UVM general counsel tells committee H.173 would remove CELRA’s balance and risk campus disruptions

Sharon Reich Paulson, general counsel at the University of Vermont, told the House Committee on General and Housing that H.173 — a bill to give public higher education employees the right to strike — would “take away that balance of power and the public protection embedded in that balance.”

Paulson told the committee the State Employee Labor Relations Act (CELRA) creates a multi-step dispute-resolution process — mediation, fact finding and, if necessary, a Vermont Labor Relations Board (VLRB) decision choosing either party’s last best offer or the fact‑finder’s recommendation — and that H.173 would add unilateral strike power without parallel guardrails for employers or the public.

Why it matters: Paulson said that removing CELRA’s dispute-resolution structure would shift power to one side and eliminate statutory protections designed to protect both employees and the public. She told lawmakers that a strike in a university setting could affect critical campus services — police, environmental health and safety staff, custodial and maintenance crews — and could disrupt students’ ability to complete required coursework and clinical hours, potentially jeopardizing accreditation, internships and licensure timelines.

Paulson described UVM’s most recent bargain with its Staff United unit as an example of the existing statutory process working. “Between February and August of 2024, we had 18 bargaining meetings,” she said. “We came to agreement on 32 articles in those 18 meetings. We failed to come to agreement on 3 of them. Staff United declared proposed impasse, and so we went into impasse and started those, that process.” She described the subsequent appointment and withdrawal of a fact finder, follow-up hearings, briefs and a March recommendation that ultimately led the parties to reach agreement and a contract now in ratification.

On timelines and caseload: Paulson said UVM currently has four matters pending at the VLRB (three filed in January, one filed in late December) and described the board as generally “responsible and responsive,” while noting she would check on an example cited by a committee member in which a matter filed in 2021 had a decision issued in 2025.

On statutory safeguards: Paulson contrasted K–12 labor law guardrails — cooling-off periods and limits on strikes that endanger public health, safety or welfare — with the proposal in H.173. She said H.173 lacks a cooling-off period and “no limitation on strike power as in labor relations also as in the Labor Relations for Teachers Act,” and that those missing guardrails matter because of the different operational and public-safety risks on a research university campus.

Committee members pressed Paulson on recruitment and retention, legal costs, who conducts negotiations at UVM (administrative staff versus counsel), and whether the imposition of a contract by an employer would address the harms she described. Paulson replied that even if an employer could impose terms, the union would still have the option to strike and that “the striking in the context of UVM . . . would potentially cause great harm to individuals who aren't members of the union and individuals who aren't members of the university administration, but are being serviced by the university.”

The committee followed Paulson’s testimony with additional witnesses on related matters. The hearing record shows the panel then moved on to H.169.