Mountain Valley Education Association v. MSAD #43 Board of Directors, MLRB
No. 93-15 (Aug. 19, 1993), aff'd, No. CV-93-437 (Me. Super Ct., Ken. Cty.,
Apr. 8, 1994), aff'd, 655 A.2d 348 (Me. 1995)

STATE OF MAINE                        MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
				      Case No. 93-15
				      Issued:  August 19, 1993  

_______________________________________
				       )
MOUNTAIN VALLEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, )
				       )
			  Complainant, )
				       )
		  v.                   )
				       )    DECISION AND ORDER
MSAD #43 BOARD OF DIRECTORS,           )
Chairperson CAROLINE DEFIORE,          )
Superintendent WILLIAM RICHARDS        )
and ANNALEE Z. ROSENBLATT,             )
				       )
			  Respondents. )
_______________________________________)


     This case was commenced on December 4, 1992, when the
Mountain Valley Education Association ("Association") filed a
prohibited practices complaint with the Maine Labor Relations
Board ("Board") alleging that the MSAD #43 Board of Directors,
Chairperson Caroline Defiore, Superintendent William Richards 
and Annalee Z. Rosenblatt (collectively "MSAD 43") had violated
26 M.R.S.A.  964(1)(A) and (E) (1988).  More specifically, the
Association alleges that MSAD 43 unlawfully disregarded multiple
Association bargaining demands and unlawfully refused to
implement an interest arbitrator's binding determination
respecting duration of agreement.  The complaint also avers that
MSAD 43 unlawfully attempted to implement its "last best
proposal" and unlawfully "attempted to enroll employees in one
health insurance plan while implementing a lesser one in the
contract."  The Association requests the award of attorney fees
and costs.

     MSAD 43's December 30, 1992, response answers that it 
"implemented its last best proposal concerning wages and medical
insurance after exhausting the impasse procedures, including
interest arbitration and further negotiations after each step of
the procedure."  MSAD 43 further answers that it "implemented all

			       -1-

other portions of the contract upon receipt of the arbitrator's
award."  

     On February 26, 1993, Board Chair Peter T. Dawson conducted
a prehearing conference in this matter.  Maine Teachers Associa-
tion UniServ Director J. Donald Belleville represented the
Association, and Labor Negotiator/Management Consultant Annalee
Z. Rosenblatt represented MSAD 43.  At prehearing, the parties
agreed that the pleadings together with exhibits admitted at
prehearing would constitute the entire record.  The parties
waived oral argument and agreed to a briefing schedule.  Chair
Dawson's March 3, 1993, Prehearing Conference Memorandum and
Order is hereby incorporated in and made a part hereof.  

     During the briefing period, the parties submitted additional
exhibits and an agreement regarding certain portions of the
pleadings.  In response to an inquiry by Board staff regarding
the precise contents of the record to be considered by the Board,
the parties submitted a partial clarification of the record.  The 
last of the parties' briefs was received on May 17, 1993, and on
May 19, 1993, the final version of the parties' stipulations was
filed with the Board.  The Board, consisting of Chair Dawson,
Employee Representative George W. Lambertson and Employer Repre-
sentative Howard Reiche, Jr., met to deliberate the case on June
2, 1993, and decided, among other things, to request clarifi-
cation of the wage increases implemented by MSAD 43.  The parties
responded to the request; the record was closed on July 20, 1993. 

			   JURISDICTION

     The jurisdiction of the Board to hear this case and to
render a decision and order lies in 26 M.R.S.A.  968(5) (1988 &
Supp. 1992).  Neither party has challenged the Board's juris-
diction.
	  
			       -2-

			   STIPULATIONS
				    
	  The parties submitted the following stipulations:

     1.  Caroline Defiore is the current duly elected chairperson
of the M.S.A.D. No. 43 Board of Directors.

     2.  William Richards is the current duly elected
Superintendent of M.S.A.D. No. 43.

     3.  Annalee Z. Rosenblatt is employed by the Directors as
Chief Negotiator and is the representative of the Directors.

     4.  The Association is the bargaining agent for the
educational technicians in a bargaining unit covered by a con-
tract between the Directors and the Association.

     5.  Vicki Amoroso is presently President of the Association.

     6.  Karen Hodsdon is, at all material times herein, the
Chief Negotiator for the educational technicians.

     7.  Negotiations for a first contract agreement between the
Association and the Directors have been in progress since June
30, 1990, when the Association sent its proposal to the Direc-
tors.

     8.  The negotiations between the parties for this first
contract has been long and arduous.

     9.  Rosenblatt met with Association representative Debra
Stevens, an NEA intern from Massachusetts working under the
direction of J. Donald Belleville, on September 7 and 10, 1990. 
The negotiating teams for both parties met for the first time on
September 24, 1990, and again on October 2 and October 18, 1990.
    
    10.  On October 2, 1990, the parties signed groundrules for
negotiations that provided, "The parties shall meet as mutually
scheduled.  Meetings will be scheduled in advance and several at

			       -3-

a time."  These groundrules were signed by Ms. Rosenblatt on
behalf of the Respondent.

    11.  At the first negotiating session, the Board presented to
the Association a spread sheet representing current costs,
including salary and benefits.  The parties agreed that the
Association would check the information and once it was correc-
ted, it would remain the base cost for the purpose of the negoti-
ations.  At the next two or three sessions, the Association pro-
vided corrections and clarifications.  At the October 2, 1990,
negotiations meeting, it was agreed the negotiations data was
correct and would be the basis for costing all future proposals. 
Although such agreement was reached between Rosenblatt and
Stevens, the parties had no idea the bargaining process would
take so long.

    12.  The Complainant has had 6 representatives at different
times during these negotiations as follows:

     Debra Stevens, NEA intern, September 7, 10, and 14. 
     October 2, and 18, 1990.  Stevens worked under the
     supervision of Belleville and he was present at some of
     the aforementioned meetings.

     J. Donald Belleville, MTA Affiliate Services Director,
     January 29, 1991, mediation session.

     Cheryl Lunde, MTA Affiliate Services Director, March
     12, 1991, mediation session.

     Glen Williams, UniServ Director from New York,    
     April 23, 1991, mediation session.

     J. Donald Belleville, June 27, 1991, October 23, and
     November 16, 1991, fact-finding session; December 23,
     1991, negotiations session; May 18, 1992, arbitration
     hearing.

     Jessie Bennett, NEA intern, October 13, 1992, post-
     arbitration negotiations session.  Bennett worked under
     the supervision of Belleville and he was present at
     some of the aforementioned meetings.

Neither the Respondent nor mediator was advised of the substitute

			       -4-

representatives until the parties actually appeared at the
session.  The constant changes and substitutions delayed bargain-
ing and reaching tentative agreements.

    13.  On October 22, 1990, the Association filed for mediation
with the Maine Labor Relations Board.  Joseph Stupak was
appointed as mediator.

    14.  Three mediation sessions were held on January 29,
March 12, and April 23, 1991.

    15.  On April 24, 1991, the Association filed for the
appointment of a fact-finding panel with the Maine Labor
Relations Board.
  
    16.  Fact finding could not be scheduled between June 27,
1991, and October 23, 1991, because of scheduling conflicts among
the parties and the fact finders.

    17.  The Association made its original salary and medical
insurance proposal, among others, in a document dated June 5,
1990, and did not modify either the medical insurance or salary
proposal until the submission of its fact-finding brief, received
by the Respondent June 21, 1991.  The proposed increased cost of
the salary proposal alone, as projected by the Respondent, for a
one-year contract was 29.17 percent.

    18.  A fact-finding session was scheduled for June 27, 1991,
before a panel which consisted of Harold L. Gosselin, Employer
Representative, Charles R. Priest, Employee Representative, and
Dr. Stanley Devino, Chairperson.  Although the parties met, the
hearing was cancelled due to the Chairperson's health-related
unavailability.

    19.  On June 27, 1991, the first scheduled day of fact
finding, J. Donald Belleville and Annalee Rosenblatt reached 10
tentative agreements from the issues that were the subject of

			       -5-

fact finding.

    20.  Subsequent to this date, almost each and every time
Mr. Belleville attended the negotiations sessions and represented
the Association, tentative agreements were reached and other
issued were further narrowed.

    21.  A fact-finding session was scheduled for October 23,
1991.  A fact-finding hearing was held on November 16, 1991.    
A report was issued dated November 26, 1991.

    22.  At the November 16, 1991, fact-finding session, the
Complainant presented exhibits which presented proposed costs
based on information that was different than what was agreed
would be used, but, again, this resulted from the fact that the
parties had no idea the bargaining process would take so long.

    23.  The Complainant continued to use this information at the
arbitration hearing May 18, 1992.  The Complainant also raised,
for the first time, that the information concerning Ed. Tech.
II's and Maine State Retirement was incorrect as presented by the
Respondent.  This statement required additional follow-up to the
arbitration panel and in fact, the information presented by the
Respondent was correct.  The offering of this information by the
Complainant at this late time was poised to make it appear the
Respondent was misrepresenting the facts to the arbitration
panel.  Again, however, the parties had no idea the bargaining
process would take so long.

    24.  On December 23, 1991, the parties met to discuss the
fact finders' report.  Several issues remained outstanding and
the parties agreed to submit them to arbitration.

    25.  On May 18, 1992, a hearing was held before an arbitra-
tion panel which consisted of Shawn C. Keenan, Esq., as the
Association's Representative, David Plimpton, Esq., as the
Directors' Representative, and Lawrence E. Katz, Esq., as

			       -6-

Chairperson.

    26.  The following issues were submitted to arbitration: 
Reduction-in-force (bumping rights); Work Day/Work Year (length
of day/year and lunch period); Resignations; Sick Leave (amount,
accumulation and family care); Other Paid Leaves; Holidays;
Course Reimbursement; Health Insurance (plan, cost and eligibi-
lity); Retirement Payment; Association Rights; Administrative Fee
for Pay Deductions; Duration; and Wages.

    27.  J. Donald Belleville was not available to meet due to
vacation and out-of-state commitments during most of the months
of July and August, 1992.

    28.  Annalee Z. Rosenblatt was the agent for the Respondent
during all times during these negotiations, but the Complainant
bypassed her and contacted either the Superintendent or Board
Chairman directly regarding the scheduling and progress of
negotiations, to inquire about the Board's position on the
arbitration report, and to report the Complainant's position on
the arbitration report, despite the Complainant's knowledge that
all meetings were scheduled by and through Ms. Rosenblatt and
that Ms. Rosenblatt was and continues to be the designated agent
of the Board for these negotiations.

    29.  An arbitrators' report was issued, dated July 9, 1992,
in which the arbitrators made recommendations on wages, insurance
and retirement payment, and made determinations of all other
issues including a two-year duration of agreement.

    30.  On August 7, 1992, Karen Hodsdon sent a letter to
Superintendent Richards indicating that the educational techni-
cians had accepted the arbitrators' report by ratifying " . . .
their contract as negotiated and arbitrated . . . " and requested
the Directors' " . . . status concerning the contract."

    31.  Richards met with Amoroso on or about August 17, 1992,

			       -7-

concerning the issue of the bargaining unit seniority list among
other issues.  Amoroso spoke with Superintendent Richards
concerning why there was a lack of action on the part of the
Directors to get the contract settled.  This meeting was not a
part of the parties' formal collective bargaining negotiations;
it constituted merely a query.

    32.  From time to time throughout the bargaining, drafts of
tentative agreements to date were presented to the Complainant by
the Respondent for review and correction as necessary, including
to the fact-finding panel and the arbitration panel.  By letter
dated September 15, 1992, a draft of the proposed agreement was
sent to the Complainant by the Respondent which included all
tentative agreements to date and the binding portions of the
arbitrator's award for review and correction by the Complainant. 
Along with this the Respondent sent a written last best proposal
to the Complainant for review and comment.

    33.  In a letter dated August 28, 1992, to Chairperson
Defiore, Vicki Amoroso requested a meeting to discuss the
arbitration report.

    34.  In correspondence dated September 15, 1992, to J. Donald
Belleville, Annalee Z. Rosenblatt enclosed " . . . a draft of the
proposed collective bargaining agreement . . . " and a " . . .
last best proposal . . . " on wages, medical insurance, sick
leave (retirement payment), and duration.

    35.  On September 28, 1992, Vicki Amoroso sent a ten-day
notice to Superintendent Richards to meet and negotiate the non-
binding portions of the arbitrators' report.

    36.  In a letter dated October 1, 1992, to J. Donald
Belleville, Annalee Z. Rosenblatt confirmed the date for a
meeting between the parties.

    37.  Between the receipt of the arbitrators' report, on or

			       -8-

about July 13, 1992, and October 12, 1992, the Directors failed
to meet with the Association's negotiating team in spite of
several requests.

    38.  On October 13, 1992, the parties met to discuss the
draft of the proposed contract and to discuss the Directors'
"last best offer."  The Directors did not make any firm propos-
als, but the Association made some counterproposals and the
retirement payment issue was resolved.

    39.  On October 13, 1992, the parties met to discuss the last
best proposal of the Respondent.  At this meeting the Complainant
finally made several corrections and additions to the draft of
the tentative agreements.  The Complainant did not agree to the
Respondent's last best proposal but made a proposal which the
Respondent negotiating team agreed to present to the entire
Board.  The only differences in the proposals were as follows:

     Complainant:  Blue Cross Blue Shield Major Medical UCR
     would be printed into the contract and paid at 100% for
     current enrollees, paid at 100% of the individual
     premium for new enrollee; grandfather current "double
     dippers" on medical insurance and the Respondent's
     language for all new enrollees on "double dippers."

     Respondent:  Maine School Management Association Health
     Insurance Trust Plan III or a comparable plan, no
     "double dipping," selection of a better plan or
     additional family coverage at employee's expense;
     implement a section 125 to pay the premium difference;
     Board would contribute $144.12 per month for the
     individual coverage, $324.29 per month for 2 person
     coverage and $394.91 per month for family coverage; new
     enrollees $144.12 per month.

     Complainant:  Salary effective July 1, 1991 - June 30,
     1992, year 1 and .10 per hour more than the
     Respondent's proposal for year two.

     Respondent:  Salary effective January 1, 1992 - June
     30, 1992, year 1 and .10 per hour less than the
     Complainant's proposal for year two.

			       -9-
			       
    40.  During the October 13, 1992, meeting, the Association
informed the Directors that the duration of agreement was a
binding determination.

    41.  In a letter dated November 3,1992, to J. Donald
Belleville, Annalee Z. Rosenblatt informed the Association of the
Directors' "last best proposal . . ." which she was authorized to
offer and implement.  The "last best proposal" includes wages,
medical insurance, sick leave (retirement payment), and duration
of agreement.

    42.  By letter dated November 3, 1992, the Respondent modi-
fied its last best proposal as follows:

     Same as listed in paragraph 14 above except for medical
     insurance which would be paid as follow:  $158.25 per
     month for single coverage, $356.09 for 2 person
     coverage and $433.63 for family coverage.  All new
     enrollees at $158.25 per month.


    43.  On November 3, 1992, the Association filed for mediation
concerning wages, health insurance, and duration of agreement.

    44.  In the letter dated November 3, 1992, Annalee Z.
Rosenblatt stated "[E]mployees will be provided with medical
insurance enrollment forms so they can be covered effective
December 1.  It is hoped that the enrollment forms and Section
125 election will be sent to them in their paychecks this week. 
Because the current insurance plan is comparable to MSMA Plan
III, no employee will be required to transfer from the current
carrier at this time."

    45.  The Complainant filed again for mediation on November 4,
1992.  Mediation has been scheduled for January 21, 1993.

    46.  On November 5, 1992, in a telephone conversation with
Jesse Bennett, Jr., an intern working with J. Donald Belleville,
Annalee Z. Rosenblatt clarified and confirmed that the educa-

			      -10-

tional technicians would get the current Blue Cross/Blue Shield
insurance plan at MSMA Plan III rates and that the MSMA Plan III
language would go into the contract.

    47.  On November 20, 1992, the Directors implemented their
"last best proposal" on wages by including a wage increase in the
employees' paychecks.

    48.  Insurance enrollment forms were distributed on or about
November 23, 1992.

    49.  On November 23, 1992, the Directors implemented their
"last best proposal" on insurance by informing employees that
beginning December 1, 1992, they will begin contributing toward
the cost of their insurance premium.  Employees were informed
what, if any, their share of the insurance premium costs would be
effective December 1, 1992.

    50.  On November 23, 1992, the Directors implemented their
"last best proposal" on insurance when employees were informed on
or about November 23, 1992, that consistent with its last best
proposal the District would no longer pay insurance premiums for
employees covered by medical insurance somewhere else and that
such would be effective December 1, 1992. 

    51.  The Respondent implemented its last best proposal
concerning wages and medical insurance after exhausting the
dispute resolution procedures, including interest arbitration and
further negotiations after each step of the procedure.  The
Respondent implemented all other portions of the contract upon
receipt of the arbitrator's award.  This included resolving a
grievance in favor of the Complainant filed against action taken
by the Respondent before receipt of the interest arbitration
award.  

    52.  The Complainant employees continue to be enrolled in the
Maine Teachers Association Blue Cross Blue Shield, Major Medical

			      -11-

UCR Plan because the Respondent believes such plan is comparable
to the Maine School Management Plan III.   

			 FINDINGS OF FACT

     Upon review of the exhibits stipulated by the parties as
part of the record, the Board makes the following additional
findings:

     1.  In 1989, when the Rumford School Department left School
Union 25 and joined the Mexico schools in MSAD 43, each employer
had both aides and assistants on their payrolls.  Aides in Mexico
were covered by a collective bargaining agreement that set their
rates of pay and gave them fully paid health insurance.  Aides in
Rumford, who were covered by individual contracts only, were
receiving a higher salary than aides in Mexico, but no paid
health insurance.  At the time of the merger, the combined group
of aides was permitted to decide which contract(s) would apply to
them pending negotiation of a new collective bargainiing
agreement; they chose the lower pay and paid health insurance in
the Mexico contract.  

     2.  Neither group of assistants was covered by a collective
bargaining agreement at the time of the merger.  Under individual
contracts, Mexico assistants were receiving paid health insurance
and lower pay than Rumford assistants, who were not receiving
paid health insurance.  As a group, assistants opted for the
higher pay and no health insurance coverage pending negotiation
of a collective bargaining agreement. 

     3.  The two groups -- aides and assistants -- were placed in
one bargaining unit, a bargaining agent was elected, and negotia-
tions began in June of 1990.  

     4.  The interest arbitrators' binding determination, issued
on July 9, 1992, imposed a two-year contract covering 1991-92 and
1992-93.

			      -12-

     5.  After receipt of the arbitrators' report, MSAD 43 made a
"last best proposal" to the Association on, among other things,
wages and medical insurance.  For aides, it proposed a step
increase plan and two across-the-board increases; the first was
higher than the arbitrators had recommended, but for a shorter
time period (6 months of retroactivity rather than a year).  For
the second year of the contract, it offered the across-the-board
increase that the arbitrators had recommended.  For assistants,
who had not been on a step increase plan, the employer offered a
step increase plan retroactive for six months, rather than the
one year that the arbitrators had recommended.  The employer did
not accept the recommendation for an across-the-board increase
for the second year, but offered a 2 percent raise for any
assistant not eligible for a step increase.
   
     While it did not adopt the arbitrators' recommendation on
health insurance, it did make some changes in its previous offer. 
It increased the caps (premium amounts to be paid by the employ-
er) for single and two-person coverage (but reduced the cap for
family coverage); and it offered to contribute to a higher-
coverage plan than it had offered previously.    

     6.  On November 28, 1992, MSAD 43 sent the Association a
final copy of the new agreement between the parties.  It included
MSAD 43's last best proposals on wages, insurance and duration of
agreement. 

			   DISCUSSION

     At issue in this case are three major questions:  1) whether
the MPELRL permits a public employer to unilaterally implement
its last best offer on wages, pensions and/or insurance once
parties have reached impasse in contract negotiations; 2) if  
it does, whether the parties have reached a bona fide impasse in
this case; and 3) whether MSAD 43 has violated its duty to
bargain by refusing to implement a binding interest arbitration
decision on duration of agreement.

			      -13-
			      
Right to implement last best offer

     For mandatory subjects other than wages, pensions and
insurance, the MPELRL requires parties who are unable to reach
agreement to submit their dispute(s) to binding interest arbitra-
tion.  26 M.R.S.A.  965(4) (1988).1  No such requirement exists
for salaries, pensions and insurance:  on these subjects,
interest arbitrators make recommendations for settlement, not
binding determinations.  The MPELRL is silent as to how disputes
on salaries, pensions and insurance are to be finally resolved.2
     
     Since at least 1978, the Board has interpreted Maine's
public sector collective bargaining statutes to permit an
employer to implement its last best offer on wages, pensions
and/or insurance once negotiations between the employer and the
bargaining agent have reached a bona fide impasse.  MSEA v. State
of Maine, No. 78-23, 2 NPER 20-11024 (Me.L.R.B. July 15, 1978),
aff'd sub nom. State of Maine v. MLRB, 413 A.2d 510 (Me. 1980)
(bona fide impasse is one of four exceptions to unilateral change
rule).  The Association asks that we abandon this reading of the
collective bargaining statutes, since the conditions laid out in
Auburn Firefighters Association Local 797 v. City of Auburn,   
No. 89-01, 11 NPER ME-20003 (Me.L.R.B. Mar. 31, 1989) cannot be
met.  More specifically, recognizing the impasse doctrine in the
public sector improperly terminates bargaining; absolves public
employers from the duty to participate in good faith in the
dispute resolution procedures contained in the collective bar-
gaining statutes; and denigrates the bargaining agent, since
public employees in Maine have no right to strike in response to
_________________________

     1Maine's three other collective bargaining statutes contain
parallel provisions.

     2The economic weapons available to employers and employees
in the private sector for breaking an impasse -- strikes and
lockouts -- are not available.

			      -14-

the economic coercion implicit in the impasse doctrine.  The
Association also points to section 965(1)(C) of the MPELRL, which
states that "neither side shall be compelled to agree to a pro-
posal or be required to make a concession."

     While we recognize the frustrating position in which Maine's
public employees find themselves, we find untenable the Associa-
tion's suggestion that we abandon the impasse doctrine.  As MSAD
43 points out, bargaining on salaries, pensions and insurance
would never end.  We believe that the Legislature excepted these
subjects from binding arbitration not because it believed bar-
gaining on these subjects should go on forever, but because of a
judgment that public sector employers must ultimately have a
larger measure of control over the major aspects of their
budgets.  This view is supported by section 965(2)(B) of the
MPELRL, which requires participation in mediation when either
party requests mediation services prior to arbitration, and by
the 120-day rule for demanding negotiations over matters
requiring the appropriation of money, found in section 965(1)(E).

     Nor can we accept the Association's argument regarding 
section 965(1)(C).3  The right of an employer, under the National
Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), to implement its last best offer at
impasse is clear.  NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962).  Yet the
NLRA contains language virtually identical to the language in
section 965(1)(C).4  We must assume that the Maine Legislature
was aware of these facts when it included section 965(1)(C) in
the MPELRL.  Had it intended to reject federal precedent regard-
_________________________

     3As mentioned earlier, that provision states that "neither
side shall be compelled to agree to a proposal or be required to
make a concession."

     4 29 U.S.C.A.  158(d) (1973 & Supp. 1993).  This provision
has been interpreted simply to prevent the National Labor
Relations Board from imposing contract terms on a party as a
remedy for a violation of the duty to bargain.  H.K. Porter Co.
v. NLRB, 397 U.S. 99 (1970).

			      -15-

ing the impasse doctrine, it could have done so explicitly.  
     
Whether these parties reached impasse   
     
     Negotiations for a first contract for the new aides and
assistants' bargaining unit began in June of 1990.  After several
meetings, the Association filed for mediation on October 22,
1990.  Three mediation sessions occurred.  On April 24, 1991, the
Association filed for fact finding.  On the first day scheduled
for fact finding, the parties reached ten tentative agreements on 
matters still in dispute.  Negotiations between the parties
continued, and a fact-finding report was issued on November 26,
1991.  The parties met on December 23, 1991, to discuss the
report.  Several issues remained in dispute, and the parties
agreed to submit them to arbitration.  Among those issues were
wages, health insurance (plan, cost and eligibility), retirement,
and duration of agreement.

     An arbitration hearing was held on May 18, 1992, and the
arbitrators' report was issued on July 9, 1992.  The report
included recommendations on wages, insurance and retirement pay-
ments, and binding determinations on all other issues, including
duration of agreement.         

     The Association made informal inquiries regarding finaliza-
tion of a contract in August of 1992.  It also made several
requests to meet.  By letter dated September 15, 1992, MSAD 43
sent the Association a draft contract and a "last best proposal"
on wages, medical insurance, retirement payment and duration of
agreement.  The offer on retirement was what the arbitrators had
recommended.  The offers on wages and medical insurance were both
better than what MSAD 43 had previously offered, though in most
respects not what the arbitrators had recommended.  On September
28th, the president of the Association sent the superintendent of
MSAD 43 a 10-day notice to bargain on the non-binding portions of
the arbitrators' report.  In a letter dated October 1, 1992, MSAD

			      -16-

43 confirmed the date for a meeting between the parties.  On
October 13th, the parties met to discuss the letter.  They were
able to resolve the issue of retirement pay.      

     At the same October 13th meeting, the Association made a
counterproposal regarding medical insurance and wages.  MSAD 43's
negotiating team agreed to submit the counterproposal to the
entire MSAD 43 Board of Directors.  In response, the Board of
Directors authorized its negotiating team to make a medical
insurance offer that increased the caps for single, two-person
and family coverage.  That offer was made by letter dated
November 3, 1992.  In the same letter, MSAD 43 informed the
Association that employees would be provided with medical insur-
ance enrollment forms so that they could be covered as of Decem-
ber 1, 1992.  It also stated that employees currently enrolled in
the MTA Blue Cross Blue Shield plan would not be required to
transfer to the Maine School Management plan at that time, since
SAD 43 considered the two plans to be comparable (MSAD 43's offer
was to contribute to the MSM plan III or a comparable plan.) 

     On November 3, 1992, the Association filed for mediation on
wages, health insurance and duration of agreement.  It filed for
mediation again on November 4th.  On November 20, 1992, MSAD 43
implemented its "last best proposal" on wages by including a wage
increase in employees' paychecks.  It implemented its "last best
proposal" on health insurance on November 23rd by informing
employees that effective December 1st, employee contributions to
health insurance would begin.  Employees were also notified of
what, if any, their share would be.  The notice also stated that
as of December 1st, MSAD 43 would no longer pay premiums for
employees covered by insurance elsewhere.  Eligible employees
continue to be enrolled in the MTA Blue Cross Blue Shield plan.

     In asserting that impasse has not occurred, the Association
has not suggested that MSAD 43 began negotiations in June of 1990
with the intention of bargaining to impasse rather than reaching

			      -17-

agreement, or that it otherwise failed to bargain in good faith
up to and through interest arbitration.5  In its brief, the
Association asserts that the parties have not reached impasse in
part because of its belief that the Board should abandon the
impasse doctrine, and in part because of two alleged per se
violations of the duty to bargain in good faith after arbitra-
tion:  failure to respond to a 10-day notice to bargain, and
implementation of the employer's last best offer on wages and
insurance after the Association had requested post-arbitration
mediation.  In its complaint, the Association more broadly
alleges continued disregard of the Association's request for a
meeting between July 13, 1992 and October 1, 1992, and enrollment
of employees in one health insurance plan while implementing a
lesser one in the parties' contract.  Neither of these last two
allegations is addressed in the Association's brief, although the
parties stipulated to facts that relate to these two allegations. 
     
     a.  failure to respond to requests to bargain

     In connection with recommendations and findings made in
interest arbitration on the subjects of salaries, pensions and
insurance, section 965(4) of the MPELRL states that the arbitra-
tors may in their discretion make them public.  Either party may
do the same, "if agreement is not reached with respect to such
findings and recommendations within 10 days after their receipt
from the arbitrators."  Thus, the statute contemplates that on
salaries, pensions and insurance, the parties will participate in
further negotiations for some reasonable period of time after
receiving the arbitrators' report, a reasonable period being no
less than ten days.
_________________________

     5Accordingly, the factors for determining whether an impasse
has been reached that are cited in Auburn Firefighters Associ-
ation, Local 797 v. Valente, No. 87-19, 10 NPER ME-18017
(Me.L.R.B. Sept. 11, 1987), are irrelevant to this case and will
not be addressed.

			      -18-

     The parties have stipulated that there were no negotiation
meetings between July 13, 1992 and October 12, 1992, in spite of
several requests by the Association that the parties meet.  They
have also stipulated that those requests to bargain were directed
to either the superintendent or the chairman of the MSAD 43 Board
of Directors and not to the person designated as MSAD 43's chief
negotiator.  Furthermore, the Association did not send MSAD 43 a
formal, 10-day notice to bargain until September 28, 1992.6  
Although that notice too was sent to the superintendent rather
than the chief negotiator, by October 1st the chief negotiator
had sent the Association a letter confirming the date that had
been agreed to for a meeting (October 13th).  Since one of the
parties' ground rules for negotiation stated, "The parties shall
meet as mutually scheduled.  Meetings will be scheduled in
advance and several at a time," and the Association agreed to the
date of October 13th, we decline to find that MSAD 43 committed a
per se violation of the duty to bargain. 

     Even if we were to find that a technical violation occurred,
the violation would not warrant a further finding that MSAD 43
had not fulfilled its duty to continue negotiations for a reason-
able time after receiving the arbitrators' recommendations.  On
September 15th it augmented its offer on wages and health insur-
ance.  On November 3rd, it further improved its health insurance
offer in response to the meeting between the parties on October
13th.  We find that these efforts to reach settlement satisfied
the requirements of section 965(4).
_________________________

     6Section 965(1)(B) of the MPELRL imposes the following
requirement in connection with the duty to bargain:  

     To meet within 10 days after receipt of written notice
     from the other party requesting a meeting for collec-
     tive bargaining purposes, provided the parties have not
     otherwise agreed in a written contract. 

			      -19-

     b.  implementation after mediation requested

     The second per se violation of the duty to bargain alleged
by the Association is implementation of MSAD 43's last best offer
after the Association had requested mediation.  The mediation
provisions of the MPELRL do not support the Association's
position.  As we pointed out earlier in another context, section
965(2)(B) of the MPELRL requires participation in mediation when
either party requests it prior to arbitration.  While we would
certainly encourage parties who wish to use the services of a
mediator to make one last effort to reach agreement after
interest arbitration to do so, it cannot be required.

Failure to implement arbitrators' determination on duration of
agreement

     The third major question raised by the Association is
whether MSAD 43 violated its duty to bargain by failing to
implement the binding decision by the arbitrators that the
parties' new contract be for a two-year period covering 1991-92
and 1992-93.  We find that it did.

     Since the arbitrators' award was issued, MSAD 43 has con-
sistently ignored the duration-of-agreement aspect of the award 
-- making a "last best proposal" on duration in its September 15,
1992 letter to the Association (the offer being that the contract
would be effective on the date of execution and expire on June
30, 1993); making the same "last best proposal" in its November
3rd letter; and including that last best proposal in a copy of
the new contract mailed to the Association on November 28th. 
While the parties may agree to something other than what the
interest arbitrators decided, neither party may unilaterally make
changes in the award.

     MSAD 43 has defended its actions by pointing to Caribou
School Department v. Caribou Teachers Association, 402 A.2d 1279
(Me. 1979).  In that case, the Law Court, ruling that the Board

			      -20-

could not impose a contract provision requiring retroactive wage
increases, noted that such a wage increase could also not be the
subject of binding arbitration.  The MPELRL itself makes that
clear.  26 M.R.S.A.  965(4) (1988).    

     If the interest arbitrators cannot make a binding determina-
tion on wages, MSAD 43 argues, they cannot make one on either
pensions or insurance.  In addition, MSAD 43 points out, some
aspects of the contract cannot be implemented retroactively -- it
offers as examples medical insurance coverage and bereavement
leave day opportunities that have passed.  Finally, the employer
points out, it did implement wage increases retroactive to
January 1, 1992, consistent with its last best offer on wages.

     Most of the problem in connection with the duration-of-
agreement issue appears to us to stem from MSAD 43's mistaken
belief that its last best offer on wages and medical insurance
must be, or should be, incorporated into the parties' contract.
A contract, by its very nature, contains agreements reached by
the parties.  The Association cannot be required by MSAD 43 to
sign a contract containing something it has not agreed to.  Nor
can MSAD 43 impose its last best offer on wages and insurance for
a fixed period into the future, as the contract would do.7  
Likewise, MSAD 43 cannot be required by the interest arbitration
panel to extend its last best offer on wages further back in time
than the offer itself contemplated.  It did not do so, because
the contract does not cover this issue.  

     When MSAD 43 implemented its last best offer on wages and
health insurance, it simply made two lawful unilateral changes in
terms and conditions of employment (lawful under the "impasse"
_________________________

     7Consequently, the statements in MSAD 43's September 15th
and November 3rd "last best offer" letters that its offers on
wages and insurance would be effective through June 30, 1993,
were without effect.

			      -21-

exception to the unilateral change rule).  Those two changes are
reflected in MSAD 43's correspondence to the Association dated
November 3, 1992, and no further memorialization is necessary.   
The new wage plan and medical insurance plan constitute the new
status quo from which the parties will start any new negotia-
tions on these subjects.8 

     In response to MSAD 43's complaint that some aspects of the
contract are not amenable to retroactive application, we must
point out that that is commonly the case in retroactive con-
tracts.  The parties should simply make those portions of the
contract retroactive where they can reasonably do so.  We are
sure that the parties are capable of resolving this problem. 
(Retroactive health insurance is not an issue, since health
insurance is not covered by the contract.)  We also wish to point
out that sections 965(4) and 972 of the MPELRL make it clear that
binding interest arbitration determinations are reviewable in
Superior Court.  Apparently MSAD 43 did not appeal the interest
arbitration award, and this Board has no authority to make
changes in it, even if the arbitrators had gone beyond their
authority.

     Section 965(1)(E) of the MPELRL includes in the duty to
negotiate in good faith the duty to participate in interest
_________________________

     8In the normal situation, parties sign a contract that
extends for some period into the future, even if it contains a
substantial retroactive component due to lengthy negotiations. 
Where the employer has implemented its last best offer on
subjects not agreed to in the contract (wages, pensions and/or
insurance), the bargaining agent would be free to initiate new
negotiations on those subjects at any time, subject, of course,
to the 120-day rule in section 965(1)(E).  This is so because
those matters, not being in the contract, are not subject to the
duration-of-agreement provision in the contract.  We are not
faced with that situation here, since the contract term imposed
by the interest arbitrators in this case expired on June 30,
1993.  Presumably the parties are already in negotiations for a
new contract.

			      -22-

arbitration.  For that requirement to be meaningful, it must
include the requirement to implement arbitrators' binding deter-
minations unless overturned on appeal.  Accordingly, we find that
MSAD 43, by its failure to implement the duration-of-agreement
arbitation determination, has failed to bargain in good faith in
violation of section 964(1)(A) and (E) of the MPELRL.  We will
order it to cease and desist from failing to implement binding
arbitration awards in the future, and to take the affirmative
action of implementing the one at issue here.       

     Finally, we will briefly address the Association's charge
that MSAD 43 has enrolled employees in one health insurance plan
while implementing a lesser one in the parties' contract. 
(Employees are currently enrolled in the MTA Blue Cross Blue
Shield plan, while in MSAD 43's last best offer, it offered to
contribute to the Maine School Management Plan III or a compar-
able plan.)  We find no violation for two reasons.  As we have
already pointed out, health insurance is not covered by the
contract because it is not something on which the parties were
able to reach agreement.  More important, MSAD 43 has made the
MTA plan part of its last best offer by its statement in its
November 3rd "offer" letter that "the current insurance plan is
comparable."  Its implementation of the offer was consistent with
this statement, since employees already enrolled in the MTA plan
were not required to transfer to the Maine School Management
plan. 

			      ORDER

     On the basis of the foregoing stipulations, additional
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.  968(5) (1988 & Supp. 1992), it is
hereby ORDERED:
 
			      -23-

     1.   That MSAD 43 and its agents and representatives shall:
	  a.   Cease and desist from refusing to bargain in good
	       faith, and from interfering with, restraining and
	       coercing members of the teacher aides and assis-
	       tants' bargaining unit by refusing to implement
	       binding interest arbitration awards.

	  b.   Take the following affirmative action that is
	       necessary to effectuate the policies of the
	       MPELRL:
	       
	       i.   Implement the binding interest arbitration
		    award issued on July 9, 1992, by including
		    and applying a duration-of-agreement pro-
		    vision in the parties' contract that is
		    consistent with that award.
	  
     2.   That the Association's allegations regarding violation
of section 965(1)(A), (B), (C) and (D) are dismissed.

     3.   That the Association's request for attorney's fees and
costs is denied.  
   

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 19th day of August, 1993.


The parties are hereby advised     /s/___________________________ 
of their right, pursuant to        Peter T. Dawson
26 M.R.S.A.  968(5)(F) (Supp.     Chair 
1992), to seek review of this
decision and order by the
Superior Court.  To initiate
such a review, an appealing        /s/___________________________ 
party must file a complaint        Howard Reiche, Jr. 
with the Superior Court within     Employer Representative 
fifteen (15) days of the date
of issuance of this decision
and order, and otherwise
comply with the requirements       /s/___________________________  
of Rule 80C of the Maine Rules     George W. Lambertson 
of Civil Procedure.                Employee Representative 

			      -24-