AFSCME Council 93 (AFSCME) filed a petition to certify a collective bargaining unit consisting of thirteen of the Town of Barnstead’s employees. Those employees occupied various positions within the police and fire departments: three firefighter-EMTs, two fire rescue captains, one fire rescue lieutenant, one police sergeant, five police officers, and one police secretary. The Town objected, arguing that the duties of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit “are so dissimilar that they lack the essential community of interest,” contrary to RSA 273-A:8.
A Public Employee Labor Relation Board (PELRB) hearing officer approved the proposed bargaining unit concluding a sufficient community of interest existed among the employees because they all worked in public safety for the town, were subject to the Town’s employment terms and conditions, and identity a self-felt community of interest because they work in approximately the same geographic area.
On appeal, the NH Supreme Court determined that the principal consideration in the formation of determining a proper bargaining unit is whether there exists a community of interest in working conditions such that it is reasonable for the employees to negotiate jointly. The Court reasoned that the presence of a generally applicable Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual is little more than evidence of a common employer. Although police and fire employees serve to protect the lives and property of the Towns’ residents, fire department employees suppress fires and conduct rescues and ambulance services, where police employees engage in law enforcement, including arrest and prosecutorial functions. Police and Fire employees use different equipment and maintain different certifications. Organizationally, the police and fire departments have separate chiefs, budgets, rank structures, and standard operating procedures.
The court reversed the decision of the PELRB, concluding that the record does not support the conclusion that there exists a community of interest in working conditions such that it is reasonable for the employees to negotiate jointly.
READ MORE IN COURT DECISION!
Practice Pointer: When construing “community of interest,” the court considers such factors as skills, duties, working conditions, employee benefits, the organizational structure of the employer, and the extent to which the work is integrated. Employees with different schedules, duties, responsibilities, and chains of command do not share a community of interest despite having a common employer and common set of generally applicable personnel policies.