In Re Hollis Educ. Ass'n, Nea-New Hampshire
42 A.3d 863
N.H.2012Background
- In 1976, the CBA defined the bargaining unit as certified full-time teachers, librarians and guidance counselors who actively teach at least 50% of their time, and the PELRB certified the association as exclusive representative.
- Pamela Banks and Robin Fitton were hired as speech-language pathologists in 1994 and 2002, and William Olszewski was hired as an occupational therapist in 2003.
- Banks, Fitton, and Olszewski were treated like bargaining unit members: they signed New Hampshire Teacher Contracts each year and were required to provide receipts for CBAs; for 2005, 2007, and 2009 they were included in a salary schedule distributed during negotiations.
- In 2010, Fitton was terminated due to reduced enrollment and budget cuts, and the association grieved, but the district maintained that SL pathologists were not within the unit per the 1976 recognition clause.
- In 2010–2011 Banks and Olszewski received employment agreement letters different from the standard New Hampshire Teacher Contract, prompting the association to pursue arbitration claiming they were unit members.
- The PELRB ruled that speech-language pathologists and occupational therapists are not within the 1976 bargaining unit, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting equitable arguments and noting no post-1976 modifications to the unit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SL pathologists and OT are within the 1976 unit | Association argues 'certified full-time teachers' is broad enough to include them. | Board argues they are not included by the plain 1976 recognition clause. | They are not in the unit. |
| Whether parol evidence supports including SL pathologists and OT | History of inclusion should render them part of the unit. | History does not override the statute; no basis to redefine the unit. | Parol history not controlling; not included. |
| Whether PELRB could rely on equitable considerations to include them | Equitable result should include these positions in the unit. | PELRB lacks authority to modify the unit on equitable grounds. | No equitable modification; authority limited to statutory scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Appeal of Londonderry School Dist., 142 N.H. 677 (1998) (unit composition limited to recognized positions; de novo interpretation of recognition clause)
- Appeal of Somersworth School Dist., 142 N.H. 837 (1998) (PEL RB jurisdiction; statutory limits on including positions in unit)
- Appeal of Somersworth School Dist., 713 A.2d 386 (1998) (supplemental A.2d citation; same governing principle cited within opinion)
- Appeal of Town of Deerfield, 162 N.H. 601 (2011) (judicial review standard under RSA 541:13)