STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Case No. 93-31 Issued: September 7, 1993 ____________________________ ) TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 340, ) ) ) Complainant, ) ) DECISION AND ORDER v. ) ) PORTLAND WATER DISTRICT, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________) This case was commenced by the April 29, 1993, filing of a complaint with the Maine Labor Relations Board (Board) against the Portland Water District (District) in which Teamsters Union Local 340 (Teamsters) alleges that the District has violated 26 M.R.S.A. 964 (1)(B), (C) and (D) (1988). More specifically, the complaint alleges that on January 5, 1993, District Wastewater Operations Superintendent Jeffrey Nixon and Wastewater Operations Assistant Superintendent James West interviewed Teamsters and bargaining unit member Ralph Dobson "regarding his activity on behalf of laid off fellow bargaining unit employees" while denying his multiple requests for Teamsters' representa- tion. The complaint also alleges that since April 5, 1993, Dobson has been denied promotion to a Sub-Foreman position which has been filled with employees who have been inactive in Teamsters matters. Finally, the complaint alleges that since January 4, 1993, the District has "refused to meet with [Teamsters] stewards at reasonable times and during the normal work day for the purpose of resolving disputes through the grievance procedure." On May 10, 1993, the Teamsters filed a motion to amend, later itself amended, which alleges that since May 1, 1993, the District wrongfully: prohibited its employees -1- from lawfully conducting informational picketing; suspended one employee and disciplined or threatened to discipline others for refusing to desist from lawful informational picketing; and selectively enforced a parking policy as a pretext for disciplining employees using their cars to display informational picket signs. The motion to amend requests an expedited hearing. A letter accompanying the motion states in support of the request for expedited hearing that employees will, absent immediate relief, suffer irreparable injury through the chilling of their fundamental rights. On May 14, 1993, the District filed an answer which denies each allegation of the amended complaint. The answer states that because the complaint does not clearly and concisely state the facts constituting the charge, the District is unable to properly prepare its defense. Additionally, the District states that the issues set forth in the amended complaint should be deferred to the parties' grievance-arbitration procedure. On May 20, 1993, the District answered the original complaint by denying that Dobson believed discipline might result from the meeting, and alleging both that no discipline was contemplated by the District and that Dobson was so informed. The District's answer states that selection of sub-foremen is the sole province of the District pursuant to the Management Rights clause of the parties' collective bargaining agreement and that the matters referred to in the original complaint are subject to and should be deferred for resolution in the parties' agreed grievance-arbitration procedure. The issues in the case framed by the Motion to Amend and the Answer to the Amended Portion of the Prohibited Practice Complaint were heard on May 26 and June 2, 1993. During the evidentiary hearing both parties were afforded the opportunity to present evidence and oral argument. The Board did not permit the filing of briefs in light of the expedited nature of the proceeding. The presiding Board panel consisted of Chair Peter T. Dawson, Employee Representative George W. Lambertson and -2- Employer Representative Howard Reiche, Jr. The Teamsters were represented in the expedited hearing by Attorney Howard T. Reben and in the case-in-chief by Teamsters' Secretary-Treasurer Harvard Brassbridge. The District was represented at the expedited hearing by Attorney Frederick B. Finberg and in the case-in-chief by Attorney Peter Bennett. The Board deliberated the expedited portion of the case immediately after the close of the record and the parties were notified orally of the Board's decision to dismiss the charges contained in the amended complaint. The parties were told a written decision would follow in due course. A prehearing conference on the remainder of the case was conducted on June 11, 1993, by Chair Dawson. The District's motion to defer was denied at prehearing. The transcript for the last day of hearing was posted July 3, 1993. The parties reached a settlement in the case-in-chief, and the Teamsters' complaint in the case-in-chief was permitted to be withdrawn, with prejudice, on July 6, 1993. JURISDICTION The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 968(5) (1988 & Supp. 1992). The amended complaint alleges violations of 26 M.R.S.A. 964(1)(A), (B) and (C) (1988). Neither party has objected to the Board's exercise of jurisdiction herein. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES The Teamsters contend that there has been one written recordation of disciplinary action for violation of the ostensible Douglass Street no-parking rule prior to the parties' bargaining stalemate, that during the stalled negotiations there has been an escalation both in the number and level of disciplinary measures, and that the District has discriminatorily visited discipline only on those employees whose cars parked on -3- Douglass Street have displayed signs decrying: the District's treatment of employees represented by the Teamsters, the status of negotiations and/or the District's wastefulness. The District contends that the seemingly dramatic increase in both the frequency and severity of discipline is a direct result of employees' concerted refusals to heed requests to comply with a Douglass Street no-parking policy historically established and consistently enforced. FINDINGS OF FACT Harvard Brassbridge is the Teamsters Union Local 340 Business Agent who services a collective bargaining unit of employees of the Portland Water District which is described: INCLUDED: Employees in the following departments: construction and water operations, wastewater, general services, marketing and customer services, lake operations and laboratory, engineering and general office. EXCLUDED: General forepersons, administrators, executives and confidential employees. The parties have been in negotiations since September of 1992. They have been through mediation and have filed for fact finding. There are no negotiations presently occurring. The portion of Douglass Street at issue in this case affords on-street parking to customers of the District as well as to residents and guests of residents of a nearby apartment house. Douglass Street runs past the business entrance to the District. The District requested the City implement limited time parking in front of the District, on the District side of Douglass Street. Parking on the District side of Douglass Street is limited to fifteen and thirty minutes. Parking on the opposite side of the street is limited by the City of Portland, only in respect to prohibition of overnight parking. Although Douglass Street is -4- closed to through trucks, the District's trucks are excepted by ordinance. On April 26, 1993, the Teamsters called a press conference and staged a demonstration on Douglass Street and Brighton Avenue to bring their "case" to the attention of the public. Teamsters members picketed and distributed leaflets. The demonstration coincided with a District Trustees' meeting. After the meeting, many of the picket signs were taken home but some were put on trees, telephone poles and sign posts on public property in the area in front of the District on Douglass Street. All of the signs were gone the next day. To continue their demonstration, the Teamsters arrived and picketed before work, placing their signs in their cars' windows on departing Douglass Street for the workday. Some signs, posted in a grassy public area, have remained during the last few weeks. Although ordinarily the Douglass Street unlimited parking area would be nearly empty during the day, when the employees decided to disregard the policy en masse available parking along the entire side of Douglass Street opposite the District was filled to capacity. The District's management decided to implement a measured approach to the concerted activity by waiting a few days while reminding employees of the policy and pointing out its violation. In compliance with General Manager Dan Jellis' wishes, the District's subordinate managers refrained from enforcing the policy for three days at the commencement of the Teamsters' demonstrations. On the fourth day they notified employees of the policy and of the District's desire that they come into compliance therewith. The Teamsters were given adequate notice that the District would enforce the no-parking rule. The District notified Brassbridge in writing that in May it was the District's intention to enforce the no-parking policy. The Teamsters "felt [they] had every right to park on Douglass Street and to -5- demonstrate in that manner." Progressive discipline was used and no employee was suspended without having been given written notice of the policy and being informed that further violation would result in suspension. In some unspecified cases, verbal warnings were not documented in writing. The District has received calls from customers and adjacent residents inquiring about the picketing. No District manager has reported to the police department or to the traffic engineering department of the City of Portland that parking on Douglass Street has created an unsafe condition. The City has never approached the District concerning compliance with the requirements which the District's Douglass Street no-parking policy relates as having supported the granting of an historical but unspecified variance. The District's parking lot has existed since the 1950s. It has been enlarged twice and has been paved. There was an undisclosed written policy in effect prior to the present policy. The District's lot is large enough to accommodate all 160 of its on-duty employees. The distance of the parking lot from the District's front entrance is 250 feet. Deliveries of materiel and supplies to the District are made through the St. James Street entrance. The District's present parking policy, issued on March 2, 1989, is as follows: PWD POLICY/PROCEDURE LETTER # 2-89 (Supersedes #51.87) SUBJECT: Employee Parking Policy Parking spaces are available for all employees in the general parking lot located between Douglass Street and Massachusetts Avenue. I. Employee Parking Lot This lot for employee use, is provided to accomplish the following: - Employee convenience and increased vehicle security; -6- - Reduce exposure to public traffic; - Make Douglass Street more passable for our equipment as well as emergency vehicles; - Provide good public relations with the neighborhood; - Live up to the City of Portland's Certificate of Occupancy. When the District applied to the City of Portland for the approval to build the employee parking lot, A Variance Was Agreed To By Both Parties that all employees would use the lot and leave Douglass Street clear. This overcame the objections of the surrounding neighbors. Standby personnel and the shift Control Center Operator will have a parking space designated for their use. Designated parking spaces for female employees will be continued for the near future. With paving and better lighting, the need for special consideration has been eliminated. District vehicles are permitted in the employee parking lot by supervisory direction only. Parking in this employee parking lot is at the employee's own risk, however, the District will make a reasonable effort to provide safety and security through adequate lighting and fencing along with signs designating the area as "Employee Parking and Private Property - No Trespassing". The District will not be liable for any damage or theft occurring while being parked there. For your own protection, please keep your vehicles locked at all times. There will be no storage of unregistered or uninspected vehicles in the parking lot. Any violations of the above will be subject to the District's Disciplinary Procedure. II. Construction/Inventory Area Only District - authorized vehicles are permitted in the Construction/Inventory Stock Area. The intent is to limit the exposure an employee's vehicle will have to damage by construction vehicles and equipment and to insure proper control of District materials. ______________________________________________ Joseph B. Taylor, General Manager -7- ______________________________________________ Robert L. Gilmore, Director of Human Resources (Emphasis in original.) This policy was posted on the District's official bulletin boards in 1989 and again in April/May of 1993. Although the District possesses an orientation checklist with spaces for the initialling of subjects such as the parking policy, the policy is not listed thereon and no initialled checklists were produced at hearing. Employees do not disclose their auto license plate numbers to the District. New employees have been told variously they either should or must use the employee lot. James West told employees they must park there when he conducted new employee orientations prior to the centralization of orientations in 1990-91. The District's application of the policy has been to require employees to refrain from parking on Douglass Street. The District has encouraged but has not insisted that its employees park in the district's lot. Parking on St. James or Elizabeth streets has not been considered incompatible with the policy. Cars of family members under the control of District employees have been considered by the District to fall within the policy. Lynn Brett, who has worked on each of the District's shifts, occasionally parks his car, with a vanity plate which reads "BRETTS", on Douglass Street. He's never been asked to move or been disciplined for parking on Douglass Street. On call, evening and night shift personnel, and individuals with limited mobility, restrictions to light duty or doctor's appointments have all been allowed to park on Douglass Street. General Foreman Frank Meader has parked his truck and boat on Douglass Street during the summertime. Employees are more likely to be found parking on Douglass Street on paydays. Steve Rourke has parked on Douglass Street Also. Dobson was also observed by management personnel parking on Douglass Street prior to the -8- April 26 demonstration and was not admonished for it. Dobson spent his days of suspension picketing on Douglass Street. He observed Frank Meader, District General Foreman, recording license plates on cars exhibiting signs between 8:00 and 8:30 on Douglass Street. Previous to the April/May 1993 timeframe, the policy was enforced only when it was reported that there was a violation or when someone was observed to be in violation during the business day. Violators were identified previously through personal recognition, or inquiry into the ownership of vehicles parked at length in front of the District. The taking of license plates and identification by having the Bennett firm run the plate numbers was instituted after April 26, 1993, at Human Resource Director Robert Gilmore's direction. A grievance filed by Rick Woodbury on January 27, 1993, complained that as part of a pattern of harassment by supervisors Steve Rourke and Jim Pandiscio, Woodbury had been told by his foreman that he couldn't park on Douglass Street. Woodbury immediately began parking in the District lot after the incident. The grievance appeared to attenuate at Step II with assurance that the harassment would be supplanted by better communication. With the exception of Woodbury, prior to April 1993, "a word was enough" to invoke compliance with the policy. Although after April 27, 1993, verbal warnings respecting parking infractions were documented in employee files, a copy of the documentation was not customarily given to the employee. Brassbridge is not ordinarily notified of verbal counsellings or written warnings absent the filing of a grievance but is usually notified of disciplinary suspensions. Clifford Dudley's initial discipline for parking policy infraction predates the Teamsters' notice to the District that he was requested to testify in this proceeding. -9- The following disciplinary actions have occurred with regard to the Douglass Street no-parking policy: Employee Discipline Imposed by Date Barry Webster documented verbal Jim West 05/10/93 Barry Webster written warning Jim West 05/11/93 Barry Webster 1 day suspension Jeffrey Nixon 05/11/93 Mark Oliver documented verbal Jim West 05/10/93 Mark Oliver written warning Jim West 05/12/93 Mark Oliver 1 day suspension Jeffrey Nixon 05/12/93 Mark Oliver 5 day suspension Jeffrey Nixon 05/13/93 Duane Pedneault documented verbal Steve Rourke 05/13/93 Duane Pedneault documented verbal E. Hoermann 05/13/93 Duane Pedneault written warning Steve Rourke 05/14/93 Duane Pedneault 1 day suspension Steve Rourke 05/14/93 Eric Hyland documented verbal A. Sanford 04/29/93 Eric Hyland written warning G. York 05/04/93 Eric Hyland 1 day suspension G. York 05/05/93 Cliff Dudley written warning G. York 05/20/93 Ralph Dobson documented verbal Jim West 05/04/93 Ralph Dobson written warning Jim West 05/05/93 Ralph Dobson 1 day suspension Jim West 05/05/93 Ralph Dobson 5 day suspension Jim West 05/06/93 Frank Allen documented verbal Jim West 05/18/93 John Charlton documented verbal Jim West 05/11-12/93 Lee Early documented verbal Jim West 05/11/93 Richard Greenwood documented verbal Jim West 05/18/93 Martin Griffin documented verbal Jeff Nixon 05/18/93 Craig Landry documented verbal Jeff Nixon 05/11/93 Greg McLean documented verbal Jeff Nixon 05/12/93 Wilder McManus documented verbal Jeff Nixon 05/17/93 *Rick Woodbury documented verbal Steve Rourke 05/05/93 Tom Webster documented verbal Steve Rourke 05/14/93 Tom Webster written warning Steve Rourke 05/18/93 Jeff Greaves documented verbal Jim West 05/05/93 Jeff Greaves 1 day suspension Jim West 05/06/93 Jeff McGill documented verbal Jim West 05/04/93 Jeff McGill written warning Jim West 05/05/93 Tracy O'Leary documented verbal Jim West 05/10/93 David Taylor documented verbal Jim West 05/10/93 *Woodbury's documented verbal warning states the progressive disciplinary steps as: written warning, short 1 to 5 day suspension, long 6 to 10 day suspension and then termination. (A verbal warning had transpired before his documented verbal) In addition to the above-tabulated employees, Elizabeth Hoermann, Director of Customer Relations and Public Information, has spoken -10- to Pat Maloney and Jerry Curtois about parking on Douglass Street. Neither had signs on their vehicles. Pedneault and Griffin, listed in the table above, also had no signs in their cars at the time of their infraction citations. Steven Rourke, District Customer Service Supervisor, has spoken about policy violations to Elaine Gervais in '91 or '92, Bill Perry in '86-'92 and Dottie Fontaine in '91 or '92. James West spoke to Joe Halstrom about violating the policy in 1986 or '87. Jeffrey Nixon spoke to Jeri Levesque in July 1992 about parking on Douglass Street. Eric Hyland is the Teamsters' steward in the District bargaining unit involved in this case. Hyland does not possess a complete set of the District's policies and received his first notice of the no-parking policy on February 22, 1993, during his representation of Woodbury at Step I of his January grievance. On April 29, 1993, at 4:00 p.m. Hyland found an envelope taped to his locker which contained a memo entitled "Notice of Counselling" which stated that "[o]n the 29th of April at 3:00 p.m. [A. Sanford] talked to Eric Hyland about parking on Douglass street and furnished him a copy of our policy #2-89." On May 4, 1994, Hyland received a memorandum from G. York which states: Eric on Thursday you received notice from your foreman and a copy of the policy letter #2-89. This was in regard to your parking in the street on Douglass Street. You have chosen to disregard this request and in so doing you leave me no alternative but to proceed to step 2 of the progressive discipline policy #8-92. This is your written warning with a second request to please park your vehicle in the employees parking lot. This will be filed in your personnel file for not more than one year. On May 5, 1993, Hyland received a memorandum from G. York which states: -11- On the 29th of April you received counseling addressing parking on Douglass street which violates our policy # 2-89. The second step was taken on May 4th as you were again parked on Douglass Street in violation of the same policy, on the 4th of May we went to step II which is the written warning. It is now the 5th of May and you are still parking on Douglass Street in violation of policy # 2-89. The third step in the discipline procedure is Short Suspension. I would allow you to move your vehicle to the district parking lot and waive the short suspension however if you choose to remain parked on Douglass Street I will have no alternative but to proceed with step III of policy which will be a one day suspension without pay beginning 05/05/93 at 8:00 AM and ending at 4:00 PM. I would remind you that the next step of the discipline policy # 8-92 starts with a 6 day suspension without pay. Hyland did not park on Douglass Street after receiving the one day suspension because he "couldn't afford to make a political statement at the cost of economic disaster." Hyland did park thereafter, with a sign on his vehicle, on Elizabeth Street. No action has been taken against him for parking with a sign on Elizabeth Street. One of his signs stated, "It looks like the white collars at the Portland Water District have taken over the streets. You'll have to park your cars behind the barbed wire." Although Elizabeth Street abuts Douglass Street, Hyland desired that his signs be displayed on Douglass Street where public visibility was much more enhanced. Ralph Dobson, who holds no union office, has processed numerous (10 to 15) grievances as a member of Local 340, primarily concerning management personnel doing union work. On May 12, Dobson received a letter from the District by certified mail; the full text of the letter is as follows: Dear Ralph: As you are aware, the Portland Water District has had an Employee Parking Policy in effect for quite -12- sometime. The latest one is Policy/Procedure Letter #2-89 which has been in effect since 1989. This Policy/Procedure states that the District has provided ample parking spaces in its employee parking lot for all employees. Under agreement with the City of Portland made during the permitting process for the expansion of that lot, Douglass Street was not to be used for District employee parking. The policy was designed to accomplish the following: employee convenience and increased vehicle security; reduce exposure to public traffic; make Douglass Street more passable for the Districts equipment as well as emergency vehicles; and provide good public relations with the neighborhood. On Thursday, April 29, 1993, as a reminder copies of this Policy/Procedure were posted on the bulletin boards and employees known to be parking on Douglass Street were notified that they should be parking in the parking lot provided. On Tuesday, May 4, 1993, you disregarded this notice and parked your vehicle on Douglass Street during normal work hours. As a result you were given an Documented Verbal Warning and told both verbally and in writing that further willful violations of Policy/Procedure will result in additional disciplinary action. On Wednesday, May 5, 1993, you again parked on Douglass Street in violation of the Policy/Procedure Letter. Because you chose to disregard the policy you were issued a Written Warning and told that your vehicle must be parked in accordance with the policy on that day-Wednesday, May 5, 1993, before going to work. You were verbally informed as well as in writing that failure to do so would result in a one (1) day suspension without pay effective immediately. Upon your refusal to move your car, you were suspended for one (1) day without pay effective Wednesday, May 5, 1993. On Thursday, May 6, 1993, you again refused to move your car and put it in the employee parking lot during normal work hours and therefore were given a five (5) day suspension without pay effective Thursday, May 6, 1993. You were also informed at that time both verbally as well as in writing that further violations of the Parking Policy or continued willful acts of insubordination will result in your termination from employment at the Portland Water District. -13- Upon your return to work on Thursday, May 13, 1993, we are asking that you park your vehicle either in the Employee Parking Lot or on any side street. The District is enforcing the parking policy only. The fact that signs are on cars or trees and telephone poles is not the issue. The District is living up to its policy on parking on Douglass Street. Cars parked on the side streets have not been an issue as well. The District does not want to see an employee lose their job over this issue but if you continue to disregard this policy, they are forced into it, and will have no other choice but to discharge you according to the Progressive Discipline Polcy [sic]. In order to protect your job it is hopeful that you will abide by the policy upon your return to work. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions in regards to this letter. Very truly yours, Robert L. Gilmore Director of Human Resources RLG:cmc There was some discussion by the parties prior to Dobson being discharged, with respect to permitting Dobson to continue to park on Douglass Street if all other employees observed policy #2-89. No agreement was reached. Employees presently are convinced that the District will impose progressive discipline including discharge for infractions of the no-parking policy. However, these employees, represented by the Teamsters, feel that the District hasn't the right to regulate the parking of employees during their workday if they are parked on a public street such as Douglass Street. The District has not directly attempted to persuade employees to cease picketing. The District never asked any employee to remove signs from their vehicles. The District did request of stewards that they urge employees to observe the Douglass Street no-parking policy. Around April 10, 1993, hourly-paid District employees removed two signs before 8:00 a.m. Two signs, each stuck in -14- snowbanks, were removed from Douglass and St. James streets in December. Dick Small, a member of the District's management, was apprehended by two unit members after he removed one of the employees' signs, and returned it after they threatened to call the police. A UPS driver stopped and spoke to Dobson, while he was picketing, about what was going on at the District. UPS has refused to make pick-ups at or make deliveries to the District since the first week of May. The District has been required to ship and pick up at the UPS terminal. There is no evidence of significant effect on the District's business in this regard. At least one bidder has informed the District that Federal Express has refrained from delivering his bid. The bid was faxed instead. No water service has been interrupted and no other deliveries, such as those from E. J. Prescott Pipe, have been interrupted. No signs have indicated a work stoppage, slow-down or strike among employees of the District to be in effect. Dobson posted a sign mounted on a stick which purported to designate an "official picket line," beside a telephone pole on St. James Street, for two hours. Brassbridge directed the sign, which stated, "please don't cross our picket line," be taken down by Dobson. No other signs have directly urged that deliveries to the District be curtailed. On May 25, 1993, there was a picket sign which read "Teamsters Local 340, Official Picket Line" posted outside the St. James Street gate. There is no indication of who posted the sign. On May 27, 1993, and during the mornings of the preceding two weeks, there were signs at unspecified locations on St. James Street which stated, "Official Picket Line." There is insufficient evidence to establish that any line cordoned-off the James Street gate, or that these signs remained past the beginning of the work day. -15- DISCUSSION We have previously announced our ultimate holding by dismissing the Teamsters' amended complaint, which charges that the District has "selectively enforced ["against union activists"] and arbitrarily used the [Douglass Street no-parking] policy in order to limit and inhibit proper organizational activities like informational picketing." We hereby issue our written findings of fact and conclusions of law. We announced our holding orally and well in advance of this written opinion because of the nature of the parties' dispute and the level of discipline which appeared imminent for a large number of the District's employees. Preliminarily we note that of the conflicting testimony concerning the date upon which the Teamsters' May 18, 1993, witness notice was received, we credit that testimony which establishes its receipt by the District after Clifford Dudley's initial discipline for violation of the Douglass Street no- parking policy. Accordingly, we find to be without merit the Teamsters' suggestion that Dudley's discipline resulted from his being identified as a witness--assumedly favorable to the Teamsters. Additionally, the District's motion to dismiss for failure to comply with Board Rule 4.03, taken under advisement at hearing, is hereby denied. We think the District possessed sufficient notice of what the Teamsters' allegations were to prepare an adequate defense. We find uncharged and insufficiently supported the implication that the Teamsters unlawfully induced others to refrain from making delivers to the District. Neither do we find in these facts a significant pattern of District effort to obliterate or prevent the lawful informational activities of its employees. The District's motion requesting deferral to the parties' -16- grievance-arbitration procedure was denied at hearing. We do not construe the Article II reservation to the District of "the right to establish and enforce reasonable rules and regulations pertaining to conduct and deportment of employees," to permit the establishment of no-parking zones for employees. Neither do we conclude that the Article XII proscription of shop steward precipitation of specified job actions to provide a basis for the parking policy discipline meted by the District. We find the issue in this case to be whether the parties' past practice includes a work rule establishing limitations on employee parking on Douglass Street and, if it does, whether any such work rule has been used as a pretext to curtail lawful informational picketing. We now turn to the resolution of these issues. Although the record establishes that the employee parking lot has existed for quite some time it is uncertain exactly what the District's parking policy was prior to the present one, which we shall refer to as #2-89. Policy #2-89 is not completely clear on its face, and it is less so in application. The testimony establishes that there is a lack of consensus among the District's managers that parking in the District's provided lot is mandatory. Moreover, the policy itself does not explicitly state that employees must refrain from parking on Douglass Street. We conclude, however, that #2-89 reasonably conveys both notice that the District and the City have reached an agreement that employees will not park on Douglass Street and notice that violators will be subject to the District's disciplinary procedure. Additionally, employees were specifically notified of the District's interpretation that Douglass Street was off limits, after the three-day grace period and before serious disciplinary action. We find the disparity in pre- and post- April 27, 1993, disciplinary measures unremarkable in light of the Teamsters' avowed purpose to concertedly persist in the use of Douglass Street parking, as the situs of its informational picketing program. We find credible that evidence establishing -17- that employees had been frequently admonished not to park on Douglass Street in the past and that evidence establishing that merely asking people to move had previously been sufficient. It is undeniable that the prime location for the Teamsters' informational picketing was directly across Douglass Street from the District entrance used by its paying customers. However, the Douglass Street no-parking rule had not only long been on the books, but had long been applied, even if on infrequent occasion. The apparent lack of attempt to catch every #2-89 violator in the past is no more convincingly explained by the Teamsters' argument of "intent to chill" than it is by the apparently infrequent use of the across-street parking by no more than one or, at the most, two cars at a time. Although it is always regrettable when employees lose their jobs or their pay, we cannot say that those losses which occurred here were not based on the conscious choice of employees who unfortunately miscalculated the enforceability of the no-parking rule. The rule on its face is reasonably related to concerns of the District which we cannot characterize as being wholly irrational, and notice that it would be enforced at each successive step of the District's progressive disciplinary policy was amply made. These unfortunate consequences might not have occurred if the affected employees had observed the time-worn labor relations maxim, "work now, grieve later." ORDER On the basis of the foregoing record considered in light of the parties' oral argument and by virtue of and pursuant to the authority of the Board set forth in 26 M.R.S.A. 968(5)(A) -18 (1988), it is ORDERED that the charges of prohibited practices contained in the Teamsters' May 10, 1993, Motion to Amend must be and are, hereby, DISMISSED. Issued at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of September, 1993. The parties are hereby advised /s/___________________________ of their right, pursuant to 26 Peter T. Dawson 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 George W. Lambertson with the Superior Court within Employee 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 Howard Reiche, Jr. of Civil Procedure. Employer Representative