Appeal of Derry Educ. Ass'n, NEA-New Hampshire

• Decision Date: 17 December 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-411,NEA-NEW,92-411
• Citation: 138 N.H. 69,635 A.2d 465
• Parties: , 146 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2701, 88 Ed. Law Rep. 128 Appeal of DERRY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,HAMPSHIRE (New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board).
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 465

635 A.2d 465

138 N.H. 69, 146 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2701, 88 Ed. Law Rep. 128

Appeal of DERRY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, NEA-NEW HAMPSHIRE (New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board).

No. 92-411.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Dec. 17, 1993.

James F. Allmendinger, Concord, Staff Atty., NEA-New Hampshire, by brief and orally, for the petitioner, Derry Educ. Ass'n, NEA-New Hampshire.

Soule, Leslie, Zelin, Sayward & Loughman, Salem (Michael S. Elwell on the brief and orally), for respondent, Derry School Dist.

THAYER, Justice.

This appeal arises from a decision of the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) that the Derry School Board (board) need not submit a fact-finder's report on purely non-cost items to its legislative body, the Derry School District (school district) meeting. The Derry Education Association (association) appeals, arguing that the impasse-resolution procedures set out in RSA chapter 273-A (1987 and Supp.1992) mandate the submission of the fact-finder's report to the legislative body of the school board for a binding vote, regardless of whether the fact-finder's report concerns purely non-cost issues. We agree in part and reverse.

The facts are not in dispute. The board and the association reached an impasse in their attempts to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement for the 1991-92 school year. They were unable to settle their differences through mediation. See RSA 273-A:12, I (1987). Pursuant to RSA 273-A:12 (1987), three non-cost items were submitted for fact-finding: (1) just cause/teachers' rights; (2) evaluation procedures; and (3) reduction in force. The association accepted the fact-finder's report, but the board rejected it. The association asked the board to submit the report to its legislative body, the school district, pursuant to RSA 273:A-12, III (1987). The board refused and successfully petitioned the PELRB for a declaratory judgment that it need not submit a fact-finder's report on only non-cost items to the school district for approval or rejection.

At the outset we note that the parties apparently have come to an agreement with respect to the 1991-92 contract. We go forward with a review of the issues, however, in the public interest. See Basinow v. Manchester, 111 N.H. 184, 185, 278 A.2d 346, 348 (1971).

While the PELRB is vested with the authority to initially define and interpret the terms of RSA chapter 273-A, this court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of the statute. Appeal of Manchester Bd. of School Comm., 129 N.H. 151, 152, 523 A.2d 114, 115 (1987). We will reverse the findings of the PELRB only where they are erroneous as a matter of law, unjust or unreasonable. Id. at 152-53, 523 A.2d at 115. In this case, we find that the PELRB erred in its interpretation of the statute.

To determine legislative intent, we first look to the plain language of the provision, City of Portsmouth v. Assoc. of Portsmouth Teachers, 134 N.H. 642, 648, 597 A.2d 1063, 1067 (1991), considered in the context of the statute as a whole, Blue Mountain Forest Ass'n v. Town of Croydon, 119 N.H. 202, 204, 400 A.2d 55, 57 (1979). Where reasonably possible, statutes should be construed as consistent with each other. Swiezynski v. Civiello, 126 N.H. 142, 148, 489 A.2d 634, 639 (1985).

At issue here is RSA 273-A:12, III:

"If either the full membership of the employee organization or the board of the public employer rejects the neutral party's recommendations, his findings and recommendations shall be submitted to the legislative body of the public employer, which shall vote to accept or reject so much of his recommendations as otherwise is permitted by law."

The association argues, and we agree, that the plain language of the statute requires that the entire fact-finder's report be submitted to the legislative body of the board.

We do not agree, however, with the association's assertion that the legislative body's vote on non-cost items can bind either the school board or the association. RSA 273-A:12, III requires the submission of the fact-finder's report, but only allows the legislative body to "vote to accept or reject so much of his recommendations as otherwise is permitted by law." Basic statutory construction rules require that "all of the words of a statute must be given effect and that the legislature is presumed not to have used superfluous or redundant words." Merrill v. Great Bay Disposal Serv., 125 N.H. 540, 543, 484 A.2d 1101, 1103 (1984). The association's argument that the legislative body's vote on the instant fact-finder's report would be binding ignores the phrase "as otherwise is permitted by law" contained in RSA 273-A:12, III.

We read "as otherwise is permitted by law" to limit the legislative body's authority consistent with the remainder of RSA chapter 273-A. See Swiezynski, 126 N.H. at 148, 489 A.2d at 639. School boards, not legislative bodies, have authority to negotiate and enter into collective bargaining agreements. See Appeal of Sanborn Regional School Bd., 133 N.H. 513, 519-20, 579 A.2d 282, 285 (1990). Throughout RSA chapter 273-A the legislature described the responsibilities of legislative bodies only with respect to cost items. The chapter defines legislative bodies as the bodies "having the power to appropriate public money," RSA 273-A:1, VII (1987), and cost items as benefits requiring such an...