City of Biddeford and AFSCME and Teamsters, No. 87-A-05, affirming 87-UC-01. STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Case No. 87-A-05 Issued: February 27, l987 ________________________________ ) CITY OF BIDDEFORD, ) ) Appellant, ) ) and ) ) LOCAL 2011-04, COUNCIL NO. 93, ) AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, ) COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, ) DECISION AND ORDER AFL-CIO, ) ) Appellee, ) ) and ) ) TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 48, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________) Pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 968(4) (Pamph. 1986) and in accordance with Maine Labor Relations Board (Board) Unit Determination Rule 1.10, this appeal was commenced on December 1, 1986, when Lloyd P. LaFontaine, Attorney for Appellant City of Biddeford (City), filed a Notice of Appeal of a Unit Clarification Report (Report) issued on November 14, 1986. That Report granted the petition of Local 2011-04, Council No. 93, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and clarified the City of Biddeford's Clerical/ Secretarial Bargaining Unit, represented for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining by AFSCME, to include a newly created Public Works Department clerical position. In the proceeding before the Hearing Examiner, the City and Teamsters Local Union No. 48 (Teamsters) contended that the position at issue was more appropriately included in the Public Works Non- Supervisory Unit represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by the Teamsters. In opposition to AFSCME's clarification request the City asserts that the new clerical position has little daily inter- change with the employees in the Clerical/Secretarial unit. Further, [-1-] ___________________________________________________________________________ the City contends that it would create "administrative headaches" for one position in the Public Works Department to be covered by a dif- ferent collective bargaining agreement than that applicable to the rank-and-file Public Works employees because vacation schedules and other benefits applicable to the clerical position would be beyond management's ability to coordinate effectively. The Hearing Examiner determined that the threshold requirements for unit clarification had been met. The Hearing Examiner also deter- mined on the basis of factors relating to community of interest, con- sidered in light of the disruptive effects that could result from grounding the unit placement of positions predominately upon work location, that the newly-created position was appropriately included in the Clerical/Secretarial Unit. Upon due notice the Board, consisting of Chairman Edward S. Godfrey, presiding, Thacher E. Turner, Employer Representative, and George W. Lambertson, Employee Representative, convened a hearing on the merits of the issues raised in the appeal on January 7, 1987. The parties were provided the opportunity at hearing to appear, submit evidence, cross-examine witnesses and orally argue. Neither party expressed a desire to file post-hearing briefs and the Board delib- erated the appeal immediately upon adjourning the hearing. JURISDICTION The jurisdiction of the Board to hear and decide this appeal is conferred by 26 M.R.S.A. 968(4) (Pamph. 1986). Neither party has contested the Board's jurisdiction in this matter. DISCUSSION The proceeding below was conducted to determine the unit place- ment of a newly-created Public Works clerical position based on con- siderations of community of interest. The City's primary dispute in this appeal is, however, one concerning the amount of wages to be paid to Rachel Cadorette, a long-time City Clerical/Secretarial unit employee, who is the present occupant of the newly created position. Paul Gobeil, City Treasurer/Administrative Assistant, gave the -2- ______________________________________________________________________ following testimony in this regard: I think the whole story here is because of the fact that should that person be able to maintain [membership] within the City Hall staff [Clerical/Secretarial bargaining unit], now at that point the contract concerning the City Hall [staff] would only consider a downward classification which would mean at this point this person would lose roughly twenty-eight cents. Now the position--fully explained to this person prior to there was a difference of two dollars an hour. Now the crux of the whole matter here is the fact if you maintain this position within the City Hall that that person knowingly beforehand there was two dollars difference as a bargaining rate will only lose now strictly twenty-eight cents. This so-called "money issue" is not one suitable to resolution in a unit clarification case; rather, it is more appropriately resolved either through interpretation of the Change in Classification section of the parties' bargaining agreement's Job Classification-Starting Rates article or through collective bargaining. In the circumstances of this case we find unpersuasive also the City's arguments that the inclusion of the contested position in the Clerical/Secretarial unit would be disruptive because of differences in the contract terms applicable to employees working in close proxim- ity to one another, the inconvenience to managers of having to apply the terms of two different bargaining contracts, and the asserted dif- ficulty of applying the terms of the existing Clerical/Secretarial agreement to an employee whose work situs is removed from the main contingent of covered employees doing similar work. These factors were considered carefully and extensively by the Hearing Examiner. His findings of fact were accurate, and his decision was rationally supportable on those facts. The Appellant had the burden of proving material error on the issue. Board Unit Determination Rule 1.10(C). They have not carried that burden. ORDER On the basis of the foregoing discussion and by virtue of and pursuant to the powers granted to the Maine Labor Relations Board by -3- ______________________________________________________________________ 26 M.R.S.A 968(4) (Pamph. 1986), it is hereby ordered that the City of Biddeford's appeal of the November 14, 1986 Unit Clarification Report, filed on December 1, 1986, be denied. Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 27th day of February, 1987. MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The parties are hereby advised of their right, pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 968(4) (Pamph. /s/________________________________ 1986), to seek review of this Edward S. Godfrey Decision and Order by the Chairman Superior Court. To initiate such a review an appealing party must file a complaint with the Superior Court within /s/_________________________________ thirty (30) days of the date Thacher E. Turner of issuance hereof, and other- Employer Representative wise comply with the require- ments of Rule 80B of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. /s/_________________________________ George W. Lambertson Employee Representative -4-