Committee weighs adding mediator, attorney to Vermont Labor Relations Board amid backlog concerns

The Committee on Housing in General met Jan. 30 to consider a bill to add a mediator to the Vermont Labor Relations Board and to discuss related staffing and budget questions. Unidentified Speaker 1 opened the meeting, said the panel would not vote on the bill that day and asked counsel, Sophie Fatney, to prepare a revised draft for further committee consideration.

Committee members focused on delays at the labor board and whether mediation alone would ease a reported backlog. “After hearing testimony yesterday, I do feel that the mediator position is important,” said Unidentified Speaker 4, arguing the board “really needs additional help.” Speaker 4 also recommended adding an additional attorney FTE alongside a mediator to reduce case backlogs.

The discussion centered on three specific instructions the committee agreed to ask counsel to draft into the next version of the bill: expand the mediator’s scope beyond contract negotiation to include grievances and unfair labor practices; include statutory or procedural language to protect mediation confidentiality; and add an attorney position with a budget placeholder. Unidentified Speaker 1 summarized the instructions as: broaden the mediator’s role, ensure confidentiality, and add an attorney position with a placeholder total cost mentioned in the discussion as "$2.50" (recorded elsewhere in the transcript as "$250").

Members debated how funding is finalized. Unidentified Speaker 3 cautioned that budgets are constrained and urged prioritizing existing entities such as the Human Rights Commission and Vermont Legal Aid if resources are limited. Unidentified Speaker 6 sought clarity on the relationship between committee bill language and the Appropriations Committee’s final decisions; Unidentified Speaker 1 said committees commonly include appropriation requests in bills and then submit a prioritized letter to Appropriations, which evaluates and allocates funds across requests.

Speakers also discussed how mediation is operationalized. Some questioned whether mediation should be physically housed in the labor board’s offices or convened at neutral sites (for example, union or employer facilities) as has happened historically. Concerns about confidentiality led several members to press for explicit protections so discussions in mediation would not be used later in hearings. “What happens in mediation stays in mediation,” said Unidentified Speaker 2, voicing the need for internal procedures and a clear information firewall between mediators and adjudicators.

There was no formal motion or roll-call vote. Instead, the committee instructed Sophie Fatney to return with a redrafted bill that incorporated the committee’s guidance. The chair said members would review the next draft and that the committee would also prepare its prioritization letter to the Appropriations Committee before budget decisions are finalized. The committee adjourned for lunch and planned a 1 p.m. joint session to walk through H.775, a separate rural housing initiative bill.

The committee did not reach final decisions on funding amounts; participants used placeholders in the discussion. Previous session history was noted: last year one attorney position had been added in committee but was cut by Appropriations, which members said contributed to ongoing capacity strains at the labor board.

Next steps: counsel will redraft the bill per the committee’s instructions and return it to the committee for formal consideration and potential future vote. The committee also will prepare a budget-prioritization letter to Appropriations.