STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Case No. 90-UD-19 Issued: March 22, 1990 __________________________________ ) MOUNTAIN VALLEY TEACHERS ) ASSOCIATION/MTA/NEA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) and ) UNIT DETERMINATION REPORT ) MSAD #43 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ) ) Public Employer. ) __________________________________) On February 12, 1990, pursuant to section 966(1) of the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Law ("MPELRL"), 26 M.R.S.A. 966(1) (1988) and Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board") Unit Determination Rule 1.03, the Mountain Valley Teachers Association/MTA/NEA ("Association") filed a petition for appropriate unit determination with the Board, seeking to become the exclusive bargaining agent of a unit of employees of the MSAD #43 Board of Directors ("employer"). The Association proposed for inclu- sion in the unit the following employees: teacher assistants teacher aides At the time the hearing was convened, the petitioner clarified the fact that teacher aides includes those aides who work in the library as well as those who work in the classroom. Upon due notice a public evidentiary hearing was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 20, 1990, in Augusta, Maine. J. Donald Belleville of the Maine Teachers Association represented the Association, and no one appeared on behalf of the employer. After waiting for a short time for the employer to make an appearance, the hearing examiner contacted Roger Spugnardi, superintendent of MSAD #43, by telephone. Mr. Spugnardi indi- cated to the hearing examiner that the employer did not intend to attend the hearing. JURISDICTION The jurisdiction of the hearing examiner to hear this matter and to [-1-] ___________________________________________________________________________ issue a report lies in 26 M.R.S.A. 966(1) (1988). DISCUSSION Section 966(1) of the MPELRL, 26 M.R.S.A. 966(1) (1988), states that in the event of a dispute as to the appropriateness of a unit, the execu- tive director or her designee will make the determination. In the case at hand, there is no dispute. The employer was notified, by certified mail, of the time, place and purpose of the hearing. (The return receipt shows delivery of the notice letter on February 14, 1990). The employer chose not to appear at the hearing to contest the appropriateness of the unit proposed by the Association. There being no dispute, the hearing examiner need not make a determination of appropriateness. CONCLUSION There being no dispute as to the appropriateness of the unit proposed by the Association, the following unit is deemed appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining, within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 966: INCLUDED: teachers assistants teacher aides (including library aides) EXCLUDED: all other employees of the MSAD #43 Board of Directors Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 22nd day of March, 1990. MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD /s/___________________________________ Judith A. Dorsey Designated Hearing Examiner The parties are hereby advised of their right, pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 968(4) (1988), 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 the issuance of this report. See Board Unit Determination Rule 1.01, Board General Provisions Rules 6.03. -2- ___________________________________________________________________________