This page contains summaries and links for MLRB Board and hearing examiner cases from May 2006 through the present. Earlier cases are available through the search function. As the MLRB issues new decisions, they will be added to this page.
March 20, 2024, James Elwell, Jr., filing as Merrymeeting Employees Association v. MSAD No. 75, Decision and Order on Motion to Dismiss, No. 24-PPC-07 or No. 24-PPC-7 (pdf)
The Board concluded that an elected union official did not have standing to file a prohibited practice complaint against an employer for a failure to bargain because only a bargaining agent has standing to file such a claim and the union official was acting against the wishes of the leadership of the union certified as the bargaining agent and thus was not acting as a representative of the bargaining agent.
January 24, 2024, Maine Service Employees Association v. State of Maine, Executive Branch, No. 24-PPC-01 or No. 24-PPC-01 (pdf)
The Board concluded that the State violated the State Employees Labor Relations Act (SELRA) by refusing to produce, or negotiate over producing, otherwise confidential medical records and investigation notes requested by the Union in connection with its representation of a bargaining unit employee in a series of active grievances. The Board found that the State’s obligations under SELRA outweigh its confidentiality concerns for the requested material and that the State must produce these materials, after bargaining with the Union regarding reasonable accommodations to protect confidentiality.
December 18, 2023, Maine State Law Enforcement Association v. Maine Office of State Fire Marshal, No. 23-PPC-07 or No. 23-PPC-07 (pdf)
The Board concluded that the employer unlawfully interfered with bargaining unit employee rights through unilateral changes it made in flagrant violation of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. The Board also found that the employer unlawfully interfered with bargaining unit employee rights through the actions of one of its agents during a staff meeting. However, the Board concluded that the employer did not violate its statutory duty to bargain in relation to the alleged unilateral changes or in its handling of grievances. The Board also concluded there was insufficient evidence of retaliation in the issuance of a counseling memorandum to an employee.
August 31, 2023, James Escoto v. AFSCME Council 93, Local 431, No. 23-PPC-10 or No. 23-PPC-10 (pdf)
The Board concluded that the union did not violate its duty of fair representation in its representation of a bargaining unit employee in a pre-disciplinary meeting and a grievance hearing challenging the termination of his employment, as well as in its decision not to take the grievance to arbitration. Generally, the Board concluded the union actively represented the employee during his termination and had a good faith basis to decline to move forward in arbitration. While the Board found the union was negligent for not considering certain evidence, this negligence did not rise to the level of arbitrary conduct that would violate the duty of fair representation. The Board also found insufficient evidence of any discrimination or bad faith by the union towards the employee.
August 17, 2023, AFSCME, Council 93 and Town of Orono, Decision and Order on Appeal of Executive Director's Decision to Conduct Election in Majority Sign-up Petition, No. 23-UDA-04 or No. 23-UDA-04 (pdf)
The Board reversed the Executive Director’s decision to conduct an election in response to finding a lack of majority support for a Majority Sign-up petition. The Board concluded that majority status for a petitioning union must be determined based on the date that the filing of the petition has been completed, and that only the authorization cards of employees whose positions are included in the final determined bargaining unit may be counted for purposes of determining a union’s majority status. The Board ordered the Executive Director to certify the union as the designated bargaining agent for the new bargaining unit.
August 15, 2023, MSEA, SEIU Local 1989 v. State of Maine, No. 23-PPC-04 or No. 23-PPC-04 (pdf)
A majority of the Board concluded that the union had not met its burden with sufficient evidence to establish that the State unlawfully discriminated against an employee based on protected activity, or that it unlawfully interfered with protected rights, when it failed to promote him on three instances. A minority opinion agreed with the majority except with respect to one of the instances of non-promotion, where the Board member found unlawful discrimination because the State’s justification for its decision not to promote the employee was mere pretext. The minority opinion also found unlawful interference with employee rights with respect to the hiring decision for that position.
July 31, 2023, Androscoggin County Patrol Deputies and Androscoggin County Employees Association and Androscoggin County Sheriff's Office, Unit Determination Report, No. 23-UD-03 or No. 23-UD-03 (pdf)
The Hearing Examiner denied the Unit Determination petition of a group of employees seeking to sever the supervisory and non-supervisory law enforcement patrol officers from an existing unit represented by an incumbent union. The evidence indicated a sufficient community of interest between the supervisory and non-supervisory officers and the existing unit such that the extraordinary remedy of severance was not warranted.
June 1, 2023, Allen Mersereau v. Teamsters Local Union No. 340, No. 23-PPC-02 or No. 23-PPC-02 (pdf).
The Board concluded that the union had not violated its duty of fair representation with respect to allegations that the union had failed to file grievances, follow up on complaints and attend a pre-disciplinary meeting. The Board found there was insufficient evidence that the union had unreasonably denied filing a grievance or otherwise failed to respond to claimant’s complaints and the claimant had not requested union assistance with his pre-disciplinary meeting. The Board also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the union had unlawfully interfered with claimant’s protected rights by allegedly physically preventing him from leaving a meeting.
November 2, 2022, Allen Mersereau v. Teamsters Local Union No. 340, Order on Appeal of Executive Director's Dismissal of Complaint, No. 23-PPC-02 or No. 23-PPC-02 (pdf).
The Board partially reversed the Executive Director's partial dismissal of a prohibited practice complaint for a failure to state claims upon which the Board could grant relief. The complaint alleged, among other things, that a union had violated its duty of fair representation when a representative allegedly held down complainant with force to prevent his leaving a union-represented meeting with his employer. The Board found that even though this may not be a cognizable breach of the union's duty of fair representation, it may constitute unlawful interference with the complainant's rights under the University Employees Labor Relations Act. The Board also found a shop steward's alleged refusal to file grievances requested by complainant and the union's alleged failure to represent complainant during a pre-disciplinary meeting to be sufficient allegations of the breach of the union's duty of fair representation to merit an evidentiary hearing.
November 22, 2021, County of Cumberland and National Correctional Employees Union, No. 21-UC-01 (pdf).
The Hearing Examiner dismissed the employer’s unit clarification petition, concluding that moving a certain position from one bargaining unit to another was not appropriate because the employer did not (1) raise the issue prior to reaching agreement with the union on the description of the union’s bargaining unit in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, (2) establish a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant unit clarification, or (3) prove the position lacked a community of interest with the current bargaining unit.
January 26, 2021, Falmouth Bus Drivers, Custodians and Maintenance Workers Association v. Falmouth School Board, No. 20-PPC-06 or No. 20-PPC-06 (pdf).
The Board concluded that the employer’s decision to subcontract bargaining unit duties was made pursuant to the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and that therefore the employer had not failed to collectively bargain in violation of the Act when it implemented its subcontracting decision or when it refused to proceed to mediation during attempted midterm negotiations on the subject. The Board also held that the union had failed to establish that the employer’s subcontracting was unlawful discrimination because there was no adverse employment action involved.
December 31, 2020, Maine Association of Police v. Town of Pittsfield, No. 20-PPC-07 or No. 20-PPC-07 (pdf).
The Board concluded that the Town had violated the Act by failing to provide requested information to the Union in a timely manner. The Board further held that this failure to provide information in a timely manner also unlawfully interfered with the right to engage in protected union activity. However, the Board found that the Town’s discipline of two police officers was not unlawful retaliation because the Union had failed to prove that the Town’s justifications for the discipline were merely a pretext.
September 8, 2020, Don Juan Moses v. AFSCME, Council 93, No. 20-PPC-09 or No. 20-PPC-09 (pdf).
The Board concluded that the union had not violated its duty of fair representation when it had advised and represented a bargaining unit employee regarding a disciplinary matter because it had done so in a rational manner and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate any discrimination or bad faith by the union towards the employee.
May 6, 2020, Local 1611, IAFF and City of Bath, No. 20-MERGER-01 or No. 20-MERGER-01 (pdf).
The Hearing Examiner denied the union’s petition for a unit merger, finding that a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit made up of firefighter captains included supervisors and was therefore precluded from merging with a unit of firefighters under 26 M.R.S.A. § 966(4)(E). Although the term supervisor was not defined in the law, the Hearing Examiner applied the criteria set out in 26 M.R.S.A. § 966(1) for determining whether a supervisory position should be excluded from a proposed bargaining unit, reasoning that the purpose of both provisions was the same – providing separate units for supervisors and their subordinates in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
January 3, 2020, RSU 57, Board of Directors and Massabesic Education Association, Nos. 20-UC-01 and 20-UD-01 or Nos. 20-UC-01 and 20-UD-01 (pdf).
The Hearing Examiner granted the employer's unit clarification petition, concluding that employees who have been employed for less than six months may not be members of a bargaining unit because they are excluded from the statutory definition of “public employee.” The Hearing Examiner dismissed the employer’s related unit determination petition on the basis that there was no new “claim for recognition” involved, as the union considered the employees already included within the existing bargaining unit. Accordingly, a unit clarification petition was the appropriate procedural device.
October 1, 2019, Jeffrey L. Macomber v. Maine State Employees Association, SEIU, Local 1989, Superior Court, AP-18-67 or AP-18-67 (pdf).
The Superior Court affirmed the Board’s decision (18-20) upholding the Executive Director’s dismissal of a prohibited practice complaint for a failure to state a claim upon which the Board could grant relief. The Court agreed with the Board’s application of law in determining that there was an insufficient basis to establish that the union violated its duty of fair representation when it failed to correct a procedural defect during the processing of a grievance, even though the union had made a near-identical mistake for a separate grievance.
July 24, 2019, Fraternal Order of Police v. York County, Nos. 18-10 & 19-02 or Nos. 18-10 & 19-02 (pdf).
The Board concluded that, despite evidence of hostility between senior management and certain employees who were active within the union, the record, as a whole, failed to establish that the employer’s actions at issue were motivated by the protected union activity of any employee and therefore did not constitute illegal discrimination or retaliation. Given this, and given the reasonable bases for the employer’s actions, the Board also concluded that the employer’s conduct could not be seen as reasonably tending to interfere with employees’ rights under the Act.
September 28, 2018, Jeffrey L. Macomber v. Maine State Employees Association, SEIU, Local 1989, No. 18-20 or No. 18-20 (pdf).
The Board upheld the Executive Director's dismissal of a prohibited practice complaint for a failure to state a claim upon which the Board could grant relief. The complaint in question alleged a union violated its duty of fair representation when it failed to correct a procedural defect during the processing of a grievance. The Board held that even if the union previously made a near-identical mistake for a separate grievance, as the complainant asserted, the complainant failed to allege any facts from which one could conclude that the subsequent error was anything but mere negligence, therefore failing to establish arbitrary conduct that would constitute a violation of the duty of fair representation under Law Court and Board precedent.
September 25, 2018, David Trask v. Fraternal Order of Police, et al., 2018 ME 130 or 2018 ME 130 (pdf).
The Law Court upheld the Board’s determination in MLRB. No. 16-07 (also previously affirmed by the Superior Court in AP-2017-29) that a union did not violate its duty of fair representation to a unit employee in connection to the union’s negotiations with the town over the town’s decision to close its municipal police department.
May 30 2018, Westbrook School Department v. Westbrook Education Association/MEA, Decision and Order, No. 18-18 or No. 18-18 (pdf).
The Board concluded that the Association violated the Act by insisting on including certain issues at fact finding that were matters of educational policy. The Board held that all but two of the nine issues presented contained matters of educational policy which are subject to the meet-and-consult requirement of the Act, but may not be negotiated.
May 25, 2018, Maine State Employees Association v. State of Maine, Order on Appeal of Executive Director's Partial Dismissal of Complaint, No. 18-11 or No. 18-11 (pdf).
The Board affirmed the Executive Director's dismissal of that portion of the complaint that charged the State with making unilateral changes to the reclassification procedure. The Board agreed that the Law Court's decision in State v. MSEA, 499 A.2d 1228, controlled, as the zipper clause central to that case was identical to the current one. Through the zipper clause, the parties had waived the right to demand bargaining on matters that were raised or could have been raised during negotiations. The only recourse left was through the Maintenance of Benefits clause, which was enforceable through the grievance procedure, not at the Board.
May 14, 2018, Wiscasset Educational Support Prof'l Assoc. v. Wiscasset School Dept., No. 18-09, Decision and Order, No. 18-09 or No. 18-09 (pdf).
The Board concluded that the School Department had not made a unilateral change by ending a practice of allowing employees to accrue compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay because the terms of the expired agreement clearly and unequivocally required the payment of overtime and did not allow for compensatory time. The Board held that the clear and unambiguous terms of the agreement must control in the absence of evidence of a meeting of minds to amend that contract language. The Board also noted that, in any event, the Employer gave the Association the opportunity to bargain and did, in fact, bargain over the matter.
April 12, 2018, Oxford County and Teamsters Local Union No. 340, Unit Clarification Report, No. 18-UC-01 or No. 18-UC-01(pdf).
The Hearing Examiner concluded that the prerequisite to a unit clarification found in section 966(3) that the circumstances surrounding the formation of the bargaining unit must have changed sufficiently had been met. As the parties had stipulated that the position sought to be added shared a community of interest with the positions in the existing unit, the Examiner concluded that the resulting unit would be an appropriate bargaining unit.
March 1, 2018, SAD 3 Education Association v. RSU Board of Directors and MLRB, Law Court Decision No. 2018 ME 29 or 2018 ME 29 (pdf).
The Law Court affirmed the Board's decision that the 120-day notice requirement in the final paragaph of section 965(1) also applies to impact bargaining when impact bargaining may involve the appropriation of money. The Court also ruled that the Board's conclusion that the Association did not properly provide the School Board in writing was supported by the record.
January 30, 2018, David Trask v. FOP and MLRB, Superior Court AP-2017-29
The Superior Court affirmed the Board's decision (16-07) that the Fraternal Order of Police did not breach its duty of fair representation by failing to pursue impact bargaining regarding the Town of Madison's decision to dissolve the Town's police department and have the Sheriff's department assume the policing responsibilities. The Court concluded that the Board's decision was supported by competent and substantial evidence and applied the correct legal principles.
December 5, 2017, Eliot Police Assoc. v. Town of Eliot and MLRB, Superior Court Docket No. AP-17-12 or AP-17-12(pdf).
The Superior Court affirmed the Board's decision that a breach of a negotiating ground rule alone is not a violation of the duty to bargain. The Court affirmed the Board's conclusion that to require continued enforcement of the groundrule (prohibiting the introduction of new issues after the 3rd bargaining session) during negotiations that occurred after the Town had rejected a tentative agreement hindered the negotiation process, rather than facilitating it.
November 22, 2017, New England Police Benevolent Association, Local 605 v. City of Caribou, Case No. 16-22 or 16-22 (pdf).
The Board concluded that the City did not fail to bargain in good faith by inserting language into the proposed agreement during negotiations without specifically notifying the Association because the union negotiators saw the language before ratification, but thought it meant something else.
June 21, 2017, Town of Searsport v. State of Maine and LIUNA Laborers' Local 327, Docket No. AP-16-66 or AP-16-66 (pdf).
The Superior Court affirmed the Board's conclusion that the Waste Water Treatment Plant Chief Operator/Superintendent and the Public Works Director, were not excluded from coverage of the Act because their appointments did not meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (B) or (D) of section 962(6).
June 16, 2017, Maine Education Assoc. and Maine School of Science and Mathematics, Case No. 17-UD-07 or 17-UD-07 (pdf).
The Hearing Examiner concluded that the petitioned-for bargaining unit of full-time and 2/3-time Instructors at MSSM was an appropriate unit and that adjunct instructors should not be included in the bargaining unit because they did not share the requisite community of interest.
May 12, 2017, David Trask v. Fraternal Order of Police, Case No. 16-07 or 16-07 (pdf).
The Board concluded that the Fraternal Order of Police did not breach its duty of fair representation by failing to pursue impact bargaining regarding the Town of Madison's decision to dissolve the Town's police department and have the Sheriff's department assume the policing responsibilities. The Board concluded that given the factual and legal landscape at the time, the FOP's conduct was neither irrational nor unreasonable.
February 27, 2017, RSU 67 v. Teamsters Local Union 340, Case No. 17-01SQ or 17-01SQ (pdf).
In this status quo determination made pursuant to section 964-A(2), the Board reviewed the provision in the parties' expired collective bargaining agreement on employees' health insurance premiums, in which the employees paid $100 and the employer paid the rest. In the second and third years of the 3-year contract, the employer's payments remained the same as in the first year and the employee had to pay any increase in rates in the second and third year. The Board concluded that for the year following the expiration of the CBA, the employer's payment would remain at the same dollar amount and the employee would pay the amount he or she was paying at the expiration of the agreement, plus 100% of any increase in rates for the next year.
February 3, 2017, Eliot Police Assoc. v. Town of Eliot, Case No. 16-14 or 16-14 (pdf).
The Board concluded that the parties's negotiating groundrule that prohibited raising new issues after the third bargaining session could not remain effective after the Town, in good faith, rejected the tentative agreement.
December 2, 2016, Teamsters Union Local No. 340 and MSAD No. 27, Case No. 17-UD-02 or 17-UD-02 (pdf).
The Hearing Examiner concluded that the positions in the unit as proposed shared a clear and identifiable community of interest and was an appropriate bargaining unit, rejecting the Employer's claim that the Continuing Education Secretary should not be included.
October 20, 2016, Town of Searsport and Laborer's Local 327, Case No. 17-UDA-01 or 17-UDA-01 (pdf).
The Board reviewed the Hearing Examiner's decision and agreed that the two positions at issue, the Waste Water Treatment Plant Chief Operator/Superintendent and the Public Works Director, were not excluded from coverage of the Act because their appointments did not meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (B) or (D) of section 962(6). The Board disagreed with the Hearing Examiner that these two positions should be included with the operations unit and ordered that they be placed in a separate supervisory unit. In support of that order, the Board relied on the Hearing Examiner's specific findings to conclude that the two postions shared the requisite community of interest.
October 17, 2016, Town of Paris and Teamsters Union Local 340, Case No. 16-UDA-01 or 16-UDA-01 (pdf).
The Board reviewed the Hearing Examiner's decision and concluded that the reasonable expectation of continued employment test was not appropriate in determining on-call status. The Board applied the plain meaning of the term and concluded that the per diem Firefighters are regularly-scheduled part-time employees of the Town of Paris and are public employees within the definition of 26 M.R.S. § 962 (6). The Board also affirmed the Hearing Examiner's conclusion that there was the requisite community of interest in the proposed unit.
July 11, 2016, Laborer's Local 327 v. Town of Searsport, Case No. 16-UD-09 or 16-UD-06 (pdf).
The Hearing Examiner concluded that neither the Waste Water Treatment Plant Chief Operator/Superintendent nor the Public Works Director were excluded from the definition of public employees in 26 M.R.S. § 962 (6). The Hearing Examiner also concluded tha these two positions should be included with the bargaining unit as proposed.
June 3, 2016, Teamsters Union Local 340 v. Town of Paris, Case No. 16-UD-06 or 16-UD-06 (pdf).
The Hearing Examiner applied the Board's reasonable expectation of continued employment test and concluded that the per diem Firefighters, including the Fire Captains, are regularly-scheduled part-time employees of the Town of Paris and are public employees within the definition of 26 M.R.S. § 962 (6). As there was the requisite community of interest, the petition for unit determination was granted.
April 20, 2016, David Trask v. Town of Madison, Case No. 16-06 or 16-06 (pdf).
The Board affirmed the Executive Director's dismissal of the complaint, holding that the individual complainant did not have standing to charge a violation of the duty to bargain, and the Town's action in eliminating the police department could not be construed to be interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights under section 963 or domination of an employee organization.
March 10, 2016, AFSCME Council 93, AFL-CIO v. Penobscot County Sheriff's Office; AFSCME Council 93 v. Sheriff Ross and Penobscot County Commissioners, Case Nos. 14-27 and 15-08 or 14-27 (pdf).
The Board concluded that polling of employees on mandatory subjects of bargaining in an attempt to create divisions with the bargaining unit violated section 964(1)(A) of the Act by interfering with employees' rights. The Board dismissed various other alleged violations of the Act.
February 18, 2016, SAD 3 Education Association/MEA/NEA v. RSU 3, Case No. 15-19 or 15-19 (pdf).
The Board concluded RSU 3 violated the Act by refusing to participate in fact finding on matters not subject to the notice requirement of section 965(1)(E) regarding the impact of a change to an educational policy.
January 5, 2016, AFSCME Council 93 v. Penobscot County Commissioners, Case No. 15-14 or 15-14 (pdf).
The Board concluded that Penobscot County did not fail to bargain in good faith when it invited the Union to impact bargaining sessions along with representatives of the other bargaining units of County employees.
October 26, 2015, National Correctional Employees Union, Petitioner, and AFSCME Council 93, Bargaining Agent, and State of Maine, Public Employer, Case No. 16-UD-01 or 16-UD-01 (pdf).
The Executive Director concluded that the petition for unit determination (severance) and bargaining agent election must be dismissed because the "contract bar" precludes representation filings while a collective bargaining agreement is in effect.
August 17, 2015, Teamsters Union Local 340 v. MSAD #27, Case No. 15-UD-03 or 15-UD-03 (pdf).
The Hearing Examiner concluded that the I.T. Aides were not excluded from coverage of the Act under section 962(6)(C) because their access to confidential information under the meaning of that provision was merely speculative and would have been unauthorized in any event.
July 29, 2015, Mt. Abram Teachers Association v. MSAD #58, Case No. 15-09 or 15-09 (pdf).
The Board concluded that the School District did not fail to meet and consult with the Association regarding a change in the teachers' instructional load nor did the District fail to bargain in good faith over the impact of that change or the impact of assigning study hall duties to teachers.
June 4, 2015, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 4, Local Lodge 559 v. Town of Madison, Case No. 15-10 or 15-10 (pdf) .
The Board concluded that the Town violated §964(1)(E) and (1)(A) by failing to apply the established practice for granting wage increases to those employees in the new bargaining unit while the Town and the Machinists Union were negotiating the bargaining unit's first contract.
March 20, 2015, Andrew D. Martin v. AFSCME Council 93, Case No. 14-29.
The Board concluded that the Union violated §964(2)(A) by failing to comply with the collective bargaining agreement’s requirements for collecting a service fee and by causing a regular deduction from the Complainant’s paycheck for fair share fees without giving him the procedural protections required by Hudson.
February 18, 2015, Teamsters Union Local 340 v. Cumberland County Commissioners, Case No. 15-11 or 15-11 (pdf).
The Board dismissed the Union's complaint that the County failed to bargain in good faith by refusing to agree to the Union's proposals or to offer any counterproposals on a particular subject because under the "totality of the circumstances" test, the County's conduct demonstrated a sincere desire to reach an agreement.
February 5, 2015,Teamsters Union Local 340 v. Oxford County, Case No. 15-05 or 15-05 (pdf).
The Board found a 964(1)(A) violation in concluding that the Sheriff's cancellation of the outside details for two months after receiving an arbitration decision on scheduling the details could reasonably be said to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act.
December 18, 2014, AFSCME Council 93 and Town of Readfield, Case No. 15-UDA-01 or 15-UDA-01 (pdf).
The affirmed the Hearing Examiner's unit conclusion in 14-UD-05 that the Town Clerk must be excluded from the unit pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 962(6)(B) because she was appointed to office as specified in that provision.
December 11, 2014, Maranacook Area School Association v. RSU No. 38 School Board and MLRB, No. AP-14-38(pdf).
The Superior Court affirmed the Board's conclusion that enforcement of a salary step increase provision of an expired agreement was precluded by the Law Court's holding in the 1995 case Trustees of the University of Maine System v. Associated COLT Staff. The Court also rejected the petitioner's claim that the Board erred in denying its request for an evidentiary hearing.
September 19, 2014, AFSCME Council 93 and Town of Readfield, Case No. 14-UD-05.
The Hearing Examiner concluded that the petitioned-for bargaining unit of the Town of Readfield employees was appropriate except that the Town Clerk must be excluded from the unit pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 962(6)(B).
June 11, 2014, Appeal of 14-UD-01, Central Lincoln County Educational Specialists Assoc./MEA and AOS #93 14-UDA-01. The Board affirmed the dismissal of the petition because the AOS was not the employer of the specialists.
The Hearing Examiner concluded that the petitioned-for bargaining unit of the Town of Readfield employees was appropriate except that the Town Clerk must be excluded from the unit pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 962(6)(B).
May 15, 2014, RSU No. 38 Board of Directors and Maranacook Area Schools Assoc., Case No. 14-19SQ.
In response to a Petition for a Status Quo Determination under 26 MRSA section 964-A(2), the Board determined that the provision in the parties' expired collective bargaining agreement stating that employees shall move up one level of the salary scale each year was indistinguishable from the step increases that the Law Court disallowed in COLT and was therefore not enforceable pursuant to the status quo doctrine.
April 8, 2014, Teamsters Union Local 340 v. Town of Warren, Case No. 14-UD-03.
The Hearing Examiner concluded that the petitioned-for bargaining unit of the Highway Supervisor and Highway Worker/Driver positions was appropriate and that the scope and degree of supervisory functions exercised by the Supervisor did not warrant assigning that position to a separate bargaining unit.
March 21, 2014, Teamsters Union Local 340 v. Town of Eliot, Case No. 14-04.
The Board concluded that the Town violated the Act by reducing the hours of employment of an employee without prior notice to the bargaining agent to provide a reasonable opportunity to demand bargaining about the reduction and its impact.
March 20, 2014, Central Lincoln County Educational Specialists Assoc./MEA and AOS #93, Case No. 14-UD-01. (Board's decision on appeal, 14-UDA-01, issued June 11, 2014)
The Hearing Examiner dismissed the petition because the specialists namned in the petition were not employees of AOS #93 and, if they were, they would be barred from filing the petition by the contract bar rule.
December 17, 2013, AFSCME Council 93 and Penobscot County, Case No. 14-UCA-01 and 14-UCA-01 pdf.
The Board upheld the hearing examiner's dismissal of the unit clarification petition that sought to add part-time employees to an existing unit of the Sheriff's Department because the Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the circumstances had changed sufficiently to warrant modification of the unit.
December 10, 2013, Teamsters Union Local 340 and Town of Van Buren, Case No. 13-UD-07 and 13-UD-08 and 13-UD-07 pdf.
The Hearing Examiner determined that the two bargaining units proposed, a General Government Unit and a Public Works Unit, were appropriate and ordered bargaining agent elections in both units.
October 31, 2013, MSLEA and Timothy McLaughlin v. State of Maine, Dept of Corrections, Case No. 13-15 and 13-15 pdf.
The Board dismissed the complaint because the facts as alleged do not, as a matter of law, constitute a violation of the Act. The Board held that during the consideration of a motion to dismiss, documents supplied by either party that are not part of the complaint may be considered if the authenticity of the documents is not challenged and the documents are central to the complaint or are referred to in the complaint.
August 20, 2013, AFSCME and Penobscot County Sheriff's Department, Case No. 12-UC-03 and 12-UC-03 pdf.
The Hearing Examiner denied the unit clarification petition seeking to add part-time Corrections Division employees to the existing Penobscot County Sheriff's Department Line Unit because the Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that there were sufficient changed circumstances to justify adding positions to the unit mid-term.
May 24, 2013, Local 1476, IAFF v. City of South Portland, Case No. 12-05 and 12-05 pdf.
The Board majority rejected the Union’s charge that the City of South Portland had a statutory duty to bargain over the decision to implement a new overtime hiring policy that changed the procedure for notifying employees of overtime, noting that the changes did not rise to the level of being a material or significant change in a working condition. The Board majority did, however, require the City to bargain over the impact of the new policy to the extent that it was not already covered by the contract. The dissent would have required the City to bargain over both the decision to implement the policy and the impact.
February 12 , 2013, Maine State Employees Assoc. v. Maine Turnpike Authority, Case No. 12-08 and 12-08 pdf.
The Board rejected the Union's charge that disciplining a union member for complying with his attorney's instructions during arbitration was discriminatory in violation of 965(1)(B). The Board concluded that the imposition of the discipline was not interference, restraint or coercion in violation of 965(1)(A), but the delay in rescinding the discipline was a (1)(A) violation.
February 13, 2013 (reissue), Teamsters Union Local 340 and City of Westbrook, Unit Determination Report, Case No. 13-UD-01 and 13-UD-01 pdf.
The Hearing examiner concluded that the per diem fire/rescue workers were not on-call employees within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. § 962(G), that they share a community of interest with the full-time fire/rescue workers, and should be included in the full-time fire/rescue workers' bargaining unit.
January 2, 2013, AFSCME Council 93 v. City of Portland, Order Clarification for case No. 12-10 and 12-10 pdf.
The Board clarified its order of November 15, 2012. (Note: The Order Clarification is appended to the November 15, 2012, Decision and Order)
November 29, 2012, Freeport Police Benevolent Assoc. and Town of Freeport, No. 13-UDA-01and 13-UDA-01 pdf.
The Board affirmed the Executive Director's decision in 12-UD-05 denying the petition for unit determination to add the sergeants to the patrol officers bargaining unit.
November 15, 2012, AFSCME Council 93 v. City of Portland, No. 12-10 and 12-10 pdf.
The Board concluded that the City of Portland violated the Act by splitting a vacant full-time bargaining unit position into two part-time positions without first giving notice and an opportunity to bargain to the bargaining agent.
November 13, 2012, Local 1373, AFSCME Council 93 v. City of Portland, No. 12-13 and 12-13 pdf.
The Board concluded that the City of Portland was required to provide the relevant information requested by the Union, but in this case it was not required to provide that information in writing.
October 12, 2012, City of Augusta v. Local 1650 IAFF and MLRB, Kennebec County Superior Court Decision AP-11-64 and AP-11-64 pdf.
The Superior Court affirmed the Board's Status Quo Determination in case No. 11-03SQ.
August 31, 2012, Teamsters Union Local 340 ( Petitioner), National Correctional Employees Union, and York County, Unit Determination Report No. 12-UD-02 (html) .
The Hearing Examiner denied the petition to sever the lieutenants, sergeants, and corporals out of the existing Corrections and Supervisory Employees Unit of the York County Sheriff's Department.
August 6, 2012, MSEA v. State of Maine, Interim Order on Appeal of Executive Director's Dismissal, No. 12-17 and 12-17 Interim Order pdf
The Board affirmed the Executive Director's decision in part and reinstated the complaint in part.
June 6, 2012, MSAD #6 Board of Directors v. Saco Valley Teachers Association/MEA, Interim Order, No. 12-20 (html) and No. 12-20 (pdf).
The Board denied the Complainant's request for a stay of a scheduled fact-finding hearing.
May 24, 2012, Sanford School Committee and Central Office Staff EA/MEA/NEA, Decision and Order on Appeal of Unit Determination and Unit Clarification, No. 12-UDA-01 (html) and No. 12-UDA-01 (pdf).
The Board modified the Hearing Examiner's Order by excluding two employees as confidential employees, placing another employee in an existing unit, and affirmed the Examiner's finding that the remaining employees in the proposed unit constituted an appropriate bargaining unit.
March 27, 2012, Aline C. Dupont v. Maine State Employees Association, Decision on Appeal of Executive Director's Dismissal No. 11-05 (pdf)
The Board affirmed the Executive Director's dismissal of a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation in handling the complainant's termination grievance and by not taking her grievance to arbitration.
January 19, 2012, Maine State Troopers Association Petition for Interpretive Ruling, Interpretive Ruling No. 12-IR-01 (html) and No. 12-IR-01 (pdf)
The Board denied most of the request for an interpretive ruling, but did issue a ruling on how section E-1 of P.L.2011, ch. 380 affects the statutory obligation to bargain imposed by SELRA.
December 15, 2011, IAFF Local 1650 v. City of Augusta, Decision and Order, No. 11-03 (html) and No. 11-03 (pdf)
The Board concluded that an evergreen clause signed by the parties' negotiators was not binding on the parties because it was not ratified by the principals as required.
December 15, 2011, IAFF Local 1650 v. City of Augusta, Status Quo Determination, No. 11-03SQ (html) and No. 11-03SQ(pdf)
The Board considered three provisions of the expired collective bargaining agreement and determined that the Employer was required under section 964-A(2) to maintain the status quo with respect to each of the three issues while the parties continued negotiations on a successor agreement.
November 10, 2011, Massabesic Educ. Assoc. v. RSU 57 Board of Directors, Decision and Order, No. 11-17 (pdf) or No. 11-17 (html)
Board considered whether various statements of the School Superintendent, including statements made during public meetings on the school budget, violated a ground rule on confidentiality of negotiating sessions and whether it was a violation of the duty to bargain in good faith.
August 11, 2011, Town of Orono v. IAFF Local 3106, Orono Fire Fighters, Decision and Order, No. 11-11 (pdf) or No. 11-11 (html)
The Board concluded that, in the totality of the circumstances, the Union violated section 965(1)(C) by failing to comply with the negotiating ground rule that expressly prohibited disclosures to the press.
August 9, 2011, Local 1650 IAFF v. City of Augusta, Interim Order, No. 11-03 (pdf)
The Board discussed section 964-A(2) mandating the continuation of grievance arbitration provisions after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement and addressed the Board's authority for resolving disputes arising under that section.
May 17, 2011, National Correctional Employees Union v. York County, Interim Decision, No. 11-07 (pdf) or No. 11-07 (html)
The Board addressed the legal issue of whether the contractual grievance and abritration provision set forth in a collective bargaining agreement survived the decertification of the signatory union. The Board also considered the enforceability of evergreen clauses.
January 28, 2011, Sanford Professional Firefighters, Local 1624 v. Town of Sanford, No. 11-04 (pdf) or No. 11-04(html)
The Board granted a motion to defer to arbitration which arose under the rights granted in 26 MRSA 964-A.
March 29, 2011, Maine Employees United/Saco Public Works Assoc.v. City of Saco, No. 11-02 (pdf) or No. 11-02 (html)
The Board ordered the City to maintain the status quo by continuing dues deductions and deduction of union service fees while negotiations continue.
September 13, 2010, Christopher E. Roy v. Town of Frye Island, No. 10-10 (pdf) or 10-10 (html).
The Board dismissed the case because the complainant was a seasonal employee and was therefore not able to file a prohibited practice complaint under the statute.
July 16, 2010, Teamsters Union Local 340 v. Town of South Berwick, No. 10-UD-09(pdf) or 10-UD-09 (html).
The Hearing Examiner concluded that the petitioned-for unit appropriately included the Town Clerk, Code Enforcement Officer, and Assessing Agent.
July 9, 2010, Maine State Employees Association v. State of Maine, Dept. of Public Safety, No. 09-10 (pdf) or 09-10 (html).
The Board concluded that the Employer had not engaged in direct dealing with employees when reassigning duties and submitting a reclassification request to reflect the newly-assigned duties.
April 23, 2010, Maine Community College System and Maine State Employees Association, No. 10-UDA-01 (pdf) or 10-UDA-01 (html).
The Board affirmed that the petitioned-for unit of adjunct faculty members employed by the Maine Community College System was an appropriate bargaining unit.
February 23, 2010, Maine State Employees Association and Maine Community College System, No. 10-UD-04 (pdf) or 10-UD-04 (html).
The Hearing Examiner determined that the petitioned-for unit of adjunct faculty members employed by the Maine Community College System was an appropriate bargaining unit.
October 7, 2009, Androscoggin Superior Court Decision, Lewiston School Department v. MSEA and MLRB, Docket No. AP-09-001 (pdf) or AP-09-001 (html), affirming Board Decision No. 09-05.
The Court affirmed the Board's decision on how to define the status quo that must be maintained for health insurance premium costs after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement while the parties are negotiating a successor agreement.
August 21, 2009, MSEA v. State of Maine, Dept. of Public Safety, Case No. 09-13 (pdf) or 09-13 (html) Decision and Order
Board dismissed the complaint because the facts alleged did not constitute a violation of the Act. Issue was whether the employer's discussions with employee about unpaid personal leave request constituted direct dealing.
January 28, 2009, Sanford Police Association v. Town of Sanford, Case No. 09-04 (pdf) or 09-04 (html) Interim Order
Interim Order addressed Board's lack of jurisdiction over First Amendment issues and related matters regarding evidence supporting an interference, restraint or coercion charge.
January 15, 2009, MSEA v. Lewiston School Department, Case No. 09-05 (pdf) or 09-05 (html)
The question presented was how to define the status quo that must be maintained for health insurance premium costs when the collective bargaining agreement has expired and the parties are negotiating a successor agreement.
January 15, 2009, Interpretive Ruling, Case No. 08-IR-01 (pdf) or 08-IR-01 (html)
This is an interpretive ruling on whether certain subjects are educational policy.
November 14, 2008, MLRB-Initiated Interpretive Ruling, Case No. 09-IR-01 (pdf) or 09-IR-01 (html)
This is an interpretive ruling on bargaining during the transition from School Administrative Units to Regional School Units.
June 23, 2008, AFSCME Council 93 (petitioner) and Town of Sanford (employer), Case no. 08-UC-02 Unit Clarification Report
The Hearing Examiner concluded that the changes to the General Assistance Director position since the formation of the unit were not "changed circumstances" sufficient to support a petition to review the unit placement of the position within the meaning of section 966(3) .
June 18, 2008, David J. Jordan v. AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO, Case No. 07-15 Decision and Order.
The question presented was whether AFSCME breached its duty of fair representation by failing to represent all of the job classifications in the bargaining unit during the negotiation process with the school district and by failing to address the concerns raised by certain union members during the contract ratification process.
October 26, 2007, Stephen Marean (petitioner) and Local 740, IAFF (bargaining agent) and City of Portland (employer), Case No. 07-UD-22, Unit Determination Report.
The Hearing Examiner concluded that it was not appropriate to sever out a unit of Paramedics, Firefighter/Paramedics, and Firefighter/Paramedic Lieutenants from the existing Portland Firefighters bargaining unit.
June 1, 2007, AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO v. Lincoln County Commissioners, Lincoln County Sheriff's Department, and Lincoln County's Agent, Case No. 06-24 Decision and Order.
The question presented was whether the Employer's discussions with a unit employee concerning wages and benefits for a position not in the bargaining unit and assurances regarding his later return to the unit constituted direct dealing.
May 22, 2007, School Union #44 Professional Assistants Assoc./MEA and School Union #44, Case No. 07-UD-16 Unit Determination Report.
The Hearing Examiner concluded that the administrative assistant to the superintendent is a confidential employee within the meaning of section 962(6)(C) and should be excluded from the central office bargaining unit.
February 12, 2007, Challenge of Ballots in the Decertification/ Bargaining Agent Election for the MSAD #5 Bus Drivers' Bargaining Unit, Case No. 07-E-01, Executive Director's Decision.
After an evidentiary hearing, the Hearing Examiner concluded that neither of the employees whose ballots were challenged were in the bargaining unit. Consequently, their ballots could not be opened or counted in the election and a runoff election is required.
January 16, 2007, County of Cumberland v. Teamsters Union Local 340. Case No. 07-UDA-01, Decision and Order on Unit Determination Appeal.
The issue was whether the petitioned-for bargaining unit for a single job classification was appropriate or should the classification have been placed in an existing bargaining unit.
November 21, 2006, Teamsters Union Local 340 v. Jay School Department. Case No. 06-22, Decision and Order.
Question was whether Employer's communications with unit members regarding a proposed change in work schedules constituted direct dealing.
June 12, 2006, AFSCME Council 93 and City of South Portland. Case No. 06-UD-10, Unit Determination Report. (Bargaining unit for the South Portland Library.)
Primary question was whether three specific positions should be excluded from the agreed-upon unit due to supervisory responsibilities.
May 11, 2006, William D. Neily v. State of Maine and Maine State Employees Association, Local 1989, SEIU, Case No. 06-13, Decision on Appeal of Executive Director's Dismissal of Complaint.
Question was whether there was a basis for tolling the start of the 6 month time limit for filing a complaint and whether the complainant had standing to pursue a complaint alleging a failure to bargain. Board's decision affirmed by the Law Court on May 15, 2007 (mem.)
May 11, 2006, MSAD #29 Board of Directors v. MSAD #29 Education Association/MEA/NEA, Case No. 06-UCA-01, Decision and Order on Unit Clarification Appeal.
The employer appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision adding the certified occupational therapy assistant position to the existing Educational Technicians/School Secretary bargaining unit.