City of Biddeford and AFSCME and Teamsters, No. 87-A-05, affirming 87-UC-01.

                                           Case No. 87-A-05
                                           Issued:  February 27, l987
CITY OF BIDDEFORD,              )
                  Appellant,    )
and                             )
LOCAL 2011-04, COUNCIL NO. 93,  )
AFL-CIO,                        )
                      Appellee, )
and                             )
                      Appellee. )

     Pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A.  968(4) (Pamph. 1986) and in accordance
with Maine Labor Relations Board (Board) Unit Determination Rule 1.10,
this appeal was commenced on December 1, 1986, when Lloyd P.
LaFontaine, Attorney for Appellant City of Biddeford (City), filed a
Notice of Appeal of a Unit Clarification Report (Report) issued on
November 14, 1986.  That Report granted the petition of Local 2011-04,
Council No. 93, American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME) and clarified the City of Biddeford's Clerical/
Secretarial Bargaining Unit, represented for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining by AFSCME, to include a newly created Public Works
Department clerical position.
     In the proceeding before the Hearing Examiner, the City and
Teamsters Local Union No. 48 (Teamsters) contended that the position
at issue was more appropriately included in the Public Works Non-
Supervisory Unit represented for the purposes of collective bargaining
by the Teamsters.  In opposition to AFSCME's clarification request the
City asserts that the new clerical position has little daily inter-
change with the employees in the Clerical/Secretarial unit.  Further,


the City contends that it would create "administrative headaches" for
one position in the Public Works Department to be covered by a dif-
ferent collective bargaining agreement than that applicable to the
rank-and-file Public Works employees because vacation schedules and
other benefits applicable to the clerical position would be beyond
management's ability to coordinate effectively.
     The Hearing Examiner determined that the threshold requirements
for unit clarification had been met.  The Hearing Examiner also deter-
mined on the basis of factors relating to community of interest, con-
sidered in light of the disruptive effects that could result from
grounding the unit placement of positions predominately upon work
location, that the newly-created position was appropriately included
in the Clerical/Secretarial Unit.
     Upon due notice the Board, consisting of Chairman Edward S.
Godfrey, presiding, Thacher E. Turner, Employer Representative, and
George W. Lambertson, Employee Representative, convened a hearing on
the merits of the issues raised in the appeal on January 7, 1987.  The
parties were provided the opportunity at hearing to appear, submit
evidence, cross-examine witnesses and orally argue.  Neither party
expressed a desire to file post-hearing briefs and the Board delib-
erated the appeal immediately upon adjourning the hearing.
     The jurisdiction of the Board to hear and decide this appeal is
conferred by 26 M.R.S.A.  968(4) (Pamph. 1986).  Neither party has
contested the Board's jurisdiction in this matter.
     The proceeding below was conducted to determine the unit place-
ment of a newly-created Public Works clerical position based on con-
siderations of community of interest.  The City's primary dispute in
this appeal is, however, one concerning the amount of wages to be paid
to Rachel Cadorette, a long-time City Clerical/Secretarial unit
employee, who is the present occupant of the newly created position.
Paul Gobeil, City Treasurer/Administrative Assistant, gave the

following testimony in this regard:
     I think the whole story here is because of the fact that
     should that person be able to maintain [membership] within
     the City Hall staff [Clerical/Secretarial bargaining unit],
     now at that point the contract concerning the City Hall
     [staff] would only consider a downward classification which
     would mean at this point this person would lose roughly
     twenty-eight cents.  Now the position--fully explained to
     this person prior to there was a difference of two dollars
     an hour.  Now the crux of the whole matter here is the fact
     if you maintain this position within the City Hall that that
     person knowingly beforehand there was two dollars difference
     as a bargaining rate will only lose now strictly twenty-eight
This so-called "money issue" is not one suitable to resolution in a
unit clarification case; rather, it is more appropriately resolved
either through interpretation of the Change in Classification section
of the parties' bargaining agreement's Job Classification-Starting
Rates article or through collective bargaining.
     In the circumstances of this case we find unpersuasive also the
City's arguments that the inclusion of the contested position in the
Clerical/Secretarial unit would be disruptive because of differences
in the contract terms applicable to employees working in close proxim-
ity to one another, the inconvenience to managers of having to apply
the terms of two different bargaining contracts, and the asserted dif-
ficulty of applying the terms of the existing Clerical/Secretarial
agreement to an employee whose work situs is removed from the main
contingent of covered employees doing similar work.  These factors
were considered carefully and extensively by the Hearing Examiner.
His findings of fact were accurate, and his decision was rationally
supportable on those facts.  The Appellant had the burden of proving
material error on the issue.  Board Unit Determination Rule 1.10(C).
They have not carried that burden.
     On the basis of the foregoing discussion and by virtue of and
pursuant to the powers granted to the Maine Labor Relations Board by

26 M.R.S.A  968(4) (Pamph. 1986), it is hereby ordered that the City
of Biddeford's appeal of the November 14, 1986 Unit Clarification
Report, filed on December 1, 1986, be denied.
Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 27th day of February, 1987.
                                  MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

The parties are hereby advised
of their right, pursuant to 26
M.R.S.A.  968(4) (Pamph.         /s/________________________________
1986), to seek review of this     Edward S. Godfrey
Decision and Order by the         Chairman
Superior Court.  To initiate
such a review an appealing
party must file a complaint
with the Superior Court within    /s/_________________________________
thirty (30) days of the date      Thacher E. Turner
of issuance hereof, and other-    Employer Representative
wise comply with the require-
ments of Rule 80B of the Maine
Rules of Civil Procedure.
                                  George W. Lambertson
                                  Employee Representative