On December 30, 2025, Oxford County filed a request with the Maine Labor Relations Board seeking an interpretive ruling. The County was stuck between two unions.
Two employees had filed grievances against the County and were representing themselves through private attorneys. Teamsters Local Union No. 340, the prior bargaining agent, planned to represent the employees in those grievances. But on November 24, 2025, the bargaining unit decertified Teamsters Local and certified the Oxford County Sheriff’s Office Association (OCSOA) as the new successor union. The collective bargaining agreement between the County and the Teamsters Local expired on December 31, 2025. The County postponed grievance hearings and asked the Board: Which union is responsible for processing a grievance pending at the time of decertification and contract expiration? And what happens if an employee chooses to represent themselves?
The Board first addressed the pre-arbitral grievance procedure. Relying on state precedent, the Board held that the grievance procedure from an expired contract continues as proof of the status quo the employer must maintain. The successor union, OCSOA, as the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit, bears the duty of fair representation at the pre-arbitral stages.
The more difficult question was arbitration. Maine has unique grievance arbitration continuation statutes found in each of its four collective bargaining acts. For example, 26 M.R.S. § 964-A(2) provides that “the grievance arbitration provisions of the expired contract remain in effect until the parties execute a new contract.” The Board had to interpret the word “parties.” If read literally, only the signatory union (the decertified Teamsters Local) could enforce arbitration, leading to the absurd result that a decertified union would represent employees indefinitely. The Board rejected that reading.
Looking to the plain language, the entire statutory scheme, and legislative history — including Senate floor remarks describing the “parties” as “a public entity on the one hand and a bargaining unit on the other” — the Board held that the successor union steps into the shoes of its predecessor. The Board found support in City of Chelsea v. New England Police Benevolent Ass’n, Inc., Loc. 192, 491 Mass. 426, 203 N.E.3d 1142 (2023), where Massachusetts’ highest court held that a successor union can compel arbitration under a predecessor’s CBA. Unlike the NLRB’s rule in Children’s Hosp. & Rsch. Ctr. of Oakland d/b/a Children’s Hosp. of Oakland & Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, United Healthcare Workers-W., 364 NLRB 1677 (2016), which requires employers to arbitrate with decertified unions, Maine’s statutes allow successor unions to enforce arbitration rights directly, preserving exclusive representation and employee choice.
Finally, the Board addressed employee self-representation. Under 26 M.R.S. § 967, an employee may present a grievance without the union’s intervention, but the union has the right to be present at meetings. However, once the pre-arbitral stage ends and arbitration becomes available, the statutory exception no longer applies. The union regains exclusive authority and the corresponding duty of fair representation.
The Board ruled that OCSOA had the exclusive authority to enforce the expired contract’s grievance provisions, including arbitration. The Teamsters Local had no right to attend grievance meetings or compel arbitration.
“This decision,” per the Board, “does not address any potential contractual right to invoke arbitration with the employer that a prior union as signatory to the expired collective bargaining agreement may retain, concerning activities occurring or rights vesting during the term of that contract, should the union wish to attempt to invoke arbitration despite not having any obligation under the collective bargaining laws to do so.”
County of Oxford v. Oxford County Sheriff’s Office Ass’n, 2026 WL 1298689 (Me. Lab. Rel. Bd. Apr. 10, 2026).