Distinct Community-of-Interest Requirement for Public Safety Bargaining Units: Appeal of Town of Barnstead (2025 N.H. 14)

Introduction

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire’s decision in Appeal of Town of Barnstead, 2025 N.H. 14, clarifies the scope of the “community of interest” standard under RSA 273-A:8, I when certifying public-safety bargaining units. The Town of Barnstead challenged a Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) ruling that grouped its police and fire personnel into a single collective bargaining unit. The Town argued that, despite sharing a common employer and personnel manual, police officers and firefighters do not share sufficient similarity in duties, schedules, and organizational structure to negotiate jointly. AFSCME Council 93, the union petitioner, contended that public-safety employees inherently share a self-felt community of interest and common employment conditions. The central issue is whether common employer policies alone can satisfy RSA 273-A:8, I’s community-of-interest requirement when departmental roles, hours, and command structures diverge significantly.

Summary of the Judgment

By a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Donovan, the Court reversed the PELRB’s certification of the combined police-fire bargaining unit. The Court held that:

Deference to PELRB findings is appropriate only as to factual determinations, not to questions of law or misapplication of precedent.
Common employer policies and a shared personnel manual do not, by themselves, establish the requisite “community of interest” under RSA 273-A:8, I when employees’ duties, schedules, locations, and standard operating procedures differ in key respects.
The Court reaffirmed its earlier holding in Appeal of Town of Newport, 140 N.H. 343 (1995) that public-safety roles with distinct shifts, command chains, and collective bargaining histories lack the cohesion necessary for joint bargaining absent other integrative factors.
The PELRB’s decision was reversed, and the combined bargaining unit was decertified.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court relied principally on two lines of authority:

RSA 273-A:8, I (2023): Defines “community of interest” criteria for appropriate bargaining units, including similarity of employment conditions, history of collective negotiations, and organizational unity.
Appeal of Town of Newport (1995): Held that grouping fire lieutenants with highway, cemetery, recreation, and water-sewer workers failed the community-of-interest test when their hours, collective agreements, and job duties diverged.

Additional regulatory guidance came from N.H. Admin. R., Pub 302.02, which lists factors such as common geographic location, salary structures, personnel practices, and the self-felt community of interest. The Court observed that, although this framework grants PELRB discretion, it does not permit reliance on a single shared policy manual to override fundamental structural and functional differences.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in three steps:

Standard of Review: PELRB factual findings are deferentially reviewed; legal questions, including statutory interpretation and application of precedent, are reviewed de novo.
Evaluation of “Community of Interest” Factors: The PELRB emphasized common employer policies, geographic proximity, and a self-felt community. The Court recognized these factors but held they cannot eclipse materially divergent work schedules (10-hour rotating shifts vs. 24-hour coverage), distinct chains of command and budgets, separate standard operating procedures, and specialized certifications and equipment.
Application of Newport: In both Newport and Barnstead, the mere fact of shared employer and benefits proved insufficient. In Newport, firefighters’ differing hours and separate collective bargaining agreement undermined any true community of interest. In Barnstead, the same conclusion follows: police and fire personnel, despite unified personnel rules, lack the necessary integration for joint bargaining.

Impact

This decision reinforces a fact-intensive, multi-factor inquiry before certifying mixed-department bargaining units: public employers and unions cannot rely solely on uniform personnel policies or self-felt solidarity. Going forward:

PELRB hearings will require detailed evidence on work schedules, operational integration, and departmental autonomy.
Unions seeking multi-department units within a municipality must demonstrate cross-functional cohesion beyond shared manuals.
Employers can challenge broad units by documenting differences in command structures, collective agreements, and SOPs.

In the wider labor relations context, the ruling clarifies that “community of interest” demands tangible workplace unity, safeguarding specialized roles from inappropriate joint bargaining that might dilute role-specific concerns.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Community of Interest: A legal standard requiring sufficient similarity among employees’ job duties, working conditions, benefits, and organizational ties so they can reasonably bargain as one group.
Mandatory vs. Non-Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining: Issues (e.g., wages, hours) that must be negotiated by law are “mandatory.” Standard operating procedures, set unilaterally by management and not tied to core employment terms, are “non-mandatory.”
Deferential vs. De Novo Review: Courts give deference to an administrative board’s factual findings. Interpretation of statutes and prior case law is reviewed afresh (“de novo”).
Self-Felt Community: Employees’ subjective belief in shared interests. It is one factor but not conclusive if objective workplace differences predominate.

Conclusion

Appeal of Town of Barnstead establishes that a shared employer and uniform personnel manual do not automatically satisfy RSA 273-A:8, I’s community-of-interest requirement for a combined public-safety bargaining unit. The decision underscores the need for demonstrable alignment in schedules, duties, command structure, and operational integration. Courts and the PELRB must weigh multiple statutory and regulatory factors to ensure that certified units genuinely reflect employees’ cohesive bargaining interests. This ruling thus preserves departmental autonomy where job roles are functionally distinct and protects the integrity of the collective bargaining process.