Senate walkthrough of S.264 would extend collective-bargaining coverage to assistant attorneys general
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Senators and legislative staff reviewed S.264, which adds the Office of the Attorney General into the State Employee Labor Relations Act to allow assistant attorneys general to organize and pursue collective bargaining; the bill delegates most implementation details to the Vermont Labor Relations Board and raises unresolved fiscal and unit-structure questions.
Senate Committee on Government Operations members on Feb. 10 reviewed S.264, a draft bill that would explicitly bring assistant attorneys general under the State Employee Labor Relations Act and allow those employees to seek certification of bargaining units.
“S.264 is a new iteration on a bill and a concept that have been around for several years now,” said Senator Casey Robinsfield, one of the bill’s lead sponsors. Robinsfield said the measure’s purpose is to give AAGs the statutory permission to organize while leaving determinations about unit composition and exclusions to the Vermont Labor Relations Board.
Legislative staff member Sophie, who led a section-by-section walkthrough, said the draft inserts the Office of the Attorney General into multiple provisions of the State Employee Labor Relations Act (SELRA), adds the office to existing impasse-resolution language and aligns funding-submission language so that a ratified agreement would be sent to the governor and the General Assembly for appropriation. “Vermont has seven different labor relations statutes,” Sophie said while outlining why the bill tries to mirror prior statutory language used for state’s attorneys and sheriffs.
Committee members pressed staff on how bargaining units might be defined. Sophie described three likely outcomes: a statewide AAG unit, separate units for AAGs embedded in different agencies, or other arrangements the Vermont Labor Relations Board deem appropriate after applying community-of-interest and fragmentation tests. She noted managerial, supervisory and confidential employees are typically excluded and that the Labor Relations Board resolves disputes about those designations.
On funding and fiscal impact, staff said it would be possible to request an analysis from the state fiscal office but that precise costs cannot be modeled until contract terms are known. Sophie said an agreement ratified by union members would require the attorney general to request sufficient funds from the General Assembly; she added that questions about pay-grade alignment for embedded AAGs remain and could affect costs.
Senators also asked about prior stakeholder involvement. Robinsfield said unions such as the VSEA and AFL-CIO have participated in earlier language discussions, though staff told the committee this particular draft was not prepared in coordination with VSEA. Robinsfield and others emphasized that S.264 would permit, not require, unionization — a vote or card-check would be necessary and, if a majority supports organizing, the resulting agreement would bind the bargaining unit.
No formal vote or amendment was taken during the walkthrough. The committee recessed for a 15-minute break and said it would return to consider S.297 and other witnesses later in the week.
The committee may request fiscal analysis and hear testimony from named witnesses (including David McLean, who sponsors identified as having worked with the attorney general’s office on drafting concerns) as the bill moves through committee stages.