Gov. Phil Scott on Monday vetoed legislation that would have granted supervisors in Vermont’s judiciary system the right to form a union.
“The Judiciary has advised this change could have a negative impact on the effective management of courthouses and fear a workplace marked by divisiveness and angst were this bill to pass,” Scott wrote in a letter to the Legislature about his veto of S.125.
“At a time when our court system is managing a significant backlog, we should be focusing on improving efficiencies within the system,” he continued.
The bill passed the Senate in a voice vote with apparently widespread support. In the House, however, the legislation received only 81 votes, with 51 against. The vote was largely along party lines, though not entirely, with the chamber’s three independents and most Republicans voting ‘nay.’ Although roughly a dozen Democrats were absent for that vote, it appears unlikely that the chamber now could reach the 100-vote threshold that would be necessary to override the governor’s veto.
If the bill had been signed, it’s unclear exactly how many state employees would have been allowed to unionize. In committee testimony throughout the legislative session, Vermont judiciary branch administrators, who strongly opposed the bill, maintained that the state has just four judiciary supervisors.
According to Steve Howard, executive director of the Vermont State Employees’ Association, the number could actually be far greater. The VSEA would have represented the new bargaining unit.
“We seriously doubt that management’s estimate of four positions is accurate,” Howard said. “We’re suspicious that the reason that they’re so opposed to a supervisory unit is that we’re going to find that there are a number of positions that they consider non-supervisory which really are supervisory.”
If the change in law had been adopted and supervisory staff had in fact petitioned to unionize under the VSEA, Howard said, it’s likely the union and leaders of the Vermont Judiciary would have spent months debating the scope of the unit before the Vermont Labor Relations Board, which would have final say on which employees could join.
The bill also contained a provision that would have made it harder for employees across Vermont to oust an existing union in their workplace.
As the rules currently stand, 30% of union membership have to sign a petition to hold a decertification vote, which would decide whether to dismantle an existing union.
The bill would have raised that threshold to 50% plus one member, requiring a majority of workers to petition for a decertification vote. Conversely, 30% of employees need to support a petition to hold a vote to form a union, an amount that would not have been changed by the legislation.
“This bill seeks to make it harder for employees, if they choose, to seek union representation from other organizations,” Scott said in his letter. “I believe the threshold to trigger a vote for certification should be the same as decertification.”
