STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case No. 83-21
Issued: August 24, 1983
_________________________________
)
WASHBURN TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. )
)
CARLETON L. BARNES, )
Superintendent of Schools, ) DECISION AND ORDER
)
and )
)
M.S.A.D. NO. 45 BOARD OF )
DIRECTORS, )
)
Respondents. )
_________________________________)
This is a prohibited practices case, filed pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A.
Section 968(5)(B) on March 9, 1983 by the Washburn Teachers Association
(Association). The Association alleges in its complaint that Superintendent
of Schools Carleton L. Barnes and the M.S.A.D. No. 45 Board of Directors
(Directors) violated 26 M.R.S.A. Section 964(1)(A) and (E) by engaging in a
course of bad faith bargaining. On March 30, 1983 the Directors filed an
answer and a counter-complaint, denying that it had violated any provision of
the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act, 26 M.R.S.A. Section 961,
et seq. (Act), and alleging that the Association violated 26 M.R.S.A. Section
964(2)(B) by bargaining in bad faith. The Association filed an amended
prohibited practices complaint on April 19, 1983 and the Directors filed an
amended answer and counter-complaint on April 20, 1983.
A pre-hearing conference on the case was held on April 22, 1983,
Alternate Chairman Donald W. Webber presiding. Alternate Chairman Webber
issued on April 27, 1983 a Pre-Hearing Conference Memorandum and Order, the
contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Hearings on the case were held on April 29 and June 1, 1983, Chairman
Edward H. Keith presiding, with Employer Representative Don R. Ziegenbein and
Alternate Employee Representative Russell A. Webb. The Association was repre-
sented by UniServ Director Harold B. Dickinson and the Directors by F. Paul
Frinsko, Esq. The parties
-1-
were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, introduce
evidence, and make argument.
JURISDICTION
The Association is the bargaining agent within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A.
Section 968(5)(B) for all the full-time certified personnel employed by the
Directors. The Superintendent of Schools and the Board of Directors are pub-
lic employers as defined in Section 962(7). The jurisdiction of the Maine
Labor Relations Board to hear this case and render a decision and order lies
in Section 968(5).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon review of the entire record, the Board finds:
1. On or about March 8, 1982 the Association and the Directors began
negotiating for a collective bargaining agreement to succeed an agreement due
to expire on July 31, 1982. From March, 1982 through the end of January, 1983
the parties met for bargaining on approximately 12 occasions. In addition,
the parties met with a mediator on or about April 26, 1982 and August 2, 1982
and had hearings before a fact-finding panel on or about September 20, 1982
and November 5, 1982.
2. Among the first matters discussed by the parties were groundrules to
govern the course of negotiations. The parties were unable to agree upon
groundrules and the Association filed for mediation on this issue. As a
result of the mediation session held in April, 1982 the parties reached oral
agreement on a list of groundrules, one of which provided that new proposals
could be introduced for bargaining during the next two bargaining sessions
after the mediation session on April 26, and that no new items could be intro-
duced by either side after that time. The second bargaining session after the
meeting with the mediator occurred on May 18, 1982.
3. During a Board of Directors' meeting on January 3, 1983 the
Superintendent of Schools distributed a document containing budgetary informa-
tion to the Directors. The document contained a list of the various line
items in the District's budget followed by four columns of figures, one column
showing the funds expended for each line item in 1981-82, the second showing
the funds budgeted for each item in 1982-83, the third showing the amount of
money expended for each item as of December 17, 1982 and the fourth column
showing the anticipated amount of money to be spent as
-2-
of June 30, 1983. During a recess of the meeting Enola Boyce, the chief
negotiator for the Association, asked the Superintendent for a copy of the
document. When the meeting resumed Stephen Canders, the chairman of the
Directors, stated that since the request for information was not an agenda
item at that meeting it would not be acted upon but that it would be included
as an agenda item at the Directors' next regular meeting.
4. On January 5, 1983 the Superintendent forwarded an incomplete copy of
the budget document to the Association. The fourth column of the document,
showing the anticipated expenditures as of June 30, 1983, had been deleted.
On January 12 Boyce requested in writing a complete copy of the document,
pointing out that the Directors were required to provide such information by a
Labor Relations Board order and by the "Right-to-Know" statute. Superintendent
Barnes responded on January 12, stating that the request for information would
be placed on the agenda for the Directors' February 7 meeting and that Boyce
would be notified of the Directors' decision after the meeting.
5. At the February 7 Directors' meeting it was moved and seconded that
the information be provided to the Association. The Superintendent recom-
mended that the information not be turned over, however, because that would be
"counter-productive" and "would set a precedent in supplying like information
in the future." A vote was taken on the motion to provide the information and
the motion was defeated. The Directors then voted to seek a legal opinion on
the matter.
6. Boyce repeated the request for the information in letters to Barnes
dated February 21 and 25, 1983. At its March 7 meeting the Directors voted to
give the information to the Association and on March 8 the Superintendent
forwarded a complete copy of the document to the Association.
7. The budget information sought by the Association was relevant in the
negotiations between the Association and the Directors. The fact-finding
report, which was issued on or about December 22, 1982, recommended that the
salary base be increased $400 and that an additional increase of $100 be
included if an additional $5,200 could be raised from the budget. The infor-
mation sought by the Association indicated whether the 1982-83 budget might
contain some additional money, and thus was important to the Association for
purposes of formulating its position with regard to the fact-finders' salary
recommendations.
8. On September 17, 1982 this agency issued a Decision and Order in MLRB
No. 82-10 which found that Superintendent Barnes and M.S.A.D. No. 45 had
committed a
-3-
"blatent violation"'of Section 964(1)(A) and (E) by refusing to provide
information pertinent to certain grievances being processed by the Association.
Among other things, we ordered that the District cease and desist from refus-
ing to provide information to the Association and that the District "[f]urnish
promptly upon request by the Association all information pertinent to the
Association's performance of its duties as the teachers' bargaining agent."
The Directors' initial refusal to provide the budget information occurred less
than 4 months after we issued our order in Case No. 82-10.
9. Bargaining between the parties broke down at the end of January, 1983,
and no further bargaining sessions were scheduled. On February 21, Boyce sub-
mitted to Barnes pursuant to Section 965(1)(B) a written ten-day notice to
meet for bargaining. Barnes responded on February 22, stating that the ten-
day notice would be discussed by the Directors at their March 7 meeting.
Boyce repeated her request to bargain within 10 days in a letter to Barnes
dated February 25, 1983. The Directors voted on March 7 to go back to the
bargaining table with the Association and the next bargaining session was held
on March 15, 21 days after Barnes had received the initial ten-day notice.
10. Boyce also notified Barnes on February 21, 1983 that the Association
intended to proceed to interest arbitration over the contract. On February 24
the Association selected Maine Teachers Association employee Shirley Randall-
Bourgault as its arbitrator and on March 2 Barnes selected Paul Hurlburt,
Assistant Executive Director of the Maine School Management Association, as
the Directors' arbitrator. On March 11 Hurlburt called Randall-Bourgault and
presented a list of names of potential neutral arbitrators. Randall-Bourgault
said she needed to check with UniServ Director Dickinson on the selection of
the third arbitrator and stated that she hoped to get back to Hurlburt by
March 14. She did not contact Hurlburt until March 30, however, at which time
she agreed to select one of the persons proposed by Hurlburt. The Association
and the Directors entered into a collective bargaining agreement on March 31,
however, and did not proceed to interest arbitration.
11. Approximately one week prior to the Directors' March 7, 1983 meeting
the Association issued a press release and a fact sheet which contained
details about the teachers' salaries and the difficulties the parties were
having in negotiating a new agreement. Present on March 7 for the first time
ever at a Directors' meeting was a television crew, along with several news-
paper reporters. Five to ten minutes prior to the meeting UniServ Director
Dickinson served the prohibited practices complaint which initiated this pro-
ceeding on Barnes and Chairman Canders. About 20 minutes prior to the meeting
a Deputy Sheriff served Barnes with a civil complaint
-4-
filed by the Association seeking to enforce this agency's September 17, 1982
order.
12. The Superintendent and the Directors believed that the Association
orchestrated the presence of the media and the service of the complaints at
the March 7 meeting. UniServ Director Dickinson testified, however, that he
neither contacted the media and requested its presence at the meeting nor
instructed the Deputy Sheriff to serve the complaint at the meeting. The
service of both complaints were low-key affairs, apparently with no member of
the media noticing what was taking place.
13. The Directors voted at the March 7 meeting to return to the
bargaining table with the Association and to allow the public and the press
to attend the bargaining sessions. Chairman Canders then stated in effect to
the press "if you don't get in, it will be due to the union." The parties
prior to this vote had conducted negotiations in private sessions. The
Association, feeling that it had no choice in the matter, agreed to negotiate
in public sessions. The parties met for negotiations on March 15, 17, 23, 28
and 31. Agreement was finally reached at the March 31 bargaining session.
DECISION
At issue is the question whether either the Directors or the Association
engaged in bad faith bargaining in violation of Section 965(1) of the
Act.[fn]1 A bad faith bargaining charge requires that we examine the totality
of the charged party's conduct and decide whether the party's actions during
negotiations indicate "a present intention to find a basis for agreement."
Waterville Teachers Association v. Waterville Board of Education, MLRB No.
82-11 at 4 (Feb. 4, 1982). Having examined the totality of both parties'
conduct during negotiations, we find that Superintendent Barnes and the
Directors committed several flagrant violations of Section 964(1)(A) and (E)
and
__________
1/ Execution of a collective bargaining agreement subsequent to the filing of
a prohibited practices complaint alleging bad faith bargaining does not
render the complaint moot because "subsequent acts of the parties do not
mitigate prior unlawful conduct." Teamsters Local 48 v. City of Bangor,
MLRB No. 79-29 at 1 (March 2, 1979); see also Winthrop Educators Assoc. v.
Winthrop School Committee, MLRB No. 80-05 at 5 (Feb. 8, 1980).
-5-
are guilty of bad faith bargaining.[fn]2 Remedies necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act will be ordered. We further conclude that while the
Association engaged in some unprofessional conduct, its actions do not rise to
the level of bad faith bargaining. The Directors' counter-complaint against
the Association will be dismissed.
I. The Association's Charges. Several examples of the Superintendent's
and the Directors' behavior during the period from January through early March,
1983 show clearly that they had no intention of reaching an agreement with the
Association during this time. The first examples of this unlawful behavior
was the Directors' refusal for two months to provide pertinent budget informa-
tion to the Association.
On January 3, 1983 the Association's chief negotiator requested a copy of
the budget document which the Superintendent had handed out to the Directors
at a meeting that evening. The Chairman of the Directors, Stephen Canders,
stated that since this request was not an agenda item for the January 3
meeting it would not be acted upon until the Directors next meeting in
February. A few days later Barnes forwarded to the Association a copy of the
document which, for some inexplicable reason, had deleted the column showing
anticipated expenditures as of June 30, 1983. The Directors at their February
7 meeting moved and seconded a motion to supply the information but at that
point Barnes interposed, stating that the information should not be turned
over because providing the information would be "counter-productive" and
"would set a precedent in supplying like information in the future." The
Directors then voted not to supply the material and instead voted to seek a
legal opinion on the matter. Finally at its March 7 meeting, after the
Association had initiated this prohibited practices proceeding and had filed
a lawsuit seeking to get the information, the Directors voted to provide the
information.
In M.S.A.D. #45 v. M.S.A.D. #45 Teachers Association, MLRB No. 82-10 at
10-11 (Sept. 17, 1982), a case involving the same parties presently before us,
we held that public employers have a duty under Section 965(1) to provide
pertinent infor-
__________
2/ Section 964(1)(A) prohibits public employers from "[i]nterfering with,
restraining or coercing employees,in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in section 963." Section 963 of the Act guarantees the right of public
employees to engage in collective bargaining with their employers.
Section 964(1)(E) prohibits public employers from "[r]efusing to bargain
collectively with the bargaining agent of its employees as required by
section 965." Section 965 sets forth the elements of the duty to bargain.
-6-
mation needed by the bargaining agent of their employees. We relied on a
venerable principle of labor law as set forth by the United States Supreme
Court in Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979): "The duty to
bargain collectively . . . includes a duty to provide relevant information
needed by a labor union for the proper performance of its duties as the
employees' bargaining agent." Applying this principle to the present case, we
think it obvious that the Superintendent and Directors engaged in a deliberate
and willful violation of Section 964(1)(A) and (E) by refusing for over 2
months to turn over the information. The Directors make no claim that the
information was confidential and have presented no reason why they could ever
have thought it was confidentialY The information was particularly relevant to
the Association because the fact-finders report released in late December,
1982 recommended that an additional $100 be added to base salary if an addi-
tional $5,200 could be raised from the budget. The information in question
indicated whether the additional money could be raised and thus was directly
related to the position the Association might take in negotiations regarding
salaries. Indeed, we think it more than mere coincidence that the parties
reached agreement on a contract about 3 weeks after the Directors finally
turned over the information. We conclude that the refusal to turn over the
information resulted in delaying final agreement for a number of weeks and is
direct evidence that the Directors had no intention of reaching agreement
during this period.
The Directors' refusal to turn over the information is made even more
egregious by the fact that they were under order by this agency in Case No.
82-10 to cease and desist from refusing to provide pertinent information and
indeed were under direct order to "furnish promptly upon request by the
Association all information pertinent to the Association's performance of its
duties as the teachers' bargaining agent." We found in Case No. 82-10, under
facts not dissimilar from those in the present case, that the Directors had
engaged in a "blatent violation" of Section 964(1)(A) and (E) by refusing to
provide information to the Association. In the present case the Directors'
efforts to provide the information were anything but "prompt," and we must
conclude that the Superintendent and the Directors engaged in a deliberate
charade in order to delay having to provide the material and to frustrate the
Association. The Chairman's ruling on January 3 that the request for informa-
tion would
__________
3/ The Directors' contention that the Association could have compiled the
information itself simply by examining the District's accounts and records
misses the point. The information had already been compiled by the
Superintendent and the Association was entitled to examine it in this
form.
-7-
have to wait for the Directors' next meeting in February, the Superintendant's
urging at the February 7 meeting that the material not be provided, and the
Directors' decision to delay by seeking a legal opinion, in spite of the fact
they were aware of our order directing that such information be provided, all
were subterfuges designed to dclay and impede the bargaining process. The in-
formation should have been provided at the time it was requested on January 3.
We therefore find that Superintendent Barnes and the Directors engaged not
only in a willful violation of their statutory obligations but also in a
flagrant and deliberate violation of our order in Case No. 82-10. We will
order the necessary remedies and will treat any future refusal by the
Superintendent or the Directors to provide relevant information to the
Association as a most serious matter.
Another example of the Directors' bad faith bargaining is their refusal
to honor the Association's 10-day letter tendered on February 21, 1983. Again
the Superintendent attempted to delay and impede the bargaining process by
referring the matter to the Board of Directors meeting scheduled for March 7,
about 13 days after Barnes received the notice. The Directors voted at the
March 7 meeting to return to the bargaining table and the next bargaining
session was held on March 15, 21 days after the notice had been tendered.
We have always interpreted the 10-day notice provision in Section
965(1)(B) to mean exactly what it states; a party is obligated to meet within
10 days after receipt of a written notice from the other party requesting
bargaining.[fn]4 A failure to meet within 10 days is a per se violation of
Section 964(1)(E) and is evidence of bad faith. See, eg., M.S.A.D. No. 43
Teachers Assoc. v. M.S.A.D. No. 43 Board of Directors, MLRB No. 79-42 at 2-4
(May 1, 1979); East Millinocket Teachers Assoc. v. East Millinocket School
Committee, MLRB No. 79-24 at 4-6 (April 9, 1979). The Directors' argument
that they were excused from the obligation to meet within 10 days because
negotiations were at an impasse was rejected in Maine State Employees
__________
4/ Section 965(1)(B) states it is the mutual obligation of the public
employer and the bargaining agent:
"To meet within 10 days after receipt of written notice
from the other party requesting a meeting for collective
bargaining purposes, provided the parties have not otherwise
agreed in a prior written contract."
Nothing in the parties' prior agreement modified this obligation.
-8-
v. State of Maine, MLRB No. 80-09 at 8-9 (Dec. 5, 1979), where we held that
parties at impasse are obligated to meet at least one more time if either
tenders a 10 day notice. Since one of the purposes of the 10-day notice
provision is to break impasses, it of course follows that the provision
continues to apply during impasses. We conclude that the Superintendent's and
the Directors' failure to meet within 10 days of receipt of the notice
constitutes a per se violation of Section 964(1)(E) and also is evidence that
the Directors did not intend to reach agreement with the Association.
A final piece of evidence of the Directors' bad faith bargaining is the
Directors' vote on March 7 to conduct negotiations in public. After the vote
Chairman Canders told members of the press that if they could not attend
bargaining sessions, it would be due to the Association. This vote violated
the parties' oral groundrule that no new proposals would be introduced after
May 18, 1982 because the parties had been negotiating in private sessions.
The law is settled that a violation of negotiations groundrules is evidence of
bad faith bargaining. See, eg., Caribou School Dept. v. Caribou Teachers
Assoc., 402 A.2d 1279, 1282-1283 (Me. 1979). While we would not find this
violation of the groundrules sufficient by itself to support a bad faith
bargaining charge, we consider the Directors' interjection of a new matter
after nearly a year of negotiations and Canders' remark to the press to be
evidence of bad faith.
In sum, we conclude that Superintendent Barnes and the Directors
committed willful violations of Section 964(1)(A) and (E) and engaged in a
course of bad faith bargaining with no intention to reach agreement with the
Association from January 3 to March 7, 1983.
II. The Directors' Charges. The Directors point to several events which
allegedly show that the Association bargained in bad faith. For example, the
Directors allege that the Association orchestrated a media event and the
serving of the complaints at the March 7 Directors' meeting in order to
embarass the Directors and intimidate their negotiators. We might reject this
allegation, however, because it is not supported by the record.
UniServ Director Dickinson testified without contradiction that he did
not contact the press to request that they be present at the meeting. The
reason why a television crew appeared for the first time ever at a Directors'
meeting apparently was that both parties had been making statements to the
press about negotiations so that the situation had become "newsworthy."
Dickinson also testified that he did
-9-
not instruct the Deputy Sheriff to serve the Association's civil complaint on
the Directors at the March 7 meeting. In any event, service of both the pro-
hibited practices complaint and the civil complaint were low-keyed affairs
which apparently did not attract any media attention at the time. We fail to
see how the Superintendent or the Directors could have been threatened or
coerced by these perfectly lawful actions.
The Directors' allegation that the Association bargained in bad faith
because it failed to comply with all of the time requirements set forth in
Section 965(4) for seeking interest arbitration also is not persuasive. While
the Association did not comply with all the time requirements, there is no
showing that this prejudiced the Directors or impeded negotiations in any way.
Moreover, the totality of the record indicates that the Association certainly
intended to reach agreement with the Directors. The Association therefore
cannot be said to be guilty of bad faith bargaining. The Directors' remaining
allegations are similarly devoid of merit, and the counter-complaint will be
dismissed.
We feel constrained to take note in this decision of the extreme hostil-
ity and mistrust which exists between the Association and the Directors in
M.S.A.D. No. 45. These feelings were manifested in this proceeding by a
number of startling examples of immature and unprofessional conduct by both
parties. On the part of the Association these examples include a hyper-
technical insistence upon the methods of selecting dates for negotiation
sessions and, as previously noted, a failure to observe strictly the time
requirements for selecting an interest arbitration panel. As for the
Directors, the Superintendent seemed to feel that his main function in the
whole process was to dispute anything the Association said, while the
Directors' Chairman's correspondence with Association officers is filled with
snide comments and personal insults. In addition, both parties attempted to
negotiate through the media to the absurd point where each was sending copies
of its correspondence to the other party to various media representatives.
All of these actions could only serve to poison the parties' bargaining
relationship. We can only hope that in the upcoming school year the Directors
and Association will focus their energies and attention on the proper mission
of the District - that of educating the children of M.S.A.D. No. 45.
III. Remedies. Upon finding that a party has committed prohibited
practices we are directed by Section 968(5)(C) to order such party "to cease
and desist from such prohibited practice and to take such affirmative
action . . . as will effectuate the policies of this chapter." We therefore
will order the Directors to cease and desist from refusing to provide relevant
information, from refusing to honor ten day
-10-
notices, and from bargaining in bad faith.
In determining what affirmative relief is appropriate, we must take note
of the Directors' propensity in the recent past to engage in violations of the
Act: "whether or not a particular employer or union has been found to have
engaged in prohibited practices in the recent past is a proper, relevant
consideration when we are fashioning a remedy for a subsequent violation."
Sanford Highway Unit v. Town of Sanford, MLRB No. 79-50 at 6 (April 5, 1979),
affirmed 411 A.2d 1010 (Me. 1980). On January 12, 1982 we issued interim
findings and an order in MLRB No. 82-10, finding that the Superintendent and
M.S.A.D. No. 45 had engaged in serious acts of retaliation and interference
against the Association President and various Association witnesses. We
issued a cease and desist order and an order requiring that the Directors pay
the salaries of teachers whose pay had been docked by the Superintendent.
This order was enforced by the Kennebec County Superior Court on June 9, 1982
in Docket Nos. CV 82-34, et al. On September 17, 1982 we issued a decision
and order in MLRB No. 82-10, again finding that the Superintendent and
Directors had engaged in several prohibited practices and ordering affirmative
relief. In the present decision we have found additional willful and flagrant
violations not only of the Act but also of our September 17, 1982 order.
We also find that the Directors' defenses to the refusal to provide
information and the ten-day notice charges were frivolous; no colorable
defense was raised at all with regard to the refusal to provide information
and the "impasse" defense regarding the ten-day notice was rejected in 1979 by
this agency. The appropriate remedy in cases where a party raises frivolous
defenses to prohibited practices charges is to award the charging party its
litigation expenses. See, e.g., International Union of Electrical Workers v.
NLRB, 502 F.2d 349, 354-355 (D.C. Cir. 1974). cert. denied 421 U.S. 991
(1975); Koval Press, Inc., 241 NLRB 1261, 1264 (1979); enforced 106 LRRM 2605
(3rd Cir. 1980); MSAD #68 Teachers Assoc. v. MSAD #68 Board of Directors, MLRB
No. 79-22 at 7 (Jan. 24, 1979). These expenses include those incurred in the
investigation, preparation, presentation and conduct of the case, including
but not limited to the following: reasonable attorneys' fees, salaries, record
costs, printing costs, travel expenses and per diem. Koval Press, Inc., 241
NLRB at 1264.
In light of the Directors' pattern of labor law violations and because of
its frivolous defenses in this case, we will order that the Directors
reimburse the Association for all expenses incurred by it in bringing this
case. These expenses include any expenses which the Association can document
which were incurred in
-11-
investigating and preparing for the case, such as printing and travel costs,
as well as those incurred for travel, meals, overnight accommodations and any
other related expenses for the UniServ Director and the Association witnesses
who testified. These include expenses for the following witnesses at the
April 29th hearing: Richard Salminen, Louise Cole and Enola Boyce; the
expenses for the following witnesses at the June 1 hearing: Shirley Randall-
Bourgault and Enola Boyce; and the expenses for UniServ Director Harold
Dickinson for both days. These expenses are not to include UniServ Director
Dickinson's salary for any of the time in question. If the Directors have not
paid these expenses within 15 days of the date of our order, then interest at
a rate of 11% per annum shall begin accruing. We will also order that the
Directors take other affirmative action and that the Superintendent sign and
post copies of the attached notice and notify the Executive Director in
writing of the steps taken to comply with our order. We will provide a
procedure whereby we can determine the amount owed to the Association in the
event the parties are unable to agree on this figure themselves. These
remedies are necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
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 by
26 M.R.S.A. Section 968(5), it is ORDERED:
That Superintendent of Schools Carleton L. Barnes and the M.S.A.D. No. 45
Board of Directors, and their representatives and agents:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to provide information pertinent to the Association's
performance of its duties as the teachers' bargaining agent.
(b) Failing to meet within 10 days after receipt of a written notice
from the Association requesting a meeting for collective
bargaining purposes.
(c) Engaging in bad faith bargaining with the Association.
(d) In any other like or related matter interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 963 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
-12-
(a) Reimburse the Association for all expenses incurred by it in
bringing this case, as more fully detailed in the text of this
decision.
(b) Furnish promptly upon request by the Association all information
pertinent to the Association's performance of its duties as the
teachers' barga-1162ing agent.
(c) Meet within 10 days after receipt of a written notice from the
Association requesting a meeting for collective bargaining pur-
poses.
(d) Bargaining in good faith with the Association.
(e) Post at all places where notices to teachers are customarily
posted copies of the attached notice. Copies of this notice,
after being duly dated and signed by Superintendent of Schools
Carleton Barnes, shall be posted by the Superintendent
immediately upon receipt and shall be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Directors to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Executive Director, in writing, within 20 days of the
date of this order, of the steps the District has taken to
comply herewith.
3. The Directors' counter-complaint against the Association is dismissed.
Twenty days after the date upon which this decision and order becomes
final, if the parties have not agreed upon the expenses due to the Association,
the Association may file with the Executive Director and serve on the
Directors the following items:
1. An itemized list of claimed expenses.
2. Documents and/or affidavits supporting each item.
3. Interest claimed.
The Directors will have fifteen days from such filing to respond with
documents and/or affidavits bearing on each disputed item. The Board will
thereafter issue a supplemental order setting forth the amount of expenses and
interest due, or conduct such further proceedings as are necessary to supple-
ment this order.
-13-
Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of August, 1983.
MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
/s/_________________________________
Edward H. Keith,
Chairman
/s/_________________________________
Don R. Ziegenbein
Employer Representative
/s/_________________________________
Russell A. Webb
Alternate Employee Representative
The parties are advised of their right pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. Section
968(5)(F) to seek a review by the Superior Court of this decision by filing
a complaint in accordance with Rule 80B of the Rules of Civil Procedure
within 15 days after receipt of this decision.
-14-
STATE OF MAINE
MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Augusta, Maine 04333
NOTICE
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO
a Decision and Order of the
MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and in order to effectuate the policies of the
MUNICIPAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LABOR RELATIONS ACT
we hereby notify all personnel that:
(1) WE WILL reimburse the Association for all expenses incurred by it in
bringing the prohibited practices case before the Maine Labor Relations
Board.
(2) WE WILL furnish promptly upon request by the Association all information
pertinent to the Association's performance of its duties as the teachers'
bargaining agent.
(3) WE WILL meet within 10 days after receipt of a written notice from the
Association requesting a meeting for collective bargaining purposes.
(4) WE WILL bargain in good faith with the Association.
(5) WE WILL notify the Executive Director of the Maine Labor Relations Board,
in writing, within 20 days of the date of the Decision and Order, of the
steps we have taken to comply with the Decision and Order.
Maine School Administrative District No. 45
Dated: By: _______________________________________
Carleton L. Barnes
Superintendent of Schools
_____________________________________________
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days as required by the
Decision and Order of the Maine Labor Relations Board and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any questions,concerning this Notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the offices of the Maine Labor
Relations Board, State Office Building, Augusta, Maine 04333, Telephone
289-2016.
[-15-]