Judiciary officials urge House committee to remove language in S.125 that could bring managers into bargaining units

State court administrators told a House committee that language added to S.125 could allow managers as well as supervisors to be included in judicial bargaining units, a change they said would create conflicts of interest and impede court operations.

Terry Corson, state court administrator, told the committee the judiciary initially understood the bill to remove only supervisory employees from the list of exempt employees but later learned, based on earlier testimony, that some sponsors intend the change to reach managers as well. "If the intent is to include management in the bargaining units, that is a whole different level of reason why we would oppose it," Corson said, citing concerns about confidentiality, discipline and the ability to manage court business.

The committee heard legal and operational clarifications from Attorney Joe McNeil, who said the bill would effectively leave determinations about whether particular positions are managerial or supervisory to the Vermont Labor Relations Board. "If this bill is passed ... the General Assembly will be completely and somewhat blindly punting to the Vermont Labor Relations Board," McNeil said, adding that such disputes would produce "considerable time, considerable expense, and considerable disruption for the judiciary." McNeil also described the practical conflict of having court operations managers who exercise supervisory authority also serving in a bargaining unit.

Legislative counsel (Sophie) summarized the statutory mechanics discussed in testimony: the bill as drafted incorporates an alternate certification process (often called "card check") that allows certification on a showing of interest of 50 percent plus one, and separate statutory provisions create a one-year period after certification during which a certification cannot be challenged. Counsel also noted existing timing rules tied to collective bargaining agreements and the legislative session for petitions filed when a contract is in effect.

Committee members asked for more detail and said they would review the statutory definitions in the executive-branch and judiciary-branch labor laws cited in testimony. Several committee members said they would ask legislative counsel for a written explanation and invited the judiciary to file supplemental materials. One member said they planned to read the cited statutory subsections and may request a written submission from the judiciary to clarify differences between the State Employees Labor Relations Act and the Judiciary Employees Labor Relations Act.

Witnesses supplied several factual details to the committee record: Corson said the judiciary has four employees with a supervisory title she identified in question-and-answer; she said the judiciary also employs about 244 nonmanagement staff who are in the existing bargaining unit and that other categories include roughly 90 judicial officers, about 60 managers and about 30 confidential employees. Counsel and McNeil described the statutory "contract bar" and timing rules that typically limit petitions while a collective bargaining agreement is in effect and noted that collective bargaining agreements under the cited statute are commonly limited to two-year terms because legislative appropriation is part of the approval process.

No formal action or vote on S.125 was taken during the hearing. Committee members recessed for a short break and signaled plans to collect written materials and additional legal explanation before further action.

The hearing record shows disagreement about how broadly Section 5 of S.125 would operate and whether it would change long-standing distinctions between supervisory and managerial employees. Committee members asked the judiciary to submit clarifying documents and said they would seek further input from legislative counsel before deciding whether to amend or remove the contested language.