Cited by

The Union, citing Appeal of Town of Moultonborough, 164 N.H. 257 (2012), and Appeal of University System of N.H., 131 N.H. 368 (1988), further argues that the positions at issue here are distinguishable from the positions addressed in our earlier cases in which we have found employees to have supervisory authority.

We focused upon similar facts in Appeal of University System of New Hampshire, 131 N.H. 368, 376 (1988).

Appeal of University System of N.H., 131 N.H. 368, 372 (1988) (quotations omitted).

Appeal of University System of N.H., 131 N.H. 368, 376 (1988) (hereinafter Appeal of UNH).

Appeal of University System of N.H., 131 N.H. 368, 376 (1988).

ons exercising supervisory authority involving the significant exercise of discretion *432 may not belong to the same bargaining unit as the employees they supervise.” Supervisory employees are separated from the employees they supervise “to avoid conflicts between the two groups because of the differing duties and relationships which characterize each group.” Appeal of University System of N.H., 131 N.H. 368, 375, 553 A.2d 770, 774 (1988) (quotations omitted).

In light of this evidence, we find that by including the three superintendents, the PELRB failed to follow the standards set forth in Appeal of University System of New Hampshire, 131 N.H. 368, 376, 553 A.2d 770, 775 (1988).

“In New Hampshire, the legislature has vested the PELRB with authority to define the terms of RSA chapter 273-A and to fill in any gaps in the statute,” Appeal of University System of *727 N.H., 131 N.H. 368, 370, 553 A.2d 770, 771 (1988), but where the statute already defines one of its terms, the PELRB must apply that definition, cf. Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 303, 605 A.2d 208, 212 (1992) (basic precept of statutory construction is that definition of term in a statute con

Although the PELRB is subject to our review, its findings of fact in collective bargaining matters, though not controlling, are deemed prima facie lawful and reasonable.” Appeal of University System of N.H., 131 N.H. 368, 370, 553 A.2d 770, 771-72 (1988) (citations omitted).

In Appeal of the University System of New Hampshire, 131 N.H. 368, 553 A.2d 770 (1988), we held that the PELRB has the discretion to redetermine the composition of bargaining units.

While we recognize that the PELRB generally has discretion to interpret and apply its own rules as it sees fit, cf. Appeal of University Systems of N.H, 131 N.H. 368, 370, 553 A.2d 770, 771 (1988) (PELRB has authority to define terms of its enabling legislation and to fill in gaps left by it), it must do so consistently; absent a clearly articulated rationale for doing so, it would be an abuse of discretion for the PELRB to treat public employers differently depending on the type

132 N.H. at 105, 564 A.2d at 420; Appeal of University of System of N.H., 131 N.H. 368, 370, 553 A.2d 770, 772 (1988).

e, are matters for this court to decide, Appeal of Board of Trustees of U.S.N.H., 129 N.H. 632, 636, 531 A.2d 315, 317 (1987), we will not overturn the PELRB’s decision unless, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, Appeal of Hooksett School Dist., 126 N.H. 202, 204, 489 A.2d 146, 147-48 (1985), it is erroneous as a matter of law, unjust, or unreasonable, Appeal of University System of N.H., 131 N.H. 368, 370, 553 A.2d 770, 772 (1988).