Teamsters Local Union No. 48 v. Town of Millinocket, No. 79-40, 
Interim Decision and Order,  April 26, 1979 ; 
Decision and Order, Oct. 11, 1979.


STATE OF MAINE                                   MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
                                                              Case No. 79-40

_______________________________
                               )
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 48,  )
State, County, Municipal and   )
University Employees in the    )
State of Maine,                )
                               )
                 Complainant,  )
                               )
  v.                           )          INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
                               )
TOWN OF MILLINOCKET            )
                               ) 
  and                          )
                               )
MILLINOCKET POLICE ASSOCIATION,)
                               ) 
                 Respondents.  )
_______________________________)

          This case comes to the Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board") by way
of a prohibited practice complaint and letter objecting to election filed
December 4, 1978 by Teamsters Local Union No. 48 ("Local No. 48").  The
Millinocket Police Association's ("MPA") response, including a motion to
dismiss, was filed December 12, 1978, and the Town of Millinocket's ("Town")
response and motion to dismiss was filed December 18, 1978.

     A pre-hearing conference on the case was held on January 9, 1979 with
Alternate Chairman Donald W. Webber presiding.  As a result of this pre-hearing
conference, Alternate Chairman Webber issued on January 15, 1979 a Pre-Hearing
Conference Memorandum and Order, the contents of which are incorporated herein
by reference.

     At the pre-hearing conference, the parties agreed that the Board should
decide the legal issues raised by the motions to dismiss prior to any
scheduling of a fact hearing on the merits of the complaint and letter
objecting to election.  The parties' briefs arguing these legal issues were
all filed by February 28, 1979, and the Board proceeded to deliberate over the
preliminary legal issues on April 10, 1979, Chairman Edward H. Keith presid-
ing, with Michael Schoonjans, Employee Representative and Kenneth T. Winters,
Alternate Employer Representative.

                                JURISDICTION

     No party has challenged the jurisdiction of the Maine Labor Relations
Board in this matter, and we conclude that the Board has jurisdiction to hear
and render a decision in this case as provided in 26 M.R.S.A.  968.

                              FINDINGS OF FACT

     Upon review of the pleadings filed in this case as well as the Pre-Hearing
Conference Memorandum and Order, the Board finds that:

                                     -1-

      1.  On December 4, 1978, Local No. 48 filed a prohibited practice
          complaint and letter objecting to election with the Board.

      2.  The Complaint alleges that the Town violated 26 M.R.S.A.  964(1)(A),
          (C), and (E) and the MPA 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)(A) by engaging in
          certain conduct prior to a November 22, 1978 decertification/
          certification election which decertified Local No. 48 and certified
          the MPA by a 6-4 vote as bargaining agent for a bargaining unit of
          police officers.  The essence of this alleged conduct was that the
          Town refused to deal with Local No. 48 stewards and continued to
          deal with a former Local No. 48 steward after the steward had been
          elected president of the MPA and had been replaced as steward by
          Local No. 48.  The relief sought by the complaint includes, among
          other things, an order directing the Town to recognize the stewards
          designated by Local No. 48 so long as Local No. 48 is the certified
          bargaining agent, and an order directing the Town to cease assisting
          in the formation of the MPA by dealing with its president while
          Local No. 48 is the certified bargaining agent.

      3.  The jurat or statement of the oath at the end of the complaint
          contains the signature and seal of a notary public and states that:
          
               "Personally appeared the above-named Richard R. Peluso 
                and attested to the truth of the statements, to the     
                best of his knowlewdge, as herinabove written."

      4.  The letter objecting to the November 22, 1978 election alleges the
          same facts alleged in the complaint, and asks that the election be
          set aside on the ground that the Town's and the MPA's conduct
          interfered with the holding of a fair election.


                                   DECISION

     Respondents urge that the complaint and the letter objecting to election
should be dismissed because:

     1.   The complaint contains an insufficient statement of oath under
          Rule 4.02 of the Board's Rules and Procedures.

     2.   The complaint does not allege facts which would entitle Local
          No. 48 to the relief sought.

     3.   The complaint was not timely filed under Rule 3.08 of the Board's
          Rules and Procedures.

     4.   Local No. 48 lacks standing to seek the relief requested in the
          complaint.

     5.   The letter objecting to election is void because it does not object
          to the conduct of the November 22, 1978 election as required by Rule
          3.07(B) of the Board's Rules and Procedures.

     Local No. 48 contends that the grounds raised by Respondents for
dismissing the complaint and letter are without merit, and that the complaint
and letter should be consolidated for hearing.

     After carefully considering the matter, we are of the opinion, for the
reasons discussed below, that the complaint complies with the Board's Rules,
that the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that
Local No. 48 has standing to seek the relief requested.  We agree with
Respondents' argument, however, that the letter objecting to election should
be dismissed because it does

                                     -2-

not object to the conduct of the election.  We accordingly will deny the
motions to dismiss the prohibited practice complaint and grant the motions to
dismiss the letter objecting to election.  Because the letter will be
dismissed, there is no occasion to decide whether the complaint and letter
should be consolidated.

     1.  The complaint's statement of oath.  Respondents argue that the
statement of oath contained in the complaint is insufficient because the
statement does not declare, under penalty of perjury, that the contents of the
complaint are true and correct to the best of the signer's knowledge and
belief.  Respondents apparently read Rule 4.02 of the Board's Rules and
Procedures to require that the words "under penalty of perjury" appear in the
statement of oath.  We do not agree with this reading of the Rule.  There is
no requirement contained in Rule 4.02 or any other of the Board's Rules that
the exact language of Rule 4.02 be parroted in the statement of oath in a
complaint.

     It is not the form of the statement of oath but the substance of the
statement that is significant.  The purpose of Rule 4.02 is to impress upon
the signer of a prohibited practice complaint that he/she will be held
accountable for the truth and accuracy of the contents of the complaint.
While it would unquestionably be wise for a complainant, in order to remove
all possible objections to the form of its statement of oath, to repeat
verbatim the language contained in Rule 4.02, there likely is no one
particular form of statement which accomplishes the purpose of Rule 4.02 any
better than does another form.  What is important is that the language of the
statement evince an awareness on the part of the signer that he/she is
responsible for the statements contained in the complaint.

     The statement of oath contained in Local No. 48's complaint plainly
complies with the spirit of Rule 4.02.  The statement provides that:

         "Personally appeared the above-named Richard R. Peluso and
          attested to the truth of the statements, to be best of
          his knowledge, as hereinabove written."

A notary public's signature and seal follow this statement.  We note that
among the dictionary definitions of the world "attest" is "to affirm to be
true or genuine" and "to put (one) on oath."  We believe that the complaint's
statement of oath sufficiently evinces an awareness on the part of the signer
that he was swearing to the truth and accuracy of the statements contained in
the complaint.

     Respondents also contend that they have been denied the protection
afforded by a statement of oath declared under penalty of perjury.  To remove
any doubts that the signer of the complaint is willing to be held accountable
for the truth and accuracy of the contents of the complaint, to the best of
his knowledge and belief, we will order that Local No. 48 file with the Board
and mail to the parties within 10 calendar days of its receipt of this
Interim Decision and Order, a new page 2 to its complaint containing the
following signed, notarized statement:

    "I, Richard R. Peluso, have signed this complaint and hereby declare,
     under penalty of perjury, that the statements contained in this com-
     plaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

                                              /s/______________________
                                              Richard R. Peluso

                                                               (Cont'd)

                                     -3-

     "State of Maine
     "County of Kennebec, ss.

     "Personally appeared before me Richard R. Peluso and acknowledged
     that he signed the foregoing declaration.

                                  (seal)   /s/________________________
                                              Notary Public"

Local No. 48's complaint will be deemed to be dismissed if the above statement
of oath is not submitted within 10 calendar days of receipt of this Interim
Decision and Order.

     2.  Sufficiency of the allegations contained in the complaint.  We do not
agree with Respondenets' contentions that the complaint fails to allege facts
which would entitle Complainant to the relief sought.  The complaint alleges
that in October, 1978, the Town refused to deal with Local No. 48 stewards and
continued to deal with a former Local No. 48 steward who had been replaced as
steward after he filed a petition to decertify Local No. 48 as bargaining
agent and was elected president of the MPA.  The plain import of the complaint,
particularly when read in conjunction with the letter objecting to election,
is that this alleged conduct by the Town interfered with the holding of a free
and fair election on November 22, 1978.  Assuming all allegations in the
complaint are true, we believe that the complaint sufficiently alleges facts
which could entitle Local No. 48 to the relief sought.  See, e.g., Columbus
Janitor Service, Division of Servisco, 191 NLRB 902 (1971).  The complaint
accordingly cannot be dismissed on the ground that it fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.

     3.  The timeliness of the filing of the complaint.  Rule 3.08 of the
Board's Rules and Procedures provides in pertinent part that

          "[a]ll challenges to the conduct of a party to an election
           shall be by a prohibited practice complaint filed in
           accordance with Title 26, Maine Revised Statutes,  968
           . . . and in conformity with the provisions of Rule 3.07(B)
           . . ."

Section 968(5)(B) of the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act, 26
M.R.S.A.  961, et seq. ("Act") provides in relevant part that no hearing
shall be held upon any alleged prohibited practice occurring more than 6
months prior to the filing of the complaint, while Rule 3.07(B) states that
within 5 days after the election results are reported by the election officer,
"any party who intends to take exception to the conduct of an election
shall file his written objection with the Board . . ."

     The question raised by Respondents is whether Local No. 48's complaint
objecting to the conduct of the parties to the election under Rule 3.08 must
be filed within 6 months of the occurrence of the alleged prohibited practice,
purusant to 26 M.R.S.A.  968(5)(B), or within 5 days after the election
results are reported, in conformity with Rule 3.07(B).  This question is
relevant because Local No. 48's complaint was filed on Monday, December 4,
1978, the sixth working day after the November 22, 1978 election.  If the 6
month statute of limitations found in Section 968(5)(B) of the Act is
applicable, then the complaint

                                     -4-

was timely filed.  If the 5 day period set forth in Rule 3.07(B) is applicable,
however, the complaint was not timely filed and must be dismissed.

     We think it clear that Section 968(5)(B) with its six month statute of
limitations is applicable.  Rule 3.08 and Rule 3.07(B) are, by their language,
applicable when a party challenges the conduct of another party or the Board
at the election.  Local No. 48's complaint does not allege misconduct at the
election but instead alleges that conduct commencing some six weeks prior to
the election interfered with the holding of a fair election.  Because a party
to an election frequently does not become aware of another party's misconduct
within 5 days subsequent to the election, it would not be fair or logical to
hold that Rule 3.08 is applicable when a party challenges conduct which
occurred prior to the election.  Rule 3.08 with its five-day filing period
applies only to challenges to open, observable conduct by a party at the
election.  Local No. 48's complaint does not challenge such conduct, and Rule
3.08 consequently is not applicable.

     4.  Local No. 48's standing.  Respondents contend that Local No. 48 lacks
standing to seek the relief requested in the complaint, and that the request
for relief is moot because Local No. 48 has not allegegd any facts which would
empower the Board to set aside the election.  Among the relief sought in the
complaint is an order vacating the results of the November 22nd election,
an order directing the Town to recognize the stewards designated by Local No.
48 so long as Local No. 48 is the certified bargaining agent, and an order
directing the Town to cease assisting in the formation of the MPA.

     The relevant inquiry is whether Local No. 48 has standing to file the
complaint.  If Local No. 48 has standing to file, then it may seek whatever
relief it chooses.  It is the Board's responsibility under Section 968(5)(C)
of the Act to determine, after reviewing the merits of the case, what relief
if any will effectuate the policies of the Act.

     Local No. 48 has standing to file the complaint.  26 M.R.S.A.  968(5)(B);
Teamsters Local Union No. 48 v. Biddeford Police Department, M.L.R.B. No.
78-31 (1979).  It consequently has standing to seek the relief requested.
The request for relief is not moot because, as discussed, supra, the complaint
alleges facts which may entitle Local No. 48 to the relief sought.

     5.  The letter objecting to election.  We agree with Respondents'
arguments that Local No. 48's letter objecting to election must be dismissed
because it does not object to the conduct of the November 22nd election.  As
previously noted, Rule 3.07(B) sets forth the procedures by which a party
objects "to the conduct of an election."  Rule 3.07(B) thus authorizes a party
to raise procedural objections relating to the Board's conduct of an election
by filing a letter objecting to the election.  Local No. 48's letter objecting
to election does not object to the Board's conduct of the election, but
instead raises the same facts alleged in the prohibited practice complaint.
We accordingly will grant Respondents' motions to dismiss the letter objecting
to election.

                                    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 26

                                     -5-
                                                                                                                
M.R.S.A.  968, it is hereby ORDERED:

      1.  That within 10 calendar days of its receipt of this Interim
          Decision and Order Complainant file with the Board and mail
          to the parties a new page 2 to its prohibited practice com-
          plaint, containing a statement of oath in the form set forth
          at pages 3 and 4 of this Interim Decision and Order.  Failure
          to submit this filing within 10 calendar days of receipt of
          this Interim Decision and Order will mean that the prohibited
          practice complaint is deemed to be dismissed.

      2.  That Respondents' motions to dismiss the prohibited practice
          complaint are DENIED.

      3.  That Respondents' motions to dismiss the letter objecting to
          election are GRANTED.

Dated at Augusta, Maine this 26th day of April, 1979.

                                     MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD



                                     /s/___________________________
                                     Edward H. Keith
                                     Chairman



                                     /s/___________________________
                                     Michael Schoonjans
                                     Employee Representative



                                     /s/___________________________
                                     Kenneth T. Winters
                                     Alternate Employer Representative


                                     -6-



STATE OF MAINE                                   MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
                                                              Case No. 79-40

________________________________
                                )
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 48,   )
State, County, Municipal and    )
University Workers in the State )
of Maine                        )
                                )
                   Complainant, )
                                )
  v.                            )
                                )
TOWN OF MILLINOCKET             )             DECISION AND ORDER
                                )
  and                           )
                                )
MILLINOCKET POLICE ASSOCIATION, )
                                )
                   Respondents. )
________________________________)


     On December 4, 1978, Teamsters Local Union No. ("Local 48") filed a
prohibited practice complaint pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A.  968(5)(B) against
the Town of Millinocket, Maine ("Town"), and the Millinocket Police
Association ("MPA").  The Town's response to the complaint was filed
December 18, 1978, and the MPA's response was filed December 12, 1978.

     A pre-hearing conference on the case was held January 9, 1979 in Augusta,
Maine, with Alternate Chairman Donald W. Webber presiding.  As a result of
this pre-hearing conference, Alternate Chairman Webber issued on January 15,
1979 a Pre-Hearing Memorandum and Order, the contents of which are
incorporated herein by reference.

     On April 26, 1979, the Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board") issued an
Interim Decision and Order in the case, granting in part and denying in part
Respondents' motions to dismiss.  The contents of this Interim Decision and
Order are hereby incorporated herein by reference.

     A hearing on the case was held on July 31, 1979 in Bangor, Maine,
Chairman Edward H. Keith presiding, with Employer Representative Paul D.
Emery and Alternate Employee Representative Roland Gorman.  The parties
engaged in oral argument at the conclusion of the hearing, and the Board
proceeded to deliberate over and decide the case at a conference held after
oral argument on July 31, 1979.


                                JURISDICTION

     Neither party has challenged the jurisdiction of the Maine Labor
Relations Board in this matter, and we conclude that the Board has jurisdic-
tion to hear and render a decision in this case as provided in 26 M.R.S.A.
 968(5).

                                     -1-

                              FINDINGS OF FACT

     Upon review of the entire record, the Board finds:

          1.  Complainant Local 48 is a public employee organization and
              bargaining agent within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  968(5)
              (B).  Respondent Town of Millinocket is a public employer
              within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.  968(5)(B).  Respondent
              MPA is a public employee organization within the meaning of
              26 M.R.S.A.  968(5)(B).

          2.  On February 4, 1977, Teamsters Local 340, the predecessor
              union to Local 48, was certified as the collective bargaining
              agent for a bargaining unit composed of Sergeants and Patrolmen
              employed by the Millinocket Police Department.  The Town and
              Local 48 commenced negotiations for a collective bargaining
              agreement for the unit and an agreement with a term of Febru-
              ary 1, 1977 to December 31, 1978 eventually was executed.

          3.  Article 7 of the collective bargaining agreement provides in
              pertinent part "[t]he Town recognizes the right of the Union
              to designate job stewards and alternates."  Article 11 of the
              agreement provides in pertinent part:

                   "A grievance is hereby jointly defined as any dispute,
                    controversy or misunderstanding which  may arise under
                    the interpretation or application of this Agreement.

                      "a.  The aggrieved employee must present the
                           grievance to the Shop Steward or Arlternate.

                      "b.  The Shop Steward or Alternate shall take up
                           the grievance with the Chief of Police.  If
                           the Steward and the Chief of Police have not
                           resolved the grievance within five (5) working
                           days after the meeting between the grievant,
                           Steward, and Police Chief, the Shop Steward
                           shall submit such grievance in writing to the
                           Union Business Representative.

                      "c.  Within five (5) working days after the written
                           response of the Police Chief is due, the Union
                           Business Representative shall take the matter
                           up with the Town Manager, or his designee.
                           Within three (3) working days after such meeting
                           . . . , the Town Manager shall render a decision
                           on the grievance.

                                             *    *    *

                      "e.  The time limits for processing of grievances may
                           be extended by written consent of both parties.

                      "f.  All grievances shall be initiated not later than
                           thirty (30) days after the occurrence of the event
                           giving rise to the grievance."

          4.  After the Teamsters were certified as the bargaining agent, the
              members of the unit elected Melvin Gould to be steward for the
              unit.   Local 48 recognized Gould as the unit's steward, and
              appointed Paul Mott to be alternate steward.  Mott acted as
              steward in Gould's absence at a grievance hearing attended by the
              Town Manager in July, 1978.

          5.  Around the first of October, 1978, Gould began circulating a
              petition among the Sergeants and Patrolmen, seeking to decertify

                                     -2-

              Local 48 as bargaining agent in favor of the MPA.  An appropriate
              number of unit members signed the petition, and the petition was
              filed with the Board on October 6, 1978.  On October 4, 1978, the
              members of the bargaining unit met to elect officers of the MPA.
              Gould was elected president.  Gould did not subsequent to October
              1, 1978 attempt to handle any union business on behalf of Local 48.

          6.  Upon learning of Gould's efforts to decertify Local 48, Local 48's
              International Trustee in a letter dated October 11, 1978 to the
              Town Manager stated that Gould no longer represented Local 48 as
              steward, and that Mott and Donald Benson had been appointed as
              steward and alternate steward, respectively.  Copies of this letter
              were also mailed to Gould, Mott and Benson.

          7.  Shortly after receiving his copy of the letter, Benson spoke to
              Town Manager William Ayoob about the removal of Gould as steward.
              Ayoob stated that he was uncertain as to whom he should deal with,
              and asked Benson how Local 48 could replace an elected steward with
              appointed stewards.  Gould also spoke with the Town Manager shortly
              after receiving the October 11th letter.  The Town Manager indicated
              to Gould that he was confused about who was the proper steward for the
              unit.

          8.  In early October, 1978, a grievance arose regarding a change in the
              shift schedule.  On or about October 9, 1978, Mott and Benson re-
              quested a meeting with the Chief of Police to discuss the grievance.
              The Chief scheduled a meeting for the next day.  For some unexplained
              reason, Mott and Benson failed to appear at this meeting, and did not
              subsequently contact the Chief about the grievance.  The Chief con-
              sequently thought that the stewards had decided to drop the grievance.

          9.  On the thirtieth day after the occurrence of the event which gave
              rise to the shift change grievance, at the end of October or first
              of November, 1978, Mott and Benson went to Town Manager Ayoob's
              office.  The stewards explained that the Chief of Police was on
              vacation, and asked Ayoob for a waiver of the 30 day time limit in
              which to process the grievance.  Ayoob refused to agree to the
              waiver, and again expressed confusion as to which employees were
              properly acting as stewards.  The stewards and Town Manager then
              briefly discussed the grievance.  Although Ayoob stated that under the
              contract the stewards should have taken the grievance to the Chief
              first, he did not refuse to discuss the grievance with Mott and Ben-
              son.  Ayoob did not subsequent to the meeting issue a written deci-
              sion granting or denying the grievance.

         10.  As a result of receiving Gould's petition on October 6, 1978, the
              Executive Director of the Board scheduled pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A.
               967(2) a decertification/certification election for the Sergeants
              and Patrolmen on November 22, 1978.  Shortly before the commencement
              of the election on November 22nd, John Picard, a member of the bar-
              gaining unit, stated while standing in a hallway in the building
              where the election was held that he was undecided on how to vote.
              Town Manager Ayoob overheard Picard's comment and approached Picard,
              stating in effect that if Local 48 was voted out, he would see that
              things were easy on Picard.  Local 48 was decertified at the election
              and the MPA certified as the unit's bargaining agent by a 6-4 vote.


                                  DECISION

     Local 48 charges that the Town violated 26 M.R.S.A.  964(1)(A), (C),
and (E) and the MPA 26 M.R.S.A.  964(2)(A) when the Town refused to deal with
either Mott or Benson as Local 48's stewards, and continued to deal with Gould.
Among the relief sought by Local 48 to remedy these alleged violations is an
order vacating the results of the November 22, 1978 election.  The Town argues
that the

                                     -3-

evidence does not show that it refused to deal with Local 48's stewards, while
the MPA contends that Gould did not continue to hold himself out as Local 48's
steward after being removed from the steward position.

     After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude as more fully discussed
below that the evidence does not sustain Local 48's allegations.  We
accordingly must order that the complaint be dismissed.

     Were the allegations contained in Local 48's complaint supported by the
evidence, we likely would find violations of the Municipal Public Employees
Labor Relations Act ("Act"), and order that the results of the November 22nd
election be vacated.  So long as Local 48 remained the unit's bargaining agent,
the Town was obligated under the Act to deal with those persons whom Local 48
designated as job stewards.  Amoco Oil Co., 221 N.L.R.B. 1104 (1975); North
Bros. Ford, Inc., 187 N.L.R.B. 766, 767 (1971).  However, Local 48's
contentions simply are not supported by the record.

     The record shows that Local 48 stewards Mott and Benson acted in their
capacities as stewards on two occasions between October 1, 1978 and the
November 22, 1978 election.  On or about October 9, 1978, Mott and Benson
asked the Chief of Police to schedule a meeting on a grievance concerning a
change in the shift schedule.  This the Chief did, setting the meeting for the
next day.  Mott and Benson failed to attend the meeting and did not again
contact the Chief regarding the grievance.  When the stewards did not appear
at the grievance meeting and did not get back to the Chief about the grievance,
the Chief logically assumed that the stewards had decided to drop the
grievance.  The Chief of Police thus obviously was willing to deal with Mott
and Benson in ther capacities as stewards for Local 48.

     Second, in late October or early November, 1978, while the Chief was on
vacation, Mott and Benson approached Town Manager Ayoob to talk about the
grievance.  Mott and Benson asked for an extension of time in which to process
the grievance.  This request was denied by Ayoob, which was a proper exercise
of the discretion provided to the Town Manager by Article 11(e) of the
collective bargaining agreement.  While Ayoob again expressed confusion as to
which employees were properly designated as stewards for the unit, he did
briefly discuss the grievance with Mott and Benson.  It is significant that
Ayoob at no time refused to deal with Mott and Benson on the ground that these
employees had not been properly designated as stewards.  It is also signifi-
cant that the record contains no evidence that the Town attempted to deal with
Gould as a steward for the unit after October 1, 1978.

     Our conclusion that the Town did not violate the Act is not changed by
the fact that the Town Manager's professed confusion over which employees were
properly acting as stewards was wholly unwarranted.  Article 7 of the
collective bargaining agreement unequivocally gave Local 48 the right to
designate job stewards and alternates.  Once the Town received Local 48's
October 11, 1978 letter notifying Ayoob that Gould had been replaced as
steward by Mott and Benson, there should have been no doubt in Ayoob's mind
about who he was obligated

                                     -4-

to deal with under the agreement.[fn]1  As previously discussed, however,
Ayoob's unjustified confusion did not result in a refusal by Ayoob to deal
with Mott and Benson.  To the contrary, Ayoob did meet with Mott and Benson
and did discuss the grievance when the stewards appeared at the Town Manager's
office.  We consequently conclude that Ayoob's unjustified confusion did not
result in a violation of the Act.

     We also cannot accept the fact that Ayoob did not issue a written decision
on the grievance as evidence that Ayoob refused to deal with Mott and Benson.
First, although the Chief of Police was required under the agreement to issue
a written decision, Article 11 of the agreement nowhere expressly requires a
written decision by the Town Manager.  Second, we think that the reason why
the Town Manager did not issue a formal response to the grievance was that the
stewards had not taken the grievance to the Chief, as required by Article 11(b)
These considerations refute any inference created by Ayoob's failure to issue
a written decision that Ayoob was not dealing with Mott and Benson.

     Finally, Local 48 did not allege in its complaint or at the hearing
that Ayoob's comments to Picard shortly before the November 22nd election
constitute a violation of the Act.  Evidence about these comments was offered
by Local 48, and was admitted into the record by the Board, for the sole
purpose of impeaching the Town Manager's testimony.  The issue whether these
comments constitute a violation of the Act was not litigated at the hearing.
We therefore conclude that the issue whether Ayoob's comments violated Section
964(1) of the Act is not properly before us.  Moffitt Building Materials Co.,
214 N.L.R.B. 655 (1974).

     We also conclude that the evidence does not support Local 48's allegation
that the MPA violated Section 964(2)(A) of the Act.  The record shows that
Gould, who was elected president of the MPA on October 4, 1978, did not after
October 1, 1978 hold himself out as a representative of Local 48, or otherwise
attempt to become involved in the affairs of Local 48.  There is no evidence
that any other member or officer of the MPA attempted to interfere with or
subvert the authority of Mott and Benson to act as Local 48 stewards.  We
consequently cannot find that the MPA is guilty of any violation of the Act.

     Because the evidence does not support Local 48's allegations, we must
order that the complaint be dismissed.

____________

  1 As Gould recognized in his testimony, his removal as steward for Local 48
    was entirely warranted.  Around October 1, 1978, Gould commenced circulating
    among bargaining unit members a petition to decertify Local 48 as the bar-
    gaining agent.  Removal of an elected steward who acts in such direct con-
    flict with the Union's interests is permissible.  See, e.g., Newman v. Local
    1101, Communication Workers of America, 570 F.2d 439 (2nd Cir. 1978).

                                     -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 Teamsters Local Union No. 48's prohibited practice
          complaint filed December 4, 1978 against the Town of
          Millinocket and the Millinocket Police Association is
          DISMISSED.

Dated at Augusta, Maine this 11th day of October, 1979.


                                          
                                         MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD



                                         /s/__________________________
                                         Edward H. Keith
                                         Chairman



                                         /s/__________________________
                                         Paul D. Emery
                                         Employer Representative



                                         /s/__________________________
                                         Roland Gorman
                                         Alternate Employee Representative


                                     -6-