ALASKA LABOR RELATIONS AGENCY
3301 EAGLE STREET, SUITE 208
P.O. BOX 107026
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510-7026
Fax (907) 269-4898
UNALASKA UTILITIES EMPLOYEE ) ASSOCIATION, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) CITY OF UNALASKA, ) ) Respondent, ) ) and ) ) INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING) ENGINEERS, LOCAL 302, AFL-CIO, ) ) Intervenor. ) ________________________________)
CASE NO. 96-520-RD
DECISION AND ORDER NO. 220
Digest: While a unit of public utilities employees can be an appropriate bargaining unit, the Unalaska Utilities Employee Association did not demonstrate that the unit it proposed was an appropriate unit under AS 23.40.090 or satisfy the requirements in 8 AAC 97.025(b) to justify severing the public utilities employees from the existing bargaining unit.
Statement of the Case
Unalaska Utilities Employee Association (UUEA) filed this petition March 21, 1996, to represent employees in the Department of Public Utilities at the City of Unalaska. Those employees currently are combined with the employees in the Department of Public Works and represented in bargaining by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, AFL-CIO (IOUE). On March 25, 1996, UUEA amended the petition to clarify the description of the bargaining unit. On April 8, 1996, the Agency notified UUEA that it needed to file a constitution and by-laws before its petition could be considered. Those documents were filed on April 23, 1996. The Agency advised the parties on May 7, 1996, that UUEA had satisfied the showing of interest requirement. On May 13, 1996, the City of Unalaska posted copies of the petition in places where affected employees work. On May 16, 1996, the International Union of Operating Engineers objected to the petition. The case was heard on July 11, 1996, before hearing examiner Jan Hart DeYoung. The record closed that same day.
On August 30, 1996, the parties were notified that board member Blair E. Schad had been assigned to the panel hearing this petition in place of Stuart H. Bowdoin, whose term expired.
Panel: Vice Chair Blair E. Schad, and Board Members James W. Elliott and Karen J. Mahurin, participating after review of the record.
Appearances: James R. Gilman was present for petitioner Unalaska Utilities Employee Association; William F. Mede, Owens & Turner, P.C., was present for respondent City of Unalaska; and Russell J. Reid, Davies, Roberts & Reid, L.L.P., was present for intervenor International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, AFL-CIO.
Procedure in this case is governed by 8 AAC 97.350. Hearing examiner Jan Hart DeYoung presided.
1. Is the unit that the Unalaska Utilities Employee Association seeks to represent an appropriate unit under AS 23.40.090?
2. Does the Unalaska Utilities Employee Association meet the requirements for severing a bargaining unit from an existing bargaining unit under 8 AAC 97.025(b)?1
Summary of the Evidence
Petitioner Unalaska Utilities Employee Association offered the following exhibits, which were admitted into the record:
101. Job announcement, Director of Public Utilities (Jan. 22, 1996);
102. Job announcement, Public Works Director (Mar. 29, 1996);
103. Job descriptions, electrical utility employees (various dates);
104. Job descriptions, water and wastewater utility employees (Aug. 1, 1994);
105. Job descriptions, Public Works roads department employees (various dates);
106. Job descriptions, Public Works maintenance crew employees (various dates);
107. Job descriptions, Public Works supply department employees (Mar. 15, 1996);
108. Picture, Public Utilities coffee cup;
109. Picture, Public Utilities cap;
110. Unalaska/ IUOE collective bargaining agreement (1987--1990);
111. Unalaska/ IUOE collective bargaining agreement (1990--1993);
112. Unalaska/ IUOE collective bargaining agreement (1994--1996);
113. KPMG Peat Marwick, Report, classification and compensation study (April 5, 1994);
114. J. Spalding, letter to J. Ackerman (May 1, 1995) (inquiring about objections to negotiations with C. Huling);
115. J. Spalding, letter to J. Ackerman (May 4, 1995) (inquiring about objections to negotiations with C. Huling);
116. Fax cover sheet, Public Utilities;
117. Fax cover sheet, Public Works;
118. Report of Grievance (Aug. 11, 1995) (R. Bray) (and attachments, 25 pgs.); and
119. J. Ackerman, letter to J. Spalding (Mar. 12, 1996) (and response regarding reasonable accommodation under Americans with Disabilities Act) (2 pgs.).
Admission of the following exhibit was denied after a relevance objection:
120. D. Denig-Chakroff, Director, Public Utilities, memorandum to M. Earnest, City Manager (July 29, 1994).
Respondent City of Unalaska did not offer any exhibits.
Intervenor International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, AFL-CIO, offered the following exhibits, which were admitted into the record:
201. D. Wilson, Dep’t of Labor, letter to W. Gore, IOUE (April 24, 1981) (representation election procedures);
202. D. Cline, letter to E. Kareen (Feb. 4, 1994) (bargaining unit job descriptions attached, 60 pgs.); and
203. Unalaska/ IUOE collective bargaining agreement (1982--1984).
Two exhibits were offered and not admitted because they were duplicates of exhibits admitted as exhibits 111 and 112.
Petitioner Unalaska Utilities Employee Association presented the testimony of Roger P. Deffendall, electrical supervisor; Robert Grimnes, store keeper; Bryan Amber, electrical lineman and vice president, UUEA; Mark Earnest, city manager; James Spalding, personnel officer; Clint Huling, water and wastewater supervisor; Glen Fitch, representative UUEA; Richard Bray, former employee; and Steve Weber, former employee.
Intervenor International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, AFL-CIO, presented the testimony of Jim Dickson, Local 302 shop steward; and Ed Kareen, business representative.
C. Agency case file. 8 AAC 97.410.
Findings of Fact
The panel, by a preponderance of the evidence, finds the facts as follows:
1. Unalaska Utilities Employee Association (UUEA) is a labor organization seeking to sever a group of employees from a unit represented in bargaining by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, AFL-CIO.
2. The unit UUEA seeks to carve out and represent is described as follows:
Included: All permanent, temporary, full-time, part-time, and nonmanagement employees in the Department of Public Utilities, of the City of Unalaska, who work in the Electric, Solid Waste, Water, and Wastewater sections including the following positions: Electrical lineman crew chief; electrical technician; landfill heavy equipment operator; landfill maintenance mechanic; lineman; lineman apprentice; power plant operator I, II, III; public utilities maintenance specialist; utility lineman; wastewater system operator I, II, III; water system operator I, II, III; water/wastewater operations supervisor; water/wastewater operator I, II, III and any installation maintenance worker positions assigned to the Department of Public Utilities.
Excluded: All other employees of the City of Unalaska, including all management positions and the following positions: Director of public utilities; utility analyst/ecc; operations supervisor; solid waste operations supervisor and employees in any other departments.
3. History. These employees currently are in a bargaining unit dating from 1981. Exh. 201. The unit originally consisted of employees in the roads and grounds, water, electrical distribution, electrical production, sewer plant and distribution system, shop, and building maintenance sections. Exh. 203, at 12. The unit is now described by position classification and includes a number of the positions that in 1993 were located in the Department of Public Works: utility linemen chief, electrical engineer technician, power plant operator I and II, utility linemen, water/wastewater maintenance technician, wastewater system worker I, wastewater system operator, water wastewater chief, water system worker I and II, maintenance crew chief, equipment mechanic light, equipment mechanic heavy, roads chief, roads field supervisor, equipment operator light, equipment operator medium, equipment operator heavy, installation maintenance worker, maintenance mechanic I and II, maintenance mechanic chief, storekeeper I and II, airport terminal operator, building maintenance custodian, accounting assistant I, and administrative assistant I. Exh. 112, at 15.
4. The bargaining agreement at the time the petition was filed was effective between June 7, 1994, and June 30, 1996. Exh. 112.
5. On July 1, 1994, the Department of Public Works was split into two departments: the Department of Public Works and the Department of Public Utilities. The employees in the new public utilities department by this petition are seeking separate representation in collective bargaining.
6. The reasons the department was split include its size and the fact that it covered two distinct functions -- public works and utilities. Another reason was the different sources of funding. Enterprise funds pay for utilities’ expenses and general government funds fund public works. The two functions operate independently of each other.
7. Despite the organizational split, the two departments maintain a relationship. The Department of Public Works continues to supervise contracts for the Department of Public Utilities, along with the contracts it supervises for the other City departments. The two departments share the same building and clerical staff and may borrow the other department’s equipment.
8. The public utilities department is divided into divisions covering each utility. The work at the electrical utility generally requires knowledge of electrical systems from engineering to installing and maintaining the equipment used to generate electricity. The electrical engineering technician supports the engineering work for electrical system location and relocation; the utility lineman crew chief must have working knowledge of the principles of electricity and electrical theory; the utility lineman and lineman apprentice install, maintain, and repair the system that distributes and transmits electricity; the power plant operators I, II, and III operate and maintain equipment used to generate electricity. All but the electrical engineering technician and power plant employees must hold some form of State certification. Exh. 103.
9. The work of the water and wastewater divisions is performed by an operations supervisor, a department of public utilities specialist, who installs and maintains water chlorination equipment; operators I, II, and III, who operate equipment, sample, and maintain records; an operator in training; a maintenance manager, who works with wastewater collection and treatment; and a wastewater foreman, responsible for treatment and collection of wastewater. These positions must hold state certification. Exh 104.
10. Two positions in the unit description appear by their names to be assigned to the solid waste division -- the landfill heavy equipment operator and the landfill maintenance mechanic. Finding of fact no. 2, supra. The record contains position descriptions for a heavy equipment operator and maintenance mechanics. These position descriptions show that these positions remain in the Department of Public Works. Exh. 105, at 5; Exh. 106, at 5.
11. Community of interest. Evidence of community of interest in the record was very slim. Cups and caps with a Department of Public Utilities logo exist. Exhs. 108 & 109. The utilities workers, with the exception of the engineering technician, the power plant operators, and the landfill operators and mechanics, are required to carry some form of State certification to perform their work. Exhs. 103, 104, 105, & 106. This evidence is not sufficient to support the conclusion that the positions in the proposed unit share a community of interest distinct from the existing bargaining unit. To the extent community of interest can be determined from position descriptions, they support finding a community of interest in the current bargaining unit. They show similarity among the employees in each division but there are significant similarities among all of the positions in the existing unit. Many of the positions are technically skilled and work with equipment. The skills range from skills in engineering, Exh. 103, at 2 & 6 (electrical utility), and knowledge of the codes and systems, Id., at 8, 16, 18, & 20 (electrical), and Exh. 104, at 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, & 30 (water and wastewater) to mechanical skills, Exh. 103, at 16, 18, & 20 (electrical utility), and Exh. 105, at 2 & 4 (public works). Other positions require fewer skills, Exh. 103, at 16 (power plant operator I, electrical) and Exh. 107 (storekeeper 1, public works).
12. Wages. Wages are governed by the collective bargaining agreement except that the City negotiated a wage increase directly with Clint Huling and possibly other water and wastewater workers for the water and wastewater utility workers due to the imposition of Department of Environmental Conservation certification requirements. Exhs. 112, 114, & 115. Generally, the bargaining unit members are paid hourly and share the same pay periods with all City employees. It was a City bargaining goal to bring all employees into the same benefit plan. The compensation differences among the City’s employees are minor.
13. Working Conditions. The working conditions of the public works and public utilities workers were not shown to be different. A review of the position descriptions shows that many of the positions may be required to work in difficult conditions -- due to the weather, working near equipment, and working on call. See e.g., Exh. 106, at 3, 7, 11, 15, & 19 (public works), and Exh. 103, at 4, 7, & 13 (electrical utility), and Exh. 104, at 4, 7, 12, 15, 20, & 21 (water and wastewater utilities).
14. Hours. The collective bargaining agreement and position descriptions address hours of work. The agreement addresses the work week, days of work, standby time, lunch break, and shift differential for the current bargaining unit. Exhs. 112, at 17-19. The position descriptions show that the employees generally are subject to working on call. See finding of fact no. 13, supra. In practice the hours of the utilities workers tend to be more flexible, but on balance we find that the similarities outweigh the differences.
15. Desires of employees. The employee witnesses did not directly address their preferences, but we can infer from the testimony of electrical worker Bryan Amber that he would prefer a unit composed solely of public utilities employees.
16. Fragmentation. The City had four bargaining units at the time of the hearing. While personnel director Jim Spalding did not believe that an additional bargaining unit would be any more difficult or complex, it would provide an additional unit with which the City would be required to negotiate terms and conditions of employment.
17. Adequacy of representation. The record does not support a finding that Local 302’s representation has been inadequate.
18. The evidence did not support a finding that the utilities workers are a distinct and homogenous group of skilled crafts persons who have maintained a separate identity.
The issues in this case, as in all other cases to sever a group of employees from an existing unit, are whether the proposed unit is appropriate under AS 23.40.090 and whether the petitioner has satisfied the conditions of 8 AAC 97.025(b).
A. Is the unit that the Unalaska Utilities Employee Association seeks to represent an appropriate unit under AS 23.40.090?
UUEA must establish that the unit it proposes, a unit of approximately 18 electrical, water, wastewater, and solid waste department employees in the Department of Public Utilities, would be an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining based on such factors as community of interest, wages, hours, and other working conditions of the employees involved, the history of collective bargaining, and the desires of the employees. In addition, units must be as large as is reasonable and avoid unnecessary fragmenting. AS 23.40.090.
1. Community of interest.
The UUEA’s argument that the public utilities workers constitute an appropriate bargaining unit is based in large part on an organizational change the City made in July of 1994, when it divided the Department of Public Works into two departments -- public works and public utilities. The departments are each headed by a director and are subdivided into a number of divisions. The public works department is divided into administration, supply, maintenance, and streets and roads. Exh. 101, at 2. The public utilities department is divided into the electric, solid waste, wastewater, and water divisions. Id. Public works and public utilities are administered separately. There was some evidence that the electrical utility is also administered separately. Bryan Amber testified that the electrical division was in the exclusive control of the electrical employees. Each department has its own equipment, although the equipment appears to be shared if needed.
Despite these differences, the departments do not divide into two clear work groups. UUEA has emphasized the certification requirements, but not all of the utilities positions require certificates. Power plant operators and landfill equipment operators and maintenance workers are not required to be certified. Exhs. 103, 104, & 106. Workers identifying themselves as a separate work group can also be proof of community of interest, but proof that the work group has coffee mugs and baseball caps with a department logo, alone, is weak support for a group identity.
On the other hand, evidence supports the conclusion that the existing unit’s community of interest survived the City’s reorganization. The two departments share work space. They also share clerical help. The employees share similar skills and perform similar duties.
The wages of these employees are governed by the collective bargaining agreement with the exception that a pay increase was negotiated directly with the water and wastewater utility workers after notice to Local 302. Exh. 115. This factor supports the status quo.
The workers in the existing bargaining unit are hourly workers subject to shift work, minimum call out and other terms set out in the collective bargaining agreement. Exh. 112. Although there was testimony that the utilities workers in practice work more flexible hours, we have found that the contract terms provide for more similarities than differences and conclude that this factor supports the existing bargaining unit structure.
4. Other working conditions.
The record does not provide much information on working conditions. What there is supports the conclusion that the public utilities and public works employees share working conditions. While the employees work in a number of work sites, a number of the utilities workers work in what is called the DPPW and DPPU shop. The employees share a common building and clerical workers and are exposed to similar working conditions such as exposure to the weather, mechanical equipment, and being called out to work. The working conditions of the employees support the status quo.
5. History of collective bargaining.
The history of collective bargaining supports the status quo. This bargaining unit has existed since 1981.
6. Desires of the employees.
Bargaining unit employees testifying did not specifically address their unit preference, but we can infer from the content and tone of the testimony of electrical utility employee Bryan Amber that he would prefer the proposed unit. We can also infer from the fact that this hearing was held that the UUEA satisfied the threshold requirement of a showing of interest of at least 30 percent, which tends to show support for the proposed unit.
7. Unnecessary fragmentation.
Units must be as large as is reasonable and avoid unnecessary fragmenting. Because the evidence in support of the proposed unit was weak, we cannot conclude that the unit is necessary or as large as is reasonable. Although the City’s personnel director is not concerned about the creation of an additional unit, we must conclude that the proposed unit would cause unnecessary fragmentation in violation of AS 23.40.090.
B. Does the Unalaska Utilities Employee Association meet the requirements for severing a bargaining unit from an existing bargaining unit under 8 AAC 97.025(b)?
If Unalaska Utilities Employee Association had established that the proposed unit were an appropriate unit, because it seeks to sever a group of employees from an existing unit, it would also have to satisfy the requirements of 8 AAC 97.025(b):
In addition to the requirements of (a) of this section, if a petition for certification proposes to sever a bargaining unit from an existing bargaining unit, the petition must state
(1) why the employees in the proposed bargaining unit are not receiving adequate representation in the existing unit;
(2) whether the employees in the proposed bargaining unit are employed in jobs that have traditionally been represented in the same unit;
(3) why the employees in the proposed unit have a community of interest that is not identical with that of the employees in the existing unit;
(4) how long the employees in the proposed bargaining unit have been represented as part of the existing unit; and
(5) why the grant of the petition will not result in excessive fragmentation of the existing bargaining unit.
1. Adequacy of representation.
The UUEA argument that the utilities workers do not receive adequate representation is based on four points -- Local 302 has not advocated for sufficient compensation for these employees; Local 302 has not adequately or honestly presented the terms of proposed contracts to the workers during ratification elections; the eligibility to vote of temporary workers during
contract ratification elections has been manipulated to affect the outcome; and Local 302 has not adequately pursued grievances on behalf of public utilities workers.
On two occasions the City negotiated directly with employees rather than with the bargaining representative to increase the pay of certain utilities workers. The first occasion was a pay increase for the electricians. In 1985 or 1986 the electricians were dissatisfied with the pay scale and sought parity with the equipment operators, and the City manager was concerned that they were significantly below what other employers were paying for the work. The City conducted a wage survey and provided a 5 percent increase to electrical linemen. The second occasion was in 1995. Apparently because the State had imposed additional requirements for water and wastewater workers, the City was concerned about the need to adjust job titles, job descriptions, and wage rates of these workers. Exh. 115. It sought the consent of Local 302 to negotiate directly with Clint Huling. Huling had researched pay comparables for the water and wastewater workers but did not receive any support from the union on this issue. The 1993 negotiations did not address this concern, and the 1994-1995 contract did not provide an increase to the water and wastewater workers. Local 302’s position in the negotiations had been for a single hourly increase to apply to all unit members equally. Nevertheless, a union representative apparently authorized Huling to negotiate an increase for the water and wastewater workers, who did receive a pay increase. Even if Local 302 had resisted a special wage increase for these two groups of utilities workers, which is not supported by the evidence, we could not conclude that its representation of the utilities workers was inadequate. A negotiator must be allowed reasonable latitude in contract negotiations to exercise discretion and make judgments. We require some evidence of a conflict of interest or other problem with the labor organization’s representation before we can conclude that the representation is inadequate.
A second complaint is that Local 302 had not provided sufficient information at ratification meetings about the tentative agreement before the members voted on the agreement. More specifically, UUEA complains that the members were not provided copies of the tentative agreement before ratification. A labor organization can probably represent employees adequately without providing copies of a tentative agreement at a ratification meeting. See Ackley v. Western Conference of Teamsters, 958 F.2d 1463, 139 L.R.R.M.(BNA) 2529 (9th Cir. 1992)(applying L.M.R.D.A.). The witnesses did not testify that they had requested a copy and were denied one. One employee, Grimes, testified that he had never seen a tentative agreement since his employment in 1982. Another employee, Amber, had never seen a working copy of the agreement. However, neither stated whether he had asked to see an agreement. Shop steward Jim Dickson set out Local 302’s efforts to explain the changes in terms and conditions of employment before members voted to ratify a tentative agreement. UUEA’s complaint that employees were not provided with copies of the agreements before ratification appears to be related to a discovery in 1993 of a new work rule that had not been covered in Local 302’s presentation at the ratification meeting. The change was to the four hour call out minimum, which apparently surprised the employees when the change was implemented.
The third complaint about Local 302’s representation was that the eligibility of temporary workers to vote was manipulated to affect the outcome of a ratification election. This complaint appears based on a misunderstanding of Local 302’s rules for voting. According to shop steward Dickson and business representative Ed Kareen, eligibility to vote to ratify a contract is based on membership in Local 302. At least one temporary employee was a member and eligible to vote -- Jim Dickson. Dickson appears to have been the exception rather than the rule. Most temporary employees are not members in good standing of Local 302.
The fourth complaint concerns Local 302’s handling of grievances. There was testimony that Local 302 did not attend to grievances on a timely basis. A grievant Richard Bray, for example, expressed concern that his grievance was denied as untimely. The real problem with the grievance, however, was not issue of timeliness but the merits of the pay increase Bray sought. Exh. 118. The other specific grievance addressed in testimony was a grievance on behalf of Steve Weber. This grievance was prosecuted to arbitration. Local 302 did not prevail and the grievant was not satisfied with that outcome. However, there was no evidence that Local 302’s representation was inadequate. A representative has fairly broad discretion in how to handle a grievance. For example, whether to retain the services of counsel, one of Weber’s complaints, is a decision appropriately within the representative’s discretion.
These complaints do not demonstrate that Local 302’s representation of the utilities workers has been inadequate and do not justify disrupting the existing unit structure.
2. Tradition of representation in the same unit.
There is some precedent for separate representation of utilities workers under the Public Employment Relations Act. This Agency’s predecessor, the Department of Labor, Labor Relations Agency, did allow an election to proceed in a utilities unit in the City of Fairbanks. DOLLRA Order & Decision No. 84-1, at 17 (case no. RC-A83-1) (Aug. 29, 1984).
3. Community of interest.
See discussion in section A.1., supra.
4. Bargaining history.
The existing unit has a history of bargaining from 1981 to the present. Exhs. 203, 110, 111, & 112.
5. Excessive fragmentation.
See discussion in section A.7., supra.
6. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works.
This Agency also takes into account the factors the National Labor Relations Board considers in craft severance cases under Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 162 N.L.R.B. No. 48, 64 L.R.R.M.(BNA) 1011, 1016 (1966). RPM v. State, Decision & Order No. 216, at 21 (Feb. 19, 1997). The evidence did not establish that the City’s utilities workers are a distinct and homogenous craft. A number of crafts are represented in the group from engineering technicians, heavy equipment operators, electrical linemen, to a water and wastewater specialist. Exhs. 103, 104, & 106.
Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Unalaska is a public employer under AS 23.40.250(7); UUEA and Local 302 are organizations under AS 23.40.250(5); and this Agency has jurisdiction under AS 23.40.090 and AS 23.40.100 to consider this case.
2. UUEA’s petition was timely filed within the window period in AS 23.40.100(e) and 8 AAC 97.060(e)(3).
3. UUEA as the petitioner has the burden to prove each element of its claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 8 AAC 97.350(f).
4. Based on such factors as community of interest, wages, hours, and other working conditions of the employees involved, the history of collective bargaining, and the desires of the employees, we conclude on balance that the existing bargaining unit of public works and public utilities workers is the appropriate unit for the public utilities workers.
5. Based on such factors as community of interest, wages, hours, and other working conditions of the employees involved, the history of collective bargaining, and the desires of the employees, a bargaining unit composed solely of public utilities workers is not an appropriate unit.
6. Creating an additional bargaining unit of City of Unalaska employees would result in excessive fragmentation.
7. UUEA has not satisfied the requirements in 8 AAC 97.025(b) to sever the public utilities workers from public works and public utilities unit represented by Local 302.
8. Reviewing the record, we cannot conclude that public utilities workers would be more appropriately represented in a separate craft unit. See Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 162 N.L.R.B. No. 48, 64 L.R.R.M.(BNA) at 1016.
9. UUEA has not established the requirements needed to sever a group of employees from an existing bargaining unit and has not established that such a group, if so severed, would be an appropriate bargaining unit under AS 23.40.090.
1. The petition of the Unalaska Utilities Employee Association to sever from the public works and public utilities bargaining unit a unit of public utilities workers and represent them separately in bargaining is DENIED and DISMISSED; and
2. The City of Unalaska is ordered to post a notice of this decision and order at all work sites where members of the bargaining unit affected by the decision and order are employed or, alternatively, serve each employee affected personally. 8 AAC 97.460.
ALASKA LABOR RELATIONS AGENCY
Blair E. Schad, Vice Chair
James W. Elliott, Board Member
Karen J. Mahurin, Board Member
This order is the final decision of this Agency. Judicial review may be obtained by filing an appeal under Appellate Rule 602(a)(2). Any appeal must be taken within 30 days from the date of filing or distribution of this decision
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the Decision and Order in the matter of UNALASKA UTILITIES EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF UNALASKA and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 302, AFL-CIO, Case no. 96-520-RD, dated and filed in the office of the Alaska Labor Relations Agency in Anchorage, Alaska, this 9th day of June, 1997.
This is to certify that on the 9th day of June, 1997, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid and sent by facsimile to
Jim Gilman, UUEA
Jeff Ackerman, Operating Engineers Russell J. Reid, Davies, Roberts & Reid, L.L.P William Mede, Owens & Turner
1The respondent International Union of Operating Engineers also alleged as a basis for objecting to the petition that the UUEA solicited signatures under false pretenses. J. Ackerman, letter (May 16, 1996). This issue was not briefed or argued at the hearing and is therefore considered abandoned.