STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Case No. 03-EA-01 Issued: November 12, 2002 ________________________________ ) YORK COUNTY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) DECISION AND ORDER ON and ) MOTION TO STAY ) BARGAINING AGENT ELECTION TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 340, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________) This case began when Teamsters Union Local 340 ("Union") filed a unit determination and election petition with the Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board") for a bargaining unit composed of the Captains in the York County Sheriff's Department. The County argued to the Board that the Teamsters should not be allowed to represent this unit because the Teamsters already represents bargaining units whose employees are supervised by the Captains. The Board's decision and order of September 27, 2002, concluded that the Board has no statutory authority to disqualify a union from representing the employees who have freely elected that union as their bargaining agent. On October 9, 2002, York County filed an appeal of the Board's decision in Superior Court. In response to a request by the Union to proceed with the election, the Executive Director's designee sent a letter to the parties on October 23, 2002, setting tentative dates for the election. On October 24, 2002, the Employer filed a motion to stay further action in the case with the Board. Both parties filed written briefs on the motion that were considered by the Board. [-1-] ________________________________________________________________________ JURISDICTION The Board's jurisdiction to hear this matter lies in 26 M.R.S.A. 968(4), as an appeal of an election matter, as well as under section 11004 of Maine's Administrative Procedure Act. 5 M.R.S.A. chapter 375. DISCUSSION Maine's Administrative Procedure Act provides that an administrative agency may issue a stay of an agency decision "upon a showing of irreparable injury to the petitioner, a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and no substantial harm to adverse parties or the general public." 5 M.R.S.A. 11004. After considering the arguments of the parties, we deny the motion to stay the election because the County has failed to show that these three requirements have been met. York County argues that an irreparable injury to the County will occur because the minute the Captains vote in the bargaining agent election, they will act as "union brothers" and "may need to stop and think about the union related implications of a directive for a union brother or sister before they act." (County brief at 2-3). This is pure speculation. It assumes that the Captains in the York County Sheriff's Department are going to be unable to do their jobs because of some higher allegiance to the Union. The County provides absolutely no basis for that assumption. The County did not present any evidence to even suggest that the Captains' commitment to their jobs will be compromised if they vote to be represented by the Teamsters. We consider it a serious disservice to these individuals who have made law enforcement their profession to simply assume that being represented by the same union as their subordinate employees is somehow going to disrupt their priorities or impede their ability -2- ________________________________________________________________________ to issue commands or supervise other professional law enforcement officers. Furthermore, the County does not provide any evidence of any other law enforcement agency in Maine (or elsewhere, for that matter) in which the alleged "conflict of interest" has actually resulted in compromising the interests of law enforcement or public protection generally. Nearly twenty years ago, the Board issued its Kittery decision on the very same point. Kittery and Teamsters Union Local 48, No. 83-A-02 (Feb. 7, 1983). If the irreparable harm the County is worried about were real, one would think that they would be able to point to an example of it occurring at some point over the nearly twenty years since Kittery. In addition, as we stated in our initial decision on this matter, the employer has the authority to require all of its employees to perform their jobs, including the Captains. We think the County's claim of irreparable harm is simply too speculative to justify issuing a stay of the election. We disagree that the County has a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its appeal of our decision holding that the Teamsters were not precluded from representing the Captains. Without belaboring the point, the County's statutory construction argument is no more persuasive to us today than it was a few weeks ago. We also reject the County's claim that no harm to the adverse party or the general public will result from the issuance of a stay. The pending question before the Superior Court is only whether the Teamsters can be prevented from representing the Captains; there is no dispute that the Captains are covered by the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law (Act) and are entitled to be represented for the purposes of collective -3- ________________________________________________________________________ bargaining. The whole purpose of the Act is to give public employees the opportunity to collectively bargain with their employer. The selection of a bargaining agent is a means to that end, not an end itself. If we were to grant a stay in this case, we would be interfering with the undisputed right of these public employees to seek the benefit of bargaining collectively. They are entitled to have the election process go forward and, if they choose to be represented, to begin the bargaining process. We have on previous occasions expressed our concern about letting a party use an appeal of a certification or an election issue as an excuse to avoid collective bargaining. We are concerned that if we issued a stay in this case, other parties under our jurisdiction would be encouraged to appeal election matters and seek a stay and thereby avoid bargaining or holding an election until the union's majority status is dissipated. See, AFSCME v. Bangor Water District, No. 81-15 (March 2, 1981), at 4. We must emphasize that there is absolutely no indication in the present case that the employer is attempting to draw out this case in order to erode the Union's support. We are concerned, however, that we not create an opportunity for a less honorable employer to do just that. ORDER On the basis of the foregoing discussion and pursuant to the powers granted to the Maine Labor Relations Board by the provisions of 26 M.R.S.A. 968(4), it is ORDERED: That the motion filed by York County to stay further action in the bargaining agent election for the York County Captains bargaining unit is denied. The executive director or his designee shall proceed in conducting a secret ballot election to determine -4- ________________________________________________________________________ whether a majority of the employees in the Captains bargaining unit wish to be represented by the Teamsters Union Local 340. Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 12th day of November, 2002. The parties are hereby advised MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of their right, pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 968(4) (Supp. 2001) to seek review of this /s/________________________ Decision and Order on Motion Peter T. Dawson to Stay Bargaining Agent Chair Election by the Superior Court. To initiate such a review an appealing party must /s/________________________ file a complaint with the Karl Dornish, Jr. Superior Court within fifteen Employer Representative (15) days of the date of issuance of this decision and order, and otherwise comply /s/________________________ with the requirements of Rule Carol B. Gilmore 80C of the Maine Rules of Employee Representative Civil Procedure. -5- ________________________________________________________________________