Committee considers allowing judiciary supervisors to organize and bargain collectively

The House General & Housing Committee on May 6 reviewed proposed language that would allow judiciary supervisors to organize and collectively bargain under the Judicial Employee Labor Relations Act.

Committee counsel Sophie walked members through a “strike‑all” amendment and the specific section that would add judiciary supervisors to the statutes that permit collective bargaining. Sophie told the committee the amendment would "allow judiciary supervisors to organize and collectively bargain," and that the provision mirrors language the senate sent earlier.

The change prompted discussion of legal precedent and administrative process. Committee members noted there are no Vermont Supreme Court or VLRB (Vermont Labor Relations Board) decisions directly resolving whether judiciary supervisors are included in bargaining units; Sophie told members she expected the VLRB would look to its prior decisions under the State Employee Labor Relations Act when making any determinations. Members discussed a 1977 legislative change removing a supervisory exclusion for state employees, and the apparent difference in how the judiciary statute treats supervisors.

Committee members and witnesses focused on how the VLRB determines whether employees are supervisors, managers or confidential employees, which affects bargaining eligibility. Sophie and other members summarized a previous VLRB case about police lieutenants as an example of the complex, fact‑specific analysis the board uses to decide unit composition and supervisory status.

Committee members gave competing views. Ashley Burley, a committee member, said she had “a lot of concerns” about the language but argued that if labor law changes were being made they should be consistent across statutes. Other members argued that supervisors should have the option to organize and that the VLRB should be able to decide whether particular positions are supervisory or managerial.

The chair conducted a nonbinding straw poll on the judiciary‑supervisors provision; members signaled their positions during the meeting (straw poll result recorded by staff during the session). Sophie and staff said they would return with drafting adjustments as needed and that the committee would consider VLRB precedent and any testimony collected during future hearings.

The committee did not adopt formal legislation or take a final vote on the provision during the session; members indicated they would receive further information and that the VLRB precedent would guide any implementation.

Looking ahead, members asked staff to prepare additional drafting notes and background so the committee can evaluate whether the judiciary supervisors provision should remain, be revised, or be removed before any formal vote.