In this appeal from a decision of the Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB), the union representing the police officers and detectives of the Laconia Police Department challenged the finding that their employer, the Laconia Police Commission, had not committed unfair labor practices.
The parties negotiated a tentative agreement to extend the collective bargaining agreement (the CBA) between them. This occurred in February of 2010, well before the expiration of the agreement on July 1, 2010. The tentative agreement was presented to the City Council for approval in February. It took no immediate action, despite the fact that RSA 273-A: 3, III required it to vote upon the cost items contained in the tentative agreement within thirty days. On June 24, the Commission voted to grant step increases to officer compensation. On June 28, the Council removed $100,000 from the police budget. On June 30, the Commission rescinded its grant of the step increases. Although the CBA expired on July 1, 2010, the City Council did not vote on the cost items in the tentative agreement until October 2010, at which time it rejected them. This litigation resulted.
The PELRB found that the failure of the City Council to vote in a timely manner under the statute could not be attributed to the Commission as the public employer. It also found that the record did not support the notion that the Council had interfered with the Commission’s authority to bargain with the union. Finally, it determined that the decision to rescind the step increases in compensation was not an unfair labor practice because such increases were not required after the expiration of the CBA.
The Supreme Court upheld each of these determinations, determining as to the first two arguments that the behaviors of the City Council could not be controlled by the Police Commission. As such, the Commission as employer was not responsible for their actions.
Of importance to all employers with collective bargaining agreements, the Court affirmed prior rulings that the “doctrine of status quo” does not require payment of step increases after a CBA expires. A public employer has the discretion, but not the obligation, to grant such increases, and even if granted, has the discretion to later rescind the action. The Court also found that such discretionary post-CBA step increases need not be presented to local legislative body for approval, because they are not “benefits acquired through collective bargaining”.