AFSCME and MSEA, No 84-A-01
STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case No. 84-A-01
Issued: August 24, 1983
___________________________________________
)
COUNCIL NO. 74, AMERICAN FEDERATION )
OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, )
AFL-CIO, )
)
Appellant, )
)
and ) INTERLOCUTORY
) DECISION AND ORDER
MAINE STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, )
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 48, and )
STATE OF MAINE, )
)
Appellees. )
___________________________________________)
This case is an appeal by Council No. 74, American Federation of State, County,
and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) of determinations issued on June 10, 1983
by the Executive Director that the Maine State Employees Association (MSEA) and
Teamsters Local Union No. 48 (Local 48) had submitted adequate showings of interest
with their representation petitions. These petitions include a petition for a de-
certification election filed by MSEA on April 22, 1983; a petition to intervene in
the decertification proceeding and a petition for unit determination filed by Local
48 on April 27, 1983; and a petition to intervene in the bargaining unit proceeding
filed by MSEA on May 10, 1983. All of these petitions involve the State of Maine
Institutional Services bargaining unit, which currently is represented for purposes
of collective bargaining by AFSCME, the certified bargaining agent.
A pre-hearing conference on the case was held on July 12, 1983 by Alternate
Chairman Donald W. Webber. Alternate Chairman Webber issued on July 13, 1983 a
Pre-Hearing Conference Memorandum and Order, the contents of which are incorporated
herein by reference.
The case was heard on July 19, 1983, Chairman Edward H. Keith presiding, with
Employer Representative Don R. Ziegenbein and Employee Representative Harold S.
Noddin. AFSCME was represented by Stephen P. Sunenblick, Esq., MSEA by Shawn C.
Keenan, Esq., Local 48 by Jonathan G. Axelrod, Esq., and the State by Gerard P.
Conley, Jr., Esq. Full opportunity was given to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
[-1-]
_____________________________________________________________________________________
introduce evidence, and make argument. Post-hearing briefs were filed, and have
been considered by the Board.
JURISDICTION
AFSCME is an "aggrieved" party within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. Section 979-G
(2). MSEA and Local 48 are labor organizations and the State is the public employer.
The jurisdiction of the Maine Labor Relations Board to hear this appeal and render a
decision and order lies in Section 979-G(2).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon review of the entire record,[fn]1 the Labor Relations Board finds:
1. The Institutional Services bargaining unit is composed of approximately
1,350 employees employed by the State of Maine in various institutions such as the
Maine State Prison, the Pineland Center, and the Bangor Mental Health Institute.
AFSCME has been the certified bargaining agent for this bargaining unit since
1977. The most recent contract negotiated by AFSCME and the State expired on
June 30, 1983.
2. In late 1982 and early 1983 both MSEA and Local 48 began organizing drives
among the employees in the Institutional Services unit to decertify AFSCME as the
bargaining agent. In addition, Local 48 seeks to "break out" a separate bargain-
ing unit from the existing unit. This proposed new unit would consist of the Depart-
ment of Corrections employees presently in the Institutional Services unit, a total
of about 430 employees.
3. Included with the various representation petitions filed by MSEA and Local
48 in April, 1983 were the "showings of interest" required by 26 M.R.S.A. Section
979F(2)(B) and (C), in the form of authorization cards signed by employees in the
Institutional Services unit. Local 48 submitted two showings of interest with its
petitions, one with its petition to intervene which amounted to at least 10% of
the members of the Institutional Services unit, and the second with its petition
for unit determination which amounted to at least 30% of the potential members of
the proposed Corrections bargaining unit. Some of the same cards were used by Local
__________
1/ Including, as agreed to by the parties, the record developed in MLRB Case
No. 83-24 as well as the record in Case No. 84-A-01.
-2-
____________________________________________________________________________________
48 for both showings of interest. One-hundred sixteen employees signed authoriza-
tion cards for both MSEA and Local 48, and both unions used these cards as part of
their showings of interest.
4. After examining the authorization cards submitted with the petitions,
the Executive Director set aside for various reasons 97 of the cards submitted by
MSEA, 18 of the cards submitted by Local 48 with its petition to intervene, and
18 of the cards submitted with Local 48's petition for unit determination. Among
the reasons the cards were set aside was that the card has been filled out and
signed in pencil; the person signing the card was not employed by the State as of
October 22, 1982, 6 months prior to the filing of MSEA's petition; and that the
person's name was not included in the list of bargaining unit employees provided by
the State. After deducting the set-aside cards from the total number of cards sub-
mitted by each union, the Executive Director determined that both MSEA and Local 48
had submitted a sufficient number of valid cards to satisfy the required showings
of interest.
5. The authorization cards submitted by MSEA state:
"I, the undersigned hereby designate the Maine State Employees
Association and its authorized agents to act as my sole and
exclusive representative for collective bargaining with respect
to terms and conditions of employment, the negotiation of col-
lective agreements and any questions arising thereunder . . .
I hereby revoke all other authorizations, if any, previously
made for such purpose."
Local 48 submitted two different authorization cards. One of the cards states in
pertinent part, "I . . . authorize Local No. 48 . . . to represent me in negotiations
for better wages, hours and working conditions," while the second card states in part,
under the caption "State, County, Municipal and University Employees of Maine
Teamsters Local Union No. 48:" "I hereby authorize you, or your agents and repre-
sentatives to act for me as collective bargaining agent on all matters pertaining
to rates of pay, hours, or any other condition of employment."
6. Some of the cards submitted by MSEA were solicited by supervisors who are
members of the State Supervisory Services bargaining unit, which is represented for
purposes of collective bargaining by MSEA. An example of a supervisor who collected
cards for MSEA is Carol Harlow, a team leader in charge of a ward at the Bangor
Mental Health Institute (BMHI) and a member of the Supervisory Services bargaining
unit. Michael Chambers, a BMHI employee who is supervised by Harlow, saw Harlow ask
3 employees to sign MSEA authorization cards. Chambers testified that Harlow was
not the supervisor of the 3 employees, that he had never seen her solicit cards
from any of the employees she supervised, and that the 3 employees may have
-3-
____________________________________________________________________________________
initiated their card-signing encounters with Harlow. One of the 3 employees,
Tim Davis, did initiate the discussion with Harlow by telling her that he was
dissatisfied with AFSCME and wanted to sign an MSEA card. A fourth BMHI employee,
Wayne Babb, testified that Harlow handed him a card and asked him to sign it as he
walked past her. Harlow was not Babb's supervisor, and Babb did not sign the card.
7. Douglas Nash, an employee at BMHI, saw a psychologist ask another em-
ployee to sign an MSEA card. Nash testified the psychologist was not his super-
visor, that he did not know whether the psychologist was the supervisor of the
employee who was solicited, and that he did not know whether the psychologist was a
member of MSEA.
8. Another BMHI employee, Charlotte Carter, testified that an employee brought
an MSEA representative up to her while she was working and the representative asked
Carter if she wanted to sign a card. Carter said she didn't, and the representa-
tive stayed in the area awhile and talked to other employees. Carter's supervisor
walked by, saw the MSEA representative, and said, "oh, you represent my union,"
and then left. Carter testified that the supervisor did not know that the represen-
tative had been soliciting cards, however.
9. Dan Warner, an employee at Pineland, testified that when he called the
shift supervisor on April 18, 1983, a state holiday, she said "MSEA is on the
grounds." The supervisor said she didn't know where the MSEA representatives
were and that she didn't want to call anyone to check because she didn't want to
bother anyone. Warner, who had been in an adversarial position with the supervisor
over contract questions, looked around for MSEA representatives but did not find any.
Warner also testified that he had never seen an MSEA representative in a work area
at Pineland.
10. Harry Finnemore, a guard at the Prison, was asked by a secretary if he
was interested in signing an MSEA card while he was copying some documents in an
administrative area. Mary McAleney, an MSEA staff representative, was with the
secretary at the time. One would have to go through Prison security to get to the
administrative area where this encounter took place.
11. The only evidence of a supervisor soliciting an employee he/she supervised
is the testimony of Frank Mack, the Director of Personnel in the Department of
Corrections. Mack confirmed one instance of a supervisor soliciting a card from a
supervised employee, and then took action to see that such solicitation did not
occur again.
-4-
____________________________________________________________________________________
12. Local 48 concentrated some of its organizing efforts in the State Pri-
son. At one organizing meeting for prison employees attended by Jay Carlson, a
Steward at the Prison, Local 48 representatives said that they were getting em-
ployees to sign authorization cards so that they could try to get a separate
bargaining unit of Prison employees. Carlson understood that Local 48 was trying
to establish a separate unit and was trying to replace AFSCME as the bargaining
agent of the unit. One Prison employee who solicited cards for Local 48 was
John Eckhardt. Eckhardt asked Harry Finnemore if he wanted to sign a card to
get a vote to do away with AFSCME, explaining that Local 48 would try to get
the bargaining unit split between the Corrections and Mental Health and Retarda-
tion Departments. Finnemore said he was not interested so Eckhardt did not give
him a card.
13. The only evidence in the record suggesting that some cards may have been
signed under false pretenses is an incident where a Pineland employee, David
Beaulieu, asked Paul Wiers and a group of about 10 other Pineland employees to
fill out cards which Beaulieu called MSEA "survey cards." Wiers signed a card which
was submitted with MSEA's showing of interest, but testified that he didn't know
if any other employee signed.
DECISION
AFSCME urges that we must overturn the Executive Director's determinations that
MSEA and Local 48 submitted adequate showings of interest for several reasons, in-
cluding 1) that employees who signed authorization cards for both MSEA and Local
48 at the very least revoked the card they signed first, 2) that supervisors who
belong to MSEA improperly solicited a large number of the cards submitted by MSEA,
or improperly allowed MSEA representatives to solicit the cards, 3) that some cards
were obtained under false pretenses in that the employees were told that the cards
would be used only for one purpose when they were actually used for another purpose,
and 4) that the cards submitted by both unions do not comply with Rule 2.03 of the
Election Rules. We find that while a few cards must be invalidated because they
may have been obtained under false pretenses, the remainder of AFSCME's allegations
are meritless. Because the invalid cards have no effect on either union's showings
of interest, we will affirm the Executive Director's determinations, dismiss AFSCME's
-5-
____________________________________________________________________________________
appeal, and remand this case to the Executive Director for further proceedings.[fn]2 -6-
1. The "Dual Cards." AFSCME urges that under the well-known "dual card"
rule, at the very least the first card signed by employees who signed cards for
both MSEA and Local 48 must be invalidated. However, as the case in which the
National Labor Relations Board announced the "dual card" rule and as the cases
cited by AFSCME make clear, that rule applies only when a union is using the cards
to show that it has majority support among the employees so that the employer
is obligated to bargain with the union. See, e.g., Harry Stein and Arthur Calder,
46 NLRB 129, 130131 (1942); NLRB v. Unit Train Coal Sales, Inc., 636 F.2d 1121,
1125 (6th Cir. 1980); NLRB v. Atlas Lumber Co., 611 F.2d 26, 28 (3rd Cir. 1979).
The rationale for this rule is that an employer should not recognize and bargain
with a union unless a majority of the cards "reflect a clear and unambiguous
selection of a collective bargaining representative." NLRB v. Hi-Temp, Inc.,
503 F.2d 583, 586 (7th Cir. 1974).
Quite a different rule applies when the cards are being used for a showing
of interest, however; both "dual cards" should be counted for showing of in-
terest purposes:
". . . we are satisfied that the IBEW has made an adequate showing
of interest. There is no reason why employees, if they so desire, may
not join more than one labor organization. The election, hereafter
directed, will determine which labor organization, if any, the employ-
ees wish to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining."
__________
2/ The parties agreed in a meeting with our counsel after the July 19th hear-
ing that cards signed by employees hired subsequent to October 22, 1982
(6 months prior to the filing of MSEA's decertification petition) should
not be counted. Our review of the cards reveal that the Executive Director
set aside all cards of employees hired after that date, although technically
the correct "cut-off" date with regard to Local 48's petitions is October
27, 1982. The parties also agreed that 26 employees listed by the State
as "ineligible" in its list of bargaining unit members were eligible to
sign cards. The Executive Director counted these employees when computing
the total membership of the unit but then set aside the cards signed by
these employees. If these cards were counted, MSEA would receive 8 valid
cards.
We also note that if we had to review the cards set aside by the Executive
Director, we would count a number of them - for example, those filled out
in pencil which are legible and those on which the signature contains an
initial for the first name - i.e., where the employee signed his name
"R. S. Smith" instead of "Richard S. Smith." It is not necessary for us to
review these cards, however, because both unions have an adequate showing of
interest without the set-aside cards.
-6-
____________________________________________________________________________________
Brooklyn Borough Gas Co., 110 NLRB 18, 20 (1954); see also Duquesne Light Co.,
Case No. 6-RC-7821 at 3 (NLRB 1977). The purpose of the showing of interest
requirement is, not to show that a union represents a clear and unambiguous
majority of the employees, but merely "to determine whether there is a demon-
stration of enough genuine employee interest in a union to justify the ex-
penditure of agency resources for an election." Quick Find Co., 259 NLRB 1051,
1062 (1982). We think it entirely logical that employees would sign cards for
two or more unions in order to get a decertification election; some employees might
not know which, if any, union they favored and accordingly might wish to receive
information about several different unions during the election campaign. The
proper time for an employee during an election campaign to indicate his/her
final choice of a bargaining agent is of course at the election. To afford em-
ployees the opportunity to consider several different unions, "dual cards" signedby the employees should be counted in any showing of interest determination. We
therefore conclude that the Executive Director did not err when he counted "dual
cards" submitted by MSEA and Local 48 as part of their showings of interest.
Our conclusion is not altered by the fact that MSEA's cards state: "I
hereby revoke all other authorizations, if any, previously made for such purpose."
Again, we find the National Labor Relation Board's practice persuasive:
"It is well settled that a showing of interest is not subject
to attack on grounds that the authorization cards on which it is
based have been revoked or withdrawn and that the question of
whether particular employees have changed their minds can best be
resolved on the basis of an election by secret ballot."
Frank Hagar, Inc., 230 NLRB 476 n.1 (1977); see also General Dynamics Corp., 175
NLRB 1035 (1969). The question whether employees have revoked or withdrawn their
authorization cards does not undermine the original showing of interest but merely
raises the question whether particular employees have changed their minds about
representation by the particular union. As we have noted, that question is best
settled by a secret ballot election. We conclude that the Executive Director
acted properly by not getting into the question of whether some of the "dual
cards" had been revoked.
2. Supervisory Influence. We must reject, for essentially three reasons,
AFSCME's contention that supervisory influence improperly tainted MSEA's showing
of interest. First, the record falls far short of showing that supervisors
collected, or deliberately allowed other persons to collect, a substantial number
-7-
____________________________________________________________________________________
of MSEA's cards; second, unlike the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) the
State Employees Labor Relations Act allows supervisors to engage in organiza-
tional and representational activities; and third, some of the employees in
the Supervisory Services bargaining unit would not be classified as supervisors
under the NLRA in any event, but would instead be called "leadman" or "working
foreman," and such employees are entitled to engage in organizational activi-
ties even under the NLRA.
We first note that the record does not support AFSCME's claim that there
was "substantial supervisory participation" in MSEA's organizational drive.
The evidence regarding supervisory participation in the collection of cards is
stated in Findings of Fact Nos. 6 through 11 in this decision. The only evi-
dence of a supervisor soliciting a card from an employee he/she supervised comes
from the testimony of Corrections Personnel Director Frank Mack, who stated that
he confirmed one instance of such solicitation and that action was taken to see
that it did not happen again. The evidence that Carol Harlow solicited at least
4 cards and Douglas Nash's testimony that a psychologist solicited a card hardly
is so probative as to lead us to infer that supervisors played a major role in
gathering cards.
The same is true of the evidence regarding AFSCME's claim that supervisors
allowed MSEA representatives to "roam at will" through the institutions collect-
ing cards. For example, while Charlotte Carter testified that her supervisor
did not tell the MSEA representative to leave the ward, she also testified that
the supervisor did not know that the representative was soliciting cards. We
fail to see how a supervisor can be said to have permitted MSEA to solicit cards
when she was not informed that that activity was occurring. For all the supervisor
knew, the representative could have been on the ward for a perfectly proper reason,
such as discussing a grievance with an employee. The other examples cited by
AFSCME are equally impersuasive; there is no direct evidence that MSEA representa-
tives were soliciting cards at Pineland on April 18th, and the evidence does not
show that Mary McAleney, an MSEA representative, was soliciting cards at the
Prison when a secretary asked Harry Finnemore if he wanted to sign a card.
We also note that unlike Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act,
29 U.S.C.A. 152(3), Section 979-A(6) of the State Employees Labor Relations Act
-8-
____________________________________________________________________________________
does not exclude supervisors from the definition of "employee."[fn]3 This means
that supervisors employed by the State are entitled to organize and to engage
in collective bargaining. See, e.g., State of Maine and MSEA, Report of Appel-
late Review at 7 (March 2, 1979). Moreover, Section 979-B guarantees supervisors
free exercise of the organizational and representational rights as are guaranteed
for all other state employees. Among the rights protected by Section 979-B
is the right to distribute and solicit union authorization cards during non-
working.times. See, e.g., Southern Airways Co., 124 NLRB 749, 752 (1959). We
therefore conclude that since supervisors are "state employees" under the Act
they are guaranteed the right to distribute and solicit authorization cards on
behalf of MSEA, AFSCME, or any other union. This means that the cards collected
by Carol Harlow or by any other supervisor are valid. Were we to hold, as AFSCME
urges, that supervisors are not entitled to engage in solicitation activity, we
would act contrary to the express language of the Act.[fn]5
Finally, it is apparent to us that some of the employees included in the
Supervisory Services bargaining unit would not qualify as "supervisors" under
__________
3/ Section 2(3) of the NLRA states in pertinent part:
"The term `employee' shall include any employee . . .
but shall not include . . . any individual employed as a
supervisor."
Section 979-A(6) excludes a number of different categories of persons
from the definition of "state employee," but does not exclude supervisors.
4/ Section 979-B of the Act states:
"No one shall directly or indirectly interfere with,
intimidate, restrain, coerce or discriminate against state
employees or a group of state employees in the free exercise
of their rights, hereby given, voluntarily to join, form,
and participate in the activities of organizations of their
own choosing for the purposes of representation and collective
bargaining, or in the free exercise of any other right under
this chapter."
5/ Because supervisors are "state employees," the cases cited by AFSCME which
hold that supervisors may not participate in organizational activity are
inapposite. If there was evidence that a supervisor coerced or pressured
an employee to sign a card, then we would invalidate that card as well as
any other cards gathered by the supervisor. No such evidence appears in
this case, however.
-9-
____________________________________________________________________________________
the NLRA in any event. A "supervisor" is defined by the NLRA to be
"any individual having authority, in the interest of the
employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote,
discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or
responsibly to direct them or to adjust their grievances, or
effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with
the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely
routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent
judgment."
29 U.S.C.A. Section 152(11). "Leadmen," "working foremen" and other employees
who direct employees but who do not possess the necessary supervisory authority
are of course included in bargaining units and are entitled to the free exercise
of all organizational and representational rights. See, e.g., NLRB v. Parma
Water Lifter Co., 211 F.2d 258, 261 (9th Cir. 1954).
We hereby take administrative notice of our recent review in a unit clarifica-
tion proceeding of various positions included in the Supervisory Services bargain-
ing unit,[fn]6 and find that some of the positions in the unit very likely are not
endowed with sufficient supervisory authority to qualify as a "supervisor" as
defined by the NLRA. There is a real question, which of course need not be re-
solved here, whether team leaders such as Harlow as well as various other employees
in the Supervisory Services bargaining are in fact "supervisors." If they are
not "supervisors" as defined by the NLRA but are instead "employees," then they
would of course be allowed to join bargaining units and solicit cards even under
the NLRA.
In short, AFSCME's contention that MSEA's cards are tainted by supervisory
influence is meritless. The Executive Director did not err by refusing to set
aside MSEA's showing of interest on the basis of AFSCME's allegation.
3. False Pretenses. AFSCME's allegation on this point is that some employ-
ees were told by the solicitors that the cards would be used for one purpose when
in fact the cards were used for other purposes. This contention apparently is
based on NLRB holdings that when employees sign cards based on the representation
that the cards will be used only to get an election, the cards are invalid under
some circumstances. See, e.g., Stride Rite Corp., 228 NLRB 224, 235236 (1977).
The test for determining whether such cards are valid is, considering what the
employees were told, whether there is evidence "to negate the overt action of the
__________
6/ Our decisions in this review are State of Maine and MSEA, MLRB No. 82-A-02
(Aug. 9, 1983) and State of Maine and MSEA, MLRB No. 82-A-02 (June 2, 1983).
-10-
____________________________________________________________________________________
employees in signing cards designating the Union as their bargaining agent."
Cumberland Shoe Corp., 144 NLRB 1268, 1269 (1963).
Again AFSCME's allegation is not supported by the record because there is no
evidence that the employees were told that the cards would be used for only one pur-
pose. Jay Carlson testified that Local 48 representatives stated at a meeting
that the cards would be used to get a separate bargaining unit of Prison employees,
but Carlson also stated that he understood that Local 48 was also trying to re-
place AFSCME as the bargaining agent of the unit. Similarly, when John Eckhardt
asked Harry Finnemore if he wanted to sign a Local 48 card, he explained that the
purposes of the card were to get a vote to do away with AFSCME and to try to split
the bargaining unit up. Since there is no evidence to negate the action of any em-
ployee who signed a Local 48 card, no cards can be invalidated on the basis of AFSCME's
allegation.
We also reject AFSCME's contention that a showing of interest can be used to
support only one representation petition. The logical extention of this argument
is the ludicrous position that a separate showing of interest would have to be sub-
mitted with every petition filed during a representation proceeding. Our practice
has been, and the only reasonable reading of the Election Rules is, that the same
showing of interest can be used in support of the bargaining unit petitions, election
petitions, and petitions to intervene filed by a particular union in any one repre-
sentation proceeding.
The only evidence that any cards were obtained under false pretenses is the
incident during which employee David Beaulieu asked Paul Wiers and about 10 other
employees to fill our MSEA "survey cards." Since these "survey cards" may have been
authorization cards, we hereby invalidate the card signed by Paul Weirs which was
submitted with MSEA's showing of interest. As the record does not disclose the
names of any other employees who may have signed cards based on Beaulieu's repre-
sentation, we are unable to invalidate any other cards. We note that even if we did
invalidate 10 more cards, this would have no effect on MSEA's showing of interest.
4. The Language of the Cards. AFSCME's final contention is that the language
on the cards does not comply with Rule 2.03 of the Election Rules, which states in
pertinent part that the petitioner shall submit evidence "that at least 30% of the
employees in the unit do not desire to be represented in their employment relations
by the existing bargaining agent." 12 - 180 CMR Chapt. 2, 2.03. MSEA's authori-
zation cards state in pertinent part:
-11-
____________________________________________________________________________________
"I, the undersigned hereby designate the Maine State Employees
Association and its authorized agents to act as my sole and
exclusive representative for collective bargaining with respect
to terms and conditions of employment, the negotiation of collec
tive agreements and any questions arising thereunder . . ."
Local 48 submitted two different types of authorization cards, one of which states
in part: "I . . . authorize Local No. 48 . . . to represent me in negotiations for
better wages, hours and working conditions," while the second card states in per-
tinent part: "I hereby authorize you, or your agents and representatives to act for
me as collective bargaining agent on all matters pertaining to rates of pay, hours,
or any other condition of employment."
By authorizing the respective unions to act as their bargaining agent, the
employees signing the cards obviously indicated a desire not to be represented by
AFSCME. The cards therefore comply fully with Rule 2.03. There is no requirement
that the language of the card parrot the language of the Rule, and we consider
AFSCME's allegation on this point to be frivolous.
Having concluded that the Executive Director committed no error in his determina-
tion, we will dismiss AFSCME's appeal, affirm the Executive Director's determinations
that both MSEA and Local 48 have satisfied their showing of interest requirements,
grant the petitions to intervene, and remand this case to the Executive Director with
instructions that he next consider the merits of Local 48's petition for unit deter-
mination as expeditiously as possible. The merits of this petition must be considered,
we believe, prior to proceeding to conduct any decertification election.
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and discussion and by virtue of
and pursuant to the powers granted to the Maine Labor Relations Board by 26 M.R.S.A.
Section 979G(2), it is ORDERED:
1. Council 74, AFSCME's appeal of the Executive Director's determinations is
denied.
2. The Executive Director's determinations that both MSEA and Local 48 have
satisfied the requisite showing of interest requirements is affirmed.
3. Both MSEA's petition to intervene in the bargaining unit proceeding initia-
ted by Local 48 and Local 48's petition to intervene in the decertification pro-
ceeding initiated by MSEA are granted.
-12-
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. This proceeding is remanded to the Executive Director with instructions
that he consider the merits of Local 48's petition for unit determination on as
expeditious a basis as possible.
Dated at Augusta, Maine this 24th day of August, 1983.
MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
/s/__________________________________
Edward H. Keith
Chairman
/s/__________________________________
Don R. Ziegenbein
Employer Representative
/s/__________________________________
Harold S. Noddin
Employee Representative
-13-
__________________________________________________________________________________