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. Section 962(7), of all of the employees whose job classifications presently constitute the Winslow Public Works and Fire Departments bargaining unit.

     5. The bargaining unit mentioned in the preceding paragraph includes the Laborer and Truck Driver, Machine Operator, and Sanitation Worker job classifications in the Winslow Public Works Department as well as the Fireman and Captain job classifications in the Winslow Fire Department.

     [end of page 3]

     6. The primary work responsibilities of the firefighter employees of the bargaining unit are: to fight fires, to perform inspections, to investigate the cause of fires, and to provide emergency non-transport medical services. The primary work responsibilities of the public works employees of the bargaining unit are: to maintain roads (including the performance of grading, paving, patching, and culvert work), to perform snow removal operations, and to do sanitation work. The work of the two groups is similar only in that they both operate and do routine maintenance work on heavy equipment.

     7. The Fire Department employees are under the supervision of the Fire Chief and the Public Works Department employees are supervised by the Public Horks Director. The labor relations policies for all of the bargaining unit employees have, since at least 1978 and probably since 1970, been determined through collective negotiations between the Employer and Council 74.

     8. All of the employees in the current bargaining unit are paid on an hourly basis and are paid a 50% premium for all hours worked over and above their standard work week, except for sanitation workers involved with refuse collection who are not paid overtime therefor. Firefighters are compensated an additional $15.00 per week, if they have completed and maintained their Maine E.M.T. Certification. The actual wages received by the employees are based upon their classification's wage scale.

     9. The vacations, family death leave, jury duty leave, civic duty leave, hospital, surgical and major medical insurance, and supplemental workers' compensation benefits are the same for all employees in the present bargaining unit. All of the unit employees receive the same paid holidays; however, the firefighters are compensated 12 hours' pay for each such holiday and the public works employees receive 8 hours' pay for each. The firefighters and public works employees both accrue sick leave at the rate of one and one-half days for each full calendar month of service; however, the firefighters may accumulate a maximum of 126 sick leave days and the public works employees may accumulate a maximum of 96 sick leave days. The firefighters are paid an annual uniform allowance of $325.00 while the public works employees are provided uniforms, protective clothing; or protective devices, if the same are required by the Employer as a condition of employment. The public works employees receive meal and rest periods as well as clean-up time and, because of the nature of their employment, the firefighters do not receive these benefits.

     [end of page 4]

     10. The standard work week for firefighters is 56 hours. The standard work week for public works employees is 40 hours, consisting of 5 consecutive 8-hour days. The sanitation employees have a 3-day standard work week which is deemed to be 40 hours long, regardless of the number of hours actually worked.

      11. As conditions of employment, the firefighters must: eat and sleep at the fire station and wear uniforms, during their tours of duty, and be qualified as emergency medical technicians. None of these conditions of employment apply to the public works employees.

      12. Although it is important for the employees in both groups to possess general mechanical aptitude, the qualifications, skills, and training for the two groups are very different. As was noted in the preceding paragraph, the firefighters must be qualified as emergency medical technicians. The firefighters also must attend courses and receive monthly in-service training in general fire fighting techniques, the operation of fire fighting vehicles and equipment, and appropriate hazardous materials responses. The public works employees are trained and gain skills in the use of hand tools and in the operation of such heavy equipment as dump trucks, front-end loaders, backhoes, graders, sidewalk plows, and sanitation trucks.

     13. There is infrequent professional contact or interchange between the firefighters and the public works employees. Such contact occurs only when the firefighters have Fire Department vehicles repaired or re-fueled at the Public Works garage.

     14. The firefighters' base of operations is the fire station which is approximately one mile from the public works garage, the work base for the public works employees.

     15. The firefighter who appeared at the hearing as a witness for Local 48 expressed a desire to be represented in a separate firefighters' bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.

     16. Since March 6, 1970, the firefighters and the public works employees have been included in the same bargaining unit.

     17. The Employer's organizational structure is as follows: The Town Council is the legislative and policy-making body for the Town of Winslow; the Town Manager, the Town's chief executive officer, is responsible for over-all operation of municipal services and he reports to the Town Council; the various department heads, including the Fire Chief and the Public Works Director, each supervise the employees within a municipal department and report to the Town Manager;

      [end of page 5]

and the employees in each municipal department report directly, or through intermediate supervisors, to the department heads.

     18. The earliest evidence conc rning. the genesis of the current bargaining unit is an election report and certificate dated March 6, 1970 and signed by an agent of the former Maine Department of Labor and Industry. Administrative notice of said document, from the Board's file on the current unit, was taken during the course of the hearing, at the request of the Employer's representative and without objection being raised thereto by either of the other parties. According to the document, employees of the Winslow Fire and Streets Departments, together as one bargaining unit, voted on March 6, 1970 in favor of Council 74 as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining.

     19. At least three collective bargaining agreements, for the current bargaining unit, have been negotiated, executed, and implemented by the Employer and Council 74, since 1970. Three such agreements were introduced into evidence at the hearing covering the period from July 1, 1978 to June 30, 1984 inclusively. The latest collective bargaining agreement,for the current unit, was reached at the bargaining table without third party intervention.

     20. Prior to the beginning of the negotiations which resulted in each of the collective bargaining agreements mentioned in the preceding paragraph, bargaining proposals for consideration in said negotiations were actively solicited from the firefighters by Council 74. Such proposals were then admitted by the firefighters to Council 74.

     21. The union bargaining teams, which negotiated each of the collective bargaining agreements mentioned in paragraph 19 hereof, were each composed of one Field Representative from Council 74 and three employees from the current bargaining unit, at least one of whom was a firefighter.

     22. The firefighters' proposals, mentioned in paragraph 20 above, were discussed at the bargaining table and several of them were incorporated into the collective bargaining agreements noted in paragraph 19 hereof.

     23. Several articles or portions thereof, in the collective bargaining agreements noted in paragraph 19 above, deal with the special circumstances and needs of the firefighters. Among such articles in the current collective bargaining agreement are: Article 7 (Section 2a, concerning the Fire Department work schedule, and Section 6, relating to the'56 hour standard work week),

      [end of page 6]

Article 8 (Section 3, discussing the provision of bedding}, Article 11 (Section 3a, providing that holiday pay is to equal 12 times the firefighters' hourly rate of pay), Article 12 (allowing the accumulation of up to 126 days of sick leave), Article 14 (Section lA, outlining the firefighters' pay scales, Section 1B, discussing the ranks in the Fire Department, and Section lC, providing the additional $15.00 per week compensation for E.M.T. certification), Article 14A (outlining payment for special duty assignments), Article 14B (discussing extra tours of duty), and Article 28 (Section 1a, granting each firefighter an annual clothing allowance, and Section lti, mandating the furnishing of certain protective clothing to each firefighter. The earlier collective bargaining agreements had similar, albeit fewer, articles specifically for the benefit of the firefighters.

     24. The firefighters have been represented by a shop steward and have had their grievances processed expeditiously, within the current bargaining unit structure.

      25. Although the firefighters constitute only about one-third of the employees included in the present unit, two firefighters serve as the only elected officers, the president and the secretary/treasurer, of the union local for the unit.

     26. There are, at present, a total of seventeen employees in the Winslow Fire and Public Works Departments bargaining unit. Local IIS's unit determination petition seeks to create a separate unit composed of six of these employees.

DECISION

     The issue before the hearing examiner is whether two job classifications of Winslow Fire Department employees should be severed from the existing Winslow Public Works and Fire Departments bargaining unit to form a Winslow Fire Department bargaining unit. The positions sought to be included in the proposed bargaining unit are Fireman and Captain. Local 48 urges adoption of the petition on the grounds that, although sharing a clear and identifiable community of interest with each other, the classifications proposed for severance lack a community of interest with the other positions in the current bargaining unit. Council 74 opposes the petition alleging that all employees have been fairly represented within the existing bargaining unit. The Employer opposes the granting of the severance petition on the following grounds: (1) there has been a long and substantial collective bargaining history for the current unit,

     [end of page 7]

(2) creation of the proposed unit would be contrary to the Board's policy of discouraging the proliferation of small bargaining units through fragmentation, and (3) all of the employees in the present unit share a clear and identifiable community of interest.

     The procedural mechanism employed by Local 48 in this case, the filing of a petition for appropriate unit determination together with an adequate showing of interest, is a proper means of attempting to sever one or more job classifications from an established bargaining unit and, thereby, to create a new unit. Teamsters Local 48 and State of Maine, MLRB No. 84-A-02, p.3 (April 2, 1984). Since this is a unit determination proceeding, the controlling principle herein is the community of interest standard embodied in Section 966(2) of the Act. Council 74, AFSCME and Teamsters Local 48, MLRB No. 84-A-04, pp.10-ll (April 25, 1984). The relevant criteria used to evaluate the presence or absence of community of interest have been outlined by the Board as follows:

"(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 of 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 public employer's organizational structure."

Council 74, AFSCME and City of Brewer, MLRB No. 79-A-01, pp. 3-4 (Oct. 17, 1979).

Each of the enumerated community of interest factors will be discussed, within the factual context of this matter, in separate sections of this decision.

     l. Similarity in the kind of work performed. The facts pertinent to this factor are noted in paragraph 6 of the foregoing findings of fact. With the exception of the common work of operation and routine maintenance of heavy equipment, the functions performed by the ffrefighters are inherently distinct and dissimilar from those of the public works employees. Not only are the tasks assigned to each group different but also the fundamental nature of the work each performs is unlike that of the other group. The firefighters' primary responsibilities involve protecting persons and property from the ravages of fire and providing emergency non-transport medical assistance to accident and fire victims. These services, by their very nature, involve substantial personal risk to the employees

      [end of page 8]

performing them and they are required on as sporadic basis. On the other hand, the public works employees' primary responsibilities, road maintenance and sanitary work, is steady and constant in nature and is only marginally hazardous to the employees involved.

     2. Common supervision and determination of labor-relations policy. The data concerning criterion is located in paragraph 7 of the findings of fact above. The firefighters are supervised by the Fire Chief and the public works employees are under the supervision of the Public Works Director. Although having different supervisors, the labor relations policies for the two groups of employees have been determined by the same collective bargaining agreements since at least 1978.

     3. Similarity in the scale and manner of determining earnings. The facts pertinent to this consideration are found in paragraph 8 of the above findings of fact. Although the pay scale is different for each of the five job classifications in the current bargaining unit, all of the unit employees are compensated on an hourly basis and, except for the sanitation workers, are paid a 50% premium for all hours worked over and above their standard work week. Firefighters, who have completed and maintained their Maine E.M.T. certification, are compensated an additional $15.00 per week.

      4. Similarity in employment benefits, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment. The facts relevant to this factor are cited in paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of the findings of fact. Many benefits are identical for all of the bargaining unit employees. Among such shared benefits are: vacations; family death leave; jury duty leave; civic duty leave; hospital, surgical, and major medical insurance; and supplemental workers' compensation benefits. The paid holidays for all of the unit employees are the same; however, the firefighters receive 12 hours' pay for each holiday and the public works employees are paid 8 hours therefor. The rate of sick leave accrual for both the firefighters and the public works employees is one and one-half days for each full calendar month of service; however, the former group may accumulate a maximum of 126 days while the latter group may accumulate a maximum of 96 days. The firefighters receive an annual clothing allowance of $325.00 while the public works employees are provided such uniforms, protective clothing, or protective devices as are required, to be worn or used, as a conditions of employment, by the Employer. The public works employees receive compensated meal and rest

     [end of page 9]

periods and clean-up time. The firefighters, because of the nature of their employment, do not receive the paid non-working periods.

     There is a significant variation in the standard work weeks of the distinct employee groups which comprise the current bargaining unit. The firefighters have a 56-hour standard work week; while that for the public works employees is 40 hours long and is composed of 5 consecutive 8-hour days. The sanitation employees have a 3-day standard work week which, for pay purposes, is deemed to be 40 hours long, regardless of the number of hours actually worked.

      The other conditions of employment of the firefighters are different from those of the public works employees. The firefighters must eat and sleep at the fire station and wear uniforms during their tours of duty. The public works employees have no similar working conditions; however, they are paid a meal allowance for the meal which falls during their normal work day. The firefighters must gain and maintain Maine Emergency Medical Technician certification and the public works employees have no comparable condition of employment.

     5. Similarity in the qualifications, skills and training of employees. The data concerning this criterion is located in paragraph 12 of the foregoing findings of fact. The qualifications, skills, and training of the firefighters are markedly dissimilar from those of the public works employees. The firefighters must be qualified as emergency medical technicians; the public works employees need not have such qualification. The firefighters must regularly attend courses of instruction and attend monthly in-service training in general fire fighting techniques, the operation of fire fighting vehicles and equipment, and appropriate hazardous materials responses. The public works employees are trained and gain skills in the use of hand tools and in the operation of heavy duty road construction equipment. Although it is important for the employees in both groups to possess general mechanical aptitute and despite the fact that both groups of employees operate heavy equipment, the nature of the primary function of each group demands that the employees' skills and training be very different.

      6. Frequency of contact or interchange among the employees. The facts pertinent to this consideration are found in paragraph 13 of the findings of fact, supra. There is infrequent professional contact or interchange between the two groups of employees in the present bargaining unit. Such contact occurs only when the firefighters take Fire Department vehicles to the Public Works garage for re-fueling or repair.

     [end of page 10]

     7. Geographic proximity. The information relevant to this factor is noted in paragraph 14 of the foregoing findings of fact. Inherent in the nature of their employment, both groups of employees work primarily away from their respective bases of operation. Fires and medical emergencies, like road repair and construction operations, generally occur throughout the Town of Winslow and not at the Fire Station or at the Public Works garage. The testimony produced at the hearing was that the two groups of employees almost never work in the same area. The Fire Station is located approxiinately one mile from the Public Works garage.

      8. History of collective bargaining. The data concerning this criterion is located in paragraphs 2, 5, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of the above findings of fact. The history of collective bargaining of the unit involved is a very important factor, in considering severance petitions. Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and State of Maine (Institional Services Unit) and Council No. 74, AFSCME and Maine State Employees Association, Unit Determination Report [83-UD-25], p. 14 (January 10, l984)(hereafter "Institutional Services Unit Report"), aff'd., Teamsters Local 48 and State of Maine, supra, at 4. In that case, the hearing examiner stated:

"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."

      The evidence in this proceeding demonstrated that the current bargaining unit has had a long, fruitful, and, at least recently, harmonious bargaining history. Although no evidence, concerning either the date of the creation of the present unit or the method used therefor, was submitted at the hearing, an election report and certification, dated March 6, 1970 and signed by an agent of the former Maine Department of Labor and Industry, indicates that the

     [end of page 11]

employees of the Winslow Fire and Streets Departments, together as one bargaining unit, voted, on March 6, 1970, in favor of Council 74 as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining. Three collective bargaining agreements, for the current bargaining unit and covering the period from July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1984, were introduced into evidence. The most recent of these agreements, effective from July 1, 1982 through June 30, 1984, was reached at the bargaining table without any sort of third-party intervention or assistance. Prior to beginning negotiations on each of the agreements mentioned, Council 74 actively solicited and received specific bargaining proposals from the firefighters, concerning their specific needs. The firefighters' proposals were presented at the bargaining table, by the union negotiating team, and several of the proposals were incorporated into the aforementioned collective bargaining agreements. Several articles in the collective agreements reflect the firefighters' special circumstances. The union bargaining teams which negotiated each of the noted co11ective bargaining agreements were each composed of four individua1s: the local union president, the firefighters' shop steward, the public works employees' shop steward, and a Field Representative from Council 74. The firefighters have served as shop stewards and have had their grievances processed expeditiously, within the structure of the current bargaining unit. Finally, although they only constituted about one-third of the employees included in the established bargaining unit at the time of the hearing, firefighters filled both of the offices in the local union, affiliated with Council 74, for said unit. The evidence, therefore, clearly demonstrated that the firefighters have actively participated in the affairs of the incumbent union and that their unique circumstances and needs have been reflected in the various collective bargaining agreements which have been negotiated on behalf of the current bargaining unit.

      The weight assigned to the collective bargaining history factor was significantly reduced in the recent unit determination report in the matter of Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and County of Cumberland and Council No. 74, AFSCME [84-UD-11], p. 15 (March 16, 1984), aff'd., Council No. 74, AFSCME and Teamsters Local Union No. 48, MLRB No. 84-A-04, pp. 10-11 (April 25, 1984). In that case, the bargaining unit in question had only been in existence for approximately two years and only one collective bargaining agreement had been negotiated therefor. The long and fruitful collective bargaining history in this matter clearly distinguishes it from the Cumberland County case and requires application of the traditional analysis herein.

      [end of page 12]

      9. Desires of the affected employees. The facts pertinent to this consideration are found in paragraph 15 of the findings of fact, supra. The single firefighter who gave testimony in this proceeding favored being placed in a separate firefighters' unit for purposes of collective bargaining. No general concensus of opinion concerning severance can be inferred from this single expression of opinion.

     10. Extent of union organization. The extent of the organizations of the two unions in this matter is not persuasive, either for or against severance. Council 74's organization is far more extensive; however, they currently represent the joint Fire and Public Works unit and Local 48 is seeking to sever the smaller proposed Fire Department unit.

     11. Public Employer's organizational structure. The facts pertinent to this factor are noted in paragraph 17 of the foregoing findings of fact. The firefighters and the public works employees are in separate municipal departments, under the supervision and control of different department heads, who are each, in turn, responsible to the Town Manager.

     Conclusions regarding community of interest. Each of the relevant community of interest factors has been weighed and balanced together with all of the other such criteria. This evaluation has led the hearing examiner to conclude that a clear and identifiable community of interst is shared by all of the employee classifications in the current bargaining unit. The community of interest holding herein may well have been different, if this had been an initial unit determination inquiry rather than a severance petition evaluation. As will be seen below, the history of collective bargaining factor serves to place many of the other community of interest criteria into the factual context needed for their proper evaluation, in the latter type of proceeding. The collective bargaining history is, therefore, given substantial weight in a severance action.

     The community of interest considerations cited in this paragraph might well justify the creation of separate firefighter and public works employee bargaining units, in an initial bargaining unit determination proceeding. The firefighters and the public works employees perform inherently different jobs requiring different qualifications, skills, and training. The two groups work in separate municipal departments under the supervision of different department heads. The public works employees are not entitled to receive the additional $15.00 per week

      [end of page 13]

which the firefighters are paid for maintaining their E.M.T. certification. The conditions of employment for the two groups are dissimilar and many of the employment benefits enjoyed by the firefighters are different from those of the public works employees. The two groups have different standard work weeks. The firefighters neither work in the same geographic area nor have frequent professional contact or interchange with the public works employees.

     Although the community of interest considerations noted in the preceding paragraph appear to warrant severance of the proposed unit, these differences must be evaluated in light of the current bargaining unit's collective bargaining history. There is no doubt that the firefighters and the public works employees perform fundamentally different functions; however, the two groups have, historically, bargained together as one body. Most of the diversity noted above is recognized in the collective bargaining agreement, negotiated on behalf of both the public works employees and the firefighters, which reflects the inherent differences between the two. For example, since the firefighters provide emergency services on a sporadic basis, they are housed at the fire station during their shifts and are required to be certified as emergency medical technicians. The public works employees, on the other hand, work continually at a steady pace and this is recognized by the compensated meal and rest periods, as well as by paid clean-up time, in the collective bargaining agreement. Since the firefighters work longer days, they receive greater compensation for their paid holidays. The firefighters are required, as a condition of employment, to wear uniforms while on duty; consequently, they are paid an annual uniform allowance. Furthermore, the increased physical risk of the firefighters' occupation is reflected by the longer sick leave accumulation allowed to them by the collective bargaining agreement. These examples illustrate that the inherent differences between the firefighters and the public works employees have been recognized in the bargaining process and have resulted in the adoption of separate agreement articles, addressing the singular needs of each of the employee groups. The factors listed in the preceding paragraph do not, therefore, require severance of the proposed bargaining unit.

     The following considerations establish that a clear and identifiable community of interest is shared by all of the employee classifications in the current bargaining unit. The labor relations policy for all the employees has been determined by the same collective bargaining agreements since at least July of 1978.

     [end of page 14]

The firefighters and most of the public works employees are paid on an hourly basis and receive 50% premium pay for all hours worked beyond their respective standard work weeks. The following benefits are the same for all of the employees in the current bargaining unit: vacations, sick leave accumulation rate, hospital, surgical and major medical insurance, family death leave, jury duty leave, civic duty leave, the same paid holidays, and supplemental workers' compensation benefits. Finally, there has been a long and successful collective bargaining history for the present bargaining unit. The employees, whose severance is sought, have participated in the affairs of the incumbent union as negotiators, shop stewards, and as local union officers. The firefighters' specific and unique needs have been presented in the form of proposals at the bargaining table. Several articles specifically addressing the concerns of the firefighters have been incorporated into the successive collective bargaining agreements for the present bargaining unit. Once the collective bargaining agreements were implemented, the firefighters' grievances were expeditiously processed. The most recent collective bargaining agreement for the present comprehensive unit was settled at the table, without any third party intervention. This last fact indicates that the composition of the present unit has not interfered with the bargaining process. Severance of the proposed unit would disrupt a long and stable bargaining situation and would, therefore, be contrary to the Act's fundamental purpose of fostering such relationships. Since all of the employee classifications in the current bargaining unit share a clear and identifiable community of interest, the hearing examiner holds that it continues to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.

      Non-proliferation policy. The Labor Relations Board has set forth a policy of discouraging the proliferation, through fragmentation, of small bargaining units within a single department. Town of Yarmouth and Teamsters Local Union No. 48, MLRB No. 80-A-04, p. 4 (June 16, 1980). This policy, which is primarily aimed at deterring the creation of one and two-member bargaining units, is based upon recognition of the fact that the employer, the bargaining agent, and the State all can spend the same amount of effort, money, and services dealing with a small unit as is expended for a much larger one. M.S.A.D. No. 14 and East Grand Teachers Association, MLRB No. 83-A-09, p. 13 (Aug. 24, 1983). There are seventeen employees in the current bargaining unit. If successful, Local 48's petition would result in the creation of a firefighters' unit of six employees and a public works employee's unit of eleven employees. The size of

     [end of page 15]

these resulting units, considered together with the foregoing community of interest discussion, leads the hearing examiner to conclude that granting the severance petition in this case would violate the Board's non-proliferation policy.

ORDER

      On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and discussion and by virtue of and pursuant to the provisions of 26 M.R.S.A. Section 966, the hearing examiner ORDERS:

The unit determination and election petitions, filed by
Teamsters Local Union No. 48 in this matter on April 6,
1984, be and hereby are denied.

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 31st day of May, 1984.

                                            MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

                                            /s/
                                            Marc P. Ayotte
                                            Hearing Examiner

      The parties are advised of their right, pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. Section 968(4), to appeal this report to the full Labor Relations Board by filing a notice of appeal with the Board within 15 days of the date of the report.

     [end of page 16]