Professional Fire Fighters v. Town of Wolfeboro
48 A.3d 900
N.H.2012Background
- Town voters authorized recognizing a bargaining unit for full-time Wolfeboro Fire-Rescue personnel in 2002; unit was not PELRB-certified.
- A 2002-2003 agreement included a status quo clause and stated it did not confer PELRB jurisdiction.
- 2004 agreement set to expire 2006 with status quo provisions; extensions expired 2007; no successor agreement in 2008-2009, so parties operated under status quo.
- In 2010, ground rules were set for negotiations, including post-2010 mediation; negotiations subsequently broke down.
- Board voted in August 2010 to rescind recognition of the Union, directing Town Manager to discontinue negotiating; the 2002 bargaining agreement was deemed null and void.
- Petition for TRO and injunction was granted briefly but then dismissed; trial court held the agreements ultra vires because RSA 273-A:8 restricted certification to PELRB and Ten-member threshold, which the Board lacked authority to contract under.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RSA 31:3 conflicts with or is superseded by the PELRA | Union argues RSA 31:3 and PELRA are independent and harmonizable. | Town contends PELRA occupies the entire field; 31:3 authorizes only discretionary recognition but cannot contravene PELRA. | 31:3 superseded by PELRA; Town had no authority to recognize non-PELRB unit. |
| Whether the 2002-2009 agreements were ultra vires and void | Agreements were valid because town could recognize unions; continued status quo allowed performance. | Because unit not PELRB-certified, agreements were ultra vires and void ab initio. | Agreements ultra vires and void. |
| Whether laches bars the Board's claim | Board had constructive and actual knowledge; laches should apply. | Delay was reasonable given lack of clarity between statutes; laches not applicable. | No laches; trial court's ruling sustained. |
| Whether equitable estoppel bars relief | Board misled about ability to certify; estoppel applies. | No misrepresentation or concealment proven. | Equitable estoppel not established; relief denied. |
| Whether the Savings Clause permits reforming the agreement to individual contracts | Savings clause could be used to reform if infirmity targeted specific provisions. | Infirmity is the contract's very enforceability, not amendable by clause. | Clause cannot cure a void contract; reform rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tremblay v. Berlin Police Union, 108 N.H. 416 (N.H. 1968) (municipalities' power to recognize unions is discretionary)
- Appeal of Hollis Educ. Assoc., 163 N.H. 337 (N.H. 2012) (PELRA exclusivity; certification authority resides with PELRB)
- State v. Rix, 150 N.H. 181 (N.H. 2003) (statutory interpretation; final arbiter of legislative intent)
- Grand China v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 156 N.H. 429 (N.H. 2007) (contextual statutory interpretation; words in statute examined together)
- Marrone v. Town of Hampton, 123 N.H. 729 (N.H. 1983) (ultra vires contracts are wholly void)
- Healey v. Town of New Durham, 140 N.H. 232 (N.H. 1995) (laches as equitable defense; depends on prejudice and knowledge)
- Appeal of Laconia, 150 N.H. 91 (N.H. 2003) (application of laches; knowledge matters)
- Appeal of House Legislative Facilities Subcom., 141 N.H. 443 (N.H. 1996) (good faith bargaining requirement under statute)
- Professional Engineers in California Gov't v. Kempton, 155 P.3d 226 (Cal. 2007) (occupies field; implied repeal considerations)
- Thomas v. State, 79 S.W.3d 347 (Ark. 2002) (state statute interpretation; field occupancy principles)
- Board of Selectmen v. Planning Bd., 118 N.H. 150 (N.H. 1978) (two conflicting statutory schemes; field occupancy analysis)