453 A.2d 1292
No. 82-241Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough
Decided December 10, 1982
1. Certiorari — Other Remedies — Availability Since there is no statutory right of appeal from decisions of the board of conciliation and arbitration, any relief from such decisions must be by a petition for a writ of certiorari. RSA ch. 273.
2. Appeal and Error — Dismissal on Appeal — Delay In cases where no statutory right of appeal from agency decisions exists, the supreme court has exercised its discretion to bar petitions for a writ of certiorari when they were filed after an unreasonable length of time.
3. Certiorari — Time for Filing — Guidelines In a previous case where no statutory right of appeal from an agency decision existed, the supreme court ruled that the reasonable period for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari could be determined by the appeal period set out in a substantially analogous statute or situation.
4. Certiorari — Time for Filing — Guidelines Because no statutory right of appeal from decisions of the board of conciliation and arbitration exists, the appropriate analogous statute for determining the reasonable period for filing a petition for a writ
Page 1036
of certiorari in such cases is the statute governing appeals from state administrative bodies, and therefore, the thirty-day period set forth in that statute is the appropriate guideline for review by certiorari from decisions of the board. RSA ch. 273; 541:6.
5. Appeal and Error — Dismissal on Appeal — Delay Where an employee was discharged for misconduct, and the employee filed a grievance report pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement which resulted in a hearing before the chairman of the board of conciliation and arbitration who rendered a decision adverse to the employee on July 24, 1981, and denied reconsideration of the decision on September 2, 1981, employee’s motion to vacate the decision filed in superior court on November 19, 1981, was untimely, and the superior court erred in granting the motion, which should have been filed by October 2, 1981. RSA ch. 273; 541:6.
Leonard, Prolman Leonard P.A., of Nashua ( Thomas J. Leonard, III, on the brief and orally), for the plaintiffs.
McLane, Graf, Raulerson Middleton P.A., of Manchester (Wilbur A. Glahn, III, and James R. Muirhead on the brief, and Mr. Glahn orally), for the defendant.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Silver Brothers, Inc., from a ruling by the Superior Court (Flynn, J.) vacating a decision of the New Hampshire Board of Conciliation and Arbitration made pursuant to RSA 273:15-:27. We hold that the superior court should have dismissed the case as untimely, and accordingly we vacate its order.
The defendant had discharged an employee for misconduct, and the employee filed a grievance report setting in motion the grievance procedures called for in the collective-bargaining agreement between the plaintiff union and the defendant. The chairman of the board of conciliation and arbitration held a hearing and rendered a decision adverse to the employee on July 24, 1981. Six days later, the employee sought reconsideration, but this was denied on September 2, 1981. Two-and-one-half months later, on November 19, 1981, the union and employee filed a motion in superior court to vacate the decision of the arbitrator. This motion was ultimately granted.
[1] Because the arbitration in this case occurred under RSA chapter 273 and not under RSA chapter 542, we are governed by the provisions of RSA 273:20, which provides that decisions in labor cases before the board “shall be final.” As there is no statutory rightPage 1037
of appeal under RSA chapter 273, any relief from decisions of the agency must be by a petition for a writ of certiorari. See Appeal of Connolly, 122 N.H. 678, 680, 448 A.2d 422, 423 (1982); Appeal of MacEachran, 121 N.H. 1070, 1071, 438 A.2d 302, 303 (1981).
[2, 3] Because RSA chapter 273 does not provide any statutory means for judicial review, it does not establish any time for appeal against which the timeliness of the filing in the superior court can be measured. This court, however, has exercised its discretion to bar such petitions when they are filed after an unreasonable length of time. In Wilson v. Personnel Comm’n, 117 N.H. 783, 378 A.2d 1375 (1977), we ruled that the reasonable period for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari would be determined by the appeal period set out in a substantially analogous statute or situation. Id. at 784, 378 A.2d at 1377. [4] In this case, because RSA chapter 273 provides no appeal period, the appropriate analogous statute is RSA chapter 541, which governs appeals from State administrative bodies. RSA 541:6 requires that appeals from State administrative agencies be taken within thirty days after a request for reconsideration is denied. Therefore, the thirty-day period is the appropriate guideline for review by certiorari in this case. See Wood v. General Elec. Co., 119 N.H. 285, 288, 402 A.2d 155, 157 (1979) (citing Wilson v. Personnel Comm’n, 117 N.H. 783, 784, 378 A.2d 1375, 1377 (1977)). [5] The final decision of the arbitrator was issued on September 2, 1981, and any petition for review must have been filed in the superior court by October 2, 1981. The petition was not filed until November 19, 1981, and therefore should have been dismissed.Superior Court order vacated; case dismissed.
Page 1038