The union filed a written majority authorization petition for certification seeking to represent a bargaining unit consisting of certain positions.  The town objected on the grounds that the proposed unit lacked the requisite 10 employees with the same community of interest; that some of the part-time patrol officers should be excluded from the unit because they were irregular
or on call employees; that the lieutenant position should be excluded from the unit
because it was a supervisory position; and that the administrative assistant position should
be excluded from the unit because it was a confidential position.

The PELRB found that the lieutenant position was not a supervisory position involving the
significant exercise of discretion.  However, the PELRB also found that some part-time
officers were irregular or on call employees and excluded them from the proposed
bargaining unit.  As a result, the proposed bargaining unit contained less than 10 employees
required under RSA 273-A:8, I.  The PELRB dismissed the petition.

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.