Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Collective Bargaining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislative counsel explains unit-certification, decertification process during S.125 hearing
Summary
At an April 25 hearing on S.125, Office of Legislative Council staff reviewed Section 941 of Title 3 (State Employees Labor Relations Act), explaining how petition thresholds, employer challenges, secret-ballot elections, and a new majority sign-up (card-check) provision work for state employee bargaining units.
April 25 — Sophie Podatny of the Office of Legislative Council outlined the process for creating and decertifying bargaining units for state employees during testimony on S.125, an act touching on workers’ compensation and collective-bargaining rights.
Podatny told the committee she distributed the text of Section 941 of Title 3 and said the provision covers “the process for determining a unit,” including formation, certification and decertification. “I just thought it might be helpful to go through the process,” she said, adding that the statute is “confusing stuff.”
The nut graf: The statute sets procedural thresholds and timelines that govern whether a group of state employees can form a bargaining unit, whether an existing representative can be decertified, and how an employer may contest the proposed unit. Those rules determine whether employees vote by secret ballot or may be recognized by a majority sign-up (card check) under recent changes to state law.
Podatny summarized key steps and thresholds. To file a petition seeking representation she said a showing of interest by at least 30% of the proposed unit is required — typically signatures on authorization cards — and that the board verifies whether the showing is sufficient. She emphasized that the petition must state whether the filer believes the currently certified representative is no longer supported “by at least 51% of the employees,” explaining that the 51% language refers to the petition’s asserted majority, not an additional signature threshold.
She described the employer’s role: after a petition is filed, the employer receives a confidential list of job titles and employees who could be included in the proposed unit and may challenge the appropriateness of that unit. Podatny said the board may first attempt informal mediation to resolve disputes and will schedule a hearing if issues remain. The statute instructs the board to consider factors such as the authority of unit-level officials to negotiate, similarity of employees’ working conditions (community of interest), and whether certifying narrow units would fragment representation or impair state operations.
Podatny also explained election mechanics. If the board finds sufficient interest, a secret-ballot election is scheduled; “no representative will be certified with less than a majority of the votes cast by employees in the bargaining unit,” she said. If no option receives a majority, the statute provides for a runoff between the top two choices. She noted elections can be in person or by mail depending on workforce geography and that petitions with tight timelines are prioritized.
She pointed to a statutory amendment added last session as well: new language allowing a majority sign-up (card-check) certification, identified in the statute as a G4A insertion associated with Act 117. Podatny said that language was added through the last session’s legislation but did not provide the session year beyond referring to “last session.”
Podatny and committee members touched on confidentiality and practical thresholds. She said the employee list is kept confidential under the public-records rules for the petition process, and that while 30% is the minimum showing-of-interest, unions generally collect many more signatures before filing. Committee members asked clarifying questions about whether specific paragraphs apply to both formation and decertification; Podatny responded that in practice the same election procedures and runoff rules can apply to either process.
No formal motion or vote on S.125 occurred during this portion of the hearing; the committee was taking testimony and clarifying statutory language. The session paused after the testimony when members noted “a strange odor” and the fire department entered to investigate.
Ending: The hearing resumed work after the break for an odor investigation; additional witnesses were listed as scheduled to testify later, including Joe McNeal and Chris Moore, and counsel Sobeys Duttony was identified as among those expected to appear.
