## Facts

- The Manchester Education Association (MEA) was the certified exclusive bargaining representative for Manchester School District teachers.
- School principals, treated as supervisory personnel under RSA chapter 273-A, petitioned the Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) to be recognized as a bargaining unit.
- The principals sought representation by MEA, the same union representing the teachers the principals supervised.
- The PELRB allowed the arrangement and, following a representation election, certified MEA as the principals’ exclusive bargaining representative.
- The Manchester Board of School Committee (employer) objected, asserting that a single union representing both principals and teachers would create divided loyalties and conflicts in supervisory functions such as evaluation and discipline.

## Issues

1. Whether RSA 273-A:8 permits supervisory personnel (principals) to be represented by the same exclusive bargaining representative as the non-supervisory employees (teachers) they supervise.
2. Whether the risk of conflict of interest inherent in common representation is sufficient to invalidate a PELRB certification without proof of actual conflict.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the PELRB’s certification of MEA as the principals’ exclusive bargaining representative.
- The court held that supervisory personnel may not have the same exclusive bargaining representative as the employees they supervise.
- The case was remanded to the PELRB for further proceedings consistent with the court’s statutory interpretation.
- The court noted the principals were not barred from collective representation; they could select a different representative that would not create prohibited conflicts.

## Legal Principles

- RSA 273-A:8 requires separation of supervisory personnel from the employees they supervise in collective bargaining arrangements.
- The statutory bar on mixing supervisors and subordinates in the same bargaining unit extends to forbidding the same exclusive bargaining representative for both groups.
- Potential conflicts of interest and divided loyalties inherent in common representation justify disallowing the arrangement; actual demonstrated conflict is not required.
- The PELRB’s discretion in unit determinations is limited by the statute’s requirements as interpreted by the court.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that, under RSA 273-A:8, principals as supervisory personnel cannot be represented by the same exclusive bargaining representative as the teachers they supervise, because the arrangement creates unacceptable conflicts of interest; the PELRB’s certification was reversed and the matter remanded.


Appeal of Manchester Bd. of Sch. Comm., 129 N.H. 151, 523 A.2d 114 (1987)