Representatives of the National Education Association told the Vermont House Education Committee on Feb. 21 that proposals to sharply reduce the number of school districts would create complex collective bargaining challenges for teachers and school support staff.

Speakers from the NEA, including Jeff Hammond, outlined legal and operational obstacles in merging multiple collective bargaining agreements if district consolidation moves ahead. "Collective bargaining necessarily isn't bargaining with your employer, whomever that may be," Hammond said, explaining that employees bargain with their employing entity and that a change in the employing entity can complicate existing contracts and rights.

Why it matters: Several consolidation proposals under discussion in the Legislature and by the governor would change which entity is the official employer of school staff. That matters because contracts, seniority lists, and retirement protections are tied to the employing entity and to existing collective bargaining agreements.

NEA witnesses gave a short primer on how bargaining is structured in Vermont and recalled protections used after earlier consolidation efforts. They said teachers and licensed staff bargain under the teachers' bargaining law, while nonteacher school employees bargain under municipal-employee law. Hammond and a colleague noted that when Act 153 (2010) and Act 46 (2015) led to district mergers, the statutes included specific employee protections so staff kept employment and recognized bargaining relationships on day one of the new entities. "The new district or SU had to hire the employees of the merging districts," Hammond said, and unions remained recognized as certified bargaining agents in the successor entity.

The NEA witnesses warned that much larger consolidations could be harder to manage. They said several concrete problem areas would arise: merging many contracts on different cycles, reconciling different salary schedules and preparation-time provisions, resolving competing seniority lists, and handling different retirement arrangements. Hammond told the committee the group was currently bargaining roughly 27 contracts this year and estimated there are over 100 distinct collective bargaining agreements statewide when teachers and education support professionals are counted. Contract terms vary; most contracts run on multi-year cycles (three years is common), so expiration timing complicates any coordinated merging plan.

The witnesses also raised legal constraints. They noted the U.S. Constitution's contracts clause and the general legal principle that lawmakers cannot simply nullify or unilaterally change private contracts. That principle means a newly created employing entity cannot automatically rewrite existing contracts without negotiation or the consent of affected parties. "Both sides would have to agree to open a contract," one witness said, stressing that voluntary reopening is distinct from unilateral changes.

On seniority and staffing, witnesses described scenarios that can be contentious: a staff member with long service in one former district could end up lower on a seniority list in a much larger merged district, affecting retention and layoffs. The presenters cited examples of superintendents who successfully asked local unions to "figure it out" pragmatically and others who tried to impose arrangements, which produced conflict.

Retirement protections were another focus. Witnesses said licensed teachers must participate in the state's teacher retirement system and that many school-based support employees participate in the state's municipal retirement system (referred to in testimony as VMERS). The witnesses said prior statutes protecting retirement benefits during mergers were critical to ensuring staff did not lose accrued retirement rights.

NEA representatives emphasized keeping bargaining local as a principle. They told lawmakers their organization trains local bargaining teams—often teachers and support staff who have been members themselves—to negotiate directly with local boards. They warned that if bargaining moves away from local teams to central lawyers and large arbitration processes, the result can be expensive, adversarial and disconnected from day-to-day school needs. "You get lawyers bargaining across from lawyers," one presenter said, describing lengthy arbitration processes seen in other large bargaining contexts.

Committee members asked whether a statewide teachers' contract is necessary to achieve a statewide foundation funding model. NEA witnesses and other participants pushed back that collective bargaining is employer-by-employer and that a true statewide contract would require agreement across many local bargaining units or a statutory framework that changes the employer structure. Witnesses suggested phased approaches—giving districts time (three to five years, for example) to align contract provisions—rather than immediate, single-step changes.

The NEA asked lawmakers to consider the operational details of any consolidation plan, including transition timelines, who will be the legal employer for bargaining, and how to preserve community input and local knowledge in bargaining decisions. The NEA representatives said the goal of collective bargaining and transitions should be to protect employees' rights, preserve retirement protections and maintain a focus on students.

The committee did not take any formal votes on policy during the session. Members were told draft statutory language will be available at a later meeting and that the Legislature can choose to alter statutory processes and protections.

Looking ahead: Committee members said they expect to review draft language next week and to hold additional briefings that will consider labor-law specifics as they relate to any proposed governance changes.