Staff at state’s attorney offices are not eligible for collective bargaining rights, according to a ruling from the Vermont Labor Relations Board.
The Labor Board denied the Vermont State Employees Association’s petition to organize eight of Vermont’s 14 state’s attorney offices.
“Any statutory collective bargaining rights which would be granted employees of the state’s attorney offices would have to come through legislative action,” a three-member panel ruled on Nov. 3.
Technically, the deputy state’s attorneys, victim advocates, administrative secretaries and secretaries VSEA sought to represent are neither state nor municipal employees, said board chairman Richard Park and members James C. Kiehle and Gary F. Karnedy.
VSEA is considering an appeal, according to Doug Gibson, a spokesman for the union. The board’s decision is “unfortunate” for the employees, he said.
“In fact, it makes their status even more murky because, according to the board’s decision, this group of employees doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of any state labor statute,” Gibson said. “They aren’t ‘state’ employees, nor are they ‘municipal’ employees. They are essentially in some kind of weird worker limbo.”
The organization’s legal team is discussing next steps, Gibson said. An appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court must be made within 30 days of the decision.
Five of the eight state’s attorneys associated with the petitions (from Addison, Franklin, Orange, Windham and Windsor counties) argued the employees would not be covered by the state’s Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA) — the statute under which VSEA sought to unionize the workers, either by county or as a statewide bargaining unit.
In Chittenden County, State’s Attorney T.J. Donovan had agreed to allow employees in his office vote in a consent election on VSEA representation. Rutland County State’s Attorney Marc D. Brierre deferred to the Labor Relations Board.
Essex County’s Vince Illuzzi, also a registered lobbyist for VSEA, voluntarily recognized the union as the representative of his employees.
In their decision, the Labor Relations Board said the matter was complicated.
“At first blush, it appears that the state’s attorney office in each county may constitute an employer,” the board wrote. Counties are political subdivisions of the state, and political subdivisions are considered municipal employers under MERA, they said.
The employees in question serve at the pleasure of the elected state’s attorneys, who themselves have limited authority to set the terms of their employment. For example, staff salaries are set by state statute, and some of the positions are considered exempt rather than classified state employees.
The board found that it is problematic to put state’s attorneys in a position to bargain when they have such little authority.
State’s attorney offices are organized under a statewide Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs. VSEA had suggested the department should be treated as the employer for the purpose of statewide organizing. But the department is a part of state government, not a municipal employer, the board ruled.
A nebulous employment structure turns out to be the biggest barrier to the staff’s efforts to bargain for their employment terms.