Associated Faculties of the University of Maine v. Association of Independent Professionals and The Right-To-Work Committee and/or Foundation, No. 81-22, 4 NPER 20-12036 (Aug. 19, 1981); aff'd Superior Ct. Docket No. CV-81-418, (Mar. 5, 1982) reversed in part, sub. nom. Association of Independent Professionals v. Maine Labor Relations Board, 465 A.2d 401(Me. 1983); MLRB Decision and Order on Remand, No. 81-22 (Oct. 5, 1983) STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Case No. 81-22 Issued: August 19, 1981 _________________________________ ) ASSOCIATED FACULTIES OF THE ) UNIVERSITY OF MAINE, ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) ) ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT ) PROFESSIONALS ) DECISION AND ORDER ) and ) ) THE RIGHT-TO-WORK COMMITTEE ) and/or FOUNDATION, ) ) Respondents. ) _________________________________) This is a prohibited practices case, filed pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 1029(2) on October 9, 1980 by the Associated Faculties of the University of Maine (AFUM). The complaint alleges that the Association of Independent Professionals (AIP) and the Right-To-Work Committee and/or Foundation (Foundation) violated 26 M.R.S.A. 1027(2)(A) by distributing to University of Maine faculty members a notice indicating that faculty members could properly choose none of the three "maintenance of membership" fee options provided in the collective bargaining agreement between AFUM and the University of Maine. The Foundation filed an answer to the complaint on October 17, 1980, denying that it had violated any provision of the University of Maine Labor Relations Act, 26 M.R.S.A. 1021, et seq. (Act), and requesting that it be awarded costs for defending itself in this case. AIP filed a response to the complaint on October 23@ 1980, denying certain allegations set forth in the complaint. A pre-hearing conference on the case was held on December 29, 1980, Alternate Chairman Donald W. Webber presiding. Alternate Chairman Webber issued on December 29th a Pre-Hearing Conference Memorandum and Order, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference. -1- ______________________________________________________________________________ Hearings on the case were held on @ebruary 27 and March 17, 1981, Chairman Edward H. Keith presiding, with Employer Representative Don R. Ziegenbein and Employee Representative Wallace J. Legge. AFUM was represented by Stephen P. Sunenblick, Esq., AIP by Dennis McConnell, and the Foundation by Dannie B. Fogleman, Esq. The parties were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, introduce documentary evidence, and make argument. AFUM and the Foundation filed post-hearing briefs, which have been considered by the Board. JURISDICTION AFUM is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the University of Maine faculty bargaining unit. AIP is a "university employee organization" and the Foundation a "person" within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. 1029(2). The jurisdiction of the Maine Labor Relations Board to hear this case and render a decision and order lies in 26 M.R.S.A. 1029. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the entire record, the Board finds: 1) On May 11, 1978, AFUM was certified as the bargaining agent for the University of Maine faculty bargaining unit, which is comprised of approxi- mately 950 faculty members. AFUM is affiliated with the Maine Teachers Association and the National Education Association. Negotiations between AFUM and the University for a collective bargaining agreement for the bargaining unit began, and on September 14, 1979 the parties entered into an agreement with a term of September 14, 1979 to June 30, 1981. Paragraph A. of Article 13 of the agreement states: Checkoff and Maintenance of Membership A. Unit members shall 1) within six months of their initial full-time appointment to the University or 2) within sixty (60) days of the ratification of this Agreement if their service is beyond six months and 3) by October 1 of subsequent years elect one of the following alternatives: a) membership in the Association; b) payment of a representation fee; c) payment to an education fund. Paragraph B. of Article 13 states that a member of AFUM can resign from membership during the period from August 15 to September 15 of a given year. Paragraphs C. and D. provide that the representation fee payment shall equal 95% of membership -2- ______________________________________________________________________________ dues, which currently are $161.00 per year, and that the education fund pay- ment shall equal annual membership dues. Paragraph H. states that the University's responsibility for deducting dues or fees from a unit member's salary automatically terminates upon either 1) cessation of the unit member's employment, 2) transfer or promotion of the unit member out of the bargaining unit, or 3) resignation by the unit member from AFUM membership. 2) Some of the members of the bargaining unit refused to select any of the 3 fee options provided by Article 13(A) of the contract. In the fall and winter of 1979, AFUM sent letters to these faculty members threatening legal action if one of the options was not chosen. Eventually collection suits were filed in Cumberland County Superior Court against about 60 bargaining unit members. No decision on the merits of any of these suits had been rendered at the time of the hearing of this case. 3) The threatened legal action,by AFUM spurred some faculty members who were opposed to selecting a fee' option to meet in January, 1980. These members formed the Association of Independent Professionals, with the goal of acting as a focal point for information on alternatives to Article 13 avail- able to faculty members. Dennis McConnell, a member of the faculty bargaining unit, and David Baxter, a member of another University bargaining unit, are co-chairman of AIP, and Edward Huff is the treasurer. AIP is an informal organization, with no constitution, by-laws, or dues requirements. Anyone who wishes to attend an AIP meeting can be a member of the organization. AIP has a bank account, a letter head, and a steering committee. The organization issues an occasional newsletter, has open meetings, sends occasional mailings to faculty members, and advises faculty members who have questions or concerns about the fee options. 4) Shortly after the January meeting, McConnell contacted the Right-To- Work Legal Defense Foundation in Springfield, Virginia to see if he could get legal help if he was sued for failing to select a fee option. The purpose of the Foundation is to provide "free legal aid to employees victimized by forced unionism abuses." McConnell spoke to Bruce Cameron, a Foundation staff attorney who came to the University's Orono campus in February, 1980 to meet with faculty members who feared they were in danger of being sued. At the February meeting, attended by 15 or 16 people, Cameron said that the Foundation would help anyone who asked for help for free, in that the Foundation could not accept payments or gifts from -3- ______________________________________________________________________________ anyone they represented. Cameron distributed retainer forms to be filled out by those in attendance who wished legal assistance. 5) In a February 29, 1980 memorandum to the faculty and professional staff, AIP announced a March 12 meeting for the purpose of discussing legal defense resources for those who had not selected any of the fee options. The memorandum states that it appeared that AIP had the necessary financial and legal support to assist anyone threatened with legal action. McConnell informed the 25 to 40 people who attended the meeting of the steps AIP had taken to get legal defense resources and of the procedures required of those who wished legal assistance. On April 18th, a letter signed by the steering committee of AIP was sent to the faculty and professional staff. The letter states that there may be some alternatives to the fee options under the contract, that the Foundation was helping some faculty members who had been sued, and that any faculty member who was sued could contact AIP for help. 6) In an April 5, 1980 letter to the Chancellor of the University, AIP requested that the University take the position in negotiations with the professional staff bargaining unit that unit members be given the option to choose whether to participate in the union. The letter sets forth the reasons for the request. The Chancellor responded to the request by saying he would give AIP's views "serious consideration." 7) Cameron and Foundation staff attorney Dannie Fogleman returned to the Orono campus to meet with faculty members on August 6,1980. On August 4th, AIP distributed a newsletter to about 90% of the University faculty announcing the August 6th meeting. The newsletter states that faculty members were starting to receive summons to answer charges in the court proceeding, that legal help was available at no cost, and that "our attorneys will be on campus next week to provide information to faculty members who desire legal assis- tance." Cameron and Fogleman told the 25 to 30 people who attended the meeting that the Foundation would represent without charge those faculty members who requested help. Retainer forms were distributed to those persons who wanted legal assistance. 8) On September 5, 1980, McConnell used the campus mail system to distribute a flyer from AIP to approximately 500 faculty members at the Orono campus. The flyer, which was prepared and typed by McConnell, contains two sections, one captioned "Change of Status Notice to AFUM," and the other captioned "Change in Payroll Deduction Authorization." On the back of the change of status notice to -4- ______________________________________________________________________________ AFUM was the name and address of Edward Collins, the president of AFUM, while the name and address of the campus payroll officer appeared on the back of the payroll deduction section. The instructions on the flyer in part state: "If you desire to change your status with respect to the faculty union, you may use the forms provided below. After providing the response appropriate to your circumstances, separate the two notices, fold and tape each form, and place the notices in campus mail." 9) The section of the flyer designed to be sent to AFUM states in part: "This is to advise AFUM/MTA/NEA of my decision to change the nature of my affiliation with the union . . . In accordance with Section B, Article 13 of the agreement between AFUM/MTA/NEA and the University, I hereby change the original selection to the indicated form of affiliation below." Selections were provided on the form for those faculty members who had chosen among the 3 options provided by Article 13(A) of the contract. Included in the selec- tions was the choice of terminating the form of payment being made at the time by the faculty member, and choosing neither of the alternative forms of affiliation provided by the contract. Identical selections were provided in the portion of the form to be sent to the payroll office. McConnell sent sample copies of the form to AIP supporters at the University's Southern Maine, Farmington, and Presque Isle campuses. 10) Eleven faculty members, 6 of whom utilized the-form distributed by AIP, changed their affiliation status during the August 15 to September 15 "window period." Nine persons, five of whom had been members of AFUM, terminated their payments and chose neither of the alternative forms of affiliation. The other two faculty members terminated their membership in AFUM and chose the representation fee option. The result of the flyer was that AFUM lost some funds, some AFUM members decided to terminate their membership, additional paperwork was created, and AFUM members and staff spent time trying to encourage people to select one of the three contract options. The flyer also created some confusion among AFUM members. Although the flyer states that it is from the Association of Independent Professionals, some AFUM members thought the president of AFUM had sent the form out, and were confused about the "fourth option" presented in the form - that of not choosing any of the 3 options set forth in Article 13(A). 11) The Foundation did not advise or give any assistance to McConnell or AIP with regard to the "change of status" form. The Foundation has not provided AIP with any financial assistance for its activities. -5- ______________________________________________________________________________ DISCUSSION At issue in this case are the following questions: 1) is AIP a "university employee organization" subject to the prohibitions set forth in 26 M.R.S.A. 1027(2); 2) did the September 5, 1980 "notice" sent by AIP to faculty members violate Section 1027(2)(A); 3) if so, was the Foundation in any way responsible for the notice; and 4) is the Foundation entitled to its attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in defending itself in this action? We find that AIP is subject to the prohibitions contained in Section 1027(2); that the September 5th notice violated Section 1027(2)(A); that the Foundation was not responsible for the notice; and that the Foundation is not entitled to receive its attorneys' fees and costs. We will order AIP to cease and desist from its prohibited practice, and we will dismiss the complaint as to the Foundation. 1. The status of AIP. AIP is a "university employee organization" within the meaning of Section 1027(2). AIP is an informal organization composed of and supported by faculty members who oppose Article 13 of the collective bargaining agreement. The purpose of the organization is to act as a focal point for information on alternatives to Article 13 available to faculty members. The organization has no constitution, by-laws, dues require- ments, or membership list. It is run by two co-chairpersons and a steering committee, and has a bank account and a letterhead. In furtherance of its purpose, AIP mails letters and memoranda to faculty members, has issued a newsletter, has open meetings, and advises faculty members who have questions and concerns about Article 13. An organization is an "employee organization" if it engages in "some attempt to discuss or treat with the employer, or to persuade or petition him" with regard to a labor relations matter. Local Union Nos. 8505, et al., District 30, UMW, 146 NLRB 652, 659 (1964). Among AIP's activities has been the mailing of a letter in April, 1980 to the University Chancellor requesting that the University take the position in contract negotiations with the professional staff bargaining unit that all members of that unit be given the option to choose whether or not to participate in a labor organization. The letter also sets forth the reasons for AIP's request. -6- ______________________________________________________________________________ This letter constitutes an attempt by AIP to persuade or petition the University with regard to a labor relations matter.[fn]1 While the letter concerns negotiations for another bargaining unit, we infer that one purpose of the letter was to introduce the University to AIP's objections to union security clauses, with an eye to persuading the University to resist incor- porating Article 13 in future contracts with the faculty bargaining unit. In any event, AIP clearly has attempted to persuade the employer with regard to union security clauses for University employees. We accordingly conclude that AIP is a "university employee organization" subject to the prohibitions set forth in Section 1027(2). 2. The September 5th notice to faculty members. AIP's September 5th "Change of Status Notice," sent to approximately 500 bargaining unit members, violated Section 1027(2)(A) because it contained false and misleading infor- mation with regard to the options available under Article 13(B) of the collective bargaining agreement. The notice improperly indicated that bargaining unit members could, in accordance with Article 13(B), elect to choose none of the 3 options set forth in Article 13(A) of the contract. For example, one of the choices provided in the notice for bargaining unit members who were members of AFUM states: "In accordance with Section B, Article 13 of the agreement . . . I hereby change the original selection to the indicated form of affiliation below. resign from AFUM membership, and choose neither of the alternative forms of affiliation." (Emphasis in original). The choice of choosing, "in accordance with Section B, Article 13," neither of the alternative forms of affiliation was also provided for those unit members who had chosen the representation fee option or the education fund fee option. The statements in the notice that unit members could in accordance with Article 13(B) choose none of the forms of affiliation were false because Article 13(B) does not provide for such a choice. Article 13(B) merely provides that AFUM members _______________ 1. AFUM's contention that AIP unlawfully attempted in its letter to the Chancellor to bargain with the University is meritless. Aside from the fact that the contention was not timely raised, appearing for the first time in AFUM's brief, the argument ignores the difference between attempt- ing to deal with an employer and attempting to bargain. See, e.g., NLRB v. Cabot Carbon Co., 360 U.S. 203,211 (1959). Nothing in the April letter or in any other part of the record suggests that AIP made a proposal to or otherwise attempted to negotiate with the University. -7- ______________________________________________________________________________ could resign their membership during the period from August 15 to September 15 of a given year. Article 13(A) of the agreement states that bargaining unit members shall "elect one of the following alternatives: a) membership in the Association [AFUM]; b) payment of a representation fee; c) payment to an education fund." Implicit in Article 13(A) and (B) is the intent that if an AFUM member resigns from membership during the 30 day "window period" provided by Article 13(B), he or she will select one of the other affiliation alterna- tives provided in Article 13(A). Neither Article 13(B) nor (A) nor any other provision of the agreement provides that a bargaining unit member has the option of choosing "neither of the alternative forms of affiliation." That "option" was created by McConnell in the September 5th notice and made to appear to be a valid choice under Article 13(B) because he and other AIP supporters were opposed to Article 13. The misleading information contained in the notice interfered in viola- tion of Section 1027(2)(A) with the rights of those bargaining unit members who chose to maintain their membership in AFUM or their original selection of one of the other affiliation alternatives. Section 1027(2)(A) prohibits interference with, restraint or coercion of employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 1023. Section 1023 guarantees, among other things, the rights to join, form and participate in activities, or organiza- tions of the employees' choosing, without interference or restraint. The "fourth option" set forth in the notice caused confusion among bargaining unit members and tended to disrupt the operation of the organiza- tion which a majority of the faculty members had chosen as their bargaining agent. Printed on the reverse side of the notice was the name and campus address of the president of AFUM, so that the notice could be filled out and mailed directly to the president. This caused confusion among some unit members who thought that AFUM mailed out the notice, even though the notice states that it is from AIP, or that AIP was an arm of AFUM. The notice also tended to undermine the legitimacy and authority of AFUM by indicating that unit members could properly ignore the options set forth in Article 13(A). The notice caused AFUM to lose some membership dues and caused AFUM officers and staff to spend time explaining the form and encouraging unit members to select one of the options contained in Article 13(A). -8- ______________________________________________________________________________ The Foundation's contentions that the notice was proper are not persuasive. The argument that Article 13(H) of the contract infers that the "fourth option" may be exercised at any time is contrary to the plain intent of the Article. Article 13(H) provides that the University's responsibility for deducting dues or fees ceases when the unit member leaves his/her employ- ment or is transferred or promoted out of the bargaining unit, and that its responsibility for deducting dues ceases when a unit member resigns from AFUM in accordance with Article 13(B). As previously discussed, Article 13(B) deals only with resignation of membership from AFUM, while Article 13(A) sets forth the 3 options available for unit members. Article 13(H) does not imply that a unit member who resigns from AFUM is relieved from the obligation of choosing one of the other options provided in Article 13(A); surely AFUM and the University could not have intended that a unit member could avoid Article 13(A) simply by joining and then resigning from AFUM. The plain meaning of Article 13(H) is entirely consistent with the intent implicit in Article 13(A) and (B) that unit members, including those who resign from AFUM, choose one of the options set forth in Article 13(A). The contention that the September 5th notice had no effect on the Section 1023 rights of the unit members misses the point. A majority of the unit members selected AFUM as their bargaining agent, and conduct which interferes with the functioning of the bargaining agent at the same time interferes with the rights of the employees to form, join and participate in activities of organizations of their own choosing. The argument that McConnell and the other AIP supporters did nothing more than express their opposition to Article 13, without any intention of interfering with any employee's rights, also is not persuasive. First, AIP supporters did no more than merely express their opposition; they distributed to about 500 unit members false and misleading information designed to confuse unit members about the options under the contract and to undermine the authority and disrupt the operations of the bar- gaining agent. Second, proof of intent to influence the exercise of employee rights is not required for a violation of Section 1027(2)(A); the test is whether under the circumstances the conduct reasonably tends to interfere with the employees in the free exercise of their Section 1023 rights. See, e.g., Local 659, Stage Employees v. NLRB, 83 LRRM 2527 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Local 542 Operating Engineers v. NLRB, 328 F.2d 850, 852-853 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 379 U.S. 826 (1964). The confusion and disruption caused by the notice did reasonably tend to interfere with the unit -9- ______________________________________________________________________________ members' rights to form and participate in the activities of a labor organiza- tion. The Foundation's argument that all of AIP's activities are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is not correct. Misrepresentations which interfere with or coerce employees in the free exercise of their guaranteed rights are "without the protection of the First Amendment." NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969). AIP "can easily make [its] views known without engaging in 'brinkmanship' when it becomes all too easy to 'overstep and tumble [over] the brink.'" Id., at 620. Indeed, the record is replete with instances when AIP properly made its views known; its letters to faculty members and University officials regarding its views of Article 13, its offers to help any faculty members sued by AFUM, its newsletter, its meetings for bargaining unit members, the portion of the September 5th form directed to the University payroll office, and all other of its activities shown by the record in this case are entirely proper and well within the protection of the First Amendment. Only when AIP ventured into misrepresenting the options provided by Article 13 did it step into an impermissible area and lose its First Amendment shield. Equally unpersuasive is the suggestion by the Foundation that the notice was proper because Article 13 is an invalid, unlawful contract clause. Regardless whether Article 13 is valid or invalid, the notice still misrepre- sents the options provided by the clause. If the clause is invalid, the proper procedure for AIP and its supporters is to challenge the clause in a judicial proceeding, as is being done in the cases before the Cumberland County Superior Court, not to represent to other unit members that the clause provides a fictitious "fourth option." Even if the Foundation ultimately is successful with its theory that Article 13 is invalid, there was no ruling to that effect on September 5, 1980 which could justify the misrepresentations contained in the notice. In sum, we conclude that AIP violated Section 1027(2)(A) by distributing the notice containing misrepresentations about the options under Article 13.[fn]2 We will order AIP to cease and desist from making misrepresentations about the affiliation options provided by the contract. ____________________ 2. AFUM's contention that AIP violated Section 1027(2) by its unauthorized use of the campus mailing system was not timely raised and is in any event meritless; unauthorized use of the mails is not among the prohibited practices enumerated in Section 1027(2). -10- ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. The Foundation's role. AFUM's contention that the Foundation is par- tially responsible for the September 5th notice and thus guilty of a violation of Section 1027(2)(A) is not supported by the record. AFUM's theory appar- ently is that the Foundation is an "agent" of AIP within the meaning of Section 1027(2). The only evidence of an agency relationship pointed to by AFUM is the fact that the Foundation provided free legal assistance to those unit members who were sued for failing to select one of the options in Article 13. This evidence falls far short of showing an agency relationship, which is determined by considering "whether the agent's performance with respect to his physical conduct is subject to another's control or right to control." Baker Bus Service, Inc. v. Keith, 416 A.2d 727, 730 (Me. 1980). Since the evidence neither shows that the Foundation is subject to AIP's control or right to control, nor that AIP is subject to the Foundation's control, an agency relationship does not exist between the two parties. We need not decide whether the Foundation is a "university employee organization" or other entity subject to the prohibitions in Section 1027(2) because there is no evidence that it had any involvement with the September 5th notice. The Foundation did not provide any advice, assistance, money, or other support with regard to the preparation or distribution of the notice, which was the work solely of McConnell and AIP. The fact that the Foundation provided free legal assistance to unit members is not sufficient evidence to show that the Foundation was in any way responsible for the September 5th notice. Thus, even if the Foundation is subject to the prohibitions contained in Section 1027(2), there is no evidence that it has engaged in any conduct violative of that section. The allegations in the prohibited practices complaint concerning the Right-To-Work Committee and/or Foundation will be dismissed. 4. The Foundation's claim for costs. The Foundation urges that, because AFUM instituted this action against it in bad faith and without probable cause, it is entitled to be awarded its attorneys' fees and costs for parti- cipating in the case. We disagree. While we will dismiss the complaint as to the Foundation, we cannot say that there was no cause for AFUM to name the Foundation as a respondent. In October, 1980, when AFUM filed its complaint, it had reason to believe that there was some connection between the Foundation and AIP. Specifically, -11- ______________________________________________________________________________ AFUM knew or had reason to know that the Foundation was providing free legal assistance to those unit members whom AFUM had sued, that AIP in its mailings to unit members had stated that it had contacted the Foundation and that free legal assistance was available, and that Foundation attorneys had attended AIP meetings on the Orono campus in February and August, 1980. Although AFUM's allegations - that AIP is an agent of the Foundation, that AIP and the Foundation distributed the September 5th notice, and that the Foundation provided computer printouts and advice for preparing the notice - were not proven, AFUM's knowledge about the Foundation's activities provided sufficient reason for making the allegations. Thus, while AFUM could have done a more adequate job in investigating and preparing its case, we cannot say that its action in making the Foundation a party was so groundless as to warrant an award of fees and costs. The Foundation's request for its attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this case accordingly is denied. ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and discussion, 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. 1029, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. That the Association of Independent Professionals and Dennis McConnell, and their agents and members, cease and desist from distributing false and misleading information to members of University of Maine bargaining units about the affiliation options provided by Article 13 of the collective bargaining agreement between the Associated Faculties of the University of Maine and the University. 2. That the prohibited practice complaint as to the Right-To-Work Committee and/or Foundation is dismissed. Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 19th day of August, 1981. MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOAR The parties are advised of their right pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 1029(7) to seek /s/______________________________________ a review by the Superior Edward H. Keith, Chairman Court of this decision by filing a complaint in accordance with Rule 80B /s/_______________________________________ of the Rules of Civil Don R. Ziegenbein, Employer Representative Procedure within 15 days after receipt of this decision. /s/_______________________________________ Wallace J. Legge, Employee Representative -12- ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Case No. 81-22 Issued: October 5, 1983 ______________________________ ) ASSOCIATED FACULTIES OF THE ) UNIVERSITY OF MAINE, ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) ORDER ON REMAND ) ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT ) PROFESSIONALS, ) ) Respondent. ) ______________________________) This case is on remand from the Law Court. In Associated Faculties of the University of Maine v. Association of Independent Professionals, MLRB No. 81-22 (Aug. 19, 1981), we found that the Association of Independent Professionals (AIP) violated 26 M.R.S.A. Section 1027(2)(A) by distributing a flyer to bargaining unit members which contained false and misleading information about the representation fee options provided by a collective bargaining agreement then in effect between the University of Maine and the Associated Faculties of the University of Maine (AFUM). We ordered the AIP to "cease and desist from distributing false and misleading information to members of Universtiy of Maine bargaining units about the affiliation options provided by Article 13 of the collective bargaining agreement." On appeal, the Law Court upheld our finding that distribution of the flyer constituted a practice prohibited by Section 1027(2)(A) but vacated our order on the ground that it constituted an impermissible restriction on the AIP's First Amendment "free speech" rights. Association of Independent Professionals v. Maine Labor Relations Board, Decision No. 3329 (Aug. 30, 1983). The Court ordered that the case be remanded to us for further consideration of an appropriate remedy, indicating that "prohibit[ing] the use of the flyer or requir[ing] AIP to distribute corrective notices clearly indicating that 'option four' is not one expressly provided by Article 13" might be proper remedies under the circumstances of the case. Id., at 22. -1- ______________________________________________________________________________ After having carefully considered the matter, we have decided to order that the AIP cease and desist from using or distributing the flyer containing the false and misleading information. This order will prohibit the use of the offending flyer and will not in any way infringe upon the AIP's right to criticize or contest fee options which may be included in University of Maine collective bargaining agreements. ORDER On the basis of the findings and discussion set forth in our August 19, 1981 decision in this case, 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. Section 1029, it is hereby ORDERED: That the Association of Independent Professionals and its agents and members cease and desist from using or distrib- uting the flyer dated September 5, 1980 which contains false and misleading information about the affiliation options provided by the collective bargaining agreement between AFUM and the University of Maine. Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 5th day of October, 1983. MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD /s/_______________________________________ Edward H. Keith, Chairman /s/_______________________________________ Thacher E. Turner, Employer Representative /s/_______________________________________ Harold S. Noddin, Employee Representative -2-