Collective bargaining agreement under RSA 31:3 is preempted by RSA 273-A

Professional Fire Fighters of Wolfeboro, IAFF Local 3708 et al. v. Wolfeboro
Professional Fire Fighters of Wolfeboro, IAFF Local 3708 et al. v. Wolfeboro
No. 2011-438
Friday, July 20, 2012

The Public Employee Labor Relations Act (PELRA), RSA 273-A, was enacted in 1975 to deal comprehensively with collective bargaining between governmental employers and their employees. Before that, there was RSA 31:3, which provides that municipalities "…may recognize unions of employees and make and enter into collective bargaining contracts with such unions…." RSA 31:3 has never been expressly repealed by the legislature.

In 2002 the Wolfeboro town meeting authorized the board of selectmen to recognize a collective bargaining unit composed of the full-time positions in the Wolfeboro Fire-Rescue Department. Thereafter the union and board of selectmen entered a collective bargaining agreement, although the nine-member bargaining unit was not large enough to qualify under RSA 273-A:8 (minimum of ten positions) and has never been certified by the Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB). The agreement contained a clause that, upon expiration without a new agreement, the parties would continue to be bound by its terms under the status quo doctrine that governs agreements under RSA 273-A. The parties operated under an expired agreement from 2007 until August 2010 when, with advice of counsel, the board of selectmen pronounced the collective bargaining agreement null and void and unilaterally adopted a new compensation plan. The union sued for violation of the agreement, and the trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the agreement between the Town and the union was never valid because the nine-member bargaining unit was not, and could not be, certified by the PELRB.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the main issue was whether RSA 31:3 provides a valid option to RSA 273-A for collective bargaining agreements. When two statutes deal with the same subject, the earlier statute will be deemed to have been repealed by implication when the more recently enacted statute clearly is intended to occupy the entire field covered by the earlier statute. "[T]he PELRA evinces a legislative intent to occupy the entire filed of public employee labor relations … [T]he PELRA is a comprehensive statute that is designed to encompass all aspects of collective bargaining between public employees and their employers…." As a result, the Court held that the Town had no authority to recognize the union, and the agreement was "ultra vires" and wholly void. (See "Municipal Authority and the Doctrine of Ultra Vires," New Hampshire Town and City, March 2010,  read more .)

The Court then rejected two claims that the Town should not be allowed to disavow the agreement as a matter of fairness. "Laches," similar to a statute of limitation, bars a claim or defense when a party inexcusably waits to assert it until it becomes unfair to do so. But there was no evidence of fault on the part of the selectmen, who did not know the agreement was illegal until receiving legal advice in 2010. Similarly, the union's claim of "estoppel" failed because there was no evidence that the selectmen misrepresented or concealed material facts.