Augusta Uniformed Firefighters Assoc., Local 1650, IAFF and City of Augusta,
No. 85-UC-02, reversed by Board in 85-A-02.



      STATE OF MAINE                              MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
                                                  Case No. 85-UC-02
                                                  Issued:  December 12, 1984
      
      _________________________________
                                       )
      AUGUSTA UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS   )
      ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1650, INTER-  )
      NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE     )
      FIGHTERS, AFL-CIO                )          UNIT CLARIFICATION REPORT
                                       )
                   and                 )
                                       )
      CITY OF AUGUSTA                  )
      _________________________________)
            
          This unit clarification proceeding was initiated on October 23,
      1984, when the Augusta Uniformed Firefighters Association, Local 1650,
      International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO ("Union") filed a
      petition for unit clarification pursuant to Section 966(3) of the
      Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act ("Act"), 26 M.R.S.A.
      Section 961, et seq.  A hearing on the petition was conducted by the
      undersigned hearing examiner for the Maine Labor Relations Board
      ("Board"), on November 20, 1984, at the Bureau of Labor Standards
      Conference Room, State Office Building, Augusta, Maine.  The Union was
      represented at the hearing by its President, Thomas Doore, and the
      Union's examination of witnesses was conducted by Martin S. Hayden,
      Esq.  The City of Augusta ("Employer") was represented at the hearing
      by Charles E. Moreshead, Esq.
      
          The Union's petition seeks the inclusion of the position of
      Platoon Chief into an existing bargaining unit composed of the uni-
      formed members of the Augusta Fire Bureau, "excepting only the
      Director of Public Safety and Chief Officers."  The grounds, alleged
      by the Union to mandate the change requested, are that the Employer
      has essentially eliminated two classifications in the fire department,
      those of Battalion Chief and Captain, and assigned the duties of the
      latter position, which has always been included in the relevant
      bargaining unit, to the Platoon Chief classification.  The Employer
      opposes the granting of the Union's petition on the grounds that, sub-
      sequent to the creation of the Platoon Chief position, the parties

                                     [-1-]       
      __________________________________________________________________________

      negotiated its exclusion from the parameters of the bargaining unit;
      therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction herein; or, if the Board does
      have such jurisdiction, the Platoon Chiefs are supervisory employees
      and should be placed in a separate bargaining unit from the employees
      whom they supervise.
      
          The Union presented the following witnesses at the hearing:

               Thomas Doore                  Firefighter
               Norman Arbour                 Platoon Chief
      
          The Employer presented the following witnesses:

               Richard D. Griffin            Director of Public Safety
               John H. Crommett, Jr.         Platoon Chief
      
           The latter Employer witness listed above only testified on voir
      dire concerning the genesis of Employer Exhibit No. 1.  The following
      exhibits were admitted into the record:

               Union Exhibit No.   1       Seniority List 1983
               Union Exhibit No.   2       Seniority List, January 1, 1984
               Union Exhibit No.   3       Seniority List, February 13, 1984
               Union Exhibit No.   4       Seniority List, April 5, 1984
               Union Exhibit No.   5       Job Description, Fire Captain
               Union Exhibit No.   6       Job Description, Battalion Chief
               Union Exhibit No.   7       Job Description, Fire Lieutenant
               Employer Exhibit No. 1      Proposed Job Description,
                                           Platoon Chief
               Board Exhibit No. 1         1983-1984 Collective Bargaining
                                           Agreement between the Union and
                                           the Employer
               Board Exhibit No. 2         Recognition Articles from 1967,
                                           1968, 1969, 1970 & 1971, 1973,
                                           1974-1975, 1976, 1977-1978,
                                           1979-1981, and 1982 Collective
                                           Bargaining Agreements between the
                                           Union and the Employer
      
      Although initially objecting to the admission of Employer Exhibit No.
      1 on the grounds that it had not been previously made available to the

                                      -2- 
      __________________________________________________________________________
          
      employees in the Platoon Chief classification, the Union examined the
      Public Safety Director concerning said document.  Upon the Employer's
      motion, the prior decision excluding said document from the record was
      reversed. The above-listed documents were the only ones offered at
      the hearing.  The parties were afforded full opportunity to examine
      and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence, and to make argu-
      ment.
      
      
                                   JURISDICTION
      
          The Petitioner, Augusta Uniformed Firefighters Association, Local
      1650, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, is the cer-
      tified bargaining agent, within the definition of 26 M.R.S.A. Section
      962(2), of a bargaining unit composed of the uniformed members of the
      Augusta Fire Bureau, "excepting only the Director of Public Safety and
      Chief Officers."  The City of Augusta is the public employer, within
      the meaning of Section 962(7) of the Act, of the employees whose
      classifications are included in the foregoing bargaining unit, as well
      as of the Platoon Chiefs.  The jurisdiction of the hearing examiner to
      hear this case and to rule on the petition for unit clarification lies
      in 26 M.R.S.A. Section 966.
      
      
                                 FINDINGS OF FACT
      
          Upon review of the entire record, the hearing examiner finds:
      
          1.  The Petitioner, Augusta Uniformed Firefighters Association,
      Local 1650, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, is the
      certified bargaining agent, within the definition of 26 M.R.S.A.
      Section 962(2), of a bargaining unit composed of the uniformed members
      of the Augusta Fire Bureau, "excepting only the Director of Public
      Safety and Chief Officers."
      
          2.  The City of Augusta is the public employer, within the meaning
      of 26 M.R.S.A. Section 962(7), of the employees whose job classifica-
      tions are included in the above-mentioned unit and of the Platoon
      Chiefs.
      
          3.  The Platoon Chiefs are public employees, as defined in

                                      -3- 
      __________________________________________________________________________
   
      Section 962(6) of the Act.
         
          4.  During 1978, the Augusta Fire and Police Departments were
      placed, as separate bureaus, into a unified Public Safety Department,
      under the command of a Director of Public Safety.  At the same time,
      the Fire Bureau was reorganized and, through attrition, the positions
      of Battalion Chief and Captain were eliminated.
      
          5.  The Battalion Chiefs had never been included in the bargaining
      unit, described in paragraph 1 above, while the Captains had always
      been included in said unit.
      
          6.  The position of Platoon Chief was created as part of the
      reorganization mentioned in paragraph 4 hereof.
      
          7.  The Employer and the Union have discussed the modification of
      the bargaining unit sought in this action and have been unable to
      agree thereon.
      
          8.  There is no question concerning representation raised in this
      proceeding.
      
          9.  The 1967 and 1968 collective bargaining agreements between the
      parties exempted "the Fire Chief and Deputy" from the uniformed fire-
      fighters' bargaining unit.  The 1969, 1970-1971, 1973, 1974-1975,
      1976, 1977-1978, 1979-1981, and 1982 collective bargaining agreements
      between the parties excluded "the Fire Chief and Chief Officers" from
      the relevant unit and the 1983-1984 agreement exempted "the Director
      of Public Safety and Chief Officers" therefrom.
      
         10.  No evidence was presented at the hearing that the parties
      have, as part of the collective negotiations which have resulted in
      any of the aforementioned agreements, ever negotiated either the
      inclusion or exclusion of the Platoon Chiefs in relation to the rele-
      vant bargaining unit.
      
         11.  The work performed by the Platoon Chiefs includes directing
      firefighting operations at the fire scene, assigning inspection work,
      and supervising the care of equipment and living quarters at the fire
      station. The Platoon Chiefs also engage in firefighting activities
      and in building inspections.

                                      -4-
      __________________________________________________________________________  
          
         12.  The Fire Bureau is under the command of the Director of Public
      Safety.  The rest of the chain-of-command, in order of rank, is as
      follows:  Deputy Fire Chief, Platoon Chief, Captain, Lieutenant,
      Sergeant and Private.  The positions of Captain and Sergeant are
      currently unfilled; the former has been vacant since 1979 and the
      latter has never been occupied.  The labor relations policies for the
      Platoon Chiefs, as well as for all of the other Fire Bureau employees,
      are determined by the Director of Public Safety and by the collective
      bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Union.
      
         13.  The Platoon Chiefs, like the other employees in the relevant
      unit, receive a weekly salary, based on a 54-hour work week, and are
      eligible for overtime pay.  Since the creation of the position, the
      Platoon Chiefs have always been compensated at the rate specified for
      Captains in the collective bargaining agreements between the parties.
      The Battalion Chiefs were paid a weekly salary, at the rate now paid
      to the Deputy Chief, and they were not eligible for overtime.
      
         14.  The Platoon Chiefs receive all of the benefits outlined in the
      collective bargaining agreement for the relevant unit, work the same
      hours as the unit employees, and, like said employees, reside at the
      fire station while on duty.  The Battalion Chiefs worked different
      shifts from the unit employees and did not reside with the men while
      on duty.
      
         15.  The Platoon Chiefs possess the same basic qualifications as
      the unit employees; however, they have greater skill and training,
      commensurate with their higher rank and greater experience.
      
         16.  The Platoon Chiefs are in constant contact with the unit
      employees and there is a good deal of interchange between them in
      that, when the Platoon Chiefs are absent, they are replaced by
      Lieutenants, and the Platoon Chiefs perform the same work as the
      Privates, as the need arises.
      
         17.  In relation to geographic proximity, the Platoon Chiefs reside
      and work out of the same fire stations as the other unit employees.
      
         18.  Until recently, the parties had not discussed the status of
      the Platoon Chiefs in relation to the relevant bargaining unit. The

                                      -5-
      __________________________________________________________________________
                
      Employer has always considered that the Platoon Chiefs were excluded
      from said unit; however, said view was never expressed to the Union.
      The Union always felt that the Platoon Chiefs were included in the
      unit and said stance was based on the fact that the Platoon Chiefs'
      wages, hours, and working conditions have been consistent with the
      collective bargaining agreements between the parties and have always
      been adjusted to reflect changes negotiated in said agreements.
      
         19.  The incumbent Platoon Chiefs have, at at least one Union
      meeting, expressed the desire to be included in the current Uniformed
      Firefighters bargaining unit.
      
         20.  The bargaining unit noted in the preceding paragraph is a
      wall-to-wall unit of Fire Bureau employees, except for the Public
      Safety Director, Deputy Fire Chief, and Platoon Chiefs.
      
         21.  The relevant portion of the employer's organizational struc-
      ture is outlined in paragraph 12 above.
      
         22.  The principal functions of the Platoon Chiefs are charac-
      terized by the performance of such management control functions as
      assigning, overseeing, and reviewing the work of subordinate
      employees.
      
         23.  The Platoon Chiefs exercise judgment in adjusting grievances,
      apply established personnel policies and procedures, and evaluate the
      performance of subordinate employees.
      
         24.  The Platoon Chiefs have no power to suspend subordinate
      employees; however, like the Lieutenants, they may recommend the impo-
      sition of discipline.  Although they do enforce personnel rules and
      procedures, the Platoon Chiefs do not have access to other employees'
      personnel records.
      
         25.  As bargaining unit members, the Lieutenants have not
      experienced problems or conflicts in performing their supervisory
      duties.
      
         26.  Lieutenants have, in the past, served as Union president and
      vice-president and have been members of the Union's negotiating team.
      Article VIII of the current collective bargaining agreement between
      the parties sets forth salaries, including step increases, for both
      
                                      -6-
      __________________________________________________________________________

      the Lieutenants and the Captains. 
                   
         27.  During February or March of 1984, one of the Platoon Chiefs
      grieved the issuance of Union Exhibit No. 3.  The Platoon Chief
      involved requested and received Union representation for the prosecu-
      tion of his grievance. The grievance was settled through a compromise
      at the Director of Public Safety's level.
      
         28.  Platoon Chiefs attend Union meetings and have discussed
      collective bargaining proposals, concerning wages and benefits, with
      members of the Union bargaining team.
      
         29.  The proposed job description for the position of Platoon Chief
      is in many ways identical with that for the Fire Captain classifica-
      tion.  Of the eight "Examples of Work" listed in the former document,
      five were taken almost verbatim from the latter.  Eight of the ten
      "Requirements of Work" in the Platoon Chief's draft job description
      are essentially identical with those listed in the Fire Captain
      specification.
      
         30.  There are four employees in the Platoon Chief classification
      and three Lieutenants.
      
      
                                     DECISION
      
          At the outset of the hearing, the Employer objected to the Board's
      asserting jurisdiction in this matter on the grounds that the parties
      had negotiated over the bargaining unit status of the Platoon Chiefs
      and had agreed to exclude said classification from the bargaining unit
      in question.  The Employer based its argument on the language of the
      recognition clause, Article II, of the current collective bargaining
      agreement between the parties.  The relevant portion of Article II
      states:
      
               "The City recognizes the Union as the sole and exclu-
          sive bargaining agent for the uniformed members of the Fire
          Bureau, excepting only the Director of Public Safety and
          Chief Officers, for the purpose of collective bargaining
          and entering into agreements relative to wages, hours and
          working conditions."
      
      Rule 1.13(A) of the Board's Rules and Procedures provides that a peti-
      tion for unit clarification "may be denied if . . . the petition

                                      -7-
      __________________________________________________________________________      
           
      attempts to modify the composition of the bargaining unit as nego-
      tiated by the parties and the alleged changes therein have been made
      prior to negotiations on the collective bargaining agreement presently
      in force."  Although the change in this case, the creation of the
      Platoon Chief classification in 1978, clearly preceded the nego-
      tiations which resulted in the current agreement, the foregoing Rule
      does not require dismissal of the Union's petition.  Addressing a
      situation similar to that now before the hearing examiner, the full
      Labor Relations Board has stated:
      
               "One contention by the City deserves comment.  This is
          the argument that the hearing examiner should have denied
          the Petition under Rule 1.13(A) of the Board's Rules and
          Procedures without reaching the merits.  This argument over-
          looks the fact that application of Rule 1.13(A), which sets
          forth instances when unit clarification petitions may be
          denied, is within the discretion of the hearing examiner.
          Particularly where, as here, the employer creates a new
          position to perform work formerly performed by unit members
          is the hearing examiner warranted in proceeding to a com-
          plete and thorough consideration of the merits of the peti-
          tion.  The hearing examiner committed no error by failing
          to evoke Rule 1.13(A) to deny the Petition."
      
      AFSCME, Council 74 and City of Brewer, MLRB No. 79-A-01, at 5
      (Oct. 17, 1979) (Emphasis by the Board).  Rule 1.13(A) does not, under
      the circumstances of this case, require dismissal of the petition.
      
          The Union countered the Employer's jurisdictional argument by
      introducing relevant provisions of past collective bargaining agree-
      ments between the parties. The documents demonstrated that, although
      the Platoon Chief classification was not created until approximately
      1978, the "Chief Officers" have been excluded from the bargaining unit
      at issue since 1969.  It is clear to the hearing examiner that the
      exclusionary language, when adopted, was meant to apply to the Deputy
      Chief and the Battalion Chief positions.  No evidence was presented
      that the parties ever negotiated the unit status of the Platoon
      Chiefs, subsequent to the elimination of the Battalion Chief and
      Captain classifications.  The Employer has always considered that the
      Platoon Chiefs were excluded from the unit; however, said belief was
      never communicated to the Union.  The Union, on the other hand, has
      always held the opinion that the Platoon Chiefs were included in the

                                      -8-
      __________________________________________________________________________
           
      relevant unit.  The Union's opinion, although never expressed to the
      Employer, is reasonable in that it is based on the fact that the
      Platoon Chiefs' wages, hours, and working conditions have always been
      consistent with those set by the relevant collective bargaining
      agreements and have been adjusted to reflect negotiated changes
      therein.  Furthermore, the Platoon Chiefs have attended Union meetings
      and have discussed collective bargaining proposals with members of the
      Union's negotiating team.  Since the negotiated agreements control the
      Platoon Chiefs' wages, hours, and working conditions, the Union team
      members have actively sought the Platoon Chiefs' input thereon.
      Finally, during February or March of 1984, one of the Platoon Chiefs
      requested and received Union representation for the prosecution of a
      grievance.  The dispute was settled at the Director of Public Safety's
      level of the grievance procedure.
      
          The four procedural prerequisites to the exercise of jurisdiction,
      outlined in Section 966(3) of the Act, are present in this case.
      The Union is the currently certified bargaining agent for the unit in
      contention and is also the petitioner in this action. The parties
      have attempted and failed to reach agreement on the unit modification
      sought and there is no question herein concerning representation.
      In light of all of the facts in this action, the hearing examiner
      concludes that the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction herein.
      
          Turning to the merits of the case, the first relevant issue is
      whether the statutory standard, warranting modification in the com-
      position of a bargaining unit, has been met herein.  Section 966(3) of
      the Act requires that, to warrant modification in the composition of
      an existing bargaining unit, the circumstances surrounding the for-
      mation of that unit must have "changed sufficiently."  The following
      significant changes were substantiated by the evidence:  the virtual
      elimination of the bargaining unit position of Captain, the creation
      of the Platoon Chief classification, and, as evidenced by the simi-
      larities between their respective job descriptions, the assignment of
      the Captains' duties to the Platoon Chiefs.  The hearing examiner
      holds that these changes are sufficient to warrant modification of the
      existing Uniformed Firefighters bargaining unit.  This holding is con-
      tingent upon resolution of the remaining issues in a manner consistent

                                      -9- 
      __________________________________________________________________________
      
      with the relief sought.
           
          Section 966(2) of the Act requires that, in order to be included
      in the same bargaining unit, job classifications must share a "clear
      and identifiable community of interest."  In evaluating the presence
      or absence of the requisite community of interest among particular
      employee positions, the Labor Relations Board has developed and con-
      sistently applied a set of eleven criteria.  The relevant community of
      interest factors are:
      
          "(1) similarity in the kind of work performed [11]; (2)
           common supervision and determination of labor-relations
           policy [12]; (3) similarity in the scale and manner of
           determining earnings [13]; (4) similarity in employment
           benefits, hours of work and other terms and conditions
           of employment [14]; (5) similarities in the qualifica-
           tions, skills and training of employees [15]; (6) fre-
           quency of contact or interchange among the employees
           [16]; (7) geographic proximity [17]; (8) history of
           collective bargaining [18]; (9) desires of the affected
           employees [19]; (10) extent of union organization [20];
           and (11) the public employer's organizational structure
           [21 and 12]."
      
      AFSCME, Council 74 and City of Brewer, supra, at 3-4 [additions by
      hearing examiner]; cited with approval, Teamsters Local 48 and County
      of Cumberland, MLRB No. 84-A-04, at 11, n. 2 (April 25, 1984).
      The numbers appearing in brackets in the above quotation indicate the
      paragraph(s) of the foregoing findings of fact which is relevant to
      the evaluation criterion immediately preceding each bracket.
      
          The hearing examiner has considered the relevant findings of fact,
      independently and together, within the Board's community of interest
      analysis.  The hearing examiner concludes that the following factors
      clearly demonstrate that the Platoon Chief classification shares a
      clear and identifiable community of interest with the other positions
      in the Augusta Uniformed Firefighters' bargaining unit.  Although
      supervising and directing inspections and firefighting operations, the
      Platoon Chiefs also perform the same work as unit employees; the
      supervision and determination of labor relations policies for the
      Platoon Chiefs is the same as that for the unit employees; the Platoon
      Chiefs, like the unit employees, are compensated on a weekly basis,

                                     -10-
      __________________________________________________________________________      
                  
      based upon the same work week, are eligible for overtime, and their
      actual pay rates are determined by the collective bargaining agreement
      between the parties; the Platoon Chiefs receive the same benefits and
      work the same shifts as the other employees and they live at the fire
      station while on duty like the unit employees; the Platoon Chiefs are
      in constant contact with and have frequent interchange with the unit
      employees; the unit employees reside at and work out of the same sta-
      tions as the Platoon Chiefs; the bargaining unit represented by the
      Union includes all of the Fire Bureau's public employees; and the
      Platoon Chiefs are in the same division of the Employer's organiza-
      tional structure as the unit employees.  Militating against the result
      reached by the hearing examiner was the fact that the Platoon Chiefs
      have greater skills and have received more extensive training than
      have the other unit employees.  Since the collective bargaining
      history relative to the Platoon Chiefs was somewhat ambiguous and
      because the evidence of the Deputy Chiefs' desires was based in part
      on hearsay, neither of these factors was considered in the instant
      community of interest analysis.  Had they been taken into account,
      they would have supported the hearing examiner's conclusion.
      
          The Employer's major contention on the merits is that, as super-
      visory employees, the Platoon Chiefs should be placed in a separate
      bargaining unit, along with the Lieutenants.  There is no doubt that
      the Platoon Chiefs are supervisory employees, within the meaning of
      Section 966(1) of the Act.  The principal functions of the Platoon
      Chief classification are characterized by the performance of such
      management control functions as assigning, overseeing, and reviewing
      the work of subordinate employees.  The Platoon Chiefs exercise
      judgment in adjusting grievances, apply established personnel policies
      and procedures, and evaluate the performance of subordinate employees.
      Like the Lieutenants, the Platoon Chiefs may not suspend employees but
      may recommend the imposition of discipline to the Deputy Fire Chief
      for his action.  Although enforcing personnel rules and procedures,
      the Platoon Chiefs have no access to other employees' personnel files.
      The conclusion that the Platoon Chiefs are supervisory employees does
      not require that they be placed in a separate bargaining unit.  Maine
      School Administrative  District No. 14 and East Grand Teachers

                                     -11- 
      __________________________________________________________________________      
      
      Association, MLRB No. 83-A-09, at 12 (Aug. 24, 1983).
      
           Ideally, the two supervisory classifications in the Augusta Fire
      Bureau should be in the same bargaining unit.  The creation of such a
      unit would require severance of the Lieutenant position from the
      existing unit.  The controlling standard used in considering severance
      questions is the community of interest test discussed above.
      Teamsters Local 48 and County of Cumberland and Council 74, AFSCME,
      Unit Determination Report, at 9-10 (Mar. 16, 1984), aff'd., Council
      74, AFSCME and Teamsters Local 48 and Cumberland County, MLRB No.
      84-A-04 (Apr. 25, 1984).  As evidenced in the above discussion, there
      are no distinctions between the Lieutenants and the other unit
      employees, in any of the community of interest factors, except that
      the Lieutenants do exercise some supervisory authority over said
      employees.  The Lieutenants share a clear and identifiable community
      of interest with the other unit classifications.  Secondly, in
      applying the community of interest test to severance situations, spe-
      cial emphasis is given to the level of representation received by the
      employees whose severance is sought, within the context of the
      "history of bargaining" factor.  The hearing examiner discussed this
      emphasized criterion, at page 14 of the Cumberland County unit deci-
      sion, as follows:
      
          "The adequacy of representation by the incumbent bargaining
           agent is an important factor in the NLRB's consideration
           of severance petitions.  See, e.g., Bendix Corp., 227 NLRB
           1534, 1537-38 (1977); Beaunit Corp., 224 NLRB 1502, 1504-5
           (1976).  The NLRB holds, however, that 'a union that does
           not accede to all demands made upon it by the unit seeking
           to be severed cannot be accused of inadequately representing
           that unit based on that fact alone.'  Firestone Tire and
           Rubber Co., 223 NLRB 904, 906 (1976).  A number of factors
           are considered, including whether members of the proposed
           unit have participated in the affairs of the incumbent union
           by acting as stewards and bargaining team members, and
           whether any special provisions affecting the interests of
           the proposed unit have been included in bargaining agree-
           ments.  Bendix Corp., 227 NLRB at 1537; Beaunit Corp., 224
           NLRB at 1504."
      
      The evidence relevant to this inquiry presented at the hearing was
      that, in addition to not experiencing actual conflicts of loyalty as
      unit employees, the Lieutenants have served as officers of the Union

                                       -12-
      __________________________________________________________________________
            
      and have been members of the Union negotiating team in collective
      bargaining with the Employer.  Article VIII of the relevant collective
      bargaining agreement sets forth salaries, including step increases,
      for both the Lieutenants and the Captains.  The evidence presented,
      therefore, clearly militates against severance of the Lieutenants from
      the current bargaining unit.
      
          The non-severance of the Lieutenants means that, if the Platoon
      Chiefs are excluded from the present unit, the result would be the
      creation of a small, four-person supervisory unit.  The formation of
      such a unit would contravene the Board's policy of discouraging the
      proliferation, through fragmentation, of small bargaining units within
      a single department.  Town of Yarmouth and Teamsters Local 48, MLRB
      No. 80-A-04, at 4 (June 16, 1980).  This policy is based upon recogni-
      tion of the fact that the employer, the bargaining agent, and the
      State can all spend the same amount of effort, money, and services
      dealing with a small unit as is expended for a much larger one.  Maine
      School Administrative District No. 14, supra, at 13.
      
          The creation of the Platoon Chief classification and the assign-
      ment of the Captain's duties thereto represent a significant change in
      the circumstances which surrounded the formation of the Augusta
      Uniformed Firefighters bargaining unit and warrant a change in the
      composition of said unit. Although an essentially supervisory posi-
      tion, the Platoon Chief classification shares a clear and identifiable
      community of interest with the other positions in the aforementioned
      unit. Creation of a separate bargaining unit for the four Platoon
      Chiefs would result in undue unit fragmentation within the Augusta
      Fire Bureau. In light of all of the foregoing facts and discussion,
      the hearing examiner concludes that the Platoon Chiefs should be
      included in the Augusta Uniformed Firefighters bargaining unit and,
      subsequent to said modification, the resulting unit will remain
      appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
      
                                     ORDER
      
          On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and discussion,
      and by virtue of and pursuant to the powers granted in 26 M.R.S.A.
                  
                                       -13-
      __________________________________________________________________________

      Section 966, it is ORDERED:
      
          1.  The petition for unit clarification filed by the
              Augusta Uniformed Firefighters Association, Local
              1650, International Association of Firefighters,
              AFL-CIO, on October 23, 1984, is granted.
      
          2.  The Platoon Chief classification in the Augusta
              Fire Bureau is included in the Augusta Uniformed
              Firefighters bargaining unit.
      
   Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 12th day of December, 1984.

                                     MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
      
      
      
                                     /s/_______________________________
                                     Marc P. Ayotte
                                     Hearing Examiner
      
      
          The parties are advised of their right, pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A.
      Section 968(4), to appeal this report to the full Labor Relations
      Board by filing a notice of appeal with the Board within 15 days of
      the date of this report.
      
                                     -14- 
      __________________________________________________________________________