Dillman v. Town of Hooksett
2006 N.H. LEXIS 33, 153 N.H. 344, 898 A.2d 505 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public sector union may not assign its statutory right to seek judicial review of an arbitration award to an individual union member, as such an assignment contravenes the public policy of fostering labor peace through exclusive collective bargaining representation.
Facts:
- Stephen Dillman, a firefighter for the Town of Hooksett, was a member of the Hooksett Permanent Firefighter Association I.A.F.F., Local 3264 (the Union).
- The Union's collective bargaining agreement with Hooksett provided for a grievance process, including arbitration, for disputes such as termination.
- On May 24, 2002, the Town of Hooksett terminated Dillman's employment.
- The Union filed a grievance on Dillman's behalf, which proceeded to arbitration.
- The arbitrator issued an award finding that Hooksett had "just cause" for terminating Dillman.
- Following the adverse arbitration award, the Union purported to assign its statutory right to seek judicial review of the award to Dillman.
- In exchange for the assignment, Dillman agreed to surrender his right to bring a claim against the Union for breach of its duty of fair representation.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen Dillman sued the Town of Hooksett in New Hampshire superior court, seeking to modify and correct the arbitrator's award based on an assignment of rights from his union.
- Hooksett, alleging a federal question, removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
- In federal court, Hooksett filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Dillman lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award, either directly or by assignment.
- Recognizing the question was a matter of first impression under state law, the U.S. District Court certified the question of the assignment's validity to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under New Hampshire law, may a public sector union assign its statutory right under N.H. RSA 542:8 to seek judicial review of an arbitration award to an individual union member?
Opinions:
Majority - Dalianis, J.
No. A public sector union may not assign its statutory right to seek judicial review of an arbitration award to an individual union member. The plain language of the controlling statute, RSA 542:8, grants the right to seek judicial review only to a 'party to the arbitration.' In the context of a collective bargaining agreement, the parties are the union and the employer, not the individual employee. While an exception exists allowing an employee to challenge an award by claiming the union breached its duty of fair representation, Dillman explicitly waived this right. The court held that allowing such an assignment is void on public policy grounds, as it would undermine the legislative intent of the Public Employee Labor Relations Act (RSA chapter 273-A), which is to foster labor peace through exclusive representation. Permitting individual employees to pursue these claims would subject public employers to a 'deluge of grievances,' materially increasing their burden and defeating the purpose of collective bargaining, while also improperly insulating the union from its duty of fair representation.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the union, as the exclusive bargaining agent, maintains control over litigation arising from a collective bargaining agreement. It prevents individual employees from pursuing challenges to arbitration awards independently, thereby preserving the union's gatekeeping role. The ruling reinforces that an individual employee's primary recourse for an unfavorable arbitration outcome they believe is unjust is to file a claim against the union for breach of its duty of fair representation, rather than taking over the union's right to sue the employer. This strengthens the collective bargaining framework by prioritizing systemic stability and the employer's reliance on a single representative over an individual's desire to litigate.
