The New Hampshire Supreme Court, in a 3-2 view released Thursday, claimed Gov. Chris Sununu’s steps for the duration of contract negotiations with some state employee bargaining units in 2019 have been lawful — which include his unilateral selection not to provide a reality-finder’s report right before the Government Council for a non-binding vote.
The opinion, prepared by Justice Patrick Donovan, overturns the results of the General public Worker Labor Relations Board (or PELRB), which located that Sununu’s e-mail to union customers sent 90 minutes ahead of a union informational conference interfered with the bargaining approach.
In a joint dissenting view, Justices Gary Hicks and James Bassett concluded the email contained “at the very least just one material, deceptive statement” related to wages.
Negotiations involving the governor and the State Workforce Affiliation as nicely as the New England Law enforcement Benevolent Affiliation began in 2018 ahead of achieving an deadlock, prompting the involvement of an unbiased reality-finder.
Around 90 minutes ahead of an informational meeting structured by the union on the point-finder’s report in December 2019, Sununu despatched state workers an e mail that the SEA would later on argue misrepresented the variations concerning the state’s offer on wages and added benefits, and the simple fact-finder’s position.
But the justices overturned the PELRB’s findings and wrote that Sununu’s interaction did not violate condition law since it did not “have a tendency to intimidate or coerce employees to reject the truth-finder’s report or or else to unduly impact SEA’s membership vote.” The e-mail, the court stated, “did not constitute interference.”
Also at problem was the governor’s selection not to bring the point-finder’s report ahead of the Government Council, exactly where Democrats ended up in the vast majority at the time. The court’s bulk uncovered that simply because Sununu rejected the report, he was not demanded to submit it for a non-binding vote below state statute.
In their dissent, Hicks and Bassett explained that interpretation of the statute, which uses the phrase “shall” to explain the governor’s obligation, is “nonsensical.”
“If the statute permits the governor, who just turned down the reality-finder’s report, to unilaterally decide to choose no action on that similar report, then the statute serves no goal,” the justices wrote.
In a assertion adhering to the court’s decision, the State Workforce Association explained the the greater part impression “does not precisely implement or interpret” the state’s collective bargaining statute.
“The SEA is involved this selection will upset the delicate harmony of electric power involving employees and public employers, letting employers to exercise far too considerably unilateral authority in the collective bargaining course of action,” stated Gary Snyder, authorized counsel for the union.
The two sides did in the long run reach arrangement on a contract in June 2021 that is set to expire upcoming summertime.
