STATE OF MAINE                                  MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
                                                Case No. 90-UD-19
                                                Issued:  March 22, 1990
ASSOCIATION/MTA/NEA,              )
                 Petitioner,      )
               and                )              UNIT DETERMINATION REPORT
                 Public Employer. )

     On February 12, 1990, pursuant to section 966(1) of the Municipal
Public Employees Labor Relations Law ("MPELRL"), 26 M.R.S.A.  966(1)
(1988) and Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board") Unit Determination Rule
1.03, the Mountain Valley Teachers Association/MTA/NEA ("Association")
filed a petition for appropriate unit determination with the Board, seeking
to become the exclusive bargaining agent of a unit of employees of the MSAD
#43 Board of Directors ("employer").  The Association proposed for inclu-
sion in the unit the following employees:
          teacher assistants
          teacher aides
At the time the hearing was convened, the petitioner clarified the fact that
teacher aides includes those aides who work in the library as well as those
who work in the classroom.
     Upon due notice a public evidentiary hearing was scheduled for 9:00
a.m. on Tuesday, March 20, 1990, in Augusta, Maine.  J. Donald Belleville
of the Maine Teachers Association represented the Association, and no one
appeared on behalf of the employer.  After waiting for a short time for the
employer to make an appearance, the hearing examiner contacted Roger
Spugnardi, superintendent of MSAD #43, by telephone.  Mr. Spugnardi indi-
cated to the hearing examiner that the employer did not intend to attend
the hearing.

     The jurisdiction of the hearing examiner to hear this matter and to
issue a report lies in 26 M.R.S.A.  966(1) (1988).

     Section 966(1) of the MPELRL, 26 M.R.S.A.  966(1) (1988), states that
in the event of a dispute as to the appropriateness of a unit, the execu-
tive director or her designee will make the determination.  In the case at
hand, there is no dispute.  The employer was notified, by certified mail,
of the time, place and purpose of the hearing.  (The return receipt shows
delivery of the notice letter on February 14, 1990).  The employer chose
not to appear at the hearing to contest the appropriateness of the unit
proposed by the Association.  There being no dispute, the hearing examiner
need not make a determination of appropriateness.
     There being no dispute as to the appropriateness of the unit proposed
by the Association, the following unit is deemed appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  966:
     INCLUDED:  teachers assistants
                teacher aides (including library aides)
     EXCLUDED:  all other employees of the MSAD #43 Board of Directors
Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 22nd day of March, 1990.
                                     MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
                                     Judith A. Dorsey
                                     Designated Hearing Examiner
The parties are hereby advised of their right, pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A.
 968(4) (1988), 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 the
issuance of this report.  See Board Unit Determination Rule 1.01, Board
General Provisions Rules 6.03.