Committee weighs S.125 change to let judiciary supervisors seek collective bargaining; judiciary warns of disruption

On May 6 the House Judiciary Committee took testimony on Section 5 of S.125, which would remove the statutory exclusion of “supervisory employees” from the pool of employees eligible to organize and collectively bargain under the Judiciary Employee Labor Relations Act.

Sophie Zadakny of the Office of Legislative Counsel told the committee the proposed change “would extend the ability to organize and collectively bargain to judiciary supervisors.” Counsel noted the statutory definition of “supervisory employee” in the judiciary act is similar to definitions in the State Employees’ Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Act, but Vermont has handled public-sector exclusions differently from the federal approach.

State court administration representatives told the panel the judiciary has four employees currently defined as supervisors and 24 court operations managers who function as heads of divisions; the judicial branch employs roughly 400 people, the witness said. Terry (State Court Administrator) said the court operations managers have duties including budgeting, staffing, supervising division staff, cash oversight, scheduling and contract management, and argued those roles fit the statute’s managerial definition.

Attorney Joseph McNeal, a labor-relations lawyer who has worked with the judiciary, said he was not aware of prior efforts by these positions to organize and that the court operations managers are “clearly managerial” based on standard job descriptions. Court administration and McNeal raised a procedural concern: if organizers petition the Vermont Labor Relations Board, the board would determine unit appropriateness and could find some positions are supervisory rather than managerial, requiring a contested hearing that could take months given the board’s current caseload.

Steve Howard, executive director of the Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA), which represents many state workers, said the bill is a top priority for the union. Howard said supervisors have asked VSEA for help and that a change would let affected employees “decide if they want to have a vote.” He framed the Labor Board process as the appropriate forum to resolve unit composition disputes and said supervisors in other state units have long participated in supervisory units without operational disruption.

Committee members asked about practical effects. Court administration and its counsel warned that litigation over unit composition could divert managers’ time and attention from day-to-day operations, that classifying court operations managers as supervisory or managerial would be fact-specific, and that a determination adverse to the judiciary could leave the branch with a reduced management complement while the issue is litigated.

Witnesses gave numbers the committee used for context: the executive branch was described as having roughly 10,000 employees and about 1,200 supervisors, while the judiciary described 400 total judiciary employees, four supervisors, and 24 court operations managers. Counsel and management asked the committee to consider striking Section 5 or to refer the provision additionally to a committee focused on government operations so that operational impacts could be examined.

No vote was taken May 6. Committee members said they would take the testimony under advisement and flagged potential next steps, including follow-up with the judiciary and with labor counsel if the bill advances.