Rep. Kate Logan introduces bill to extend collective-bargaining rights to Vermont agricultural workers

Representative Kate Logan introduced H.333 on April 8, a bill to repeal the statutory exemption that presently blocks many agricultural workers from collective bargaining under Vermont law. "Just repeals the exemption for those who are employed as agricultural laborers from the Vermont State Labor Relations Act," Logan told the House Committee on General & Housing.

The bill would add agricultural workers into the State Labor Relations Act so they could collectively bargain with employers. Logan said the change responds to the December 2024 Agricultural Worker Labor and Employment Law Study Committee report, which she asked the committee assistant to post to the committee page. According to that report, Logan said, about 439 farms in Vermont employ more than five agricultural workers, representing roughly 5,731 workers; she added that nearly 70% of agricultural workers in Vermont work on farms with five employees or more.

Logan explained the proposal in historical context, noting that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 originally excluded agricultural and domestic workers, and that the same exclusion was carried into Vermont’s 1967 state labor relations law. She said Vermont removed the exclusion for domestic workers last year but deferred action on agricultural workers, and H.333 is intended to move that conversation forward.

The study committee did not reach a consensus on whether to adopt collective-bargaining rights for agricultural workers, Logan said, but recommended that if the state adopts a separate agricultural labor statute the Vermont Labor Relations Board should oversee it rather than creating a distinct Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Logan said H.333 does not itself create a full separate statute but would add agricultural workers into the existing act; she also noted that five other states have separate agricultural labor statutes and that other states provide potential drafting models.

No vote or committee action was recorded during the introduction. Committee members asked clarifying questions about the study’s recommendations and which states had separate statutes; Logan said the list appears in the report and offered to provide the specific state examples to the committee.

Ending: The bill was introduced and discussed; committee staff were asked to post the study report and members signaled they would review the comparative-state examples before further committee consideration.