STATE OF MAINE

MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case No. 18-UC-01
Issued: April 12, 2018

OXFORD COUNTY,
Petitioner,

and

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 340,
Public Employer.

 

UNIT CLARIFICATION REPORT

 

	  PROCEDURAL HISTORY

     This unit clarification proceeding was initiated on 
December 21, 2017, when Ms. Annalee Rosenblatt filed a petition 
for unit clarification on behalf of Oxford County with the Maine 
Labor Relations Board ("Board"), seeking the inclusion of the 
position of Detective in the Oxford County Sheriff's Department 
Criminal Investigation Division (CID) bargaining unit.  Teamsters 
Local Union No. 340, the certified bargaining agent for the CID 
bargaining unit, filed a timely response to the petition on 
January 5, 2018.  Due notice having been given, an evidentiary 
hearing on the petition was scheduled to be held on March 22, 
2018.  On March 19, 2018, the parties brought the undersigned into 
a conference call.  During that call, the undersigned clarified 
that the only issues in the pending proceeding were whether the 
statutory pre-requisites for a unit clarification had been met 
and, if so, whether the Detective classification shared a clear 
and identifiable community of interest with the Captain and
Lieutenant positions that constituted the CID bargaining unit.  
As a result of the conference call and a subsequent exchange of e-
mail messages with and between the parties, the parties were able 
to stipulate to the relevant facts on March 29, 2018, obviating 


[end of page 1]


the necessity of an evidentiary hearing in this matter.  The 
stipulation was received by the Board on April 10, 2018.


                    STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES

    The parties have stipulated to the following facts:

1)  The Petitioner, Oxford County, is the public employer and the 
Respondent, Teamsters Local Union No. 340, is the certified 
bargaining agent for the CID employees bargaining unit.

2)  The CID employees bargaining unit was formed by agreement of 
the parties, as a consequence of the filing of a petition for unit 
determination and bargaining unit election filed by the Teamsters 
on March 20, 2017.

3)  The petition sought the formation of a bargaining unit 
consisting of the Captain and Lieutenant classifications in the 
CID of the Oxford County Sheriff's Department. 

4)  At the time that the petition was prepared and filed and when 
the unit agreement was reached on March 27, 2017, there were no 
employees in any other position in the CID, other than those in 
the Captain and Lieutenant classifications.

5)  Since there were no other employees in the CID at that time, 
the Teamsters were unaware whether there were any vacant positions 
in the division.  The Teamsters neither asked nor did the County 
inform the Teamsters whether there were any vacant positions in 
the CID during the discussions that resulted in the unit 
agreement.

6)  The unit agreement provides that the bargaining unit includes 
the classifications/positions of Captain and Lieutenants and 
excludes "all other positions of the County."


[end of page 2]


7)  The position at issue, Detective, is now filled with a full-
time employee.

8)  The Detective shares a clear and identifiable community of 
interest with the employees in the Captain and Lieutenant 
classifications in the CID bargaining unit.

9)  The parties have been unable to agree on the change being 
sought through the unit clarification petition and there is no 
pending question concerning representation.


                           JURISDICTION

     The jurisdiction of the executive director to hear this 
matter and to make a determination lies in 26 M.R.S.   966(1), (2) 
and (3).


                            DISCUSSION

     Section 966(3) of the Act sets forth four prerequisites for a 
petition for unit clarification.  These are:  1) the petitioner 
must be either the employer or the certified or recognized 
bargaining agent; 2) the circumstances surrounding the formation 
of the bargaining unit must have changed sufficiently to warrant 
change in the composition of the unit; 3) the parties are unable 
to agree on the proposed change; and 4) there is no pending 
question concerning representation.  Factors 1, 3 and 4 were 
stipulated to by the parties.

     The unit in question was created by agreement of the parties 
and, since the Detective position was vacant at the time, the 
Union did not know that it existed.  The Union neither asked 
whether there were any other positions in the division nor did the 
County volunteer that there were.  Filling a vacant position that 

      
[end of page 3]
      
      
had not previously been filled with a full-time employee 
constitutes a substantial change in the circumstances surrounding 
the formation of the unit in this case sufficient to warrant 
modification in the composition of the unit.

     The parties have stipulated that the Detective shares a clear 
and identifiable community of interest with the Captain and
Lieutenant positions that constitute the CID bargaining unit.  
Since they share a clear and identifiable community of interest as 
required by   966(2) of the Act, the Captain, Lieutenant, and 
Detective classifications in the Oxford County Sheriff's Depart-
ment Criminal Investigation Division, together, constitute an 
appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining.


                            CONCLUSION

     On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and 
discussion, and by virtue of and pursuant to the provisions of 
26 M.R.S.A.   966, the hearing examiner ORDERS:

     1.  The petition for unit clarification brought by Oxford 
County is granted.

     2.  The composition of the Oxford County Sheriff's Department 
Criminal Investigation Division bargaining unit is modified by the 
inclusion of the Detective classification.

Dated this 12th day of April 2018

	                            /s/___________________________
	                            Marc P. Ayotte
	                            Executive Director



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.


[end of page 4]