Affirmed Town of Lisbon v. Teamsters, No. 95-UCA-02
Reversed, CV-95-311.

                                      Case Nos. 95-UC-04 & -05
                                      Issued:  May 11, 1995

             Bargaining Agent,  )
         and                    )      UNIT CLARIFICATION REPORT
TOWN OF LISBON,                 )
             Employer.          )

     This unit clarification proceeding was initiated on 
October 27, 1994, when Teamsters Union Local 340 (Teamsters)
filed a petition for unit clarification pursuant to Section
966(3) of the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law
(MPELRL), 26 M.R.S.A.  966(3) (1988), and Board Unit
Clarification Rule 1.16 requesting inclusion of a newly-created
Solid Waste Supervisor position in an existing Public Works
collective bargaining unit of employees of the Town of Lisbon
(Town), described:

     INCLUDED:  Shop Supervisor, Mechanic, Foreman, Operator I,
                Operator II, Laborer, Operator, Assistant 
                Operator, Landfill Attendant.

     EXCLUDED:  All other employees of the Town of Lisbon.

The Town's October 1, 1994 response, which opposes the accretion,
states that there is no community of interest between the Solid
Waste Supervisor and other unit positions.

     On November 9, 1994, the Town filed a petition for unit
clarification requesting that the the positions of Shop
Supervisor and Highway Foreman1 be excluded from the unit on the 

      1 For ease of reference and understanding I have referred
throughout this report to the Public Works Foreman as the Highway
Foreman and to the Public Works Maintenance Shop Supervisor as
the Shop Supervisor.


basis of greatly enhanced supervisory job duties.2

     Upon due notice an evidentiary hearing on the merits of both
petitions was held on January 27, 1995, in the Board's Conference
Room, located on the seventh floor of the State Office Building
in Augusta.  Prior to commencement of the hearing the parties met
with the hearing examiner in informal conference.  The factual
and/or legal stipulations reached in those discussions as well as
stipulations reached in off-the-record discussion during the
hearing have been incorporated herein.  The Teamsters are
represented in this matter by Business Agent Carl Guignard; the
Town, by Roger R. Therriault, Esq.  The parties were afforded
full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to
present documentary evidence, and to submit oral and written
argument.  The Teamsters presented as witnesses Highway Foreman
George Ayer, Sr., Shop Supervisor Roger Goyette and Teamsters
Steward Elwood Beal.  The Town presented as witnesses Public
Works Director Roger Martel and Solid Waste Supervisor Wayne

     A letter signed by Roger Goyette and George Ayer was
tendered after the close of the record, on February 22, 1995. 
This letter was sealed in an envelope and has not been seen or
considered by the hearing examiner.  The parties filed
posthearing briefs, the last of which was received on March 6,

     The jurisdiction of the undersigned hearing examiner to hear
and decide the merits of these petitions lies in 26 M.R.S.A. 
 966(3) (1988) and Board Rule 1.16.

     2 The Teamsters' Response, which opposes the requested
exclusion, states that these positions continue to share a
community of interest with employees in the existing unit.


     The following documents were admitted into evidence as joint

      Joint Exhibit No. 1  -  Solid Waste Supervisor job          
                              description (2 pages)

      Joint Exhibit No. 2  -  Public Works Landfill Attendant
                              job description (2 pages)

      Joint Exhibit No. 3  -  Public Works Transfer Station
                              Attendant job description (1 page)

      Joint Exhibit No. 4  -  Public Works Transfer Station 
                              Operator job description (2 pages)

      Joint Exhibit No. 5  -  Public Works Foreman job
                              description (2 pages)

      Joint Exhibit No. 6  -  Equipment Operator job
                              description (2 pages)

      Joint Exhibit No. 7  -  Public Works Equipment Operator II 
                              job description (2 pages)

      Joint Exhibit No. 8  -  Public Works Laborer II job
                              description (2 pages)

      Joint Exhibit No. 9  -  Public Works Laborer I job
                              description (2 pages)

     Joint Exhibit No. 10  -  Public Works Laborer/Driver job
                              description (2 pages)

     Joint Exhibit No. 11  -  Public Works Maintenance Supervisor
                              job description (2 pages)

     Joint Exhibit No. 12  -  Public Works Automotive Mechanic
                              Helper job description (2 pages)

     Joint Exhibit No. 13  -  Public Works Automotive Mechanic
                              job description (2 pages)

     Joint Exhibit No. 14  -  The parties' July 1993 - June 1994
                              collective bargaining agreement
                              (47 pages)

                     POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES     

     The Teamsters contend that there has been no change in the
community of interest which, in 1981, the Shop Supervisor and
Highway Foreman were found to share with other unit employees. 
The Teamsters further contend that the newly-created Solid Waste
Supervisor, the Shop Supervisor and the Highway Foreman are all
working foremen or leadworkers properly included in the unit
containing the employees they supervise.  More specifically, the
Teamsters' contentions respecting these positions are as follows:


          These lead workers perform work substantially
     identical to and alongside of that done by their
     subordinates.  They enjoy the same hours of work and
     benefits as their subordinates and have constant
     contact with other unit employees.  These supervisors
     and their supervised employees are all ultimately
     "overseen" by the Director of Public Works.  These
     supervisors train and supervise others in the
     maintenance of property and machinery and have more
     skills and knowledge than their subordinates, but these
     facts are inherent in any supervisory job and are not
     dispositive.  These supervisors assign and execute work
     participatorily, and they themselves, as well as their
     fellow unit employees, desire their continued unit


          This supervisor has fewer subordinates than the
     Road Foreman, works the same hours as his subordinates,
     "performs hands on work as a part of his duty
     functions" and "works with members of the public works
     all day every day" in a "recycling facility [which] is
     [only] walking distance [from] the main public works
     building."  The Solid Waste Supervisor has contact with


     the Selectmen and the public but these contacts are not
     sufficient in character to support exclusion from the

     The Town contends that the two previously-existing positions
"as evolved" and the newly-created Solid Waste Supervisor
position do not share a community of interest with supervised
employees.  The Town's petition asserts a "potentiality of
problems involving proper supervision" and the "develop[ment of]
a tension in having the work supervisor as part of the Bargaining
Unit."  The Town's specific allegations respecting each of these
positions are as follows:


          This salaried position, which supervises two
     permanent and assorted other "temporary" employees, was
     created as the result of the Town's switch from
     operating a dump to operating a transfer station/
     recycling site.  This employee is responsible for the
     sale of recyclable material and attendant record
     keeping, is the first level for  handling disciplinary
     matters and leave requests, conducts performance
     evaluations and enforces safety and work rules, and has
     "responsibilities involving budget development and
     administration."  This position involves minimal
     handling of materials, and up to 90 percent of the work
     day of the occupant is devoted to supervisory tasks.


          This supervisor of six full-time employees earns a
     wage 27 percent greater than his department's average
     and 16 percent higher than the next-highest paid
     division employee.  This supervisor "is responsible for
     determining the daily jobs to be performed by the
     highway division and for the assignment of those jobs
     to particular individuals," as well as "on-the-job


     decisions regarding the conduct of the division's
     work."  He performs hands-on work during only 40
     percent of his workday.  The Foreman is responsible for
     monthly reports, has been given increased overall
     responsibility, participates "in a written job
     evaluation process," enjoys a considerable amount of
     autonomy and discretion in handling complaints from the
     public, handles disputes among employees in the first
     instance, initially responds to disciplinary matters,
     implements safety and work rules, deals with initial
     leave requests and has responsibilities with regard to
     both development and administration of the budget and
     purchasing.  The Town believes that this position has
     evolved and that any previous community of interest has
     attenuated sufficiently to warrant the position's
     removal from the unit.


          This position supervises one full-time employee
     and an ASPIRE employee, is responsible for the
     maintenance of all Town vehicles and equipment, earns
     17 percent more than the one employee supervised, is
     responsible for making all job assignments in the
     maintenance shop, is responsible for resolving
     competing demands on the shop, initially determines the
     need for overtime, initially determines leave, and
     possesses budget preparation, administration and
     purchasing responsibilities.  

The Town has not sought to exclude any of these supervisors for
their failure to satisfy the public employee definitional
provisions contained in 26 M.R.S.A.  962(6) (1988 & Supp. 1994),
and has not contended that any of them are professional employees
within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  962(5) (1988).

     The parties reached the following stipulations:

     1.  The proper titles of the positions at issue here are
Public Works Solid Waste Supervisor, Public Works Foreman and
Public Works Maintenance Supervisor.

     2.  The Town of Lisbon is a public employer within the
meaning of Section 962(7) of the MPELRL.

     3.  The Solid Waste Supervisor, the Shop Supervisor and the
Road Foreman are all public employees within the meaning of 26
M.R.S.A.  962(6).

     4.  Teamsters Local Union 340 is the bargaining agent of
employees in the Lisbon Public Works Department bargaining unit
within the meaning of Section 962(2) of the MPELRL.  

     5.  The Teamsters presently represent for the purposes of
collective bargaining a unit of public works employees of the
Town of Lisbon described:
     Included:  Shop Supervisor, Mechanic, Foreman, 
                Operator I, Operator II, Laborer, Assistant
                Operator, Operator and Landfill Attendant.

     6.  The Board may take administrative notice of its records
respecting units of the Town of Lisbon Public Works Department. 

     7.  The position of Solid Waste Supervisor came into
existence on March 14, 1994.  That date was Ricker's first day of
work in the position.

     8.  There is no question concerning representation.

     9.  The issue of the unit placement of the positions of Shop
Supervisor, Solid Waste Supervisor and Highway Foreman have been
undertaken by the parties, without resolution having occurred to

    10.  The parties' most recent collective bargaining agreement


expired on June 30, 1994.

    11.  Contract negotiations for a successor agreement have not
produced a final agreement.

    12.  The hearing examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide
the unit clarification issues in this case under 26 M.R.S.A. 
 966(1) and (2).

    13.  There is no present supervisory unit of Town Public
Works Department employees and neither party contends that any of
these positions are appropriate for inclusion in the Town Police
Department's Supervisory unit.

    14.  Neither party contends that a separate unit of
supervisors would constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.

    15.  In order to clarify the differences between present job
categories for which there are job descriptions, and the
historical job positions that were referred to in the papers
which established the unit initially, the parties agree to the
following pairings of historical job classifications and job
categories for which there are existing job descriptions:

         The historical position of Shop Supervisor is now        
     referred to as the Public Works Maintenance Supervisor.

         The historical position of Mechanic now embraces the     
     following classifications:  Public Works Automotive          
     Mechanic, Public Works Automotive Mechanic Helper.

         The Automotive Mechanic Helper position next above
     is now filled intermittently by a Highway Department
     employee, who, when filling it, receives a stipend for his
     service in that capacity.

         The historical position of Foreman is now entitled
     Public Works Foreman.
         The historical Operator I position is now entitled
     Equipment Operator I.

         The historical Operator II position is presently   

     referred to as Equipment Operator II.

         The historical position of Laborer now includes the 
     job descriptions entitled Public Works Laborer I, Public
     Works Laborer II and the position of Laborer/Driver,
     concerning which there is a reference in the parties'
     present contract.

         The historical position of Operator is now referred 
     to as the Multiple Equipment Operator.

         The historical position of Assistant Operator 
     presently has no current job description.

         The Town presently uses a Laborer/Driver and pays that
     person a stipend for work out of class while working in 
     the historical position that was Assistant Operator.

    16.  The contract's reference to a "Job Captain," with
corresponding wage, refers to the circumstance where the
Department's performance of two separate jobs requires two
Foremen, one at each site, and also the situation where, because
the Highway Foreman is absent, a Foreman is required.  In the
latter case a Job Captain is assigned.

    17.  The Job Captain assignment is a floating position or
assignment rather than a job category. 

    18.  The Transfer Station Supervisor/Driver position referred
to in the contract is neither presently filled nor anticipated to
be filled.

     With regard to the present positions in which individuals
are employed the parties stipulate to the following:
    19.  The Public Works Director is Roger Martel.

    20.  There are two divisions:  Highway and Solid Waste.

    21.  The Highway Division is comprised of the Highway and
Maintenance Shop.  

    22.  The Highway Department is composed of the following job
classifications and positions:  George Ayer, Highway Foreman; 


Steve Dussault, Equipment Operator; Charlie Joy, Truck
Driver/Laborer; as well as Truck Driver/Operators:  Elwood Beal,
David Judd, Dan Poisson, William Hamm; Laborer Gilbert Card; and
John Gayos, a Part-time Laborer/Janitor who works for four per
day, twenty hours a week.

    23.  Roger Goyette, the Supervisor of the Maintenance Shop,
is also referred to as the Maintenance Supervisor.  Brian Hobart
is the Mechanic.

    24.  In the Solid Waste Division there is a Solid Waste
Supervisor, Wayne Ricker; a Landfill Attendant/Supervisor's
Assistant, Jerry Arsenault; and a Transfer Station Attendant,
Normand Levesque.
    25.  In addition to the foregoing positions the Town also
presently employs three individuals paid through the Maine State
ASPIRE program.  The longest any ASPIRE employee has worked has
been a year.  The parties are unable to reach any sort of
resolution as to whether those employees were to be considered in
or out of the unit.

    26.  The Town uses workfare employees, assigned by the
Welfare Manager, who each work approximately 20 hours per week. 
Two of these employees work for the Town presently.  They are
temporary employees within the meaning of the MPELRL's "public
employee" definition.  

    27.  As "temporary" employees, the Town hires and works
Community Service Employees assigned by the Court or the Police
Department.  The parties agree to the exclusion of these
employees from the Public Works unit.

    28.  The Town employs Storm Workers, whose names are
contained on a list called a "wing list," who are excluded
"seasonal" employees within the meaning of the MPELRL.


                         FINDINGS OF FACT
The Public Works Department

     Roger Martel has been the Town's Public Works Director since
July, 1992.  He served for the previous twenty-two years as the
Town's Shop Supervisor.  Roger Goyette was the Public Works
Department Mechanic, under Martel, until he became Shop
Supervisor in 1992.  Since becoming Public Works Director Martel
has sought to change the roles of Highway Foreman Ayer and Shop
Supervisor Goyette away from those of "working foremen." 
Martel's goal has been to increase the administrative
responsibilities of the contested positions because of his
assessment that they were "under utilized" and "under-empowered"
in past years.3  They now are required to file reports, through
the Public Works Director to the Town Manager, on what their
departments have accomplished each month.4  Prior to Martel's
tenure the supervisory responsibilities described in the job
descriptions of the Foreman and the Maintenance Shop Supervisor
were not being accomplished on a regular basis.  

      The hourly wage rates which were in effect at the expiration
of the parties' '93-'94 contract are as follows:  Foreman,
$10.82; Multiple Equipment Operator, $8.50; Truck Driver/Laborer,
$7.73; Landfill Laborer/Transfer Station Attendant, $6.18;
Laborer, $6.18; Transfer Station Supervisor/Driver, $8.50.

     3 The Board has not, to date, specifically dealt with the
interplay of "Total Quality Management," "Labor Management
Cooperation Committees" or other "employee participation or
empowerment" initiatives with provisions of the MPELRL which
concern supervisory employee unit placement.

     4 The present job descriptions for the three positions 
at issue were unspecifiedly distributed without modification 
by Martel at the end of negotiations for the most recently-expired 
contract.  Martel merely pulled the job descriptions out of the 
file, copied them and mailed them.  The existing job descriptions 
were not modified to reflect a requirement of the filing of a 
monthly report because Martel didn't think the job descriptions 
had to be changed to require such.  None of the employees in the 
contested positions have ever been notified of a change in their
job descriptions.


The Highway Foreman

      At present George Ayer, Highway Foreman for the last fifteen
years, decides what the daily highway tasks are going to be and
which of his six supervised employees will perform them.  Ayer is
responsible for driving a plow during snowstorms and for deciding
whether plowing or sanding will be performed.  Ayer also makes
decisions such as whether to engage private contractors for
blasting ledge.  Ayer estimates that he performs hands on work
during 40 percent of his day.  Ayer has worked under several
public works directors.  Some have allowed him the leeway in
duties that Martel has; some, like Wayne York, the next previous
director, have not.  Ayer was told by Martel when he first came
on as Director that Ayer would be given total control of the
"public works forces."  Ayer doesn't know if all of his budetary
recommendations, such as that a new mower or saw be purchased,
have been accepted.  Ayer has, under previous directors, made out
daily or monthly work reports.  York once gave Ayer evaluation
reports to perform with respect to his employees.

      In the past Goyette and Ayer have acted as oral resource
persons in Martel's evaluations of their subordinates'
performance.  Most recently, however, Ayer and Goyette have
completed written forms used by Martel to evaluate the
performance of their subordinates.  Martel was never involved in
the performance evaluation process when he was the Shop
Supervisor.  Ayer mitigates some unspecified citizen complaints
without contacting Martel.  Ayer becomes involved in disputes
among subordinates and recommends disciplinary action by Martel. 
Ayer is responsible for enforcing work and safety rules
applicable to the work being performed.  Both Ayer and Goyette
receive leave requests and obtain Martel's approval for all
recommendations of leave grants or denials.  Ayer serves as a
resource person in budget preparation.  Ayer's major purchases
must be co-signed by Martel but he possesses the authority to
purchase for minor job site needs such as shovels or cold patch. 
Ayer serves as a resource person with respect to equipment 


purchases.  He does not promulgate bid specifications or review
bids.  As an hourly employee Ayer earns 27 percent more than the
average public works employee and 16 percent more than his next-
highest paid employee.

      The present job description for the Town's Public Works
[Highway] Foreman states:

      GENERAL STATEMENT OF DUTIES:  Performs and supervises all phases
      of work pertinent to Public Works Department.  Responsible for
      technical and limited administrative work in the construction,
      maintenance and repair of streets and associated systems.

      DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF CLASS:  An employee of this class
      functions as a working foreman with supervisory responsibilities. 
      He is responsible for organizing, assigning, and reviewing the
      work of a large group of skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled
      workers engaged in the maintenance and repair of streets,
      sidewalks, and related projects.  Assignments are received from
      Public Works Director, but the employee must exercise discretion
      and independent judgment in directing and supervising the
      operations of assigned tasks.

      EXAMPLES OF WORK:  (Illustrative only and not all inclusive)

      Frequently performs all manual tasks and operates all vehicles,
      tools and equipment incidental to the operation of the Public
      Works Department. 
      Organizes, assigns, supervises, inspects the work of skilled,
      semi-skilled, and unskilled workers in street repair and
      maintenance activities, such as, road construction, installation
      of storm drain system, installation of sewer system, cleaning of
      streets, plowing of streets, snow removal and other related work;
      Organizes, assigns, and supervises the work of the Highway Crew;
      Receives, investigates, and disposes of street condition and
      related complaints;
      Supervises the maintenance of time, material, equipment use
      records, requisitions supplies and materials, and submits to
      superiors all cost accounting data as required;
      Makes regular and irregular inspections of work in progress;
      Trains and instructs subordinates, operates pertinent equipment in
      support of all phases of work for the Public Works Department;
      Supervises preventative maintenance program and insures the non-
      abusive use of equipment by his subordinates.
      repair and maintenance of streets, all phases of road
      construction, storm drain system, sewer system, winter maintenance
      and general repair and maintenance work pertinent to the field of
      Public Works.  Thorough knowledge of the proper utilization and
      capabilities of all equipment and miscellaneous tools of the
      Public Works Department.  Ability to interpret plans, profiles and
      cross sections of road construction, storm drain systems, sewer
      systems and general construction.  Ability to demonstrate
      leadership traits and principles.  Ability to grow with increasing
      responsibilities.  Ability to administer work progress reports and
      other related reports.  Skilled in the art of supervising. 
      Skilled in the use of a pop level and transit.  Skilled in the 

      operation of equipment and miscellaneous tools of the Public Work

      years['] experience at street and road constrution (sic) with 2
      years['] experience in a supervisory capacity; or any equivalent
      combination of education experience.  Must possess a valid State
      of Maine Class II license and preferably a Class I license.

     Although the existing Highway Foreman job description states
that the Foreman is "[r]esponsible for technical and limited
administrative work," Martel asserts that Ayer's administrative
work is presently "much greater" and is "no longer limited." 
Contrary to the statement in his job description, that a
distinguishing feature of the work of an employee in his class is
the performance of the functions of a "working foreman," Martel
believes that Ayer performs "little [in the way of] manual tasks"
and that he "supervises a great deal more than he actually works
in hand[s]-on work."  Ayer's hands-on work, which Martel believes
to be "rare,"5 includes snowplowing, chainsawing and grader
operation.  Martel believes Ayer's job description to be
incorrect to the extent that it states that Ayer receives his
assignments from him.  Martel states that he has input but that
"[m]ost of the daily assignments [Ayer] decides on his own." 
Ayer has had the discretion to decide which jobs will be done,
where and by whom, under other public works directors than just
Martel, although Ayer's responsibilties "in terms of
administering [his] people and the jobs that they do" is
"somewhat" greater now than in the past.  Ayer possesses a Class
I license, now known as a Class B CBL.  None of Ayer's supervised
employees perform administrative or supervisory duties.    

The Shop Supervisor

      Roger Goyette has been the Shop Supervisor for 2 years. 
The Shop repairs and maintains all Town-owned vehicles.  Goyette
decides what daily work he, his one full-time subordinate and his

      5 Martel perceives that Ayer performs supervisory duties
during 90 percent of his workday.


one ASPIRE employee will perform.  Goyette consults with Martel
and makes presentations to the selectmen on "big-ticket" items. 
Goyette spends most of his day doing mechanic's work.  Goyette's
duties also include "mitigating a warranty problem with a part"
with vendors, "seeking bid prices on a new piece of equipment"
and "picking up information from . . . vendors . . . getting
pointers from them as to how [the department] will go at the next
task, differently, or how [the department] should purchase the
next piece of equipment."  

      The present job description for the Town's Public Works
Department Maintenance Supervisor states:

      GENERAL STATEMENT OF DUTIES:  This employee directs the shop
      repair and maintenance activities of the Town Garage and all Town
      owned automotive equipment.  Work involves responsibility for
      establishing, maintaining and evaluating uniform practices and
      policies relating to automotive equipment service and repair.

      DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THE CLASS:  The employee of this class
      is responsible for the supervision of skilled mechanics and for
      establishing an efficient shop maintenance program entailing all
      phases of garage operations.  This position requires planning and
      scheduling work so that town vehicles and equipment will remain in
      proper operating condition by making decision as to the
      serviceability and adequacy of equipment.  Work is performed with
      considerable independence within a framework of general policies
      and is reviewed by the Director of Public Works through the
      analysis of shop production, maintenance records, equipment
      operation and personal observation.

      EXAMPLES OF WORK:  (Illustrative only and not all inclusive)

      Establishes work standards and policies for mechanics employed at
      Town Garage in the repair and maintenance of equipment;           
      Plans, assigns and inspects the work of mechanics engaged in
      overhaul, repair, servicing, and in the maintenance of automotive
      and heavy construction equipment and miscellaneous tools;        
      Determines the necessary repair parts to be purchased for
      completion of work;                                               
      Directs a preventative maintenance program for town vehicles;     
      Keeps repair and costs records on each piece of equipment;       
      Assists, trains and instructs subordinates in all pertinent areas
      of the maintenance field;                                         
      Supervises and participates in the maintenance and repair of
      Performs skilled mechanical work in the repair and overhaul of
      Performs fabricating work with acetylene and electrical welding
      Prepares administrative work records related to the operation of
      the Town Garage;
      When necessary assists in the operation of equipment for road crew
      projects, landfill site operations, transfer station operations,


      snow plowing, snow removal operations and related activities.     
      When necessary performs all tasks required of subordinates.

      the practices, methods, tools, parts, and materials used in the
      maintenance and repair of automotive, construction, and related
      equipment.  Thorough knowledge of the operating principles of
      gasoline and diesel engines, and of mechanical components of the
      automotive, construction and related equipment.  Thorough
      knowledge of the occupational hazards in safety precautions of
      equipment work.  Considerable knowledge of the principles and
      practices of the automotive repair shop management.  Thorough
      knowledge of the practices, methods, and tools of the welding
      trade.  Ability to demonstrate leadership traits and principles. 
      The ability to write specifications for the purchase of new
      equipment for the Town.  Ability to organize garage facilities and
      personnel to meet flunctuating (sic) and unusual demands.  Ability
      to work long hours under duress.  Ability to plan and supervise
      the work of skilled mechanics in a manner conducive to full
      productivity and high morale.  The ability to remain flexible in
      establishing priorities during the repair of equipment.  Ability
      to establish and maintain an effective working relationship with
      superiors, Town Officials, co-workers and the general public.
      Ability to work long hours in adverse weather and under adverse
      working conditions.  Skill in the use and proper care of tools and
      equipment in the automotive trade.

      ACCEPTABLE EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING:  Extensive experience as an
      automotive and heavy equipment mechanic.  Two years['] experience
      in a supervisory capacity in the maintenance field.  Graduate of a
      Vocational Technical Institute.  Supplemented by specialized
      automotive or heavy equipment repair training or any equivalent
      combination of education or experience.  Must possess a State of
      Maine Class I license and Class D State Inspection License.

     Goyette obtains information from vendors when the Town
undertakes to acquire new road maintenance equipment or solid
waste machinery.  Goyette's "responsibilities with respect to
evaluations, . . . granting of leave, dispute resolution,
discipline, training, safety rules and work rules and those kinds
of things . . . [are] absolutely identical" to Ayer's.  Goyette
"checks" line items in the budget at least once a month.  Goyette
tells Martel what his projected budgetary needs are, by line
item, for the future fiscal year.  Goyette promulgates
specifications for highway and solid waste division equipment,
and has an undefined role in preparing bid documents and requests
for proposals.  Goyette's recommendations respecting the
evaluation of bids must be approved by Martel, the Town Manager,
and the selectmen.  Goyette schedules vehicle maintenance with
other department heads and adjusts priority for maintenance among


them.  Goyette earns a salary which is 17 percent greater than
that of his Mechanic.  Goyette makes recommendations on overtime
to Martel.  Martel has approved each of these recommendations "so
far."  Goyette's job description otherwise fairly represents the
duties of his position.

     When Martel was the Maintenance Shop Supervisor, he had less
contact with suppliers in the purchase of equipment and parts
than Goyette does now.  He also had less input into the
purchasing of new vehicles.  As Shop Supervisor Martel dealt with
department heads, respecting vehicles, through the public works
director.  Goyette deals with department heads directly regarding
such matters.  Goyette's latitude and independence presently is
greatly increased over the latitude that Martel had when he was
in Goyette's position in matters such as the scheduling of work.
Goyette's discretion in purchasing is unspecifiedly greater than
Martel's was.  Goyette's duties have been the same for the last
2 years.  Martel did not confer these additional "supervisory"
powers on a single occasion; rather, they were ceded to Goyette
over time.  Martel has worked with Goyette and Ayer since they
were first employed.  Goyette has access to and is responsible
for staying within his budget and reports to Martel with respect
to budget matters.  Martel was merely informed to stop spending
at points, by the Director of Public Works.  

     Goyette desires to remain in the bargaining unit and along
with his fellow unit members desires that the Solid Waste
Supervisor be included therein as well.  In Goyette's opinion,
the inclusion of the Solid Waste Supervisor in the unit will make
no difference in the ability of any of the other departmental
employees to do their jobs.

     For the last 2 years the occupants of all three contested
positions have possessed the ability to settle grievances6 at the
first step and to make recommendations to Martel respecting 

      6 There is no evidence of any such settlements.


employee transfers,7  The Shop Supervisor's compartive percentage
of hands-on work is greater than that of the other two contested
positions.  Goyette's day is devoted, in the winter, about 80
percent to hands-on work.  In the spring he performs no hands-on
work.  The amount of his time spent in looking for equipment is
equivalent to that which was performed by Martel when he had
Goyette's position.  

The Solid Waste Supervisor

      Because of state "mandates" the Town has closed its
landfill, implemented recycling and hired a Solid Waste
Supervisor to run its solid waste transfer station or "recycling"
operations.  The Town previously operated a transfer station
staffed by two employees, and a landfill with one attendant, all
of whom were supervised by the Public Works Director.  The
recycling area is open in the winter from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Tuesday through Friday and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 
In the summer the area opens at 6 o'clock.  Other Public Works
employees' regularly scheduled work is accomplished during the
normal business week.  The transfer station is presently located
adjacent to the public works facility within a common enclosure.
      The present job description for the Town's Public Works
Solid Waste Supervisor states:

Job Summary:

      1.  Directs the public and contractors in solid waste disposal
          practices and policies.
      2.  May operate recycling equipment and perform routine
          maintenance on equipment.
      3.  Developes (sic), implements and promotes solid waste recycling
          program to board of selectmen, citizens and the press.
      4.  Obtains all necessary permits and submits all required reports
          to the various licensing agencies.
      5.  Issues waste disposal stickers, licenses and temporary permits.
      6.  Identifies markets for recyclable waste products and maintains
          markets for materials.
      7.  Performs related work as assigned.


      7 There is no evidence of any recommendation respecting transfer.


Supervision Received:

      Works under the direct supervision of the public works director. 

Supervision Exercised:

      Will supervise transfer station attendant and landfill attendant.
      May also occasionally supervise part-time, temporary general 
      assistance workers and/or other work related to recycling.

Examples of Duties:

      1.  Plan, organize, direct and coordinate activities of the solid
          waste division.
      2.  Make studies and prepare reports for the director.
      3.  Attend selectmen's meetings and other boards and provide
          information on solid waste problems.
      4.  Interface with commercial and industrial haulers alone with
          residential users.
      5.  Be familiar with Department of Environmental Protection
          regulations and rules.

Employment Standards:

      Graduation from a two (2) year technical school or a high school 
      diploma with five (5) years of progressively responsible experience 
      in the field of solid waste management.

      Knowledge of the principles and practices of a municipal waste 
      disposal system; knowledge of federal and state regulations and of 
      town ordinances pertaining to solid waste.

      Possession of a valid Maine vehicle operator's license.  (Class "A"
      C.V.L. preferred).

      Experience dealing with public and administrative duties preferred.

     Ricker reports directly to Martel.  Ricker had a role in the
design of the present transfer station facilities.  Ricker serves
on the Town's solid waste committee, enforces the Town's
recycling ordinance and gives presentations on recycling in local
schools and to industry.  Ricker generates revenue by marketing
the Town's recyclables in a "volatile" market and keeps the
records of the recycling program.8  Ricker performs the same
personnel functions as Goyette and Ayer and his budgetary and
purchasing responsibilities are the same as theirs.  Ricker has
been employed as the Town's Solid Waste Supervisor since March 14
of 1994.  Ricker negotiated his beginning salary with the 

     8 There is no allegation or evidence that the profitability
of his efforts in this regard is used as a measure in the
evaluation of Ricker's work performance.


selectmen and signed an individual employment contract with the
Town.  Ricker earns a salary 21 percent greater than that of his
closest subordinate.  The Board of Selectmen decided that Ricker
would be paid a fixed salary.  Only Martel, his Secretary and
Ricker have ever earned a "salary" within the Public Works
Department.  Ricker spends a minimal amount of time performing
work similar to that of the employees he supervises, such as
"pulling the trailer out and moving recyclables."  Martel
estimates that Ricker spends 70 percent of his day in
"supervision."  Ricker estimates that he devotes 10-15 percent of
his time to hands-on duties identical to those of his
subordinates.  His job description is otherwise correct regarding
his duties.  Ricker works a minimum of 40 hours and has requested
no compensatory time to date.  Ricker feels he would be unable to
effectively supervise his employees were he to be included in
their bargaining unit.  He does not desire to be included
therein.  Ricker attends selectmen's meetings and deals with
private industry; the other two contested positions do not.  Ayer
speaks with Ricker daily.  His work-related contact with Ricker
is primarily to resolve manpower issues such as Ricker's need for
the loan of an extra employee from Ayer.  Goyette's contact with
Ricker is usually limited to situations where Ricker wants
something modified, fixed or built.  Ricker only asks Goyette for
the loan of an employee if Ayer "does not have enough people" or
if no one wants to help out "on the highway side."  Ricker then
comes out back and asks Goyette or Brian (his assistant) if they
want to work for him.  If Ayer can't spare his Class I operator
Goyette or Brian "haul the trash truck for [Ricker]."

Present Contract Status

      In 1991 the parties were involved in mediation and fact
finding prior to executing a contract on December 30, 1993,
effective for a one-year period commencing retroactively on 
July 1, 1993.  The parties are presently in successor
negotiations.  Consideration in mediation of the unit placement
of the contested positions has been requested by the Town.


Other Town Bargaining Units

      There are presently five bargaining units of Town of Lisbon
employees.  Teamsters Union Local 340 represents a one-member
bargaining unit of the Town of Lisbon Police Department's
Supervisors which includes the single classification of Sergeant. 
The Teamsters also represent a unit of Wastewater Treatment Plant
employees in Lisbon which includes the Chief Mechanic, the Shift
Operator and the Assistant Shift Operator.  AFSCME Council 93
represents a unit of the Town of Lisbon General Government
employees which includes the Accounts Payable Clerk, the Deputy
Tax Collector, the Computer Operator/Payroll, the Receptionist,
the Sewer Billing/Counter Clerk, the Deputy Welfare Director, the
Assessing Clerk, the Park Ranger and the Collection Clerk.  The
International Brotherhood of Police Officers represents a
bargaining unit of the Town's law enforcement employees occupying
the following job classifications:  Patrolman, Dispatcher,
Corporal, Juvenile Officer and Detective.

The Initial Public Works Unit Determination

      In the unappealed unit determination report which initially
configured this public works unit the Shop Supervisor and the
Highway Foreman were found appropriately included, over the
objection of the Town.  The complete findings of fact in that
case are as follows:

      1)  The Lisbon Public Works Department is composed of two
      divisions - the Highway Division and the Solid Waste Division. 
      The Highway Division has two sections - the mechanical section and
      the highway section.  Employed in the mechanical section are the
      Shop Supervisor and two Mechanics.  The Foreman and employees
      holding the positions of Operator I, Operator II and Laborer are
      employed in the highway section.  The Solid Waste Division employs
      an Operator, Assistant Operator, and Landfill Attendant.  The
      Director of Public Works is in charge of the Department.  The
      Director has a secretary, whose position is not proposed to be
      included in the bargaining unit.

      2)  The Shop Supervisor supervises the two Mechanics who work in
      the mechanical section.  While the Shop Supervisor spends most of
      his time working on jobs along with the Mechanics, he also plans
      the workday, within the hours of work set by the Director of
      Public Works, and assigns the Mechanics to jobs.  The Shop
      Supervisor also orders most of the parts needed in the mechanical
      section.  When expensive items - those costing more than $400 or 

      $500 - are involved, the Shop Supervisor checks with the Director
      before placing the order.

      3)  The Shop Supervisor is not authorized to hire or fire
      employees, although he has recommended that a certain person be
      hired as a Mechanic.  He has not yet disciplined or evaluated any
      employee.  When a Mechanic wants a day off, he tells the Shop
      Supervisor, who asks the Director.  The Shop Supervisor handles
      minor complaints and gripes by the Mechanics, but refers any major
      issues to the Director or the Town Manager.  When the Director
      makes up the Departmental budget, he asks the Shop Supervisor
      about the status of the equipment in the mechanical section.  The
      Shop Supervisor is not consulted with regard to personnel matters. 
      When the Director is on vacation or otherwise absent from work the
      Shop Supervisor is not placed in charge of the Department.  He
      continues to perform his regular duties the same as if the
      Director was present.

      4)  The Shop Supervisor has been an employee of the Public Works
      Department for about 10 years.  On 3 occasions, he has been named
      the interim Director of Public Works while the Director's position
      was vacant.  The last occasion was about 2 years ago, when the
      Shop Supervisor served as interim Director for 7 months.  As
      interim Director, the Shop Supervisor worked on the budget and
      performed the other administrative duties required of the Director
      as well as his regular duties as Shop Supervisor.  The Shop
      Supervisor has been offered the Director's post several times, but
      thus far has refused the position because he prefers to do
      mechanical rather than administrative work.  The last time a
      Director of Public Works was hired, the interim Director went back
      to performing the duties of Shop Supervisor without any formal
      action on the part of the Board of Selectmen or the Town Manager. 
      The Shop Supervisor recognizes that his situation is different
      from that of the rank-and-file employees in that he performs
      supervisory duties and has greater responsibilities than the
      average employee.

      5)  The Foreman, who has held his position about one year, spends
      most of his time working along with the other 4 employees in the
      highway section.  The Foreman presently is being trained as a
      foreman, and the Director estimates it will be several more years
      before he becomes fully qualified for the job.  As part of his
      training, the Foreman recently attended a foreman's school.  The
      Director presently sits down with the Foreman to set priorities
      and plan the schedule.  The Foreman then assigns the employees to
      the jobs which need to be done.  The Foreman has no authority to
      hire or fire employees or set personnel policies.  When the
      Director is going to be absent from work, he leaves instructions
      regarding what is to be done and his phone number with the
      Foreman.  The Foreman was hired by the Director, with the approval
      of the Town Manager.  The Board of Selectmen took no formal action
      to appoint the Foreman to his position.

     As is more fully explained below I conclude that the Shop
Supervisor and the Highway Foreman continue to share a clear and
identifiable community of interest with employees in the public
works unit, which is not outweighed by any conflict of employment


interests.  I further conclude that, in the absence of any
conflict in his and his subordinate unit members' employment
interests, the Solid Waste Supervisor should be included in the
public works collective bargaining unit on the basis of the
Board's policy against the proliferation of small, unnecessary
bargaining units.  The MPELRL provides in Section 966(1) that:

     In the event of a dispute between the public employer
     and an employee or employees as to the appropriateness
     of a unit for purposes of collective bargaining or
     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 his designee shall make the determination.

26 M.R.S.A.  966(1) (1988).  The MPELRL also provides, with
respect to the availability of Board unit clarification
procedures, that:

     Where there is a certified or currently recognized
     bargaining representative and where the circumstances
     surrounding the formation of an existing bargaining
     unit are alleged to have changed sufficiently to
     warrant modification in the composition of that
     bargaining unit, any public employer or any recognized
     or certified bargaining agent may file a petition for a
     unit clarification provided that the parties are unable
     to agree on appropriate modifications and there is no
     question concerning representation.

26 M.R.S.A.  966(3) (1988).  The purpose of unit clarification
procedures is to analyze job classifications in light of changes
which have occurred since the formation of the bargaining unit to
determine whether the changes are sufficient to warrant
modification of the unit's description.  In addition to
allegations of substantial change in the duties of an existing
position, the creation of a new job classification is a change
that is usually deemed sufficient to satisfy the threshold
requirement of "substantial change."  See Portland Public Library
Staff Association and Portland Public Library, No. 88-UC-03, slip
op. at 9 (Me.L.R.B. June 2, 1988).  Allegations of substantial
change in two positions and the creation of a new position
support the petitions in the instant case. 


     Rule 1.16(A) of the Board's Unit Determination Rules states,
in pertinent part:  

     Unit clarification petitions may be denied if (1) the
     question raised should properly be settled through the
     election process, or (2) the petition requests the
     clarification of unit placement questions which could
     have been but were not raised prior to the conclusion
     of negotiations which resulted in an agreement
     containing a bargaining unit description.

This rule reflects a policy favoring the establishment of
bargaining unit parameters through agreement of the parties.  It
is discretionary and permits but does not mandate the dismissal
of unit clarification petitions.  See State v. MSEA, No. 82-A-02,
slip op. at 5 & 6, 6 NPER 20-14027 (Me.L.R.B. June 2, 1983).   
The parties have stipulated that no question concerning
representation exists and that there is presently no contract in
effect.  The unit placements of the positions in dispute have
been unavailingly undertaken by the parties.  Accordingly, the
petitions supporting the parties' disputes are timely and
sufficient.  The inquiry now turns to whether each of these
supervisors shares a community of interest with employees in the
public works unit and, if they do share a community of interest,
whether, for each supervisor, that community of interest is
outweighed by conflict of employment-related interests.  

     I recently outlined the rationale underlying Board unit
configuration proceedings, the role of the hearing officer and
the factors to be considered in determining community of interest
in a unit determination report in the case styled Richmond
Employees Association and Town of Richmond, No. 94-UD-09, slip
op. at 22-25 (Me.L.R.B. Apr. 26, 1994).  That discussion, which
quotes extensively from the unit determination report in the case
East Grand Teachers Association/MTA/NEA and MSAD No. 14 Board of
Directors, No. 92-UD-01, slip op. at 14-15 (Me.L.R.B. Oct. 1,
1991), bears restatement here:

          The lodestar that guides the creation of
          appropriate bargaining units under the 

          Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations
          Law ("Act"), 26 M.R.S.A. ch. 9-A (1988 and
          Supp. 1993) is fostering an improved
          relationship between public employees and
          their employer " . . . by providing a uniform
          basis for recognizing the right of public
          employees to join labor organizations of
          their own choosing and to be represented by
          such organizations in collective bargaining
          for terms and conditions of employment.    
          26 M.R.S.A.  961 (1988).  The Supreme
          Judicial Court has discussed the importance
          of the bargaining [unit] in fulfilling the
          purpose of the Act as follows:

               The institutional purpose of the
               bargaining unit, then, is to
               strengthen the bargaining position
               of the employees as a group.  It
               does so procedurally by aggregating
               the employees into a unit and thus
               providing the basic mechanism for
               collective bargaining; it does so
               substantively by defining the group
               whose economic rights and benefits
               will be governed by majoritarian
               processes.  The bargaining unit is,
               in short, a fundamental element in
               the self-governing relation between
               the public employee and his
               employer.  Indeed, under the
               National Labor Relations Act, the
               coherent bargaining unit is
               perceived as a necessary condition
               for effectuating the national labor
               policy of collective bargaining. 
               Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB,
               313 U.S. 146, 61 S.Ct. 908, 85 L.
               Ed. 1251 (1941).  In light of the
               role played by the bargaining unit,
               we likewise believe that the two
               fundamental purposes of the 
               MPELRL--freedom of employee self-
               organization and voluntary
               adjustment of the terms of
               employment--are best effectuated
               through the creation of coherent
               bargaining units composed of
               employees who have "an identifiable
               community of interest" in the
               subjects controlled by the
               collective bargaining agreement.


          Lewiston Firefighters Association v. City of
          Lewiston, 354 A.2d 154, 161 (Me. 1976). 
          Collective bargaining is a response to the
          inherent inequality of bargaining power
          between a single employee and her or his
          employer.  Collective bargaining attempts to
          level the playing field and empower
          individual employees in the negotiating
          process by providing a mechanism through
          which an employee can coordinate his or her
          bargaining proposals with those of co-workers
          with whom the employee shares similar terms
          and conditions of employment.  The Act
          explicitly recognizes that appropriate
          bargaining units are composed of employees
          who share a "community of interest" and does
          not condition employees' unit inclusion on
          whether they share identical terms and
          conditions of employment.  26 M.R.S.A.      
           966(2) (1988).  [Quoting East Grand
          Teachers Association/MTA/NEA and MSAD No. 14
          Board of Directors, No. 92-UD-01, slip op. at
          14-15 (Me.L.R.B. Oct. 1, 1991).]

          The Board has addressed the duty of hearing
     examiners to assess whether a community of interest
     exists among prospective fellow unit members as

          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
          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 Bangor, No. 79-A-01, slip op. at 4,
     1 NPER 20-10031 (Me.L.R.B. Oct. 17, 1979).  See also
     Board Unit Determination Rule 1.11(F).

          In evaluating the presence or absence of community
     of interest, the Board requires, at minimum, assessment
     of the following eleven factors:


          (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) similarities 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.

     Rule 1.11(F). . . .

Finally, the MPELRL establishes the following standard for the
determination of the appropriate unit placement of supervisors:

     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 correcting measures to
     implement those standards.

26 M.R.S.A.  966(1) (Supp. 1993).
     All three supervisors are employed in public works
positions.  They are all variously required to perform the manual
and mechanical tasks performed by their subordinates.9  They each
perform administrative duties not performed by their subordinates

     9 The Highway Foreman, with six subordinates, spends 40
percent of his workday performing hands-on work.  The Shop
Supervisor, with one subordinate, spends seasonally up to 80
percent of his workday performing hands-on work, and the Solid
Waste Supervisor, with two subordinates, spends 15 percent of his
time performing hands-on work.


such as written and oral reporting, minor purchasing, and
resourcing management on major purchases and budgeting.10  They
each perform nonmanagerial supervisory duties such as task
direction, relaying leave requests, requesting approval of
overtime, contributing input to the evaluation of their
subordinates' performance,11 scheduling subordinates within the
work hours established by the Director, and fielding employee
complaints at the first step of the contractual grievance

      These supervisors report directly to Martel, who is the
ultimate overseer of all public works employees.  Although the
evidence establishes that Ricker earns a salary 21 percent higher
than his closest subordinate, his closest subordinate's wages are
not established in the record.  Ayer and Goyette earn 16 percent
and 17 percent more than their highest paid subordinates and the
Truck Driver/Laborer earns 25 percent more than the Laborer. 
Ricker's salary and assumedly his benefits are established by an
individually-negotiated contract13 now, but they are capable of
being negotiated with the collective bargaining agent.  The
benefits, wages, and terms and conditions or employment of all
other public works employees save Martel and his secretary are
determined through collective bargaining.  The probative value of
Ricker's salaried status is diminished by the expired contract's
provision of compensatory time for salaried employees.  A high 

    10 Ricker unquestionably spends a significantly greater
proportion of his day performing administrative duties than does
either of the two other supervisors.

    11 The fact of Martel's conversion, from oral to written, of
Ayer's and Goyette's input into their subordinates' performance
evaluations is inconsequential in light of the absence of either
any indication of the acceptance of their appraisals by Martel,
or the use to which such evaluations are put.

    12 Under the parties' expired contract supervisors were the
first step in a process having subsequent steps involving the
department head, the Town Manager and binding arbitration.

    13 The terms of this contract were not entered into the


school diploma is a nearly uniform requirement in the unit, as is
at least some relevant experience.

      Only the Shop Supervisor is required to have post high
school education or supervisory experience.  The Shop Supervisor,
the Solid Waste Supervisor, and their respective subordinates
with them, work at separate sites within a common public works
enclosure.  Although the Highway Foreman and his subordinates
work throughout the Town their work originates and concludes at
the public works yard.  There is frequent contact among the
supervisors and general contact by supervisors with all the
public works employees.  There is some overlap of duties which is
occasioned by members of the Highway and Shop sections
supplementing the ranks of the Solid Waste division.  

      The historical unit configuration has apparently satisfied
the included employees.  There is no evidence of any difficulty
or "tension" resulting from the historical unit inclusion of the
Shop Supervisor and Highway Foreman.  There is no evidence that
the employment interests of non-supervisory employees have been
subordinated to employment interests unique to these supervisors.

      Only the Solid Waste Supervisor opposes his inclusion. 
Ricker expressed no desire respecting the possibility of a
supervisory unit.  There are already five bargaining units in the
Town, including one 1-person unit.  There is no Town-wide
supervisory unit and, with the exception of the Director, his
secretary and Ricker, all Town public works public employees are
organized by the Teamsters.

      With respect to the exclusion of supervisors from units of
their subordinates on the basis of supervisory conflict of


 interest14 it is by now well established that:

            Unlike the National Labor Relations Act which
      excludes supervisors altogether from its coverage, the
      MPELRL does not compel either exclusion from MPELRL
      coverage altogether, or exclusion from units of
      subordinates.  In Penobscot Valley Hospital and Maine
      Federation of Nurses and Health Care Professionals, No.
      85-A-01, 8 NPER ME-16011 (Me.L.R.B. Feb. 6, 1985), the
      Board stated, at page 8, that:

            Section 966(1) does not require the exclusion
            of supervisory employees from bargaining
            units composed of the employees whom they
            supervise but relegates the decision of the
            supervisory employees' unit status to the
            sound discretion of the hearing examiner. 
            Maine School Administrative District No. 14
            and East Grand Teachers Association, MLRB No.
            83-A-09, at 12 (Aug. 24, 1983).  Except in
            instances where the resulting one- or two-
            member supervisory unit would contravene our
            policy of discouraging the proliferation,
            through fragmentation, of small bargaining 

    14  In M.S.A.D. No. 5 High School Department Coordinators
and M.S.A.D. No. 5, No. 88-UD-01 (Me.L.R.B. Oct. 16, 1987), I
commented, albeit in a school unit context, upon the evidentiary
basis to support allegations of supervisory conflict, as follows:

      Although not intended to constitute an exhaustive
      listing, the following examples are illustrative of the
      variety of evidence which may be probative of the issue
      of the existence of supervisory conflict of interest: 
      evidence of the exercise of personal decisions to hire,
      promote, discharge or discipline employees or instances
      of the effective recommendation of such personnel
      actions; evidence of the performance of significant
      duties in the observation and evaluation of employees
      where such observations and evaluations play a
      substantial role in reappointment, non-reappointment,
      grant of continuing contract status, award of merit pay
      or promotion; evidence of the exercise of independent
      judgment in the ranking of subordinates for the
      purposes of establishing an order of lay-off or re-call
      beyond merely ranking by seniority; evidence of the
      performance of a role in the curriculum area(s) of
      responsibility indicating the exercise of independent
      judgment in the determination, modification or
      attainment of curriculum objectives, and the placement
      of teachers in curriculum courses; evidence of the
      exercise of prevailing influence in textbook selection
      or the preparation of class schedules or assignments;
      evidence of the exercise of significant discretion in
      the promulgation or execution of a working budgetary
      document for an area of responsibility; evidence of the
      non-ministerial grant or denial of the use of vacation,
      sick, bereavement, educational or other leaves of
      absence; and evidence of the use of settlement
      authority in grievance procedures.


            units, we have approved of the creation of
            such separate supervisory units.  Maine
            School Administrative District No. 14, supra,
            at 12-13; Maine School Administrative
            District No. 43 and Maine School
            Administrative District No. 43 Teachers
            Association, MLRB No. 84-A-05, at 4-5     
            (May 30, 1984).  The purpose of creating
            separate supervisory employee bargaining
            units is to minimize potential conflicts of
            interest within bargaining units, between
            supervisors and their subordinate employees,
            as well as to lessen conflicts of loyalty for
            supervisors between duty to their employer
            and allegiance to fellow unit employees.  

Richmond Employees Association and Town of Richmond, No. 
94-UD-09, slip op. at 28-29 (Me.L.R.B. Apr. 26, 1994). 

      There is no evidence that any of these supervisors have
hired, reprimanded, suspended, demoted, promoted or fired any
subordinate.  Their only role in the evaluation of the
performance of their subordinates is as resource persons.  There
is no indication that performance evaluations effect the
satisfaction of probationary requirements or impact the award of
wage increases.  They do not have the authority on their own to
assign overtime or approve or disapprove leave requests.  In
short, none of these supervisors possesses a supervisory conflict
of interest with subordinate unit employees.

      I have considered the duties and responsibilities of the
Highway Foreman, the Shop Foreman and the Solid Waste Supervisor,
in light of the standards set forth above.  Based upon the record
considered in light of the parties' arguments I conclude that the
Shop Supervisor and the Highway Foreman continue to share a
community of interest with employees in the public works unit.  I
also conclude that the Solid Waste Supervisor shares a strong
community of interest with the two other supervisors and that the
Board's policy against the unnecessary creation of small 


bargaining units15 requires his inclusion.16

      On the basis of the parties' stipulations, the foregoing
findings of fact and discussion, and pursuant to the provisions
of 26 M.R.S.A.  966 (1988 and Supp. 1994), I conclude that the
following unit of employees of the Town of Lisbon is appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of
26 M.R.S.A.  966 (1988 & Supp. 1994):
      INCLUDED:  Public Works [Highway] Foreman, Public 
                 Works Maintenance Shop Supervisor, Solid 
                 Waste Supervisor, Mechanic, Operator I, 
                 Operator II, Laborer, Operator, Assistant            
                 Operator, Landfill Attendant.

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 11th day of May, 1995.

                                MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

                                M. Wayne Jacobs
                                Designated Hearing Examiner


    15 The Board's policy of discouraging the unnecessary
proliferation of small bargaining units is long standing.  The
Board has explained its rationale as follows:

     Small bargaining units must be bargained for and
     serviced just as [must] large bargaining units.  The
     State is obligated to provide under 26 M.R.S.A. Section
     965 the same mediation and arbitration services for
     small units as are provided for large units.  The
     formation of small bargaining units among employees in
     the same department can thus result in the employer,
     the union, and the State expending an amount of time,
     energy and money all out of proportion to the number of
     persons served.

M.S.A.D. 43 and M.S.A.D. 43 Teachers Association, No. 84-A-05,
slip op. at 4-5, 7 NPER 20-15015 (Me.L.R.B. May 30, 1984), see,
e.g., MSAD 14 and East Grand Teachers Association, No. 83-A-09,
slip op. at 13, 6 NPER 20-14036 (Me.L.R.B. Aug. 24, 1983).

    16  See, Lubec Education Association, MTA/NEA and M.S.A.D.
No. 19 Board of Directors, No. 83-UD-17 (Me.L.R.B. Apr. 13, 1983)
(Head Bus Driver/Custodian included in unit due to policy against
overfragmentation although supervisory duties included
scheduling, assigning, reviewing and overseeing work of
employees, submitting a budget for salaries and supplies,
ordering supplies up to $500, interviewing and participating in
the hiring of subordinates for vacancies, adjusting grievances,
applying established personnel policies and participating in the
formulation of job descriptions and performance criteria.


The parties are hereby advised of their right, pursuant to 26
M.R.S.A.  968(4) (Supp. 1994), to appeal this report to the
Maine Labor Relations Board (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 Rules 1.12 and 7.03 of the Board's
Rules and Procedures for full requirements.