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]