Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Collective Bargaining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witnesses tell House panel Prop 3 would enshrine collective-bargaining rights; proponents say statute framework would remain
Summary
Testimony to the Vermont House General and Housing Committee on Proposition 3 framed the measure as a constitutional affirmation of workers’ rights to organize and collectively bargain, with union leaders saying existing statutory frameworks would continue to govern certification and bargaining procedures.
Rebecca McBroom, general counsel for the Vermont National Education Association, told the House General and Housing Committee on April 17 that Proposition 3 would enshrine in the state constitution the right of workers to organize and collectively bargain.
"This constitutional amendment could open pathways for new groups of individuals to organize, but this would be accomplished inside our preexisting statutory framework," McBroom said, adding that Vermont already has several labor statutes dating back to 1969. She described Vermont NEA as the state's largest union, with about 13,000 members.
McBroom walked committee members through existing law, saying the National Labor Relations Act governs most private-sector organizing while Vermont statutes cover public employees and certain other groups. She listed current state statutes by name — including the State Employees' Labor Relations Act, the Municipal Employees' Relations Act, the Labor Relations for Teachers Act, the Judicial Employees' Relations Act, the Independent Direct Support Providers Labor Relations Act, and the Early Care and Education Providers Labor Relations Act — and said those statutory “guardrails” establish how bargaining units are defined and how elections or card-check processes proceed.
"When a union is certified, that defines what the bargaining unit is," McBroom said. "Everyone within the bargaining unit has the protections of the collective bargaining agreement that's bargained." She emphasized that managers and certain confidential employees are typically excluded from bargaining units and that such definitions are settled through the certification process with the Vermont Labor Relations Board.
Amy Bertrand, president of the Vermont State Employees' Association and executive vice president of the Vermont State Labor Council AFL-CIO, described how unions in Vermont responded after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus decision. "We prepared for the worst and hoping for the best," Bertrand said. "What we saw as a result of the Janus decision was actually an uptick in our membership," she said, citing increased engagement around bargaining and legislative priorities. Bertrand told the committee the VSEA has about 6,100 members across roughly 13 bargaining units.
Jim Oken, identified as president of the Vermont AFL (as stated in committee remarks), flagged an administrative issue with the committee's public sign-up system: some members said they could not find the item online because it was labeled "proposition 3" rather than "proposal 3." Committee staff said they would look into keywording the online posting so potential witnesses can sign up before the posted deadline.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about governance inside unions, the democratic process for forming bargaining units and representative assemblies, and the interplay between federal and state law. McBroom said Vermont's labor statutes, which have been periodically expanded as new worker groups form, would continue to determine who is covered by collective bargaining even if a constitutional amendment were adopted.
The committee accepted electronic copies of written testimony to be posted for the record. Committee staff announced the public hearing sign-up deadline is by close of business Monday at 5 p.m., and that the committee had allotted up to three hours for the hearing. The panel adjourned at the scheduled time.
Why it matters: Supporters told the committee Proposition 3 is intended to create a constitutional backstop for the right to organize against potential state or federal limitations, while leaving the mechanics of representation and bargaining to existing and future statutes that the legislature or labor board would administer.
Ending: The committee did not vote on the measure at the April 17 session; members asked follow-up questions and scheduled the public comment window and additional testimony period. Written testimony was accepted for posting to the committee record.
