STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Case No. 03-UD-07 Issued: March 13, 2003 __________________________ ) AMERICAN FEDERATION OF ) STATE, COUNTY AND ) MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, ) COUNCIL 93, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) UNIT DETERMINATION REPORT and ) ) TOWN OF DEXTER, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________) PROCEDURAL HISTORY This unit determination proceeding was initiated on November 7, 2002, when Betty L. Burns, Staff Representative for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 93 ("AFSCME") 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 should be created consisting of all full-time and regularly- scheduled part-time employees in the following positions: Police Sergeant, Police Officers, Librarian Assistants, Truck Driver/ Laborer, Truck Driver/Equipment Operator, Truck Driver/Mechanic, Truck Driver/Foreman, Building Maintenance/Parks, EMT, Welfare Clerk, Deputy Clerk and Secretary/Dispatcher. The Town of Dexter ("Town" or "Employer") filed a timely response to the petition. In its response, the Town agreed that a unit consisting of the following regular full-time and regular part-time employees was appropriate: Building Maintenance and Parks/Assistant, Public Works/Truck Driver-Equipment Operator, Public Works/Truck Driver- Mechanic, Public Works/Truck Driver-Laborer, Human Services/ [-1-] _________________________________________________________________ Welfare Clerk, General Administration/Deputy Clerk, Ambulance/ EMT-Driver, Police Officer, Police Department/Secretary- Dispatcher, and Assistant Librarian. The Town responded that the Police Sergeant and the Truck Driver Foreman should be excluded as supervisors within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 966(1). A unit determination hearing notice was issued on December 16, 2002, and was posted for the benefit of affected employees. The hearing was conducted on February 5, 2003. AFSCME was represented by Ed Willey, Maine Coordinator. The Town was represented by Thomas C. Johnston, Esq. The parties were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence and to make argument. The following witnesses were presented by the Town: Police Sergeant Jim Emerson, Foreman Jasper Hatch, and Town Manager Robert Simpson. AFSCME did not present any additional witnesses. The parties submitted written argument, postmarked February 24, 2003. JURISDICTION The jurisdiction of the hearing examiner to hear this matter and to make an appropriate unit determination lies in 26 M.R.S.A. 966. STIPULATIONS 1. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 93 ("AFSCME") is an employee organization within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 962(2) and the prospective bargaining agent for the Dexter general government bargaining unit. 2. The Town of Dexter 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 AFSCME's petition. -2- _________________________________________________________________ 4. The following employees are "public employees" as defined by 26 M.R.S.A. 962(6): Ambulance/EMT-Driver, Ambulance/EMT, Ambulance/Driver, Assistant Librarian, Building Maintenance & Parks/Assistant, General Administration/Deputy Clerk, Human Services/Welfare Clerk, Police Officer, Police Department/Secretary-Dispatcher, Public Works/Driver-Equipment Operator, Public Works/Driver-Mechanic, Public Works/Driver- Laborer, Police Sergeant and Public Works Foreman. 5. The parties agree that the following positions share a community of interest and therefore comprise an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining: Ambulance/EMT-Driver, Ambulance/EMT, Ambulance/Driver, Assistant Librarian, Building Maintenance & Parks/Assistant, General Administration/Deputy Clerk, Human Services/Welfare Clerk, Police Officer, Police Department/Secretary-Dispatcher, Public Works/Driver-Equipment Operator, Public Works/Driver-Mechanic, Public Works/Driver- Laborer. 6. The parties agree that the following positions should be excluded from the Dexter general government bargaining unit: Reserve Police Officer, Seasonal Public Works/Driver, Per Diem Ambulance/EMT-Driver and all other employees of the Town of Dexter not listed in Stipulation Number 4. 7. The only issue raised by this case is whether the position of Police Sergeant and Public Works Foreman are "supervisory positions" within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 966(1). 8. The parties agree that if the positions of Police Sergeant and Public Works Foreman are found not to be "supervisory positions" within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 966(1), the positions share a community of interest with the other positions in the Dexter general government bargaining unit and should be included in that unit. -3- _________________________________________________________________ 9. In the event that the positions of Police Sergeant and Public Works Foreman are placed in a separate supervisory bargaining unit, AFSCME wishes to participate in an election for that unit. EXHIBITS The following exhibits were admitted without objection: Employer No. 1 Town of Dexter Personnel Policy, Section 2, Employment Categories Employer No. 2 Job description, Police Sergeant Employer No. 3 Job description, Foreman Employer No. 4 Town of Dexter Personnel Policy, Section 20, Grievance Procedure FINDINGS OF FACT Police Sergeant 1. The Dexter Police Department consists of six full-time employees: the Police Chief, the Sergeant, the Secretary/ Dispatcher, the Corporal and two Police Officers. About eight reserve officers are also employed in the department. 2. The Dexter Police Department provides coverage for the Town 24 hours per day, seven days per week, on a three-shift schedule. 3. The Police Chief, the Sergeant and the Secretary/ Dispatcher all work a regular "day" schedule, Monday to Friday. The three remaining full-time Police Officers are scheduled to work the remaining evening and night shifts and on the weekends. The Police Officers working these evening, night and weekend shifts are assigned to work alone. One reserve officer works a regular shift on Sunday mornings; otherwise, reserve officers are only used to fill in for absent full-time Police Officers. -4- _________________________________________________________________ 4. The Sergeant has worked for the Town for 21 years. He was first hired as a Police Officer and was promoted to Sergeant. He has worked as Sergeant for 14 years. 5. The Sergeant spends most of his work time performing the same type of patrol duties as the other Police Officers. He responds to calls and patrols in the police cruiser. The Police Chief spends much more of his day working at the police department office and attending meetings; he spends relatively little of his time performing patrol duties. The Secretary/ Dispatcher (also a certified Police Officer) works all day at the police department office and does not perform regular patrol duties. 6. The Sergeant is second in the police department chain- of-command. When the Police Chief is absent, the Sergeant acts in his stead. The Police Chief takes approximately five weeks of vacation per year. In the past year, the Police Chief has also taken several weeks of sick time. The Police Chief and the Sergeant try not to take vacation at the same time. 7. The Police Chief attends policy-setting meetings, such as department head meetings with the Town Manager and budget meetings. The Sergeant has rarely, if ever, attended meetings like this. The Sergeant has very little contact with the Town Manager, even when the Police Chief is on vacation. The Sergeant does not attend state police organizational meetings. 8. The Police Chief creates and fills the work schedule for the police department. If a Police Officer is absent and needs to be replaced (usually by a reserve officer), the Police Officer finds his own replacement or the Sergeant or the Secretary/ Dispatcher make calls off the reserve officer list to find replacements. 9. The Police Officers working on the evening, night and weekend shifts work very independently, dealing with issues as they arise on their respective shifts. Specific work is -5- _________________________________________________________________ sometimes assigned to a Police Officer; for instance, a complaint might be best investigated in the evening when witnesses are home from work. In these cases, either the Police Chief or the Sergeant will assign the work to the Police Officer. The Sergeant occasionally reviews written reports completed by the Police Officers. 10. If a Police Officer needs back-up or extra coverage, he can contact the Dispatcher directly for such coverage. In some situations, a Police Officer will call the Sergeant for approval for back-up or with some other question. The Sergeant is "on- call" for such questions. For instance, one Police Officer called the Sergeant to ask whether he could use his personal vehicle to respond to a call. The fact that such calls are first directed to the Sergeant is a matter of protocol; the unspoken directive of the department is that the Police Chief should not be "bothered" with such calls. However, the Police Chief is always contacted when any serious situation arises. 11. On several occasions, the Sergeant has been the "officer in charge" at serious crimes scenes or serious safety situations, with the ability to call in other officers. 12. The Police Chief sets the performance standards for all Police Officers, including the Sergeant. The Police Chief writes the personnel evaluations for all police department employees. The Police Chief occasionally seeks input from the Sergeant regarding the performance of other Police Officers. 13. The Police Chief handles discipline of police department employees. 14. The Police Chief has authority to discharge any police department employee, in keeping with the Town personnel policies and in consultation with the Town Manager. The Sergeant would not be involved in any discharge. 15. The Town maintains a grievance procedure in its personnel policy (Employer Exh. No. 4). The first "step" of the -6- _________________________________________________________________ procedure directs a grieving employee to attempt a verbal agreement with his/her supervisor or appropriate department head. In the case of the police department, the supervisor is the Sergeant and the department head is the Police Chief. After this, a written grievance can be pursued through three more steps (to the department head, to the personnel advisory board/Town Manager, and to the Town Board of Appeals). This grievance procedure has almost never been used, and it has never been used by an employee of the police department. 16. The Sergeant is in charge of seeing that training is scheduled for Police Officers. The Sergeant is not a certified trainer and does not do the training himself. If the training costs money or requires absence from the job, the Police Chief must approve the training. The Sergeant and the other Police Officers participate in on-the-job training of any new Police Officer (such as having the new officer drive around with an experienced officer). 17. The Police Chief reviews employment applications and has sole authority to hire new employees for the police department. The Police Chief might ask the Sergeant or the Police Officers about a candidate. 18. When the Police Chief is not at work and the Sergeant acts in his stead, the day-to-day job of the Sergeant does not change much. The Sergeant signs the hours for the weekly payroll. If any major problems or issues arise (budget, discipline, etc.), the Sergeant refers such matters to the Town Manager or awaits the return of the Police Chief. Public Works Foreman 19. The Dexter Public Works Department consists of the Public Works Director ("PW Director"), the Foreman and four full- time public works employees--one Truck Driver/Mechanic, one -7- _________________________________________________________________ Truck Driver/Equipment Operator, and two Truck Driver/Laborers. 20. The present Foreman has worked for the public works department for 15 years. He has been Foreman for about seven years. 21. The PW Director makes all the initial decisions regarding what construction and repair projects are needed, "lays out" the projects, and prioritizes the projects. Either the PW Director or the Foreman makes the decision which employee to assign to which project. 22. The PW Director is in charge of hiring for the department. The PW Director might ask the Foreman his opinion about an applicant if the Foreman knows the applicant. The PW Director has sole authority to carry out any formal discipline. The PW Director performs annual evaluations of all employees, including the Foreman. 23. The PW Director has authority to discharge any public works employee, in keeping with the Town personnel policies and in consultation with the Town Manager. The Foreman would not be involved in any discharge. 24. The PW Director creates and fills the PW department work schedule. All employee requests regarding the schedule are handled by the PW Director. 25. Due to the small size of the public works department, all employees including the PW Director actively work on constructions projects, truck maintenance and plowing. The Foreman is a working foreman who spends most of his time working on projects, plowing, and doing the same type of work as the other PW employees. The Foreman makes sure that the right material and equipment are available and on the job site to perform a project. The PW Director also spends time performing work on projects, including on all major construction projects. Some small jobs (like road patching) are assigned to one or more -8- _________________________________________________________________ public works employees who work without either the PW Director or the Foreman on the job. 26. When the Foreman is working on a project, he is considered in charge of the project, in the absence of the PW Director. 27. The Foreman has authority to give instructions to other employees on a project. For instance, he might speak to an employee who is not wearing proper safety equipment or to an employee who is slacking off on a job. The Foreman brings any more significant discipline issues to the PW Director for him to handle. 28. Both the PW Director and the Foreman may be involved in training a new public works employee, such as riding with a new employee to test his truck driving skills. 29. In the winter, one of the main jobs of the PW Department is plowing and maintaining roads. The PW Director, the Foreman, and the other public works employees all have a regularly-assigned plow run. During a storm, the PW Director receives the calls regarding road conditions and makes additional assignments as needed. The PW Director sometimes hands this task over to the Foreman. 30. When the PW Director is absent (such as during his vacation), he leaves a list of projects to be completed in his absence. The Foreman is in charge in the absence of the PW Director and makes work assignments from this list. 31. The PW Director uses a town pickup truck to ride around and check construction projects and problem areas. If the PW Director is absent, the Foreman performs this function. If the Foreman sees an area of concern, he will bring it to the Town Manager's attention or wait until the PW Director returns to bring it to his attention. 32. When the PW Director is absent, the Foreman usually -9- _________________________________________________________________ meets with the Town Manager each day to see if any problems need to be addressed (something the PW Director usually does). The Foreman also signs the hours of the crew for the weekly payroll if the PW Director is absent. 33. Under the Town grievance procedure, the supervisor is the Foreman and the department head is the PW Director. This grievance procedure has almost never been used, and it has never been used by an employee of the public works department. DISCUSSION The sole issue presented by this case is whether the Police Sergeant and Foreman exercise sufficient supervisory authority, as defined in 26 M.R.S.A. 966(1), that they should be excluded from a bargaining unit containing employees whom they supervise. Unlike the National Labor Relations Act, the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law 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 -10- _________________________________________________________________ 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). The hearing examiner will briefly discuss each prong of the three-part test contained in 966(1), and then apply each prong to the Police Sergeant position, then to the Public Works Foreman position. Police Sergeant Under the first prong of the test outlined in 966(1), the hearing examiner must evaluate whether the principal functions of the Sergeant position involve scheduling, assigning, overseeing or reviewing the work of subordinate employees. The Police Chief schedules all subordinate employees, including the Sergeant. Employees most often used as substitute officers are the reserve -11- _________________________________________________________________ officers, who are not included in the proposed bargaining unit. Both the Police Chief and the Sergeant might make assignments to a Police Officer - to perform an investigation on that officer's shift, for instance. However, such assignments occur infrequently. The Police Officers work alone on evening, night and weekend shifts and, of necessity, work very independently. This fact greatly reduces any risk of conflict that might arise.[fn]1 The Sergeant is, by department protocol, the first to be called with questions from the Police Officers. However, these calls occur rather infrequently and involve relatively minor questions; the Sergeant refers serious concerns and issues to the Police Chief. The Sergeant performs very little in the way of either overseeing or evaluating the work of the Police Officers. The Police Chief has sole authority to perform job evaluations, including for the Sergeant. The employer emphasized that when the Police Chief is absent, the Sergeant acts in his stead. This might happen as much as five weeks of the year while the Police Chief is on vacation, and was increased last year due to the illness of the Police Chief.[fn]2 The responsibilities of the Sergeant increase when the Police Chief is absent (for example, the Sergeant is in charge of signing hours for payroll). But it was clear that true authority continues to rest with the Police Chief even when he is absent. Any major problems or issues on the force await the return of the Police Chief, or are forwarded to the Town Manager. In addition, the supervisory duties performed by the ____________________ 1 The fact that the police officers 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). 2 There was no testimony regarding the nature of the illness or whether this level of absence will continue into the future. -12- _________________________________________________________________ Sergeant do not constitute the principal functions of his position. The Sergeant performs a minimal amount of real supervisory duties, and spends "nearly his whole day" performing the same type of day-to-day police duties as the other officers [Tr. at 31]. The duties of his position are very similar to the duties of supervisors in numerous Board cases where the supervisor has been included in the same bargaining unit as subordinate employees. 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); 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). In summary, supervisory duties do not constitute the principal function of the Sergeant's position here. The second prong of the test in 966(1) requires that the hearing examiner evaluate whether the 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 Sergeant does not have significant authority in any of these areas--hiring, promoting, transferring and the -13- _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sergeant has a very limited role in adjusting grievances. The employer's written grievance policy (although virtually never used) states that a grieving party shall attempt to reach a verbal agreement with his/her supervisor or the appropriate Department Head. If a verbal agreement cannot be reached, a written grievance can then be pursued through three steps, beginning with a written grievance addressed to the Department Head. The portion of the process calling for an attempted verbal agreement between the supervisor (Sergeant) or the Department Head (Police Chief) seems a statement of the obvious--employees should attempt to resolve informally their grievances prior to initiating a formal written grievance. Particularly considering that an employee can approach either the Sergeant or the Police Chief with a concern under this policy, it cannot be found that the Sergeant has real authority to "adjust grievances." The Police Chief, not the Sergeant, establishes performance standards for the Police Officers. The Sergeant has a very limited role in taking corrective actions to implement performance standards. As discussed more fully above, the Sergeant might speak to a Police Officer about a performance issue but any real "discipline" is forwarded to the Police Chief for his action. In summary, an evaluation of the criteria of 966(1) shows that the Sergeant position exercises limited supervisory authority that could place him in conflict with the Police Officers, and he spends comparatively little time performing supervisory functions. He exercises no authority in many areas (such as hiring, discharging, evaluating, and adjusting grievances) that would lead to conflict with the Police Officers. The Police Officers function quite independently on their shifts -14- _________________________________________________________________ and the Sergeant has limited opportunity to oversee and supervise their work in any fashion that could lead to conflict. Therefore, the hearing examiner concludes that the Sergeant does not exert such extensive supervisory authority to warrant his placement in a separate bargaining unit. Public Works Foreman Considering the first portion of the test outlined in 966(1) (whether the principal functions of the Foreman position involve scheduling, assigning, overseeing or reviewing the work of subordinate employees), the PW Director schedules all public works employees. The PW Director prioritizes the public works projects and makes employee assignments along with the Foreman. The Foreman has a limited role in making assignments during the winter, such as during snow storms when the PW Director turns over coverage issues to the Foreman. Unlike the Police Officers, the PW employees function independently only on limited occasions, such as when they are assigned to patch roads. More often, either the PW Director or the Foreman are on-site making sure that materials and equipment are on site and that work in being performed properly. In this oversight role, the Foreman might, for instance, remind an employee to put on his safety vest or instruct an employee on the proper way to do a job. However, the PW Director always maintains the ultimate authority to enforce on-the-job standards by the use of discipline and evaluations. The Foreman has no real role in either of these areas and agreed that he would refer any real performance problems on the job to the PW Director. Much like the Sergeant, the Foreman is "in charge" in the absence of the PW Director, either at a job site or when the PW Director is on vacation or otherwise absent. When the PW Director is absent, the responsibilities of the Foreman increase (for example, the Foreman will meet with the Town Manager daily -15- _________________________________________________________________ to see if there are any new public works problems that need to be addressed). Just as in the police department, however, true supervisory authority continues to rest with the PW Director even when he is absent. Any major problems or issues in the public works department await the return of the PW Director, or are forwarded to the Town Manager. The supervisory duties performed by the Foreman do not constitute the principal functions of his position. The Foreman performs a minimal amount of real supervisory duties, and spends the "majority" of his day performing the same type of day-to-day public works duties as the other employees [Tr. at 64]. The job description for the Foreman describes the primary duty of the position as a "working foreman" [Exh. No. 3]. The Board has long found that the principal functions of "line" or "working" foremen are not supervisory and that such foremen may be included in the bargaining unit with those employees whom they supervise, without undue conflict. See e.g. Winthrop School Department Food Service Employees, UPIU and Winthrop School Department, No. 97-UD-11, slip op. at 13 (MLRB Aug. 27, 1997) (neither main site manager nor satellite managers have as their principal functions any significant degree of management control duties); Teamsters Local Union No. 48 and Van Buren Light and Power District, No. 85-UD-14, slip op at 8-9 (MLRB 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 warrant exclusion from proposed unit); and 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). Considering both the type of supervisory functions the Foreman 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 -16- _________________________________________________________________ prong of 966(1). The Foreman performs no duties that are "distinct and dissimilar" from the duties performed by the supervised employees, the second prong of the 966(1) test. The Foreman does not have significant authority in the areas of 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 PW Director and the Town Manager. As to the third prong of the test outlined in 966(1), the Foreman has the same limited role in adjusting grievances under the town grievance policy as the Sergeant, discussed above. The PW Director, not the Foreman, establishes performance standards for the public works employees and has the only substantial authority (through discipline and evaluations) to take corrective actions to implement those performance standards. In summary, an evaluation of the criteria of 966(1) shows that the Foreman position exercises limited supervisory authority that could place him in conflict with the public works employees, and he spends comparatively little time performing supervisory functions. He exercises no authority in many areas (such as hiring, discharging, evaluating, and adjusting grievances) that would lead to conflict with the other employees. Therefore, he may be placed in the same bargaining unit as those employees whom he supervises. 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: -17- _________________________________________________________________ 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. 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 who exercise greater supervisory functions than the Sergeant and the Foreman under consideration here exercise have been included in a bargaining unit with their subordinates.[fn]3 For all of the reasons stated above, the hearing examiner finds that the duties of the Sergeant and the Foreman do not create such supervisory conflict that they should be placed in a separate two-person bargaining unit. As the employer has stipulated that the Sergeant and the Foreman share a community of interest with the other positions in the Dexter general ____________________ 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. -18- _________________________________________________________________ government unit, these two positions should be included in that unit. CONCLUSION 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 November 7, 2002, by Betty L. Burns on behalf of the AFSCME, Council 93 is granted. The following described unit is held to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining: INCLUDED: Ambulance/EMT-Driver, Ambulance/EMT, Ambulance/ Driver, Assistant Librarian, Building Maintenance & Parks/ Assistant, General Administration/Deputy Clerk, Human Services/ Welfare Clerk, Police Officer, Police Sergeant, Police Department/ Secretary-Dispatcher, Public Works/Driver- Equipment Operator, Public Works/Driver-Mechanic, Public Works/Driver-Laborer, and Public Works/Foreman. EXCLUDED: Reserve Police Officer, Seasonal Public Works/Driver, Per Diem Ambulance/EMT-Driver and all other employees of the Town of Dexter. A bargaining agent election for this unit will be conducted forthwith. Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 13th day of March, 2003. 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 Chapter 10 and Chap. 11 30 of the Board Rules. -19- ______________________________________________________________________________