STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case No. 79-01
_______________________________
)
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 48, )
STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND )
UNIVERSITY WORKERS, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) DECISION AND ORDER
)
TOWN OF FAIRFIELD, )
)
Respondent. )
_______________________________)
On June 23, 1978, Teamsters Local Union No. 48 ("Local 48") filed a
prohibited practice complaint against the Town of Fairfield ("Town") with the
Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board"). The Town's response to the complaint
was also filed June 23, 1978.
A pre-hearing conference on the case was held July 27, 1978, Alternate
Chairman Donald W. Webber presiding. As a result of this pre-hearinq
conference, Alternate Chairman Webber issued on July 31, 1978 a Pre-Hearing
Conference Memorandum and Order, the contents of which are incorporated herein
by reference.
Hearings on the case were held September 26, 1978, December 5, 1978, and
January 30, 1979, Chairman Edward H. Keith presiding, with Paul D. Emery,
Employer Representative, and Michael Schoonjans, Employee Representative.
Briefs arguing the issues raised by the case were all filed by March 27, 1979,
and the Board proceeded to deliberate over the case at a conference held
May 15, 1979.
JURISDICTION
Neither party has challenged the jurisdiction of the Maine Labor Relations
Board in this case, and we conclude that the Board has jurisdiction to hear
and render a decision in the case as provided in 26 M.R.S.A. 968(5).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon review of the entire record, the Board finds:
1. Complainant Teamsters Local Union No. 48 is a public
employee labor organization and a public employee
bargaining agent as defined in 26 M.R.S.A. 962(2).
The Town of Fairfield, Maine is a public employer as
defined by 26 M.R.S.A. 962(7).
2. In November, 1976, Patricia Perry was hired as a social
worker by the Town. The social worker position had been
created in 1973 and had, prior to the hiring of Mrs. Perry,
been filled by a C.E.T.A. employee. Prior to creation of
the position in 1973, the Town Manager had handled the
-1-
______________________________________________________________________________
Town's welfare cases and had otherwise performed all social
worker duties.
3. The social worker position proved to be controversial virtually
from inception of the position, with debate occurring among
residents and Town Council members over the need for the
position.
4. Mrs. Perry was reappointed as social worker for the Town in
March, 1977. At that time, the social worker classification
was a full-time position, encompassing a 35-hour work week.
5. In November, 1977, the Town Council interviewed candidates for
the Town Manager's position. Among the questions asked by the
Town Council members during the interviews was whether the can-
didate would be able to handle the Town's welfare cases as part
of the regular Town Manager duties. Dale Green, who during the
interviews stated that he had experience handling welfare cases
and would be able to handle the welfare load, was appointed Town
Manager in December, 1977.
6. The new Town Manager met In December, 1977 with the Town's
auditor, who had completed an audit of the Town's financial
affairs as of October 30, 1977. The auditor stated that in his
opinion the Town's welfare account was too large, and recom-
mended as a way to reduce the account that the number of hours
that the Town Office was open to receive requests for welfare
be reduced. The auditor also suggested that the social worker,
whose duties would not be needed on a full-time basis if the
welfare office hours were reduced, be assigned to assist
clerical workers in the Town Office in bringing the Town's tax
records up-to-date.
7. In December, 1977, the Town was behind in the posting of its
real estate taxes, a situation which concerned the Town auditor.
The posting of taxes was brought up-to-date by the end of May or
the first of June, 1978.
8. At its January, 1978 meeting, the Town Council adopted new, more
stringent general assistance guidelines promulgated by the Maine
Municipal Association, including a "work for welfare" program.
The Council's intention with the adoption of the new welfare
system was to reduce the size of the Town's welfare account.
9. At its February, 1978 meeting, the Town Council adopted the
auditor's recommendations that the hours that the Town Office
was open for general assistance be reduced, and that the social
worker be assigned on a part-time basis to assist with tax work
in the Town Office. The welfare hours at the Town Office had
been reduced in January, 1978 from an 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
schedule to an 8:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. schedule, 5 days per week.
Mrs. Perry maintained her 35-hour work week, being assigned to
perform clerical duties in the Town Office during the afternoon
hours.
10. Shortly after the Town Office general assistance hours were
reduced, the Town Manager stated to the office workers, including
the social worker, that this reduction in office hours did not
place anyone's job in the Town Office in jeopardy.
11. The result of the Town's efforts in January and February, 1978 to
reduce its welfare account was that the number of general assis-
tance cases declined substantially, from 70 - 75 cases in December,
1977 to 29 cases in April, 1978.
12. Town Council elections were held on March 6, 1978. Three new members
were elected to the five person Council. The social worker position
was discussed at the next three Council meetings, on April 19,
May 16, and May 30, 1978.
-2-
______________________________________________________________________________
13. In May, 1978, members of the office staff in the Town Office
contacted Local 48 regarding union representation for the
office workers. A meeting with representatives of Local 48
was held on May 22, 1978, at which time three employees from
the Town Office, including the social worker, signed cards
authorizing Local 48 to represent them for collective bargain-
ing purposes.
14. On May 30, 1978 the Town Manager received by certified mail
two letters from Local 48 pertaining to union representation
matters in the Town. One of the letters notified the Town
that a majority of the office workers had designated by signed
application that they wished to be represented by Local 48 for
purposes of collective bargaining. The Town Manager phoned the
Chairwoman of the Town Council to inform her of the contents of
the letters, and was instructed to bring the letters to a
special Council meeting that evening so that the Council could
be informed of the letters.
15. The purpose of the special Town Council meeting on May 30, 1978
was to open bids submitted by contractors for construction of a
community center building. After the bids were opened, the
Council voted to go into executive session to discuss the
letters received from Local 48. Upon returning from executive
session, the Council voted unanimously to restrict the hours of
the social worker to those hours when the Town Office was open
for welfare interviews (8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.), and to dis-
continue the practice of having the social worker perform
clerical duties in the afternoon. Neither Local 48's letters
nor the reduction in the social worker's hours were listed as
topics to be discussed on the agenda for the May 30, 1978
meeting.
16. The Town Manager verbally informed Mrs. Perry on May 31, 1978
that her work week would be reduced from 35 to 15 hours as of
June 5, 1978. The reduction in hours took place as scheduled
on June 5th. Mrs. Perry subsequently received a letter dated
June 29, 1978 from the Town Manager, setting forth the
purported reasons for her reduction in hours.
17. Local 48 was certified as the bargaining agent for a bargaining
unit of office workers in the Town Office at an election held
February 8, 1979.
DECISION
Local 48 charges that the Town violated 26 M.R.S.A. 964(1)(A) and (B)
by reducing the social worker's hours of work because of her union
activities.[fn1] The Town contends that the reduction in hours was based
solely on lawful considerations, and that accordingly no violation of the
Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act, 26 M.R.S.A. 961, et seq.
("Act") has occurred. As discussed more fully below, we conclude that an
unlawful desire to interfere with the social worker's organizational rights
was not one of the motives for reducing the social worker's hours. The Town
Council's decision to reduce the hours therefore did not result in a violation
of the Act, and Local 48's complaint must be dismissed.
_______________
1 Local 48 also charged in its complaint that a statement by the Town
Manager regarding air conditioning violated 26 M.R.S.A. 964(1)(A)
and (B). On motion by the Town, this charge was dismissed at the
December 5, 1978 hearing.
-3-
______________________________________________________________________________
We have ruled in numerous cases that "an act will violate 26 M.R.S.A.
964(1)(A) or, (B) if simply one of the motivating factors for the act was
an unlawful one." Teamsters Local 48 v. Town of Jay, M.L.R.B. Nos. 79-11 and
79-19, p. 3 (1979) (emphasis in original). In the present case the timing and
sequence of the Town Council's vote to reduce the social worker's hours, and
the manner in which the vote was taken, create a substantial inference that a
motivating factor underlying the vote was anti-union animus in violation of
the rights of public employees set forth in 26 M.R.S.A. 963. See Teamsters
Local 48 v. City of Augusta, Board of Education, M.L.R.B. No. 78-04 (1978).
The Town Council voted to reduce the social worker's hours on the very
day that it received formal notice that a majority of the office workers had
designated Local 48 as their bargaining representative. The vote came after
the Council had gone into executive session to discuss Local 48's letters
notifying the Town of Local 48's representative status. The topic of the
social worker's hours had not been scheduled prior to the May 30, 1978 Council
meeting as a subject to be considered at the meeting. All of these facts
suggest that the Town Council was motivated by a desire to interfere with,
intimidate, restrain, coerce or discriminate against the office workers
because of the exercise of the employees' right to join a union of their own
choosing. See 26 M.R.S.A. 963.
This inference of unlawful purpose does not constitute a per se violation
of Section 964(1)(A) and (B), however, and may of course be rebutted by
evidence showing that the decision to reduce the social worker's hours was
motivated solely by legitimate considerations. See Teamsters Local 48 v. Town
of Oakland, M.L.R.B. No. 78-30 (1978). After very carefully examining the
record in this case, we are satisfied that an unlawful desire to interfere
with the office workers' organizational rights was not among the motives
behind the Town Council's decision to reduce the hours.
The record shows clearly that the social worker position was surrounded
by long-standing controversy and was in a state of flux months before the
office workers commenced their organizational activities in May, 1978. Towns-
people and Town Council members had virtually since inception of the position
in 1973 questioned whether a full-time social worker position was needed in a
town the size of Fairfield. During the November, 1977 interviews for the
position of Town Manager, members of the Town Council questioned the
candidates for the position regarding whether the candidate could handle the
Town's welfare cases as part of the Town Manager's regular duties. This
questioning suggests that the Council was thinking of a possible reduction in
the hours of the social worker, or even of elimination of the social worker
position altogether, as early as the fall of 1977. The person hired as Town
Manager had stated to the Council that he had experience in handling welfare
cases and that he could manage the Town's welfare case load.
In January, 1978 the number of hours which the social worker devoted to
social worker duties was reduced by approximately one-half. This reduction
in hours occurred as a result of a recommendation by the Town auditor that the
welfare
-4-
______________________________________________________________________________
office hours be cut as part of an attempt to reduce the size of the Town's
welfare account. The social worker maintained her 35-hour work week, however,
being assigned on the recommendation of the auditor to help the employees in
the Town Office bring the Town's tax records up-to-date. These records were
brought up-to-date as of late May or early June, 1978.
Both the auditor and the Town Manager testified that they understood that
the social worker's assignment to help with the tax work was temporary, until
the tax records were made current. The record is clear that this understand-
ing was not conveyed to the office workers, however. Indeed, the Town Manager
told the office workers, including the social worker, that the reduction in
the welfare office hours would not place anyone's job in jeopardy. This
assurance by the Town Manager plainly was overruled by the Town Council's vote
on May 30, 1978, however.
Also in January, 1978, the Town Council adopted the Maine Municipal Asso-
ciation's general assistance guidelines and "work for welfare" program. The
result of the Town's efforts to reduce its welfare account was that the number
of its welfare cases declined substantially, from 70 - 75 cases in December,
1977 to 29 cases in April, 1978.
In short, several significant events had occurred by early May, 1978,
prior to commencement of the office workers' organizational activities: 1)
the Council had instituted a new welfare system in January and February, 1978,
a portion of which included a reduction in the number of hours the Town Office
was open to receive requests for general assistance, 2) the number of hours
which the social worker devoted to social worker duties accordingly had been
cut approximately in half in January, 1978, 3) the Town's welfare caseload had
declined substantially by April, 1978, and 4) the backlog in the posting of
tax receipts was being brought up-to-date. These events obviously provide
substantial fiscal reasons for the Town Council's May 30, 1978 vote to dis-
continue using the social worker to assist with the tax work and to restrict
the social worker's work hours to those hours when the Town Office was open
for general assistance cases. In light of these events, it appears that there
was not sufficient work available as of May 30, 1978 to justify a full-time
social worker position.
In our opinion these fiscal reasons sufficiently rebut the inference that
a desire to interfere with the office workers' organizational activities was a
motive in the Town Council's decision to reduce the social worker's hours.
Although, as previously discussed, there is a substantial inference that such
an unlawful motive was present, there are also substantial, legitimate reasons
for the Town Council's action. Weighing this inference of unlawful motive
against the legitimate reasons for the decision, we cannot conclude with
certainty that the inference is so strong or the reasons for the decision so
weak, as to establish that the unlawful motive must have been a factor in the
decision to reduce the hours. See Teamsters Local 48 v. Town of Jay, supra.
Since we find that the decision to reduce the hours was not at least partially
based on an illegal purpose, the Town Council's action did not violate Section
964(1)(A) or (B) of the Act. We accordingly must order that Local 48's
complaint be dismissed.
-5-
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and decision and by virtue
of and pursuant to the powers granted to the Maine Labor Relations Board by
the provisions of 26 M.R.S.A. 968, it is hereby ORDERED:
That the prohibited practice complaint filed June 23, 1978
by Teamsters Local Union No. 48 against the Town of Fairfield
be and hereby is DISMISSED.
Dated at Augusta, Maine this 21st day of June, 1979.
MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
/s/____________________________________
Edward H. Keith
Chairman
/s/____________________________________
Paul D. Emery
Employer Representative
/s/____________________________________
Michael Schoonjans
Employee Representative
-6-
______________________________________________________________________________