Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Sector Labor Bargaining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers one-year delay to Section 5 that would change judiciary supervisors' bargaining status
Summary
Representative Jim Harrison offered an amendment to S.125 that would postpone by one year the effective date of Section 5, which removes supervisory employees from the judiciary’s currently exempt bargaining unit; committee members debated the timing and potential impacts and took an informal straw poll but did not record a formal vote.
BURLINGTON, Vt. — The House General & Housing Committee on May 13 considered an amendment by Representative Jim Harrison to delay the effective date of Section 5 of S.125, which would remove supervisory employees from the judiciary’s currently exempt bargaining unit.
"It's a very simple amendment," Representative Jim Harrison said, describing the change as a one-year delay that would set the effective date to July 1, 2026 while leaving the section in the bill if it is passed.
The nut graf: supporters said the one-year delay would give affected employees and the judiciary additional time to discuss the change; opponents said the delay could put those employees out of phase with other bargaining units and disadvantage organizing or negotiations.
Harrison told the committee his office initially believed the change would affect about four people but later learned it could affect roughly 24 employees who had not been approached about joining a new bargaining unit. He said the delay would allow interested parties more time to confer and — if they return recommendations next session — the legislature could consider adjustments then.
Sophie, a staff member who walked the committee through the amendment, summarized its effect: "This would just allow all the current sections that are in the bill to take effect 07/01/2025, and then it just separates out section 5 . . . and then delays that to take effect on 07/01/2026." Sophie also explained that the Vermont Labor Relations Board (VLRB) is the neutral body that would determine whether particular employees are managers or supervisors for purposes of exclusion from collective bargaining.
Committee members expressed divergent views. Some said the proposal was unnecessary because the VLRB process already provides a check and employees would not be forced to join a union. Others said the delay would be unfair to workers and that timing matters because executive-branch supervisors are entering bargaining this year; placing the judiciary group out of sync could disadvantage them. Several members said the judiciary had concerns but had not necessarily made a case for delay before the committee.
The committee took an informal straw poll by raised hands. The on-the-record counting was confused and not entered as a formal committee vote; the transcript shows multiple attempts to tally hands and participants told members the amendment and its final reading would be addressed when the amendment is read on the floor. No formal committee vote on the amendment was recorded in the meeting.
What happened next: the amendment remains a pending offer to the bill. Committee discussion indicated both continued concern for affected employees' choice and skepticism about delaying implementation; any formal change would require a recorded committee vote or action on the floor.
