STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CASE NO. 84-12
ISSUED: January 25, 1984
____________________________________
)
SANFORD FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, )
Local 1624, International Associa- )
tion of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, )
)
Complainant, )
) DECISION AND ORDER
v. )
)
TOWN OF SANFORD, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
This is a prohibited practices case, filed pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. Section 968
(5)(B) on December 8, 1983 by the Sanford Fire Fighters Association, Local 1624,
International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO ("Union"). The Union alleges
in its complaint that, on January 1, 1983 and February 25, 1983, the Town of San-
ford ("Employer"), unilaterally and without prior notice to the Union, effected a
change in the working conditions for certain bargaining unit employees by requiring
said employees to undertake added responsibilities. The Employer filed an answer
to the complaint oh December 29, 1983, denying that it had violated any section of
the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act, 26 M.R.S.A. Section 961, et
seq. ("Act"). Contemporaneous with the filing of its answer, the Employer filed a
Motion to Dismiss Prohibited Practice Complaint, alleging thereby that the Union's
complaint is barred by the six-month statute of limitations contained in 26 M.R.S.A.
Section 968(5)(B) and moving for the dismissal of said complaint.
A hearing on the case was scheduled for January 18, 1984. The Board, Chairman
Sidney W. Wernick presiding, with Employer Representative Thacher E. Turner and Em-
ployee Representative Harold S. Noddin, convened in regular public session on that
date. The Union appeared and was represented by George F. Wood, Esq., and the Em-
ployer appeared and was represented by Annalee Z. Rosenblatt. Prior to commencing
the hearing on the merits of this case, the Board entertained argument by the par-
ties over the Employer's Motion to Dismiss Prohibited Practice Complaint. The par-
ties were afforded full opportunity to make argument and rebuttal argument thereon.
-1-
JURISDICTION
The Union is the bargaining agent, within the meaning of 26 M.R.S.A. Section
962(2), for a bargaining unit composed of the full-time firefighters and EMT's,
up to and including the rank of Captain, employed by the Town of Sanford in the
Sanford Fire Department. The Town of Sanford is the public employer, within the
definition of 26 M.R.S.A. Section 962(7), of the aforementioned employees. The
jurisdiction of the Maine Labor Relations Board ("Board") to hear this case and
render a decision and order lies in 26 M.R.S.A. Section 968(5).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon review of the record herein, the Board finds:
1. The Sanford Fire Fighters Association, Local 1624, International Associa-
tion of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, is the bargaining agent, within the meaning of 26
M.R.S.A. Section 962(2), for a bargaining unit composed of the full-time fire-
fighters and EPIT's, up to and including the rank of Captain, employed by the Town
of Sanford in the Sanford Fire Department.
2. The Town of Sanford is the public employer, within the definition of 26
M.R.S.A. Section 962(7), of the employees mentioned in the foregoing paragraph.
3. On December 8, 1983, the Union filed the prohibited practice complaint,
which is the subject of this action, with the executive director of the Board.
4. The conduct complained of, in the complaint mentioned in the preceding
paragraph, involved two discrete events which occurred on either January 1, 1983
or on February 25, 1983.
5. The events mentioned in the preceding paragraph were the unilateral imple-
mentation of changed working conditions by the Employer affecting some of the employ-
ees mentioned in paragraph 1 supra.
6. The Employer, during November, 1982, gave notice to the Union of its intent
to implement the unilateral changes mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
-2-
DECISION
The section of the Act upon which the Employer has based its motion to dismiss
the prohibited practice complaint herein is Section 968(5)(B). The relevant language
of the statute relied-upon by the Employer is as follows:
"If a formal hearing is deemed necessary by the executive director or by
the board, the executive director shall serve upon the parties to the
complaint a notice of the prehearing conference and of the hearing before
the board, that notice to designate the time and place of hearing for the
prehearing conference or the hearing, as appropriate, provided that no
hearing shall be held based upon any alleged prohibited practice occurring
more than 6 months prior to the filing of the complaint with the executive
director."
(Emphasis added). This Board has interpreted this section of the Act in Teamsters
Local 48 v. City of Waterville, MLRB No. 80-14, at 2-3 (April 23, 1980), which stated:
"Section 968(5)(B) provides in part 'that no hearing shall be held
based upon any alleged prohibited practice occurring more than 6 months
prior to the filing of the complaint with the executive director.' In
viewing the alleged conduct it is apparent that some conduct falls with-
in the period and some without. The degree to which conduct occurring
outside the limitations period can be considered was decided by the Su-
preme Court in Local Lodge No. 1424 v. N.L.R.B., 362 U.S. 411 (1960).
The [C]ourt described two situations, first, where occurrences within the
six month period in and of themselves may constitute, as a substantive
matter, unfair labor practices, earlier events may be utilized to shed
light on the true character of matters occurring within the limitations
period. The second situation is where conduct within the six months can
be charged to be an unfair labor practice only through reliance on an
earlier unfair labor practice. There the use of the earlier unfair labor
practice is not merely 'evidentiary,' since it does not simply lay bare a
putative unfair labor practice. Rather, it serves to cloak with illegality
that which was otherwise lawful. And where a complaint based upon that
earlier event Is time-barred, to permit the event itself to be so used in
effect results in reviving a legally defunct unfair labor practice.
362 U.S. at 416."
Neither of the above-described situations is present in this case. A discrete
event or two discrete events are the very essence of the prohibited practice complaint
herein; namely, there was unilateral action by the Employer creating new job assign-
ments and implementing the same. There is no question that said events occurred,
that the Union knew that it would occur, that it had happened and, indeed, accord-
ing to the allegations in the complaint, the Union proceeded, having said knowledge
to sign a collective bargaining agreement. The events complained of, the unilateral
implementation of the changed work assignments, occurred on January 1, 1983 and on
-3-
February 25, 1983. Our holding that the essence of the complaint concerns two
identifiable events is based not only upon our careful reading of the complaint's
allegations but also upon the Union's prayer for relief therein. The only specific
relief requested by the Union and relating to the merits of its complaint is: "An
Order from the Board mandating the Town to negotiate new positions as a starting
point at what the Town Meeting had budgeted."
The Union's prohibited practice complaint was filed with the executive director
on December 8, 1983. Said filing date is more than 6 months after the latter of the
two occurrences complained of, that of February 25, 1983. In accord with the provi-
sions of 26 M.R.S.A. Section 968(5)(B) the Board has no choice but to dismiss the
Union's complaint in this proceeding.
We note, by way of obiter dictum, that the Union, in paragraph H of its pro-
hibited practice complaint alleged:
"Said conduct by the Town is and was calculated to chill
Union's rights under 26 M.R.S.A. paragraphs 963, 964 and
965, included, and further said conduct was willful, and
deliberate."
This type of general allegation and blanket citation of sections of the Act, some of
which relate to the rights of management, lacks sufficient specificity to be of any
use to either the Board or to other parties in understanding the essence of the com-
plaint. All persons coming before the board in the future should state with particu-
larity which provisions of the Act were allegedly violated by the conduct complained
of. No less is required by Section 968(5)(B) of the Act and Rule 4.03(4) of the
Board's Prohibited Practice Complaint Rules.
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and discussion, and by virtue of
and pursuant to the powers granted to the Maine Labor Relations Board by the provi-
sions of 26 M.R.S.A. Section 968(5), it is hereby ORDERED:
That the prohibited practice complaint filed by the Sanford
Fire Fighters Association, on December 8, 1983, in Case No.
84-12 be and hereby is dismissed.
-4-
Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 25th day of January, 1984.
MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
/s/_______________________________________
Sidney W. Wernick, Chairman
/s/_______________________________________
Thacher E. Turner, Employer Representative
/s/_______________________________________
Harold S. Noddin, 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 com-
plaint in accordance with Rule 80B of the Rules of Civil Procedure within 15 days
after the date of this decision.
-5-