STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case Nos. 77-18
77-19
77-20
_______________________________ 77-29
)
MAINE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION )
)
Complainant )
)
v. )
)
SANFORD SCHOOL COMMITTEE )
)
and )
)
CHARLES ACKERMAN, Labor )
Consultant for the Sanford )
School Committee )
)
Respondents ) DECISION
_______________________________)
) AND
SANFORD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION )
) ORDER
Complainant )
)
v. )
)
SANFORD SCHOOL COMMITTEE )
)
and )
)
CHARLES ACKERMAN, Labor )
Consultant for the Sanford )
School Committee )
)
Respondents )
_______________________________)
This case comes to the Maine Labor Relations Board by way of three Prohibited
Practice Complaints, Case Nos. 77-18, 77-19 and 77-20, dated October 13, 1976, and
filed with the Board by Shirley R. Bissell, Director, UniServ District No. 1 on
October 27, 1976, and a fourth complaint, Case No. 77-29, dated December 1, 1976,
and filed with the Board by Shirley R. Bissell on December 7, 1976. A Response to
the first three complaints was dated November 2, 1976, and filed with the Board by
Charles R. Ackerman, Labor Consultant, Sanford School Committee on November 3, 1976.
A Response to the fourth complaint was filed with the Board by Charles R. Ackerman
on December 9, 1976. A pre-hearing conference was held on the first three com-
plaints on Tuesday, December 7, 1976, in the Bureau of Labor Conference Room,
Augusta, Maine, with Alternate Chairman Donald W. Webber presiding. As a result of
the pre-hearing conference, a Pre-Hearing Conference Memorandum and Order was issued
by Mr. Webber on December 9, 1976, the contents of which are incorporated herein by
reference, and which further provided that Case No. 77-18 concerning the school
nurses bargaining unit, Case No. 77-19 concerning the teacher aides bargaining unit
[-1-]
____________________________________________________________________________________
and Case No. 77-20 concerning the custodians and matrons bargaining unit involved
the same factual and legal issues and would be consolidated for Board determination.
A pre-hearing conference was held on the fourth complaint on Tuesday, January 18,
1977, in the Bureau of Labor Conference Room, Augusta, Maine, with Alternate Chairman
Donald W. Webber presiding. As a result of the pre-hearing conference, a Pre-Hearing
Conference Memorandum and Order was issued by Mr. Webber on January 24, 1977, the
contents of which are incorporated herein by reference and which further provided
that Case No. 77-29, concerning the teachers bargaining unit, involved the same legal
issues as cases 77-18, 77-19 and 77-20, and would be consolidated with these cases
for Board determination. A hearing on the consolidated cases was held on Tuesday,
February 8, 1977, in the Portland Jetport Conference Room, Portland, Maine. As a
result of the hearing, the transcript was prepared and a briefing schedule arranged.
After receipt of final briefs, on May 2, 1977, the Maine Labor Relations Board
meeting on May 12, 1977, proceeded to deliberate on the case, Alternate Chairman
Donald W. Webber presiding, with Robert D. Curley, Employer Representative and
Michael Schoonjans, Employee Representative.
Jurisdiction
Neither party has challenged the jurisdiction of the Maine Labor Relations Board
in this matter and we conclude that this Board has jurisdiction to hear and render a
decision in this case as provided in 26 MRSA 968(5).
Findings of Fact
Upon review of the testimony given at the hearing as well as the Pre-Hearing
Conference Memorandum and the pleadings, the Board finds:
1) At all times material herein, the Complainant Maine Teachers
Association was an association of teachers, a public employee
organization and exclusive bargaining agent, as defined in 26
MRSA 962(2), for all school nurses; all teacher aides engaged
in instructional work and library aides; and all custodians
and matrons with the school system of the Town of Sanford. At
all times material herein, the Complainant Sanford Teachers
Association was an association of teachers, a public employee
organization and exclusive bargaining agent, as defined in 26
MRSA 962(2), for the teachers within the school system of the
Town of Sanford.
2) At all times material herein, the Respondent School Committee
was the duly authorized, elected, and acting superintending
school committee of the Town of Sanford, and is a public
employer as defined in 26 MRSA 962(7).
3) Since February 1, 1976, Respondent Charles Ackerman became the
chief negotiator for Respondent Committee and continued in
such position at all subsequent times material herein.
4) Complainant Maine Teachers Association in Case No. 77-18 is
acting as bargaining agent for school nurses and is engaged in
bargaining their first collective bargaining agreement with
Respondents.
5) Complainant Maine Teachers Association in Case No. 77-19 is
acting as bargaining agent for teacher aides and is engaged in
bargaining their successor collective bargaining agreement, the
prior contract having expired August 31, 1976.
-2-
____________________________________________________________________________________
6) Complainant Maine Teachers Association in Case No. 77-20 is
acting as bargaining agent for custodians and matrons and is
engaged in bargaining their first collective bargaining agree-
ment.
7) Complainant Sanford Teachers Association in Case No. 77-29 is
acting as bargaining agent for all teachers within the school
system of the Town of Sanford.
8) On or about September 27, 1976, Respondents made a proposal
insisting that final agreement with respect to the contracts
for the four bargaining units be subject to approval of the
Sanford School Committee, Warrant Committee and Town Meeting.
9) The Sanford Teachers Association and the Sanford School
Committee have entered into comprehensive contracts covering
employer-employee relationships for many years, the latest
of which commenced September 1, 1974, and expired August 31,
1977.
10) The September 1, 1974 to August 31, 1977 contract mentioned
in paragraph #8 above, contained a Duration of Agreement
Article as follows:
Article XXXIV
A. This Agreement shall be effective as of September 1, 1974,
and shall continue in effect until August 31, 1977, subject to
the Association's right as provided in Article II and subject
to the following:
1. Effective September 1, 1974, to August 31, 1975,
Salary Schedule A.1 and Compensation for Athletic
Assignments 1974-l975 Contract year.
2. Effective September 1, 1975, to August 31, 1976,
cost of living increase on the B.A. Base for the 12
month period ending May, 1975 to be not less than 6%
nor more than $600. Compensation for Athletic
Assignments to be increased by cost of living for the
12 month period ending May, 1975 not to exceed 8%.
3. Effective September 1, 1976, to August 31, 1977,
either party shall have the right to reopen salaries,
insurances, and pensions except that the number of
steps and the relationship between the B.A. and the
B.A. + 15 and the M.S. and the M.A. + 15, and the B.A.
and the B.A. + 30 and the M.A. and the M.A. + 30 shall
remain at the previous years rate, and either party
shall have the right to reopen or reintroduce any two
Articles of either party's choosing.
B. In witness whereof the parties hereto have caused this Agree-
ment to be signed by their respective presidents, attested by
their respective secretaries, and their corporate seals to be
placed hereon, all on the day and year first above written.
C. The Certificate of majority ratification will be submitted
to the School Committee.
10) Since July, 1975, the Sanford Teachers Association and the Sanford
School Committee have been negotiating with the limited reopeners
as set out by Article XXXIV Duration of Agreement. On or about
February 17, 1976, a Fact-Finding Hearing was held concerning all
issues in dispute. On or about April 8, 1976, a report of the
Fact-Finding Panel was issued. No agreement on the reopened items
was reached as a result of the report. On or about August 13,
1976, an Arbitration Hearing was held before a three-member panel.
-3-
____________________________________________________________________________________
The issues in dispute were insurance, retirement plan, sick leave
bank, seniority, non-teaching duties, payment methods, salaries,
maintenance of standards, and grievance procedure. On or about
August 26, 1976, an Arbitration Report was issued making recommen-
dations on salaries, insurance and pensions and awards on all
other issues in dispute. The Arbitration Report was not appealed
by either the Sanford Teachers Association or the Sanford School
Committee.
11) On many occasions the Association has requested that the
Sanford School Committee execute in writing the portions
of the Arbitration Award that are binding upon both parties.
12) At the pre-hearing conference held on January 18, 1977, the
parties agreed that an agreement executed in duplicate on
behalf of the Sanford Teachers Association and now in the
hands of the Respondents awaiting execution, said agreement
covering the binding portions of an Arbitration Award, would
be executed on behalf of Respondents on or before January 25,
1977; and that upon notification to the Board that said
agreement had been so executed by Respondents, Count I of
Case No. 77-29 would be dismissed on the docket of the Board.
13) At the hearing on February 8, 1977, the Respondents admitted
that the agreement mentioned in paragraph #12, above, had not
been executed on behalf of the Respondents.
14) On or about December 24, 1975, a Judgment and Order was issued
by Justice Sumner Goffin, Superior Court of York County
stating the Town Meeting vote that "all budgets and contracts
for the expenditure of One Thousand Dollars or more be subject
to Town Meeting approval" was invalid.
15) At all bargaining sessions held after the Fact-Finding Hearing
with the Sanford Teachers Association, the Respondents have
insisted that final agreement be subject to the approval of
the Sanford School Committee, Warrant Committee and Town Meeting.
Decision
The first issue presented to this Board is the refusal to have an agreement
executed on behalf of the Respondents covering the binding positions of an Arbitra-
tion Award. At the pre-hearing conference, Charles Ackerman, the representative of
the Sanford School Committee, agreed that the document in his possession concerning
the binding portions of the Arbitration Award would be executed on behalf of
Respondents on or before January 25, 1977. On February 8, 1977, the above-mentioned
agreement had not been executed on behalf of Respondents. Agreements made during
the course of Maine Labor Relations Board proceedings must remain inviolate, since
the effectiveness and integrity of the process depends upon such treatment and the
dilatory tactics employed in the present case by the Respondents are to be condemned.
We find that the Respondents have violated their agreement to execute a document
made during the proceedings and if the document has not already been properly
executed, it must be executed forthwith on behalf of the Respondents.
The second issue presented to the Board covers the negotiability of a clause
that all agreements reached during negotiations be subject to ratification by the
Warrant Committee and the Town Meeting. The issue of ratification by the Sanford
School Committee, the public employer in case, concerning sufficient authority of
the negotiator and the obligation to bargain in good faith with respect thereto,
-4-
____________________________________________________________________________________
has not been made an issue in this case and, therefore, will not be addressed by
this decision. The specific issue presented in this case is whether the Sanford
School Committee, the public employer, can insist in negotiations that some body
or bodies other than the public employer ratify at least certain portions of any
collective bargaining agreement before it becomes effective.
Title 26 MRSA 964(1)(E) prohibits public employers, their representatives
and agents from "refusing to bargain collectively with the bargaining agent of its
employees as required by Section 965." Section 965(1)(C) requires the public
employer and the bargaining agent "to confer and negotiate in good faith with
respect to wages, hours, working conditions and contract grievance arbitration . . ."
In fulfilling its obligation to confer and negotiate in good faith, a party cannot
insist on negotiating matters which are not within the scope of wages, hours,
working conditions and contract grievance arbitration. To permit a party to delay
negotiating proper subjects for bargaining by insisting on negotiating other matters
would frustrate the purposes of the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act.
Our examination of the alleged violation of the obligation to negotiate in good
faith leads us to a determination of whether or not, in this case, the subject of
ratification by a body other than the public employer, of an agreement reached by
the representative of the public employer, is a subject within the scope of the
phrase, "wages, hours, working conditions and contract grievance arbitration." We
conclude that it is not. Wages, hours, working conditions and contract grievance
arbitration are terms concerning the relationships between the employer and its
employees. The process of ratifying a collective bargaining agreement, in the
language of the Respondents, is a "municipal fact of life." If the employer
requires that it ratify an agreement reached by its agents, or if the employees
require ratification of an agreement reached by its agents, these conditions are a
fact of the negotiating process. Whether the requirements imposed on the agents
clothe the agents with sufficient authority to comply with the requirements of the
Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act is a problem we need not address in
this opinion. But those requirements are not within the scope of the phrase,
"wages, hours, working conditions and contract grievance arbitration." In this
case, the Respondents insisted that any agreement be ratified by the Warrant Com-
mittee and Town Meeting, as well as the public employer, the Sanford School
Committee. The insistence on such a proposal was an attempt to abrogate its respon-
sibility to bargain collectively contained in 26 MRSA 965(1)(C) in violation of
26 MRSA 964(1)(E).
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and by virtue of and pursuant to
the powers granted to the Maine Labor Relations Board by the provisions of Section
968 of the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act, it is ORDERED:
1) That the Sanford School Committee, their representatives,
servants and agents, cease and desist from engaging in any
of the acts prohibited by 26 MRSA 964, Sub- 1, and
especially from refusing to bargain collectively with the
bargaining agent as required by 965.
-5-
____________________________________________________________________________________
2) That the document in the possession of the Sanford School
Committee concerning the binding portion of the Arbitration
Award be executed on behalf of the Respondents forthwith.
3) That within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order,
the Respondents shall notify, in writing, the Maine Labor
Relations Board at its office in Augusta, Maine, of the
steps they have taken to comply herewith.
Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 13th day of June, 1977.
MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
/s/________________________________________
Donald W. Webber, Alternate Chairman
/s/________________________________________
Robert D. Curley, Employer Representative
/s/________________________________________
Michael Schoonjans, Employee Representative
-6-
____________________________________________________________________________________