[T]he union representing Vermont state workers on Thursday filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the state Labor Relations Board, following the board’s recent decision to impose the state’s proposed contract on union workers.
“The charge sets forth a course of conduct that includes the submission of predictably unacceptable proposals … (and) the last minute substitution of the existing board member with a management attorney newly appointed by the governor to fill a vacant position as a neutral board member,” the complaint says.
The union’s formal complaint accused the state of bargaining in bad faith and followed the launch last week of a campaign to try to block the appointment of retired Burlington lawyer Karen O’Neill to the Labor Relations Board on the grounds that she had spent too much of her career representing management on labor issues to hold one of the board seats designated as “neutral.”
The Senate Economic Development Committee could take up O’Neill’s nomination as early as next week. The full Senate would need to ratify it; for it not to do so is extremely rare.
O’Neill, who did not immediately respond Thursday to an email seeking comment about the union’s complaint, defended her appointment in an email exchange last week.
“I applied for this position because I want to serve Vermont in my retirement and because I believe my knowledge, experience and judgment will enable me to do a good job, including being fair and impartial in all matters coming before the board,” she wrote.
The union’s complaint alleges the state demanded a series of anti-labor concessions, including an elimination of leave for employees on union business, a provision the union said had been in place for decades.
The union also complained about minimal pay raises in the imposed contract and cuts to health coverage.
But its main complaint since the decision has been the substitution of O’Neill for another board member the administration asked to step aside from involvement in the case because he was covered by the state health insurance plan.
O’Neill served in senior management positions with two Vermont utilities and was a senior member of Gravel & Shea, a Burlington law firm that advertises itself as successfully defeating union efforts.
Gov. Phil Scott said in his weekly press conference on Thursday that the labor board’s decision was based on an analysis of the details, and not on the disposition of any individuals.
“I’m not sure about that whatsoever,” he said of the union’s claims. “The board members are very capable, independently minded and are basing their reaction on the details. Obviously they thought we were on the right side of that.”
Scott said his administration did not want to go to arbitration.
“It’s unfortunate we came to the point where we had to go to arbitration, but that was the process that was set forth and we adhered to it,” he said.
Human Resources Commissioner Beth Fastiggi, the state’s point person for negotiating with the union, denied in an email that the state had worked to reach impasse.
“The State would have much preferred to reach an agreement at the bargaining table,” she wrote. “Unfortunately, the parties were unable to reach an agreement and proceeded through the statutory impasse process. … The State bargained in good faith with the VSEA and followed the appropriate process. We are reviewing the complaint and will respond in accordance with the Labor Board’s rules.”
Timothy Noonan, the labor board’s executive director, said Thursday the board has considerable discretion on how to respond to unfair labor practice complaints. The matter would be heard by either a five- or three-member panel of the six-member board. Asked whether O’Neill would be expected to recuse herself because she is specifically mentioned in the complaint, Noonan said he could not comment.
