Case No. 02-UD-05
                                      Issued:  June 12, 2002  

ASSOCIATION,              )
             Petitioner,  )
     and                  )       UNIT DETERMINATION REPORT
             Respondent.  )

                       PROCEDURAL HISTORY

     This unit determination proceeding was initiated on
February 27, 2002, when Michael Jarrett for the Rockport Police
Officers Association filed a petition for unit determination and
bargaining agent election with the Maine Labor Relations Board
("Board").  The petition sought a determination whether a unit
consisting of all full-time, non-salaried police officers and
non-salaried police administrators employed by the Rockport
Police Department should be created.  In the petition, the
prospective bargaining agent for this unit was identified as the
Rockport Police Officers Association ("RPOA").  The Town of
Rockport ("town" or "employer") filed a timely response to the
petition, agreeing to a unit consisting of full-time police
patrolmen, but arguing that the administrative assistant should
be excluded as a confidential employee within the meaning of
26 M.R.S.A.  962(6)(C) and that the patrol sergeant should be
excluded as a supervisor within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.
      A unit determination hearing notice was issued on April 10,
2002, and was posted for the benefit of affected employees.  The
hearing was conducted on May 15, 2002.  The RPOA was represented


by Daniel Felkel, Esq.  The town was represented by labor
consultant Roger Kelley.  The parties were afforded full
opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present
evidence and to make argument.  The following witnesses were
presented:  for the Petitioner/RPOA:  Patrolman Michael Jarrett
and Patrol Sergeant Paul Pinkham; for the town:  Police Chief
Mark Kelley and Town Manager Kenneth Smith.  The parties
presented oral argument at the conclusion of the hearing.

     The jurisdiction of the hearing examiner to hear this matter
and to make an appropriate unit determination lies in 26 M.R.S.A.

     1.  The Rockport Police Officers Association ("RPOA") is the
petitioner and is the prospective bargaining agent for Rockport
police bargaining unit.

     2.  The Town of Rockport is a public employer within the
meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  962(7).

     3.  There is neither a contract bar nor an election bar to
the RPOA's petition.

     4.  The parties agree that the following positions share a
community of interest and therefore comprise an appropriate unit
for purposes of collective bargaining:  full-time police officers
below the rank of sergeant and the administrative assistant.

     5.  The only issue raised by this case is whether the
position of sergeant should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

     6.  In the event that the position of sergeant is placed in 


its own supervisory bargaining unit, the RPOA wishes to
participate in an election for that unit.

     The following exhibits were admitted without objection:
Association No. 1   Paul Pinkham performance evaluation,
                    January 19, 2001

Association No. 2   Paul Pinkham performance evaluation, May 1,

Employer No. 1      Performance evaluation form (blank)
Employer No. 2      Job description, patrolman

Employer No. 3      Job description, patrol sergeant
                        FINDINGS OF FACT

     1.  The Town of Rockport employs approximately 27 employees.
There is currently no bargaining agent recognized or certified
for any bargaining unit in the town.

     2.  The head of the town's police department is the Police
Chief.  The remainder of the department consists of six
employees:  one patrol sergeant, four patrolmen, and one
administrative assistant.  The police department also employs
three part-time patrolmen, but they are not employed on a
regularly-scheduled basis (and are not involved in this

     3.  One of the patrolmen is a "school resource officer,"
hired under a special federal grant.  This person is supervised
directly by the Police Chief, in coordination with local school
officials.  During the school year, the school resource officer
works in and around the schools.  In the summer, the school
resource officer functions like the other patrolmen.


     4.  The department operates 24 hours per day, on a three-
shift per day system which has long been in place.  The police
chief works during the day, Monday through Friday, although he
works many additional hours and might stop by the department at
various hours at any time.  The patrol sergeant works during the
day, Tuesday through Saturday.  The other patrolmen work the
remaining evening and night shifts, on a regularly-scheduled
basis that rotates every two months.  One patrolman works alone
on each of the evening and night shifts.

     5.  The current police chief has served in this capacity
since 1996.  The current patrol sergeant was hired in 1995 as a
patrolman, and was promoted to patrol sergeant in 1997.

     6.  The position of patrol sergeant was created in about
1996.  The present police chief first held the position briefly
before becoming the police chief.

     7.  The patrolmen spend most of their shifts in a patrol
car, driving patrol and responding to calls as needed.  Dispatch
calls are primarily forwarded from the county 911 system.  The
patrolmen might spend one hour per shift at the police department
office, doing paperwork, making telephone calls, and performing
other administrative tasks.

     8.  The patrol sergeant functions as the primary patrolman
on the day shifts on which he is scheduled to work.  He spends
the majority of his time in a patrol car or at the police
department office, performing the same tasks as other patrolmen.

     9.  The police chief also spends some time performing the
functions of a patrolman on the day shifts on which he is
scheduled to work.  However, the town manager and selectmen would
like the police chief to reduce his patrol work even more than he
does, and spend even more time as an administrator and "public 


relations" person for the department and the town.

    10.  In addition to patrol functions, the patrol sergeant is
assigned to certain supervisory functions pertaining to the
patrolmen.  The patrol sergeant has relatively limited contact
with the patrolmen (mostly during the shift changes).  The patrol
sergeant reviews some reports generated by the patrolmen, and
reviews logs which show the 911 activity during evening and night
    11.  The patrol cars are equipped with video and audio
equipment.  The patrolmen are required to video tape all traffic
stops.  In addition, the patrolmen may elect to video or audio
tape other transactions during their shifts.  The patrol sergeant
spends some time (perhaps two hours per month) reviewing the
tapes generated by the patrolmen, especially if there is a

    12.  The patrol sergeant writes the yearly performance
evaluations for the patrolmen.  The police chief reviews the
performance evaluations and has the authority to change the
evaluations, but has not found the need to do so.  The police
chief writes the performance evaluations for the patrol sergeant.

    13.  The patrol sergeant is empowered to given oral or
written discipline to the patrolmen.  He has needed to use this
authority very infrequently.  The patrol sergeant has issued
approximately one written warning to a patrolman in the last five
years.  The patrol sergeant would consult with the police chief
before giving such a warning.

    14.  The job descriptions for the patrolmen and the patrol
sergeant indicate that both positions "report to" the police


    15.  The patrol sergeant handles scheduling for the police
department.  This is a fairly perfunctory task of assigning the
patrolmen to the set shift schedule.  Patrolmen generally contact
the patrol sergeant about vacations and other schedule changes.

    16.  The patrolmen work in an independent fashion on their
respective shifts, with little direct supervision.  Work is not
generally "assigned" to them.  Either the police chief or the
patrol sergeant may question a patrolman about the conduct of an
investigation or other on-going work.

    17.  The patrol sergeant spends the majority of his time
performing patrol work.  He spends approximately 15 to 20 percent
of his time performing supervisory tasks that are unlike the
patrolmen (like reviewing reports and video tapes, scheduling,
and writing evaluations).

    18.  If a citizen complains about the conduct of a police
officer, they are asked to complete a written complaint form. 
In the past five years, about ten complaint forms have been
requested, but only one has been completed and returned.  When
the police chief or the patrol sergeant learns of a written
complaint that might be submitted, they generally talk to the
patrolman and the citizens involved and resolve matters

    19.  If a written complaint form is submitted, the patrol
sergeant has been active in doing the initial investigation of
the complaint.  The information is then given to the police chief
for action.  

    20.  In one unusual case in 2001, the patrol sergeant
recommended to the police chief that one patrolman (who has since
left the force), be given a seven-day suspension or perhaps
discharged following his investigation of a citizen complaint.  


The police chief chose to give the patrolman a shorter suspension
and a six-month probationary period.  The patrolman involved
grieved the discipline under the town personnel policies.  The
matter was then handled by the police chief, the town manager and
the selectmen.
    21.  This case was an aberration, however.  The patrolmen are
generally self-directing and receive limited amounts of
supervision or discipline.  A patrolman might see the patrol
sergeant on average of once per week.

    22.  As town employees, the police department employees are
subject to the town personnel policies.  Any employment
grievances are first handled by the police chief.  The patrol
sergeant is not involved in adjusting employee grievances.

    23.  The police chief establishes all operating procedures
for the police department, as well as performance standards not
outlined in the town personnel policies.

    24.  The patrol sergeant is not directly involved in hiring,
firing or promoting of police department employees.

    25.  The police chief approves all staff training for which a
fee must be paid.

    26.  The patrol sergeant and the patrolmen are paid hourly
and have similar benefits, hours of work and other terms and
conditions of employment.

    27.  Of the police department employees, the police chief and
the patrol sergeant have the most interchange, as they work four
overlapping shifts.  The patrol sergeant and the patrolmen have a
limited amount of interchange, at shift changes and at other
department functions.


    28.  The positions of patrol sergeant and patrolman have the
same basic educational requirements--high school degree and
completion of basic law enforcement course from the Maine
Criminal Justice Academy ("MCJA").

    29.  To be offered the patrol sergeant position, a candidate
is expected to have supervisory experience or, if no experience,
to take supervisory classes at the MCJA.
    30.  A police department bargaining unit was formed by
agreement of the Town of Rockport and Teamsters Local Union No.
48 signed on March 8, 1985.  The positions in the unit at that
time were the police officers, the sergeant/dispatcher, and the
police dispatchers.  The Teamsters were certified as the
bargaining agent for this unit following an election conducted
April 2, 1985.  The Teamsters disclaimed interest in representing
the unit in 1993, and the Board revoked the certification of the
Teamsters as bargaining agent on March 5, 1993.

    31.  All of the patrolmen, the patrol sergeant, and the
administrative assistant desire the creation of a bargaining unit
which includes the patrolmen, the patrol sergeant, and the
administrative assistant.

    32.  Other Knox County towns with organized police
departments (Camden, Rockland and Thomaston) have bargaining
units with sergeants in the same bargaining units as the patrol

     The sole issue presented by this case is whether the patrol
sergeant position exercises sufficient supervisory authority over
the patrolmen, as defined in 26 M.R.S.A.  966(1), that he should 


be excluded from a bargaining unit consisting of the patrolmen
and the administrative assistant.  In addition, the hearing
examiner will consider whether a community of interest exists
among the employees in the proposed unit.
     Unlike the National Labor Relations Act, the Municipal
Public Employees Labor Relations Law ("MPELRL") grants
supervisors collective bargaining rights and permits the
inclusion of supervisors in bargaining units of subordinate
employees in certain circumstances.  In Penobscot Valley Hospital
and Maine Federation of Nurses and Health Care Professionals,
No. 85-A-01, slip op. at 8 (MLRB 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, 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. . . .  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.

Section 966(1) gives guidance to the hearing examiner in
identifying situations where conflicting 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.

The focus of this three-part test is to determine whether the
supervisor exercises a level of control over employment-related
issues that would likely result in a conflict of interest.  See
Richmond Employees Ass'n and Town of Richmond, No. 94-UD-09, slip
op. at 30 (MLRB Apr. 26, 1994).
     Under the first portion of the test outlined in  966(1),
the hearing examiner must evaluate whether the principal
functions of the patrol sergeant position involve scheduling,
assigning, overseeing or reviewing the work of the patrolmen. 
The patrol sergeant is the person in the department primarily in
charge of scheduling the patrolmen.  This is, by and large, a
perfunctory task utilizing a long-standing schedule.  The patrol
sergeant is also in charge of approving shift-swapping and
covering vacant shifts during vacations and sick time.  The
police chief made clear in his testimony that he wanted the
patrolmen to seek out the patrol sergeant on these scheduling
issues, not the police chief, in order to eliminate any confusion
in the schedule.  However, there seemed little doubt that the
police chief would have the last word on scheduling conflicts, if
a conflict could not otherwise be resolved.  The patrol sergeant
has a minimal role in assigning or even overseeing work, due to
the fact that the patrolmen work quite independently on their
respective shifts.  Each patrolman performs the work of his shift
alone, performing the tasks that come his way during the shift,
plus any follow-up work.  The fact that the patrolmen work with


such independence is a relevant factor in evaluating the first
prong of  966(1).  See Ellsworth Fire Fighters Ass'n and City of
Ellsworth, No. 91-UD-19 (MLRB Aug. 2, 1991) (deputy fire chief
and lieutenant included in the same bargaining unit as
subordinate fire fighters; fire fighters functioned
independently).  The patrol sergeant spends some time directly
overseeing the work of patrolmen when he reviews video tapes
generated in the patrol cars, or reviews reports written by the
patrolmen.  The patrol sergeant writes and signs the annual
evaluations for the patrolmen.  The police chief reviews the
evaluations but has never exercised his authority to change any
of the evaluations.  It is noteworthy that despite the
supervisory functions that the patrol sergeant exercises, the job
description for the patrolmen states that the position "reports
to" the police chief.
     The patrol sergeant exercises some of the kinds of
supervisory authority mentioned in the first prong of  966(1),
all of which may lead to conflicts between the patrol sergeant
and the patrolmen.  However, the issue remains whether these
supervisory duties constitute the principal function of the
patrol sergeant position.  The parties spent considerable time in
estimating how much time the patrol sergeant spent performing
supervisory duties as opposed to duties that are like the other
patrolmen.  On this issue, the hearing examiner gave considerable
weight to the testimony of the patrol sergeant, as the hours he
testified that he spent performing specific supervisory tasks was
commensurate with the percentage of time that he estimated
spending overall on such tasks--perhaps 15 to 20 percent of his
time in total.  Other hearing examiners have used the percentage
of work hours devoted to performing tasks as a gauge to determine
whether those tasks are the "principal" or "primary" functions of 


a position.[fn]1  This hearing examiner does not believe that
the time spent on supervisory tasks can be the sole gauge of
whether supervisory tasks are the principal function of a
position; for example, if the fact that the patrol sergeant
writes the patrolmen's yearly evaluations can generate the sort
of conflict that should require his exclusion from the bargaining
unit, it makes little difference that he only spends four hours
per year writing those evaluations.  On the other hand, the more
time a supervisor spends actively assigning and overseeing work
of subordinates, the more likely it is that conflicts may arise. 
In this case, while the patrol sergeant performs some important
supervisory functions with limited oversight by the police chief,
he spends a significant portion of his work hours performing the
same job as the patrolmen.  He spends little time actively
supervising the patrolmen.  He is, in some respects, like a "line
foreman" or "working foreman," which the Board has long found may
be included in the same bargaining unit as subordinates.[fn]2  

     1 See, e.g., Richmond Employees Ass'n and Town of Richmond,
No. 94-UD-09, slip op. at 31 (MLRB Apr. 26, 1994) (highway foreman
performs duties similar to subordinates during "majority of his
workday"); AFSCME Council 93 and City of Saco, No. 93-UC-02, slip op.
at 19 (MLRB Dec. 10, 1992) (recycling foreman spends eighty percent of
workday performing work identical to subordinates); Teamsters Local
No. 48 and Van Buren Light and Power District, No. 85-UD-14, slip op.
at 8-9 (MLRB Jan. 25, 1985) (line foreman's job content not distinct
and dissimilar for the "substantial portion of his working hours");
Council 74, AFSCME and Rockland Waste Water Treatment Facility,
No. 82-UD-03, slip op. at 3-4 (MLRB Aug. 12, 1981) (head mechanic
spends one-half of his time operating lathe machine tool); and
Teamsters Local No. 48 and Town of Pittsfield, No. 81-UD-09, slip op.
at 2 (MLRB Jan. 15, 1981) ("vast majority" of police sergeant's time
devoted to regular patrol work).

     2 See Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and Van Buren Light and Power
District, supra (duties of line foreman who assigns, oversees and
reviews work of employees determined as a whole not to be so distinct
and dissimilar from those performed by supervised employees to warrant
exclusion from proposed unit); Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and Town
of Pittsfield, supra (sergeant position found to be "working
supervisor" where supervisory duties were limited and undemanding and
where majority of time was devoted to regular patrol work). 


Considering both the type of supervisory functions the patrol
sergeant performs and the amount of time he spends performing
them, the principal function of the position is not the
performing of supervisory tasks as outlined in the first prong of
     The second prong of the test in  966(1) requires that the
hearing examiner evaluate whether the patrol sergeant performs
duties that are "distinct and dissimilar" from the duties
performed by the employees that he 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 (MLRB
Apr. 17, 1991).  The patrol sergeant does not have significant
authority in any of these areas--hiring, promoting, transferring
and the like.  All authority in these areas, as well as the
authority to suspend, discharge or lay off, is held by the police
chief and the town manager.
     As to the third prong of the test outlined in  966(1), the
patrol sergeant has no role in adjusting grievances or
establishing performance standards.  The patrol sergeant plays a
role in taking corrective measures to implement the performance
standards set by the police chief and the town.  The patrol
sergeant is authorized to give the patrolmen both oral and
written reprimands.  He has rarely used his authority, in fact. 
His discipline generally consists of such things as reminding a
patrolman to clean up his patrol car.  Perhaps due to the fact
that discipline has been needed infrequently, the police sergeant
testified that he would consult with the police chief before 


giving a patrolman any written discipline.  The fact that
discipline has been infrequently needed is a testament to the
quality of the patrolmen, the patrol sergeant and the police
chief in the town.  However, the incident involving the patrolman
who was suspended in 2001 and then left the force underlines the
fact that the patrol sergeant has disciplinary authority, even
though he needs to use it infrequently.  The patrol sergeant
investigates citizen complaints regarding the patrolmen.  While
this authority could lead to supervisory conflict, such conflict
is minimized by the fact that the police chief ultimately
determines how a patrolman should be disciplined following the
     In summary, an evaluation of the criteria of  966(1) shows
that the patrol sergeant position exercises some supervisory
authority that could place him in conflict with the patrolmen,
particularly his authority to write annual evaluations of the
patrolmen, to discipline the patrolmen (to a point), and to
conduct internal affairs investigations.  On the other hand, he
spends comparatively little time performing these functions. 
He exercises little or no authority in many other areas (such as
hiring, discharging, adjusting grievances) that would similarly
lead to conflict.  The patrolmen function quite independently on
their shifts and the patrol sergeant has limited opportunity to
oversee and supervise their work in any fashion that could lead
to conflict.  Therefore, while this is a somewhat "closer case"
than some Board precedent involving the placement of supervisors,
the hearing examiner concludes that the patrol sergeant does not
exert such extensive supervisory authority to warrant his
placement in a separate bargaining unit.
     This conclusion is supported strongly by the Board's policy
against the proliferation of small bargaining units, particularly
the formation of one- and two-member supervisory units.  The
Board's policy has rather been to "include supervisor positions 


in rank-and-file units rather than establish small, separate
supervisory bargaining units."  MSAD No. 43 and MSAD No. 43
Teachers Ass'n, No. 84-A-05, slip op. at 4 (MLRB 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

MSAD No. 43, slip op. at 4, 5.  The Board has also found that the
" . . . creation of a single-member bargaining unit may well
impede the individual, placed therein, from securing the free
exercise of his collective bargaining rights, in contravention of
the spirit and intent of Section 963 of the Act."  MSAD No. 14
and East Grand Teachers Ass'n, No. 83-A-09, slip op. at 13 (MLRB
Aug. 24, 1983), citing Town of Sabattus and Teamsters Local Union
No. 48, No. 82-A-01, slip op. at 4 (MLRB Sept. 17, 1981).  Based
upon this non-proliferation policy, supervisors have been
included in a bargaining unit with their subordinates who
exercise greater supervisory functions than the patrol sergeant
here exercises.[fn]3
     In the present matter, the bargaining unit as proposed is 

     3 See, e.g., Lubec Education Association, MTA/NEA and MSAD No. 19
Board of Directors, No. 83-UD-17 (MLRB 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.


already a small unit (six employees).  It would clearly
contravene the Board's non-proliferation policy to exclude the
patrol sergeant, thus creating one unit consisting of five
employees and one unit of consisting of one employee. 
Considering both the provisions of  966(1) and the Board's non-
proliferation policy, the patrol sergeant should not be excluded
from the bargaining unit consisting of the patrolmen and the
administrative assistant.
     Finally, the issue of whether the patrol sergeant shares a
community of interest with the patrolmen and the administrative
assistant must be briefly addressed.  The employer stipulated
that the patrolmen and the administrative assistant share a
community of interest, but would not stipulate, if the patrol
sergeant was not placed in a separate supervisory unit, that this
position shared a community of interest with the other positions
in the unit.  At the same time, the employer presented almost no
evidence on the subject of community of interest.
     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. 
See Chap. 11,  22(3) of the Board Rules.  Bearing in mind that
the employer has already stipulated that the patrolmen and the
administrative assistant share a community of interest, it is 


easily concluded that the patrol sergeant shares a community of
interest with the unit as well.  The patrol sergeant spends the
majority of his time performing the same work as the other
patrolmen.  All of the positions in the proposed unit are
ultimately supervised by the police chief.  All positions are
paid hourly, work on a shift basis, and are provided similar
employment benefits.  The patrol sergeant and patrolmen have
similar initial qualifications, skill and training.  The
positions work in the same building and have at least some
opportunity for interchange.  The police officers (along with
dispatchers) were previously organized as a bargaining unit,
prior to the creation of the position of patrol sergeant.  The
patrol sergeant, patrolmen and the administrative assistant all
desire to be in one unit.  There are no other organized
bargaining units in the town.  No information was presented
generally on the town's organizational structure, but the
proposed unit encompasses all of the positions in the police
department (other than the police chief), which appears to be a
separate department of the town.
     For all of these reasons, the hearing examiner concludes
that the patrol sergeant should be included in a bargaining unit
with the patrolmen and the administrative assistant.   


     On the basis of the foregoing facts and discussion and
pursuant to the provisions of 26 M.R.S.A.  966, the petition for
unit determination filed on February 27, 2002, by Michael Jarrett
on behalf of the Rockport Police Officers Association is granted. 
The following described unit is held to be appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining:


     INCLUDED: Patrol sergeant, patrolmen and administrative      

     EXCLUDED: Police chief and all other employees of the Town
               of Rockport.

A bargaining agent election for this unit will be conducted

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 12th day of June, 2002.

                                MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

                                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 Chapter 10 and Chap. 11  30 of the Board Rules.