In re N.H. Troopers Ass'n

175 N.H. 167

281 A.3d 1272

APPEAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION & a. (New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board)

Nos. 2021-0027

2021-0028

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued: November 18, 2021

Opinion Issued: May 12, 2022

Gary Snyder, of Concord, by brief, for the petitioner.

John M. Formella, attorney general (Zachary L. Higham, assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the respondent.

Milner & Krupski, PLLC, of Concord (John S. Krupski on the brief and orally), for the intervenors.

DONOVAN, J.

The petitioner—State Employees' Association of New Hampshire, Inc. SEIU, Local 1984 (SEA)—and the intervenors—New Hampshire Troopers Association, New Hampshire Troopers Association-Command Staff, New Hampshire Probation and Parole Officers Association, and New Hampshire Probation and Parole-Command Staff Association—appeal an order of the Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) denying the petitioner's request for declaratory relief. They argue that the PELRB erred by ruling that the state legislature's vote accepting a fact-finder's report and recommendations pursuant to RSA 273-A:12, III (2010) was not binding upon the respondent, the State of New Hampshire. We conclude that the legislature's vote was advisory and did not bind the State. Accordingly, we affirm.

I. Facts

The following facts were found by the PELRB or are otherwise undisputed. The petitioner and the intervenors (collectively, the unions) represent several state employee bargaining units. In 2018, the unions and the State began negotiating the terms of a multi-year collective bargaining agreement. After the negotiations reached an impasse, the parties proceeded to impasse resolution procedures and engaged a neutral fact finder to assist them with resolving their disputes. See RSA 273-A:12 (Supp. 2021). In November 2019, the fact finder issued a report setting forth recommendations for resolving the impasse. The report and recommendations included at least some cost items. See RSA 273-A:1, IV (2010) (defining "cost item").

The unions accepted the fact-finder's report, but the Governor did not. In addition, the Governor declined to submit the report to the Executive Council for its consideration.¹ See RSA 273-A:12, II. The parties treated the Governor's actions as a rejection of the report pursuant to RSA 273-A:12, II and the parties proceeded to the next step of impasse resolution: submission of the report to the state legislature. See RSA 273-A:12, III(a).

The legislature voted to adopt the fact-finder's report. The unions took the position that the legislature's vote was binding upon the State with respect to the cost items set forth in the report. The State took the opposite position, asserting that the legislature's vote was merely advisory and did not result in a binding agreement between the parties. In August 2020, SEA filed a petition for declaratory relief, seeking a declaration from the PELRB that the legislature's vote bound the State to the cost items set forth in the fact-finder's report. The intervenors joined in support of SEA's position.

In November 2020, the PELRB issued an order denying SEA's request for declaratory relief and concluding that the legislature's vote did not bind the State. The PELRB explained, in part, that "[t]here are no provisions in [RSA chapter 273-A] which confer upon a legislative body any authority to establish, unilaterally or otherwise, the terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit employees through negotiations or by a vote on a fact finder's report." The PELRB further reasoned, in part, that "[t]he role of the state legislature ... is limited ... to the approval of cost items" and that "[t]here is no authority in [RSA chapter 273-A] for the proposition that the state legislature, instead of the Governor, has the power to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment ... at any point in the process, up to and including impasse fact finding." The unions filed motions for rehearing, which the PELRB denied. These consolidated appeals followed.

II. Standard of Review

RSA chapter 541 governs our review of PELRB decisions. Appeal of SEA (N.H. Community College System), 170 N.H. 699, 701, 185 A.3d 192 (2018) ; see RSA 273-A:14 (2010). We will not set aside the PELRB's order except for errors of law, unless we are satisfied, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that it is unjust or unreasonable. Appeal of SEA, 170 N.H. at 701, 185 A.3d 192 ; see RSA 541:13 (2021). The PELRB's findings of fact are presumed to be prima facie lawful and reasonable. Appeal of SEA, 170 N.H. at 701, 185 A.3d 192 ; see RSA 541:13. When reviewing the PELRB's findings, our task is not to determine whether we would have found differently or to reweigh the evidence, but, rather, to determine whether the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record. Appeal of SEA, 170 N.H. at 702, 185 A.3d 192. We review the PELRB's rulings on issues of law de novo. Id.

Resolving the unions' arguments requires that we interpret several provisions of RSA chapter 273-A. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which, as explained above, we review de novo. See Appeal of New England Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc., 171 N.H. 490, 493, 198 A.3d 905 (2018). When examining the statutory language, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meaning to the words used in the statute. Id. We do not consider words and phrases in isolation, but, rather, within the context of the statute as a whole. Id. We construe all parts of a statute together to effectuate its overall purpose and to avoid an absurd or unjust result. Id. We interpret the statute as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or add language that the legislature did not see fit to include. Id. If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we will not look beyond the language of the statute to determine its meaning. Id. at 493-94, 198 A.3d 905.

III. Analysis

The unions argue that the PELRB erred by ruling that the legislature's vote pursuant to RSA 273-A:12, III was advisory and did not bind the State to the cost items set forth in the fact-finder's report. We begin by summarizing the relevant provisions of the statutory scheme. RSA chapter 273-A governs collective bargaining negotiations between public employers and employees. Dillman v. Town of Hooksett, 153 N.H. 344, 347, 898 A.2d 505 (2006). For purposes of RSA chapter 273-A, the State is a public employer, see RSA 273-A:1, X (Supp. 2021), and its employees, with certain exceptions, are public employees, see RSA 273-A:1, IX (2010). RSA 273-A:9 (Supp. 2021) sets forth specific provisions regulating the bargaining process between the State and its employees. RSA 273-A:9, I, provides, in relevant part, that "[a]ll cost items and terms and conditions of employment affecting state employees in the classified system generally shall be negotiated by the state, represented by the governor as chief executive." To assist with the negotiations, the Governor "shall ... appoint an advisory committee," RSA 273-A:9, III, and "may designate an official state negotiator who shall serve at the pleasure of the governor," RSA 273-A:9, II. We have interpreted RSA 273-A:9 as "grant[ing] the executive branch effective control over the bargaining process." Appeal of House Legislative Facilities Subcom., 141 N.H. 443, 446, 685 A.2d 910 (1996).

By contrast, we have described the legislature's role in the bargaining process as "markedly limited" and restricted to three discrete functions. Id. First, RSA 273-A:9, VI establishes "a joint legislative committee known as the joint committee on employee relations." The joint committee is required to "meet with the state negotiating committee ... to discuss the state's objectives in the bargaining process." RSA 273-A:9, VI(c). The joint committee must also "hold hearings on all collective bargaining agreements with state employees and on all fact-finders' reports relative to the collective bargaining process with state employees" and "submit any recommendation on such agreements or reports" to the senate and the house of representatives. RSA 273-A:9, VI(d). We have described these functions as "advisory" and "not part of the negotiations." Appeal of House Legislative Facilities Subcom., 141 N.H. at 447, 685 A.2d 910.

Second, RSA 273-A:3, II(b) (Supp. 2021) authorizes the legislature "to approve or reject the cost items of any agreement entered into by the State with its employees." Appeal of House Legislative Facilities Subcom., 141 N.H. at 447, 685 A.2d 910 ; see RSA 273-A:3, II(b) ("Only cost items shall be submitted to the legislative body of the public employer for approval at the next annual meeting of the legislative body ...."); Appeal of State Employees' Assoc. of N.H., Inc., 158 N.H. 258, 263, 965 A.2d 1103 (2009) ("The New Hampshire legislature is the legislative body that approves the cost items in [collective bargaining agreements] affecting state employees."). A "cost item" is "any benefit acquired through collective bargaining whose implementation requires an appropriation by the legislative body of the public employer with which negotiations are being conducted." RSA 273-A:1, IV. Pursuant to RSA 273-A:3, II(b), if the legislature "rejects the submission, or while accepting the submission takes any action which would result in a modification of the terms of the cost item submitted to it, either party may reopen negotiations on the entire agreement." RSA 273-A:3, II(b). However, the legislature is not authorized to modify cost items that are "agreed to by the [State] and the employee organization." Id.

Third, RSA 273-A:12 —the statute at issue in this case—sets forth the legislature's role in the procedures for resolving disputes when the parties' negotiations reach an impasse. RSA 273-A:12, I(b) provides, in relevant part: "If the parties so choose, or if mediation does not result in agreement ... a neutral party chosen...