STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD No. 90-UC-04 Issued: April 2, 1990 __________________________________ ) TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 340, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) and ) UNIT CLARIFICATION REPORT ) CITY OF BIDDEFORD, ) ) Public Employer. ) __________________________________) This unit clarification matter was initiated on December 26, 1989, when Teamsters Union Local 340 (Teamsters) filed a unit clarification peti- tion pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 966(3) (1988) and Board Unit Determination Rule 1.13. The Teamsters' petition requests that the City of Biddeford (Biddeford) Detectives and/or Juvenile Officers bargaining unit, presently represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by the Teamsters, be clarified to include Sergeant Robert Devou, who allegedly was "transferred to the Detectives Division" after his position in the Biddeford Sergeants and Corporals bargaining unit "was abolished and given out to other officers." In support of the requested clarification, the Teamsters allege that Devou was transferred to the Detective Division of the Biddeford Police Department on October 2, 1989, after his previous job of Administrative Sergeant was abolished. The Teamsters also allege that when Devou was transferred to the Detective Division his duties changed substan- tially. More specifically, the Teamsters allege that after the reassign- ment Devou no longer supervised other employees although his sergeant rank remained intact. The Teamsters also allege that Devou now performs work identical to that of other Detectives. The City contends that Devou has no community of interest with the Detectives unit. The City alleges that although Devou was reassigned, his duties continue to include supervisory and other functions not inter- changeable with those of Patrolmen. The City contends that Detectives are really Patrolmen assigned to detective duties without formal examination, whereas Detective Devou is a Sergeant, a higher-payment position into which [-1-] ___________________________________________________________________________ Patrolmen are promoted by examination. A notice to employees of the unit clarification hearing, with instruc- tions, was issued for posting purposes to the City on January 22, 1990. The City posted the notices as directed. The Teamsters are represented in this proceeding by Teamsters' Business Agent Carl Guignard. The City of Biddeford is represented in this matter by its Solicitor, Erland Hardy. At the February 5, 1990 evidentiary hearing, conducted at the Board's offices at Augusta, Maine, the parties were afforded the opportunity to present evidence and argument and the opportunity to cross-examine wit- nesses. The City's Solicitor was provided, at hearing, with both a copy of the Board's Rules and Procedures and a list of the eleven long-established factors employed by the Board in resolving disputes concerning community of interest. The Teamsters elicited testimony from Sergeant Devou. Biddeford elicited the testimony of Police Chief Roger Beaupre. The following docu- ments were marked for identification as indicated: Employer Exhibit No. 1, the parties' 74-page collective bargaining agreement effective July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1992. Employer Exhibit No. 2, the one-page Police Sergeant job description. Employer Exhibit No. 3, the one-page Police Detective job description. Employer Exhibit No. 4, a two-page October 13, 1989, memorandum to Captain Gaudette from Chief R. P. Beaupre. Employer Exhibit No. 5, a one-page Staff Support Director job description. Employer Exhibit No. 6, the four-page General Order numbered 102-89. Employer Composite Exhibit No. 7, comprised of two one-page documents, respectively, an October 6, 1989 grievance report filed for Robert Devou by Detective Division Steward Detective R. Gagne, and a February 2, 1990 memorandum of agreement, signed by Carl Guignard and Mayor Bonita P. Belanger. Union Exhibit No. 1, MLRB Forms 1 and 3, separate one-page agreement on appropriate unit and voluntary recognition forms, which establish the Detectives and/or Juvenile Officers bargaining unit. -2- ___________________________________________________________________________ Employer Exhibits 1 through 3, 5 through 7, and Union Exhibit 1 were admitted on the parties' joint stipulation of admissibility. Employer Exhibit No. 4 is hereby admitted. The factual record was closed upon receipt of Employer Exhibit No. 7, on February 7, 1990. The transcript of the proceeding was completed on February 9, 1990. Both parties filed posthearing submissions, the last of which was received March 7, 1990. Neither party requested a copy of the transcript. No other person or entity requested to participate in this proceeding on the basis that its substantial interests might be affected by the final order herein. The City's motion for directed verdict is hereby denied and the Teamsters' objection to evidence of bargaining proposals is hereby overruled. JURISDICTION The undersigned Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction to conduct a unit clarification hearing herein and to issue a report thereof lies in 26 M.R.S.A. 966(3) (1988). Neither party has objected to the jurisdic- tion of the Hearing Examiner. STIPULATIONS In off-the-record discussion prior to the hearing the parties reached the following stipulations: 1. The City of Biddeford is a public employer within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 962(7) (Supp. 1989). 2. Teamsters Local Union 340 is the bargaining agent, within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 962(2) (1988), of units of the City of Biddeford's Patrolman, Corporal/Sergeant, Secretary/ Dispatcher, Detective/Juvenile Officer and Captain employees. 3. Robert Devou is a public employee of the City of Biddeford within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 962(6) (1988). FINDINGS OF FACT On August 11, 1978, a Board Hearing Examiner issued a unit deter- mination report in which he found appropriate a bargaining unit composed of -3- ___________________________________________________________________________ Commanders of the Biddeford Police Department Staff Support and Operations Bureaus. As a result of a secret ballot bargaining agent election con- ducted on September 14, 1978, these two Bureau Commanders, holding the rank of Captain, voted in favor of representation for the purposes of collective bargaining by the Teamsters. The job description submitted in that case to establish the duties of the Staff Support Bureau Commander (SSBC) states that the SSBC is responsible for the full-time supervision of the Detectives and Records Divisions as well as supervision of the Youth Aid Officer in the handling and processing of juveniles. The SSBC was also found responsible for the assignment of Detectives to both cases and shifts. The Police Detective job description submitted in the instant case states that "[a]ssignments are received from the Bureau Commander, who reviews work by conference and progress reports." The Staff Support Director job description states that the occupant "supervises the Detective and Juvenile Divisions in the absence of the Staff Support Bureau Commander." On June 26, 1984, the parties executed an Agreement on Appropriate Bargaining Unit (MLRB Form 1) memorializing both their agreement "to sever [an] existing bargaining unit [at that time comprised of "Full-Time Sergeants, Corporals and Patrolmen of the City of Biddeford Police Department," see September 14, 1978 certification] into two units," and their further agreement that "[t]he first unit [would] be patrol and other job classifications contained in the original unit [and that t]he second unit [would] be the newly created unit of sergeants and corporals." The parties' May 19, 1988 Agreement on Appropriate Bargaining Unit (MLRB Form 3), filed July 27, 1988, memorializes the parties' agreement on the appropriateness of a bargaining unit composed of "Police Detectives and/or Juvenile Officers." The description does not further specify ranks of Detectives contemplated to be included or excluded. On August 16, 1988, the parties filed an MLRB Form 1 with the Board memorializing their July 28, 1988 Agreement on Appropriate Bargaining Unit, which establishes the following unit description: -4- ___________________________________________________________________________ INCLUDED: Patrolmen EXCLUDED: Detectives, Juvenile Officers, Captains, Corporals and Sergeants. Robert Devou has served with the Biddeford Police Department for twenty-two years and as a Sergeant since 1976. He has served four years as a Patrol Sergeant and nine as an Administrative Sergeant. The promotion evaluation process used at the time Devou made Sergeant did not include a written test requirement, although it does now for promotion to both Cor- poral and Sergeant. Transfer to the Detective Division does not require a written examination. When the department abolished the position of Administrative Sergeant, Devou was involuntarily transferred to the Detective Division (Division) on October 2, 1989, and was required to per- form Detective duties. At the Division Devou was assigned the same workload as the two other Detectives, Richard Gagne and Joseph Plante. Devou's work with the Division includes investigating cases, interviewing witnesses, taking photographs and fingerprints and supervising scenes as assigned by Captain Gaudette. Devou works the hours of eight to four and is, additionally, on call for after-hours calls every two weeks, on rota- tion with the other two Detectives. Chief Beaupre has in the past opposed putting Sergeants into the Detective Division and as a result of the Police Commission's appointment of Devou to the Division, Beaupre decided to outline for Captain Norman Gaudette Beaupre's expectations regarding the nature of Devou's future job duties within the Detective Division. Beaupre intended for Gaudette to implement the changed duties. Gaudette told Devou that there would be changes in his job duties, none of which have actually occurred. Devou expected to receive a new job description but none was ever given to him. When Gaudette permitted Devou to read Beaupre's rough written description of the anticipated changes in his duties, Devou disagreed with the changes, stating that "if [he were] assigning cases and working as a detective there would be a conflict of interest and [he] would have some problems with the other men." Gaudette has made Detective case assignments since approximately one week after those duties were unsuccessfully attempted to be assigned to Devou. Devou also objected to the proposed loss of Christmas as a holiday -5- ___________________________________________________________________________ which would have resulted from the change. The City proffered at hearing a Staff Support Director job description which, Beaupre testified, was to be the job description applicable to the position Devou now occupies within the Division. No Staff Support Director position has previously existed within the Division. The Commission had not at the time of hearing adopted a Staff Support Director's job descrip- tion. The job description of the Staff Support Director classification indicates duties that are different from those performed by Detectives. Devou has not performed as a Staff Support Director. The most significant difference between Devou's present duties and those of the Staff Support Director is supervisory responsibility. Devou had not seen the Staff Support Director job description before the date of hearing and has never been told that the full range of duties set forth therein are his. Although as a general rule a description of new department positions being developed or vacancies being filled would be advertised, the Staff Support Director position never has been. Job descriptions exist for the positions of Police Sergeant and Police Detective. There is no evidence that employees occupying position titles corresponding to the classifications for which job descriptions exist do or do not actually perform the duties listed on the respective job descriptions. No Administrative Sergeant or Detective Sergeant job descriptions were alleged or established. By General Order 102-89, promulgated March 2, 1989, the City established an intradepartmental promotion procedure for the positions of Corporal, Sergeant and Captain to replace that outlined in a previous General Order dated March 1, 1982. That policy requires that the Police Commission first authorize the filling of any vacant position among the applicable classifications. The policy provides generally for posting of written notice, the requirement of written request for consideration, writ- ten examination, Oral Board interview, written supervisory evaluation, con- sideration of seniority and selection by the Chief from among the top three candidates. The procedure further requires psychological evaluation and a recommendation by the Chief to the Police Commission for final confirmation. The policy also provides for a 90-day probationary period. Devou's office work area is a desk located next to the desks of the other Division employees. Devou's work attire consists of plain clothes -6- ___________________________________________________________________________ now; he was uniformed before. The on-duty Patrol Sergeant has one desk, a typewriter, a filing system and a computer to assist him in the performance of his supervisory functions. Devou hasn't access to any such private equipment or resources solely for his use. Patrol Sergeant Jean P. Mann wears a uniform. Morin works on check cases, classifies finger-prints, and maintains an evidence room. He also performs firearm instruction. With the exception of check cases, no Detective performs the duties that Morin performs. Morin never performs investigative duties on felony cases. At the time Devou was transferred to the Division, Morin assigned cases to Detectives. Devou's vacation schedule is presently planned to be coordinated with that of Captain Gaudette rather than that of other Detectives. No other Sergeant's vacation is coordinated with respect to that of Gaudette. Devou's wage rate is presently "established in the Corporal/Sergeant unit portion of the collective bargaining contract provisions on wages, and . . . is different from the wage established for Detectives." In the past, with the exception of one person, Detectives automati- cally had all contractual holidays off. Presently, due to a side-bar agreement between the Association and the City, reached as a result of the filing of a grievance by Devou through the Detective Unit steward, Detectives work all holidays except Christmas, New Year's and Thanksgiving day. Presently Devou competes, on the basis of seniority, with two other Detectives respecting the first two weeks of vacation leave. Devou discussed the grievance with the other Detectives and they all agreed upon it. Presently Detectives are paid at the Corporals wage rate when they are performing Detective duties and as Patrolmen when they are not. Negotiations over the present collective bargaining agreement ended on approximately November 14, the City enacted its approval on November 21 and the agreement was signed by both parties on December 6, 1989. Although the Teamsters knew that Devou was being placed in the Detectives Unit and although they knew he was performing Detective duties, the Teamsters did not raise the issue of his unit placement prior to the conclusion of nego- tiations which formed the basis of the present collective bargaining agreement. The Teamsters had heard that Devou was to be made a supervisor. -7- ___________________________________________________________________________ DISCUSSION As is more fully explained below, I find that Devou's transfer to the Detective Division is an insufficient basis, in light of his changed duties, for modificiation of the description of the Detectives and/or Juvenile Officers collective bargaining unit. Additionally, I conclude that Devou shares a community of interest with Detectives which is not out- weighed by a supervisory conflict of interest. Devou was transferred to the Detective Division on October 2, 1989. He was shown a writing addressed to Gaudette from Beaupre during the week of October 9, 1989, which indicated that he would receive a new job description.[fn]1 Devou objected to the anticipated duties which he was informed the new, and at that time unfinished, description would establish and Gaudette indicated he would talk to Beaupre about Devou's objections. In a week or two Sergeant Morin's case assignment duties were taken over by Captain Gaudette. In the five-month period between his transfer and the hearing, Devou had not seen the Staff Support Director job description nor was any other job description advanced as describing his duties. Prior to hearing, Devou had not been informed in any other manner that he should be performing the significantly different duties which the Staff Support Director job description describes. Devou's duties have not changed from the normal rank-and-file Detective duties which he assumed on his transfer to the Division in October of 1989. The evidence establishes that "the [Police C]ommission decided to abolish the job that Sergeant Devou was performing and decided to put him into the detective unit."[fn]2 The record does not contain more detailed evi- __________________ 1 Although Chief Beaupre's rough description to Gaudette of Devou's anticipated new duties in the Detective Division is dated October 13, 1989, the last sentence refers to the Chief promulgating a more formal job description on returning from vacation on August 22. No explanation of this inconsistency exists in the record. The rough description indicates an intention that Devou's duties include case assignment duties previously performed by Sergeant Morin, supervision of the Detective Division's employees and assumption of command in Gaudette's absence. 2 There is no evidence of the existence of a Detective Sergeant posi- tion either at the time of hearing or at the time of the parties' establishment of the Sergeant and Corporals' bargaining unit. -8- ___________________________________________________________________________ dence of what the Police Commission contemplated that Devou's Detective Division rank or duties would be after the transfer. The record does not establish that Devou continues to perform Patrol or Administrative Sergeant duties or that he has assumed duties within the Division significantly different from those of other rank-and-file Detectives.[fn]3 When asked whether the Staff Support Director job description indi- cates the creation of a new position or whether it describes Devou's func- tions in the Detective Division, Beaupre testified that "[i]t establishes a new job within the [D]ivision, yes." The record does not establish that the customary posting procedures regarding the establishment or filling of new positions has been observed with respect to the position of Staff Support Director. There is no evidence that the Police Commission has approved a Staff Support Supervisor job description or approved the filling of either a Detective Sergeant or Staff Support Supervisor position. Furthermore, no such positions have been posted as required by the City's most recent General Order concerning promotions. Although it may have been the Chief's intention that Devou assume supervisory duties with respect to the Detective Division, no such duties had been performed by Devou at the time of hearing. Finally, the grievance filed by Devou and actioned by the City states on its face that it was filed by Devou through his steward, Detective R. Gagne. There is no evidence that the City notified the Teamsters that Devou's transfer was in the offing or that his transfer to the Division would result in curtailed, continued or increased supervisory duties. There is also no evidence that the City notified the Teamsters whether, as a result of the transfer, Devou would occupy the position of Police Sergeant, ___________________ 3 The Police Sergeant job description does not refer to supervision of Detectives as being a component of the position. The Police Sergeant's job description does refer to responsibility for supervising crime investiga- tion activities. However, the Police Detective job description refers to Detectives "continuing the crime investigation[s] initiated by the Patrol Division." In light of these facts it is reasonable to conclude that the Police Sergeant job description does not include responsibility for the supervision of Detectives. There is no evidence that Devou presently discharges any residual supervisory duties with respect to Patrolmen. -9- ___________________________________________________________________________ Detective Sergeant, Patrolman or Corporal rank Detective, or Staff Support Director. There is no evidence that prior to contract execution on December 6, 1989, the City disputed Devou's inclusion in the Detectives and/or Juvenile Officers bargaining unit. Neither is there record evidence that the City advanced or that the Teamsters disputed any contention that Devou, although apparently transferred to the Detective unit by the Police Commission, continued to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining in the bargaining unit in which he was included prior to the dissolution of his Administrative Police Sergeant position. There is no evidence that the Teamsters disputed Devou's transfer to the Detective Division and no evidence that the Teamsters requested or that the City refused bargaining respecting the transfer itself or any negotiable impact arising therefrom. The Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law (MPELRL) provides that "[i]n the event of a dispute between the public employer and an employee or employees as to whether a supervisory or other position is included in the bargaining unit, the executive director or [the executive director's] designee shall make the determination." See 26 M.R.S.A. 966(1) (1988). Section 966(3) provides that unit clarification petitions seeking to alter the description of a collective bargaining unit may be filed "where the circumstances surrounding the formation of an existing bargaining unit are alleged to have changed sufficiently to warrant modifi- cation . . . provided that the parties are unable to agree on appropriate modifications." The Board has interpreted these provisions of the MPELRL to express a preference that matters of unit placement be undertaken ini- tially by the parties. Accordingly, the Board's Unit Determination Rules allow Board hearing examiners discretion to dismiss unit clarification petitions where such petitions attempt "to modify the composition of the bargaining unit as negotiated by the parties and the alleged changes therein have been made prior to negotiations on the collective bargaining agreement presently in force." See Board Unit Determination Rule 1.13(A)(c). The primary purpose underlying Rule 1.13(A)(c) is the prevention of the unnecessary opening of contracts, mid term, to accommodate negotiations over the wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment of positions -10- ___________________________________________________________________________ which were substantially changed or newly created prior to the conclusion of a collective bargaining agreement then in effect. Rule 1.13(A)(c) establishes a target deadline for the raising of such placement matters so that the parties are afforded the opportunity to settle, for the impending contract's term, the wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment of all existing positions appropriately included in the collective bargaining unit. The critical date in cases where the timeliness provisions of Rule 1.13(A)(c) are invoked is the date of the filing of the petition. Although Devou was transferred to the Division prior to the conclusion of the existing contract, I find that the petition does not attempt to modify the composition of the bargaining unit. The record establishes that although Devou's duties were substantially changed, the duties which he has performed since being transferred to the Division are identical to those of the Detectives already included in the Detectives and/or Juvenile Officers unit. The Detectives and/or Juvenile Officers bargaining unit description is, on its face, broad enough to include the position presently occupied by Devou. See Board Unit Determination Rule 1.13(A)(a). Accordingly, I find that the petition may be dismissed for failure to seek modification of the unit description based upon sufficiently changed circumstances. Although I have determined that the Detective unit's description need not be modified, the statutorily mandated resolution of Devou's appropriate unit placement still remains. As is more fully explained below, I conclude that Devou is appropriately included in the Detectives and/or Juvenile Officers collective bargaining unit. The first question in resolving Devou's unit placement is whether Devou shares a sufficient community of interest with members of the existing Detectives and/or Juvenile Officers unit to be included therein. The pertinent portions of the MPELRL provide "that there must be a 'clear and identifiable community of interest among the employees concerned' for a given bargaining unit to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining." Penobscot Valley Hospital and Maine Federation of Nurses and Health Care Professionals, No. 85-A-01, slip op. at 4 (Me.L.R.B. Feb. 6, 1985). See 26 M.R.S.A. 966(2) (1988). The Board has established eleven criteria to be used in determining the presence or absence of a community of interest among employees. Town of Lebanon and Teamsters Local Union No. 48, -11- ___________________________________________________________________________ No. 86-A-01 (Me.L.R.B. Dec. 5, 1985). Those factors are: (1) similarity in the kind of work performed; (2) common super- vision and determination of labor-relations policy; (3) simi- larity 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 qualifica- tions, 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 organization structure. Council 74, AFSCME and City of Brewer, No. 79-A-01, slip op. at 3-4 (Me.L.R.B. Oct. 17, 1979); cited with approval in, Penobscot Valley Hospital and Maine Federation of Nurses and Health Care Professionals, No. 85-A-01, slip op. at 4 (Me.L.R.B. Feb. 6, 1985), and, Council 74, AFSCME and Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and County of Cumberland, No. 84-A-04, slip op. at 11 (Me.L.R.B. Apr. 25, 1984). All of the unit descriptions pertinent to the resolution of issues in this case were established by voluntary agreement of the parties. There is, therefore, no previously existing sufficient factual basis for measuring the community of interest among employees in those units or for measuring the degree to which Devou shares any such community of interest. Accordingly, I am required to employ the facts related to community of interest found in the record of this case, alone, to determine whether Devou shares a greater community of interest with employees in the Sergeants and Corporals unit or employees in the Detectives and/or Juvenile Officers unit. On that basis I conclude that Devou presently shares a greater community of interest with Detectives. There is absolutely no evi- dence with regard to Corporals or Juvenile Officers. Devou performs work identical to other Detectives. There is no direct evidence regarding the supervision of Sergeants, Corporals or Detectives. Inexplicably, Devou is presently paid a Sergeant's wages. The hourly wage of a Sergeant is presently $13.06 whereas the hourly wage of both Corporals and Detectives is $11.34. There is no evidence establishing what propor- tion of the work hours of Detective Division employees is paid at the $11.01 hourly rate of Patrolmen. The parties have, with the exception of wages, pointed out no real difference, established by contract or other- -12- ___________________________________________________________________________ wise, with respect to employment benefits, hours of work or other terms and conditions of employment among Sergeants, Corporals, Detectives and Juvenile Officers. No disparity in the skills, training and qualifications between those possessed by Devou and employees in either of the two units is established. Performance of supervisory duties by Police Sergeants supervising Patrolmen engaged in police patrol and the respective differences in the performance of patrol and detective duties are the most salient job distinctions contained in the record. Devou neither supervises nor per- forms patrol duties. Devou presently has greater contact with Detectives, with whom his job duties are identical in content and geographic location. Some reference was made to dissatisfaction between the Sergeants and Detectives units respecting salaries to be paid to Detectives; however, I find that evidence unhelpful regarding the issues at hand. With the exception of Devou's desire to be included in the Detectives unit, no evidence of the desires of affected employees is contained in the record. No allegation or relevant evidence of the extent of union organi- zation or of the City's organizational structure was presented. On the basis of these facts, I find that Devou shares a clear and identifiable community of interest with employees in the Detectives and/or Juvenile Officers bargaining unit. The inquiry now turns to whether a supervisory conflict of interest exists which compels Devou's exclusion from the Detectives and/or Juvenile Officers bargaining unit. The City apparently contends that placing supervisory "Sergeants" in -13- ___________________________________________________________________________ bargaining units with their subordinates is inappropriate.[fn]4 However, the record fails, with regard to Devou's relationship to the Detectives Unit, to satisfy the standard for supervisory exclusion set forth in the MPELRL. The MPELRL provides: In determining whether a supervisory position should be excluded from the proposed bargaining unit, the executive director or his designee shall consider, among other criteria, if the principal functions of the position are characterized by performing such management control duties as scheduling, assigning, overseeing and reviewing the work of subordinate employees, or performing such duties as are distinct and dissimilar from those performed by the employees supervised, or exercising judgment in adjusting grievances, applying other established personnel policies and procedures and in enforcing a collective bargaining agreement or establishing or participating in the establishment of performance standards for subordinate employees and taking corrective measures to implement those standards. The brief of the City states in this regard merely: While a sergeant's job involves supervision over patrolman engaged in, among other things, crime investigation activities, detectives work is frequently "conducted with considerable independence". Consequently, it would not be consistent for Sergeant DeVoe [sic] to act as both the supervisor and a case investigator. The Board's hearing examiners have consistently declined to exclude leadworker or working foreman classifications from bargaining units on the ____________________ 4 The City's concern with Devou's inclusion in the Detective unit appears to fundamentally be one of an economic nature. The City's brief states in this regard: Were Sergeant DeVoe [sic] to be allowed to transfer to the Detectives unit, he would either have to accept a lesser wage, or the existing contract would have to be amended to create two separate wage categories within the detectives unit. . . . . The Employer has established a specific organizational structure controlling the promotion of officers through the ranks to attain the rank of corporal, sergeant, and captain. Allowing a sergeant to be included in a unit made up of patrolmen would invite the detectives to seek all the benefits of sergeant, because a sergeant was included in their unit. -14- ___________________________________________________________________________ basis of supervisory conflict of interest where the occupants of those positions lack sufficient authority to make decisions, in the interest of the employer, which adversely impact upon the employment interests of their subordinates. See Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and Town of Lebanon, No. 86-UD-02 (Me.L.R.B. Oct. 17, 1985), aff'd, No. 86-A-01 (Me.L.R.B. Dec. 5, 1985), aff'd, No. CV-85-656 (Me. Sup. Ct., Yor. Cty., Feb. 3, 1987); Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and Van Buren Light and Power District, No. 85-UD-14 (Me.L.R.B. Jan. 25, 1985) (Duties of line foreman who assigns, oversees and reviews work of employees determined as a whole not to be so distinct and dissimilar from those performed by supervised employees to warrant exclusion from proposed unit); Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and Town of Pittsfield, No. 81-UD-09 (Me.L.R.B. Jan. 15, 1981) (sergeant posi- tion found to be "working supervisor" where supervisory duties were limited and undemanding and where vast majority of time was devoted to regular patrol work); City of Bangor and Local 1599, IAFF, No. 80-UD-15 (Me.L.R.B. Feb. 1, 1980) (fire lieutenants held to be "group leaders" or "working foremen" where they had various added responsibilities of a limited nature but essentially performed rank-and-file duties). See generally M.S.A.D. No. 5 and M.S.A.D. No. 5 Teachers Association, No. 88-UD-01 slip op. at 18 (Me.L.R.B. Oct. 16, 1987) (examples of evidence probative of existence or absence of supervisory conflict of interest). Similarity in job title is not probative of the existence or lack of community of interest. Any significance attaching to Devou's apparent con- tinuation in the rank of Sergeant is absent from the record. I have accorded it no weight in light of the fundamental change in duties which Devou has experienced as a result of transfer. Moreover, I have not interpreted the Teamsters' petition to request determination of the issues of whether the speculative duties which Gaudette anticipates Devou will someday perform would constitute a sufficient present basis for unit clari- fication. Neither potential authority nor the intended investment of actual authority at a future date are sufficient bases for the establish- ment of supervisory conflict of interest. Any inherent community of interest shared by leadworkers and rank-and-file unit members is outweighed only by supervisory conflict of interest predicated upon the actual and routine exercise of supervisory authority in a manner which affects the -15- ___________________________________________________________________________ working interests of those supervised. I conclude that no supervisory conflict of interest sufficient to require exclusion from the Detectives Unit has been established in this case. My decision respecting the unit placement of Devou is based on his duties at date of hearing. Should Devou's duties change sufficiently to warrant resubmission, this report will not constitute a bar to requested clarification procedures. UNIT CLARIFICATION DETERMINATION 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. 962(6) (1988), the undersigned concludes that modification of the description of the Detectives and/or Juvenile Officers collective bargaining unit is not warranted at present. Accordingly, the Teamsters petition is, hereby, DISMISSED. Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 2d day of April, 1990. MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD /s/________________________ M. Wayne Jacobs, Counsel Designated Hearing Examiner The parties are advised of their right, pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 968(4) (1988) to appeal this report to the Maine Labor Relations Board by filing a notice of appeal within fifteen days of the date of its issuance. See Board Unit Determination Rule 1.10. Board General Provisions Rule 6.03. -16- ___________________________________________________________________________