House General and Housing Committee hears overview of Vermont collective bargaining laws

Legislative Counsel Sophie Zadney told the House General and Housing Committee on Wednesday, Feb. 5 that Vermont has a complex patchwork of statutes governing collective bargaining and that the Vermont Labor Relations Board plays a central role in resolving unit disputes, unfair-labor-practice charges and some grievance appeals.

“Vermont has more labor relations statutes per capita than any other state in the country,” Sophie Zadney, legislative counsel, said, summarizing why the state’s rules differ by sector.

The presentation laid out why the rules matter: different statutes cover different worker groups (state employees, teachers, municipal employees, judiciary staff, independent direct support providers and early childhood providers), and those differences change who may bargain, what subjects are mandatory and what dispute-resolution steps apply.

Zadney listed seven Vermont collective-bargaining statutes she said the committee should know most about: the State Labor Relations Act (1967), the State Employees Labor Relations Act (SELRA, 1969), the Teachers and Administrators Labor Relations Act, the Municipal Employee Relations Act (1973), the Judiciary Employees Labor Relations Act (1988), the Independent Direct Support Providers Labor Relations Act (2013) and the Early Care and Education Providers Labor Relations Act (2014). She said SELRA, the Teachers Act, the Municipal Act and the Judiciary Act are the four primary statutes in routine use.

Under federal and state frameworks, different employee groups fall under different regimes. The federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) governs most private‑sector employees engaged in interstate commerce but excludes public sector workers, agricultural laborers and domestic workers historically; Vermont statutes fill those public‑sector gaps. Zadney noted a 2024 change to Vermont law that removed an exclusion for some domestic workers when the employer has five or more employees.

On coverage, Zadney said SELRA and the Judiciary Act are broad in subject matter for bargaining, while the Municipal Act is limited to wages, hours and conditions of employment. The Teachers Act covers licensed teachers and administrators and other licensed school staff; unlicensed school employees are generally covered under the Municipal Act, she said.

Zadney explained how the Vermont Labor Relations Board (VLRB) operates: six part‑time board members typically sit as three‑member panels (one labor, one management, one neutral) for hearings; staffing currently consists of an executive director and a part‑time clerk. The board oversees bargaining‑unit determinations, representation questions (except under the Teachers Act in some cases), unfair‑labor‑practice charges and grievance appeals when a statute places that final step with the VLRB.

Certification and recent changes: Zadney described two certification paths. Under the 2024 changes, a union can be certified by “majority sign‑up” (card check) when a majority plus one of potential unit members support unionization, avoiding a secret‑ballot election; absent that, the VLRB oversees traditional petitions and elections in several statutes.

On negotiation and dispute resolution, Zadney outlined several multi‑step processes used across statutes: voluntary mediation, fact finding (a hearing with testimony and subpoenas), and then either last‑best‑offer selection or arbitration. She said fact‑finder reports are generally due within 30 days of appointment and become public 10 days after issuance if the parties have not reached agreement. Under some statutes the board or arbitrator may choose an entire last best offer or the fact‑finder’s report; parties can also agree to binding arbitration in advance in some contexts.

Zadney reviewed limits and prohibitions: strikes are explicitly forbidden under SELRA and the Judiciary Act; the Municipal Act prohibits strikes in specified circumstances (for example, within 30 days after a fact‑finder’s report or where a strike would endanger public health or safety). Under the Teachers Act, if parties exhaust the statutory process a local school board may impose a contract and that imposition alters the strike calculus for teachers’ units.

Zadney also described two narrower statewide statutes. The Independent Direct Support Providers Labor Relations Act creates a single statewide bargaining mechanism for roughly 7,500 independent direct support providers who provide home and community‑based services under Medicaid waiver and related state programs; their mandatory bargaining topics are limited (reimbursement rates, payment methods, training, dues collection and access to job referrals). The Early Care and Education Providers Act covers licensed and registered child‑care providers and similarly focuses bargaining scope on reimbursement, payment schedules and professional development; Zadney said no bargaining units had been organized under that statute to date.

Zadney noted practical constraints: the VLRB’s staff is small and the board’s published lists of mediators and fact‑finders include few Vermont‑based neutrals; parties often rely on mediators from around New England or on the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, whose mediation services are sometimes free. She also summarized that costs for mediation, fact‑finding and arbitration are typically split between parties while each side pays its own legal fees.

On constitutional and federal law, Zadney summarized the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus (2018) decision and its local effect: after Janus, public employees who decline union membership cannot be required to pay agency fees even if they are covered by a collective‑bargaining agreement.

Committee members asked for comparative context (agricultural worker statutes in other states, cooling‑off periods, how impasse is declared) and for detail about timelines and practical impacts; Zadney said responses varied by statute and that other states’ approaches to agricultural workers differ widely.

The committee did not take formal action during the briefing; members said the overview helped frame future bill‑level discussions and upcoming hearings on manufactured housing and tax increment financing. The chair set the next committee meeting for 10:45 a.m. the following day.