The union filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the school district.  The union
alleged that the district violated RSA 273-A:5, I by failing to negotiate a new evaluation
system for coaches and by its non-renewal of the varsity soccer coach who was evaluated
under the new system.  The district responded that the complaint should be dismissed
because it was untimely and because the matter was subject to final and binding
arbitration under the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

The PELRB found that the complaint was timely since it was filed within 6 months of the
date when the athletic director used the new evaluations to review the coach's performance.
After applying the three part "bargaining" test, the PELRB determined that the disputed
teacher-coach evaluation process was a mandatory subject of bargaining.  The PELRB,
however, declined to reinstate the coach to his position because it found that the
reinstatement was not appropriate remedy for the district's failure to bargain as to the
teacher-coach evaluation process and because the district's decision to replace the
coach was made in good faith and would likely had  been made irrespective of evaluation.
However, the PELRB ordered the evaluation to be removed from the coach's personnel
file and not to be used or relied upon in the future.  The PELRB found that the district
committed an unfair labor practice on account of its failure to bargain the components
of the teacher-coach evaluation process which affected the terms and conditions of
employment.  The PELRB ordered the district to cease and desist from its use of any
teacher-coach evaluation plan which had not been negotiated with the union.

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.