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 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 sergeant 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 administrative assistant position was a confidential position and
excluded it from the proposed unit.  The PELRB also found that the part-time patrol officers
were irregular or on call employees and excluded them from the proposed 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.