[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-261460-105":53,"doc-detail-261460-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","alaska-labor-relations-agency-decision-and-order-no-151","Alaska Labor Relations Agency - Decision and Order No. 151","","Alaska Labor Relations Board issues Decision and Order No. 151 after a representation matter heard on October 26, 1992, in Anchorage, Alaska. The Board applies AS 23.40.090 factors, including community of interest and the prohibition against fragmenting bargaining units, to determine the appropriate collective bargaining unit for the City of Whittier. The decision addresses which employees qualify as “employees” under 2 AAC 10.220(b)(2)(A), based on receipt of vacation and retirement benefits, and resolves objections to unit composition.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/alaska-labor-relations-agency-decision-and-order-no-151/261460/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/alaska-labor-relations-agency-decision-and-order-no-151/261460.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"\tJames","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-14",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",13,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What hearing and procedural timeline led to Decision and Order No. 151?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"The matter was heard on October 26, 1992, with the record closed on October 26, 1992. A representation petition was filed September 8, 1992, and a notice was posted October 6, 1992, before the hearing date.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"How did the Board determine the appropriate bargaining unit for the City of Whittier?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"The Board applied AS 23.40.090, considering community of interest and the rule against fragmenting bargaining units. It concluded the unit includes permanent employees, while excluding certain managerial and seasonal workers.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Why were seasonal workers removed from the proposed bargaining unit?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"Seasonal workers did not receive vacation and retirement benefits. Because the employee definition under 2 AAC 10.220(b)(2)(A) requires those benefits, seasonal workers did not meet the definition.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},261460,1790125714,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":79,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":73},2336474466412,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","ALASKA LABOR RELATIONS AGENCY  \n3301 EAGLE STREET, ROOM 208  \nP.O. BOX 107026  \nANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99510-7026  \n(907) 269-4895  \nFax (907) 269-4898  \nTEAMSTERS LOCAL 959, )  \n)  \nPetitioner, )  \n)  \nvs . )  \n)  \nCITY OF WHITTIER, )  \n)  \nRespondent . )  \n      ) CASE NO . 93-140-RC  \nDECISION AND ORDER NO. 151  \nThis matter was heard on October 26, 1992, in Anchorage, Alaska, before the Alaska Labor Relations Board, Chairman B. Gil Johnson and member James Elliott, with Hearing Examiner Jan Hart DeYoung presiding. Darrell Smith did not participate. The record closed on October 26, 1992.  \nAppearances:  \nRandall G. Simpson and James A. Gasper, Jermain, Dunnagan and Owens, for petitioner Teamsters Local 959; and Gary Williams, City Manager, for respondent City of Whittier.  \nDigest:  \nUnder AS 23.40.090, based on such factors as community of interest and the prohibition against fragmenting bargaining units, the unit appropriate for collective bargaining in the City of Whittier includes all permanent employees of the City of Whittier, including the public works director, harbormaster, physician's assistant, and the librarian, but excludes the city manager, city clerk, finance director, police chief, and seasonal workers.  \nDECISION  \nFindings of Fact  \n1. On September 8, 1992, the Teamsters Local 959 filed a representation petition to be certified as the collective bargaining representative for all employees of the City of Whittier except the city manager, city clerk, finance director, and police chief. Seasonal workers were included in the original petition.  \n2. Upon investigation, the Alaska Labor Relations Agency determined that a question of representation existed for all employees meeting the definition of employee in 2 AAC 10.220(b)(2)(A) by receiving vacation and retirement benefits. Seasonal workers, however, do not receive vacation and retirement benefits and, therefore, do not meet the definition of employee in 2 AAC 10.220(b)(2)(A) . The Teamsters concurred in their removal from the proposed unit. The Agency found that the Teamsters satisfied the requirement of a 30 percent showing of interest among the members of the proposed bargaining unit, as amended.  \n3. On October 6, 1992, a notice of petition for certification of employee representative was posted at work sites in the  \nCity of Whittier.  \n4. On October 12, 1992, the City of Whittier objected to the composition of the unit proposed. The City objected to the inclusion of four employees who were department heads under service agreements with the City--director of public works, physician's assistant, librarian, and harbormaster.  \n5. On October 14, 1992, the Agency issued a prehearing order and notice of hearing, providing notice of a hearing on October 26, 1992. The parties filed prehearing briefs and at the hearing presented evidence in the form of exhibits and witness testimony.  \n6. The director of public works is also known as the shop foreman. Job description, Exh. 12, p. 6, Exh. F. The position currently is occupied by John Labowe, who works under a service agreement. Exh. 4. Three employees work in the shop in addition to Labowe. His job duties include overall planning and policy direction of the public works department; design, construction, maintenance, and operation of public works projects; and coordination with other departments, employees, and government agencies under the general direction of the city manager. Exh. 12, p. 6, Exh.  \nF. Labowe has the authority to settle grievances and suspend, but he does not have independent authority to employ, promote, transfer, or discharge.  \n7. The physician's assistant, Myra Jones-Wood, is responsible for the City's medical clinic. The City has no licensed nurses or physicians. The physician's assistant participates in patient planning; evaluates patients and documents her observations; operates equipment, such as x-ray equipment; discusses treatment plans and preventive health care; and supervises nonphysicia","cbCaicFLG9aDvxlH","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaicFLG9aDvxlH","pdf",34671,"English","# Decision and Order\n## Digest\n## Findings of Fact\n## Procedural History\n## Positions and Unit Eligibility","[{\"question\":\"What hearing and procedural timeline led to Decision and Order No. 151?\",\"answer\":\"The matter was heard on October 26, 1992, with the record closed on October 26, 1992. A representation petition was filed September 8, 1992, and a notice was posted October 6, 1992, before the hearing date.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the Board determine the appropriate bargaining unit for the City of Whittier?\",\"answer\":\"The Board applied AS 23.40.090, considering community of interest and the rule against fragmenting bargaining units. It concluded the unit includes permanent employees, while excluding certain managerial and seasonal workers.\"},{\"question\":\"Why were seasonal workers removed from the proposed bargaining unit?\",\"answer\":\"Seasonal workers did not receive vacation and retirement benefits. Because the employee definition under 2 AAC 10.220(b)(2)(A) requires those benefits, seasonal workers did not meet the definition.\"}]","Alaska Labor Relations Agency - Decision and Order No. 151 | PDF",1789353966]