STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case No. 01-UC-01
Issued: December 21, 2000
____________________________________
)
MSAD No. 25 Education Association/ )
MEA/NEA, )
)
Bargaining Agent, )
) UNIT CLARIFICATION
and ) REPORT
)
MSAD No. 25 Board of Directors, )
)
Public Employer. )
____________________________________)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This unit determination proceeding was initiated on September 29, 2000 when Nancy Hudak, a
UniServ Director with the Maine Education Association ("union"), filed a completed Petition for
Unit Clarification with the Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board") for a determination whether
the position of administrative assistant should be added to the MSAD No. 25 educational support
personnel ("ESP") bargaining unit pursuant to Section 966(3) of the Municipal Public Employees
Labor Relations Law ("MPELRL").
The MSAD No. 25 ("employer") initially failed to file a response to this petition in a timely
fashion; however, the union agreed that the employer could file a late response to the petition,
which the employer filed on November 3, 2000. By letter dated November 6, 2000, the parties
were notified that a unit clarification hearing would be held on December 8, 2000.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties met with the hearing examiner to explore
the possibility of settlement and, in the alternative, to formulate stipulations of fact. The parties
agreed to an extensive list of stipulations prior to the prehearing, and agreed to additional
stipulations during the prehearing. In addition, the parties submitted 16 joint exhibits.
[-1-]
______________________________________________________________________________
HEARING
The parties presented the matter to the hearing examiner on stipulations and exhibits, alone.
Neither party presented witnesses. Each party presented a brief oral argument on the record.
JURISDICTION
The jurisdiction of the hearing examiner to hear this matter and make a unit determination lies in
26 M.R.S.A. 966(1) and (3).
STIPULATIONS
The parties stipulated to the following facts:
1. MSAD #25 Education Association/MEA/NEA is the bargaining agent for the Educational
Support Personnel in MSAD #25 within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 962(2).
2. MSAD #25 is the public employer within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 962(7).
3. The first Collective Bargaining Agreement was ratified in 1989.
4. The 1989-91 CBA Recognition Clause reads: " . . . the entire group of school system
employees except food service employees and central office support staff." (exhibit 1)
1991-93 CBA - Recognition Clause remained the same. (exhibit 2)
1993-94 CBA - Recognition Clause remained the same. (exhibit 3)
1994-95 CBA - Recognition Clause remained the same. (exhibit 4)
1995-96 CBA - Agreement to continue the 1994-95 CBA (during mediation and fact finding).
(exhibit 5)
1996-99 CBA - Recognition Clause changed to read: " . . . the group of school system public
employees, excluding central office staff, classified as follows:
a) Bus Driver
b) Bus Driver/Custodian
c) Custodian
d) High School Secretary
e) Junior High School Secretary
f) Guidance Secretary
-2-
______________________________________________________________________________
g) Educational Technician
h) Library Assistant
i) Study Hall Monitor
j) Cook
k) Assistant Cook" (exhibit 6)
1999-01 CBA - Recognition Clause changed to read: " . . . the group of school system public
employees, excluding central office staff, classified as follows:
a) Bus Driver
b) Bus Driver/Custodian
c) Custodian
d) High School Secretary
e) Katahdin Elementary Secretary
f) Educational Technician I, II, III
g) Library Assistant
h) Study Hall Monitor
i) Cook
j) Assistant Cook (exhibit 7)
5. Following mediation and fact finding, the MLRB Form 1 was changed in 1997 to reflect the
altered Recognition Clause of the 1996-99 Collective Bargaining Agreement. (exhibit 8)
6. The "High School Secretary" position has been part of ESP Bargaining Unit since the
beginning.
7. During the negotiations in 1999 for 1999-01 Collective Bargaining Agreement, the "High
School Administrative Assistant" position was not proposed or discussed.
8. During the 1999-00 school year, the "High School Secretary" was paid off-scale. (exhibits 9,
10, 11)
9. The "High School Administrative Assistant" position was created by MSAD #25 Board on
August 2, 2000. (exhibit 12)
9A. The Association requested bargaining subsequent to the creation of the position.
10. The same person formerly employed as the High School Secretary is now in High School
Administrative Assistant position.
-3-
______________________________________________________________________________
11. The High School Secretary position is currently vacant.
12. The job descriptions for High School Secretary and High School Administrative Assistant
have similarities. (exhibits 13 and 14)
13. The person employed as High School Administrative Assistant is currently listed as
"secretary" in 2000-01 seniority list. (exhibit 15)
14. The High School Administrative Assistant is not a "professional employee" under the terms
of 26 MRSA 962(5).
According to the job description,
15. The High School Administrative Assistant does not have a role in collective bargaining for
the ESP or Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreements.
16. The High School Administrative Assistant makes no personal decisions to hire, promote,
discharge or discipline employees or effectively recommend such personnel actions.
17. The High School Administrative Assistant has no 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.
18. The High School Administrative Assistant does not exercise 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.
19. The High School Administrative Assistant has no significant discretion in the promulgation
of execution of a working budgetary document for an area of responsibility.
20. The High School Administrative Assistant has no non-ministerial ability to grant or deny the
use of vacation, sick, bereavement, educational or other leaves of absence.
-4-
______________________________________________________________________________
21. The High School Administrative Assistant has no settlement authority in grievance
procedures.
22. The High School Administrative Assistant performs clerical work similar to other secretaries
in MSAD #25.
23. The High School Administrative Assistant and Guidance Secretary are both supervised by
the High School Principal, just as the Katahdin Elementary Secretary is supervised by the
Elementary Principal.
24. The High School Administrative Assistant is currently paid similarly in the scale and manner
of determining earnings to other secretaries in MSAD #25. (exhibit 16)
25. The High School Administrative Assistant has similar employment benefits, hours of work
and other terms and conditions of employment to other secretaries in MSAD #25.
26. The High School Administrative Assistant has similar qualifications, skills and training to
other secretaries in MSAD #25.
27. The High School Administrative Assistant has frequent contact with other support
employees.
28. The High School Administrative Assistant and other support personnel are housed in two
school buildings directly opposite each other on Route 11 in Sherman.
29. There is no question concerning representation of the MSAD #25 Educational Support Staff
bargaining unit.
30. The parties are unable to agree on the modification to the MSAD #25 Educational Support
Staff bargaining unit proposed in the petition, placing the position of administrative assistant in
the bargaining unit.
31. The position of administrative assistant is newly-created since the formation of the MSAD
-5-
______________________________________________________________________________
#25 Educational Support Staff bargaining unit.
32. The position of administrative assistant is newly-created since the close of bargaining
agendas for the 1999-20001 collective bargaining agreement for the MSAD #25 Educational
Support Staff bargaining unit.
33. The creation of the administrative assistant position is a sufficient change in the
circumstances surrounding the formation of the bargaining unit to warrant consideration of
modification in the composition of the bargaining unit within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.
966(3).
EXHIBITS
The parties agreed to the admission of the following joint exhibits:
1. 1989-91, Educational Support Personnel (ESP) Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA);
Recognition Clause and Duration Clause.
2. 1991-93 CBA: Cover Page and Recognition Clause
3. 1993-94 CBA: Cover Page and Recognition Clause
4. 1994-95 CBA: Cover Page, Recognition Clause and Duration Clause
5. 1995-96 CBA: Agreement (reference also to 94-95)
6. 1996-99 CBA: Recognition Clause and Duration Clause
7. 1999-01 CBA: Recognition Clause and Duration Clause
8. MLRB Form 1, Agreement on Appropriate Bargaining Unit, filed August 13, 1997
9. Employment Notification, High School Secretary, 1999-00
10. Memo to Carol McNally from MSAD #25 Board Negotiating Committee
11. ESP Wage Scale, 1999-00
12. MSAD #25 Board minutes, August 2, 2000
-6-
______________________________________________________________________________
13. Job Description, High School Administrative Assistant
14. Job Description, High School Secretary
15. MSAD #25 Support Staff Seniority List, 2000-01
16. List of annual wages, High School Secretary/Administrative Assistant 1998-99, 1999-00,
2000-
DISCUSSION
The parties agreed to the various threshold requirements, defined in 26 M.R.S.A. 966(3), which
allow the Board jurisdiction to consider a unit clarification petition. Specifically, the parties
agreed that the union is the certified bargaining agent for the ESP bargaining unit, that the parties
are unable to agree on appropriate modifications to the unit, and that there is no question
concerning representation of the unit. Most importantly, the parties agreed that the creation of
the administrative assistant position is a sufficient change in the circumstances surrounding the
formation of the ESP bargaining unit to warrant consideration of the modification to the unit
proposed. In other words, the new administrative assistant position is not merely a re-naming of
the secretary to the high school principal position (although the same individual who held the
secretary position now holds the administrative assistant position). Cf. Portland Public Library
Staff Association and Portland Public Library, No. 88-UC-03 (Me.L.R.B. June 2, 1988). Further,
as the administrative position was created in August, 2000, the unit clarification proposed could
not have been raised prior to the most recent contract negotiations between the parties, which
resulted in the current 1999 - 2001 collective bargaining agreement.
The parties agreed that the position of administrative assistant was created following a natural
expansion of the duties performed by the former high school secretary position.
As stipulated by the parties at the prehearing, the only issues presented here are whether the
newly-created position of administrative assistant shares a community of interest with the
employees in the ESP bargaining unit within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 966(2) and should be
added to that unit, particularly in light of some increased supervisory duties of the position. The
-7-
______________________________________________________________________________
union argued that the position shares the community of interest on all points, and that supervisory
duties of the position do not present a conflict. The employer argued that the position's increased
supervisory duties creates an impediment to inclusion in the unit. The employer further argued
that the pay scale and benefits for the position would be higher than the pay scale and benefits for
bargaining unit members if the Board would find that the position should be excluded from the
unit.
Supervisory Status
The employer argued that the increased supervisory duties of the administrative assistant position
presents a conflict of interest which should prevent the placement of this position in the ESP
bargaining unit.
Unlike the National Labor Relations Act, the MPELRL grants supervisors collective bargaining
rights and permits the inclusion of supervisors in bargaining units of subordinate employees. In
Penobscot Valley Hospital and Maine Federation of Nurses and Health Care Professionals, No.
85-A-01, slip op. at 8, 8 NPER ME-16011 (Me.L.R.B. Feb. 6, 1985), the Board stated:
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 employee's unit status to the sound discretion of
the hearing examiner. MSAD No. 14 and East Grand Teachers Association,
MLRB No. 83-A-09, slip op. 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 units,
we have approved the creation of such separate supervisory units. . . .
Therefore, the issue presented here is not whether the administrative assistant position should be
excluded from the ESP bargaining unit because her duties have expanded to include some
supervisory duties. Rather, the issue is whether the administrative assistant position exerts such
supervisory authority over other positions in the ESP bargaining unit to create a conflict of
interest to necessitate a separate supervisory bargaining unit.
Section 966(1) gives guidance to the hearing examiner in identifying situations where conflicting
-8-
______________________________________________________________________________
interests and loyalties may arise. The relevant portion of 966(1) states:
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 or
overseeing and reviewing the work of subordinate employees, or performing such
duties as are distinct and dissimilar from those performed by the employees
supervised, or exercising judgment in adjusting grievances, applying other
established personnel policies and procedures and in enforcing a collective
bargaining agreement or establishing or participating in the establishment of
performance standards for subordinate employees and taking corrective measures
to implement those standards.
Under the first portion of the test outlined in 966(1), the hearing examiner must evaluate
whether the principal functions of the administrative assistant position involve scheduling,
assigning, overseeing or reviewing the work of subordinates. A review of the job description for
the administrative assistant indicates that her role in supervising the guidance secretary or the
custodian is limited to assigning of some work. The superintendent agreed on the record of the
hearing that it is the high school principal who is primarily responsible for supervising the work
of the guidance secretary and the custodian (evaluating and overseeing their work, etc.). Further,
the employer stipulated that the administrative assistant has no "significant duties" in the
observation and evaluation of other employees, as this relates to continuing employment
(stipulation number 17). The primary duties of the administrative assistant position remain those
clerical functions traditionally performed by secretaries.
At most, the limited supervisory functions of the administrative assistant are comparable to those
of a "lead person" or "working supervisor." The Board has consistently found that such positions
may remain in the bargaining unit with subordinate employees because the occupants of those
positions lack sufficient authority to make decisions, in the interest of the employer, which
adversely impact upon the employment interests of their subordinates. See Teamsters Local
Union No. 48 and Van Buren Light and Power District, No. 85-UD-14 (Me.L.R.B. Jan. 25, 1985)
(duties of line foreman who assigns, oversees and reviews work of employees determined as a
whole not to be so distinct and dissimilar from those performed by supervised employees to
-9-
______________________________________________________________________________
warrant exclusion from proposed unit); Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and Town of Pittsfield,
No. 81-UD-09 (Me.L.R.B. Jan. 15, 1981) (sergeant position found to be "working supervisor"
where supervisory duties were limited and undemanding and where vast majority of time was
devoted to regular patrol work). A similar conclusion has been reached in cases involving school
districts. See e.g., MSAD No. 5 High School Department Coordinators and MSAD No. 5, No.
88-UD-01 (Me.L.R.B. Oct. 6, 1987). In that case, the hearing examiner gave an extensive
compendium of the type of supervisory duties which might establish the existence of supervisory
conflict of interest. The employer here has stipulated that the duties of the administrative
assistant do not include any of those cited in this case.[fn]1
The second prong of the test in 966(1) requires that the hearing examiner evaluate whether the
administrative assistant position performs duties that are "distinct and dissimilar" from the duties
performed by any employees that she "supervises." This requirement has been described as:
[D]uties contemplated by the 'distinct and dissimilar' criterion include those in
connection with hiring (or making recommendations), transfers, layoffs and
recalls, and promotions - duties that substantially align the interests of the
supervisor with the interests of the employer and cause conflicts of interest [with
other employees].
State of Maine and MSEA, No. 91-UC-04, slip op. at 15 (Me. L.R.B. Apr.17, 1991).
_________________________
1 The illustrative examples cited in this case were as follows: 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. MSAD No. 5 High
School Coordinators, supra, slip op at 18. The employer has conceded, in stipulations number 16 to
number 21, that the administrative assistant performed none of the relevant supervisory duties here listed.
-10-
______________________________________________________________________________
As already stated, the administrative assistant position primarily performs tasks that are the same
or similar to the other secretaries of the district. The employer stipulated that the position makes
no significant personnel decisions, such as hiring, firing, promoting or disciplining (stipulation
number 16). Nor does the position play any significant role in decision to lay-off or recall
employees (stipulation number 18).
As to the third prong of the test outlined in 966(1), the administrative assistant position plays
no role in adjusting grievances, enforcing the collective bargaining agreement or establishing
performance standards for subordinates.
In conclusion, the administrative assistant position involves very minor supervisory functions, as
those functions are contemplated in 26 M.R.S.A. 966(1). The position does not involve the
type of management control duties that are likely to create conflict of interests or loyalties with
other members of the ESP bargaining unit. Consequently, there is no need to exclude this
position from the unit.
Even if the hearing examiner were to determine that the administrative assistant should be
excluded based on her supervisory duties, the Board's policy against the proliferation of small
bargaining units would, nevertheless, require her inclusion in the ESP unit. The Board's policy
has been to "include supervisor positions in rank-and-file units rather than establish small,
separate supervisory bargaining units." MSAD # 43 and SAD #43 Teachers Association, No. 84-
A-05 slip op. at 4 (Me.L.R.B. May 30, 1984). The rationale underlying the Board's policy
against non-proliferation is as follows:
Small bargaining units must be bargained for and serviced just as do large
bargaining units. The State is obligated to provide under 26 M.R.S.A. 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.
Id., slip op. at 4, 5. Based upon this non-proliferation policy, the Board has included supervisors
-11-
______________________________________________________________________________
in a bargaining unit with their subordinates who exercise far greater supervisory functions than
the administrative assistant here exercises.[fn]2
The hearing officer in unaware of any supervisory units already in existence in this school
district. To remove this employee from the ESP unit and to create a supervisory unit which
contains only her position would clearly contravene the Board's non-proliferation policy. If a
supervisory unit were ever created of other supervisors in this school district (such as the
principals of the high school and the elementary schools), a real question would arise whether the
administrative assistant would share a community of interests with such positions. However, this
is only speculation at this time; the employer could always petition at a future time for the
recognition of such a supervisory unit.
Community of Interest
The employer also argued that even if the administrative assistant position's added supervisory
duties did not warrant exclusion from the unit, the position no longer shared a community of
interest with the positions in the ESP bargaining unit.
As the Law Court has recognized, there are two fundamental purposes of the MPELRL: to
protect employees' right to self-organization and to promote the voluntary adjustment of their
terms of employment. Lewiston Firefighters Assoc., Local 785, IAFF v. City of Lewiston, 354
A.2d 154, 160 (Me. 1976). Coherent bargaining units with a clear and identifiable community of
interest are essential to both of these objectives.
The requirement that the hearing examiner examine the extent of the community of interest was
explained by the Board over 20 years ago, and is still valid today:
_________________________
2 See, e.g., Lubec Education Association, MTA/NEA and MSAD No. 19 Board of Directors, No.
83-UD-17 (Me.L.R.B. Apr. 13, 1983) where a head bus driver/custodian was included in the unit due to
the Board's policy against over fragmentation of units, although the position's 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, adjusting grievances, applying personnel policies and participating in the formulation of
job descriptions and performance criteria.
-12-
______________________________________________________________________________
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 Brewer, No. 79-A-01, slip op. at 4, 1 NPER 20-10031 (Me.L.R.B. Oct. 17,
1979).
In determining whether employees share the requisite "community of interest" in matters subject
to collective bargaining, the following factors, at a minimum, must be considered: (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)
similarity in the qualifications, skills and training among the 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
employer's organizational structure. Board Rule 1.11(F). These factors will be addressed, in
turn, below.
(1) (Similarity of work): The ESP bargaining unit has been recognized for over ten years, and
contains a variety of support personnel - bus drivers, custodians, secretaries, educational
technicians, and cooks. The school secretaries (high school, elementary[fn]3 and guidance) have
always been part of the unit. The parties agreed that the administrative assistant position still
performs all the duties of secretary of the high school, with the new title reflecting the growth in
_________________________
3 This position was formerly the junior high secretary, but was re-named after a
reorganization of the two schools in the district. The position of high school secretary remains
technically part of the bargaining unit, although the individual who held that position is now the
administrative assistant and the high school secretary position is now vacant.
-13-
______________________________________________________________________________
responsibilities of the job. If the new position of administrative assistant performs duties similar
to the other school secretaries, the first factor would be satisfied.
The new position of administrative assistant is identical in many ways to the secretary position.
The job description for the administrative assistant position provides that the position will
perform all of the responsibilities of a secretary, in addition to other named duties. The
additional duties are, for the most part, still duties typical of a secretary in a school setting, such
as typing evaluations, scheduling meetings, and organizing graduations. Other added duties,
such as making "necessary decisions for the smooth operation of the school" when the principal
is absent, but with the advice of the superintendent, are not so dissimilar from the duties of other
secretaries as to create conflicts within the bargaining unit. As the executive director has noted
in a previous decision, Auburn Education Association/MTA/NEA and Auburn School
Committee, No. 91-UD-03, slip op. at 11 (Feb. 27, 1991):
In comparing the nature of the work being performed by the various
classifications under consideration, the essence or basic type of the functions
being performed is far more important than the details of each position's work
responsibilities. Inherent in the existence of separate job classifications is a
difference in the specific work assignment of each classification; however, such
differences do not preclude the inclusion of various classifications in the same
bargaining unit.
Considering particularly that the bargaining unit already contains positions with widely differing
types of job functions, the added duties of the administrative assistant do not make this position
significantly dissimilar from the positions in the unit.
The employer's primary argument is that the administrative assistant position now has
supervisory duties which render the position dissimilar from other positions in the bargaining
unit. However, the supervisory duties of the administrative assistant are basically limited to
making job assignments to the guidance secretary and to the custodian. The job description of
the secretary position also includes assigning duties to and supervising the work of clerical office
personnel (although, due to small number of office personnel in the two schools, the secretaries
have not generally had clerical office personnel to supervise). Other positions in the bargaining
-14-
______________________________________________________________________________
unit seem to encompass some supervisory duties, such as the "cook" and the "assistant cook."
Therefore, these added supervisory-type duties do not make the administrative assistant position
so dissimilar from others in the unit.
(2) (Common supervision): The administrative assistant continues to be supervised by the
principal. All of the positions in the bargaining unit are supervised by the principals in one of the
two schools, the superintendent and then ultimately the school board.
(3) (Similarity in scale of earnings): The employer stipulated that the administrative assistant is
currently paid similarly in the scale and manner of determining earnings to other secretaries in
the district (stipulation number 24); however, the individual who holds the administrative
assistant position was paid "off-scale" when employed as the high school secretary in the 1999 -
2000 school year (stipulation number 8). The employer advised that the school board desires to
pay the administrative assistant more than allowed secretaries under the collective bargaining
agreement, arguing that this demonstrated that the administrative assistant position would not
have similarity of earnings if found to be a position outside of the ESP bargaining unit.
In the 2000 - 2001 school year, the wage scale for members of the bargaining unit with more than
three years' experience ranges from $7.28 per hour (study hall monitor) to $10.77 per hour
(educational technician III). The wage scale for secretaries with more than three years'
experience ranges from $7.74 per hour (guidance) to $8.58 (high school). When the now-
administrative assistant was paid "off-scale," she was paid $9.50 per hour. While this is certainly
higher than the present wage scale for secretaries, it is well within the range of salaries in the
bargaining unit. Therefore, even the type of hourly wage that the employer unilaterally
established for the administrative assistant supports a finding that this position shares a
community of interest with this unit.
As a practical matter, it should also be noted that the accreting of the administrative assistant
position to the ESP bargaining unit does not prevent the employer from paying her a higher
hourly wage than other secretaries. The wage range for this position would simply become a
-15-
______________________________________________________________________________
matter for negotiation with the union.
(4) (Benefits, hours and other terms): The employer stipulated that the administrative assistant
position has similar benefits, hours of work and other terms and conditions as other secretaries in
the district (stipulation number 25). If the benefits of the position were unilaterally changed
during the 1999 - 2000 school year, the same reasoning discussed for the third factor, supra,
would apply.
(5) (Qualifications, skills and training): The employer stipulated that the administrative assistant
has similar qualifications, skills and training to the other secretaries in the district (stipulation
number 26).
(6) (Frequency of contact among employee): The employer stipulated that the administrative
assistant has frequent contact with other support employees (stipulation number 27).
(7) (Geographic proximity): The employer stipulated that the administrative assistant and other
support personnel are employed in the two school buildings maintained by the district, which are
located across the road from each other (stipulation number 28).
(8) (Collective bargaining history): The employer and the union have had a relatively uneventful
history of collective bargaining agreements regarding the ESP bargaining unit for over ten years.
The secretarial positions have always been part of the unit. This suggests that the addition of the
administrative assistant position to the unit will not alter the collective bargaining relationship in
any significant way.
(9) (Desire of employee): The parties were unable to reach a stipulation on this issue, nor did
either party present any evidence on the record regarding this issue. Therefore, this factor can
neither support nor refute a finding of community of interest.
(10) (Extent of organization): The union represents both the ESP bargaining unit and the teacher
-16-
______________________________________________________________________________
bargaining unit in this district. Of these units, the administrative assistant position is more
closely aligned with the ESP bargaining unit, which contains all employees which support the
educational process in the district. There appears to be currently no supervisory employees unit in
the district.
(11) (Employer's organizational structure): All of the positions in the ESP bargaining unit,
including the administrative assistant position, are similarly placed within the hierarchy of the
district. All support the educational process and all are directly supervised by one of the two
school principals.
In conclusion, all of the factors (except for the factor relating to the desire of the employee,
which could not be determined) support a finding that the administrative assistant position
clearly shares a community of interest with the other positions in the ESP bargaining unit.
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing facts and discussion and pursuant to the provisions of 26 M.R.S.A.
966, it is hereby ordered:
The petition of the MSAD No. 25 Education Association/MEA/NEA, filed on
September 29, 2000, seeking to add the position of administrative assistant to the
MSAD No. 25 Educational Support Personnel bargaining unit, is granted.
Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 21st day of December, 2000.
MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
/s/____________________________________
Dyan M. Dyttmer
Hearing Examiner
The parties are hereby advised of their right, pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 968(4), to appeal this
report to the Maine Labor Relations Board. To initiate such an appeal, the party seeking
appellate review must file a notice of appeal with the Board within fifteen (15) days of the date of
issuance of this report. See Board Rules 1.12 and 7.03.
-17-
______________________________________________________________________________