STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Case No. 90-UD-20 Issued: April 3, 1990 ____________________________________ ) MONMOUTH TEACHERS ASSOCIATION/ ) MTA/NEA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) UNIT DETERMINATION REPORT and ) ) MONMOUTH SCHOOL COMMITTEE, ) ) Public Employer. ) ____________________________________) On February 13, 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 Monmouth 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 Monmouth School Committee (Committee). The Association proposed the following unit: INCLUDED: All Bus Drivers and Custodian/Maintenance employees of the Monmouth School Committee. EXCLUDED: All other employees of the Monmouth School Committee.[fn]1 Upon due notice a public evidentiary hearing was convened at 9:00 a.m. and adjourned at 10:15 a.m. on Tuesday, April 3, 1990, in Augusta, Maine. Milton Wright of the Maine Teachers Association represented the Association, and no one appeared on behalf of the Committee. Unavailing calls were made to ascertain whether Superintendent Rodney Spearin or anyone else on the Committee's behalf would attend the hearing. ________________ 1 The petition, which originally proposed a unit of Janitors and Bus Drivers, was amended at hearing. [-1-] ____________________________________________________________________________ JURISDICTION The jurisdiction of the hearing examiner to hear this matter and to 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 executive director or her designee will make the determination. In the case at hand, there is no dispute. The Committee was notified, by certified mail, of the time, place and purpose of the hearing. (The return receipt shows delivery of the notice letter on March 7, 1990). The Committee 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 finds the requested unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. 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 (1988 & Supp. 1989): INCLUDED: All Bus Drivers and Custodian/Maintenance employees of the Monmouth School Committee. EXCLUDED: All other employees of the Monmouth School Committee. Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 3d day of April, 1990. MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD /s/____________________________________ M. Wayne Jacobs 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 Rule 6.03. -2- ____________________________________________________________________________ -2-