The union filed a written majority authorization (WMA) petition seeking certification as the
exclusive representative of a proposed bargaining unit consisting of police officers, highway
department employees, and transfer station employees.  The town filed its objections
contending, inter alia, that there was no community of interest since the police employees
had no desire to be part of the proposed bargaining unit and that some of the employees in
the proposed unit were probationary employees and, therefore, could not submit WMA cards.

The PELRB dismissed the town's objection to the petition based upon the purported
probationary status of certain employees because there was insufficient evidence to show
that these employees were placed on a probationary status at the time they were hired.  The
PELRB found that there was insufficient evidence to establish a community of interest
among the employees in the proposed unit because a self-felt community of interest was
lacking as to police officers who opposed to being included in the proposed unit.  There was
also insufficient evidence of the presence of common work rules and personnel practices and
common salary and fringe benefit structures.  The PELRB held that the police officer
positions must be excluded from the proposed bargaining unit.  The PELRB dismissed the
petition because, after exclusion of the police officer positions, the size of the proposed
unit was reduced to 8 employees, an insufficient number under RSA 273-A:8, I, which
requires that a proposed bargaining unit contain at least 10 public employees.

Disclaimer: This summary is intended to provide a brief description of the issues in this case
and the outcome.  The summary is not a substitute for the decision, should not be relied
upon in place of the decision, and should not be cited as controlling or relevant
authority in PELRB proceedings or other proceedings.