136 A.3d 213
Vt.2016Background
- VSEA filed eight MERA petitions to represent employees (deputy state’s attorneys, victim advocates, secretaries) in eight county State’s Attorney Offices (SAOs); the Vermont Labor Relations Board dismissed all petitions.
- SAOs are led by elected county State’s Attorneys who hire and supervise deputies, victim advocates, and secretaries; many employment functions (pay plans, benefits, budgeting, training, personnel administration) involve the statutorily created Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs and its Executive Director.
- MERA permits collective bargaining only with “municipal employers,” defined to include political subdivisions of Vermont; MERA does not define “political subdivision.”
- VSEA advanced two theories: (1) the SAOs together with the Department are a single or joint employer subject to MERA statewide; (2) each individual county State’s Attorney is a municipal employer under MERA.
- The Board held the Department (a statewide entity) could not be a “municipal employer” and that individual State’s Attorneys lacked authority to bargain over wages/benefits, so the SAOs fell outside MERA.
- The Supreme Court reversed: the Department is not part of the employing unit for MERA purposes; individual State’s Attorneys who employ five or more employees are municipal employers and the Board must proceed with certification where offices meet the numerical threshold.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (VSEA) | Defendant's Argument (State's Attorneys/Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SAO employees fall under MERA because SAOs/the Department are municipal employers | SAOs and/or the Department are single or joint employers subject to MERA (statewide or per county) | The Department is a state entity; employees serve at pleasure of elected officials and thus are not MERA-covered municipal employees; secretaries are state employees | Individual county State’s Attorneys (when they employ five or more employees) are municipal employers under MERA; the Department is not part of the employing unit |
| Whether an employer must be able to bargain over all subjects (wages, benefits, conditions) to qualify as a municipal employer | Not required; limited bargaining authority suffices so long as employer controls some bargaining subjects | Argued that inability to control wages/benefits means no MERA coverage | Rejected Board’s “all-or-nothing” rule; limited bargaining authority (over at least some subjects) is sufficient to qualify as a municipal employer under MERA |
| Whether the Department and SAOs form a single or joint employer | The Department’s budgeting, benefits administration, and personnel functions establish functional integration/centralized control supporting single/joint employer status | Department’s role is administrative/supportive; day-to-day supervision and hiring/firing remain with individual State’s Attorneys | Department performs some centralized functions but lacks centralized control of labor relations; individual State’s Attorneys are the employers for day-to-day labor relations, so no single/joint employer status that would make a statewide municipal employer |
| Whether secretaries (paid by State) are excluded from MERA as state employees | VSEA: Secretaries are municipal employees because they are hired and serve at the pleasure of county State’s Attorneys | State: Secretaries are statutorily classified as state employees paid by the State and thus not MERA-covered municipal employees | Secretaries, though paid as state employees, are hired by and serve at pleasure of State’s Attorney and therefore qualify as municipal employees under MERA |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. E.C. Atkins & Co., 331 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1947) (employee/employer definitions consider background, policies, and the hard facts of the employment relationship)
- Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., 691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982) (framework for single-/joint-employer analysis)
- Radio & Television Broad. Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broad. Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1965) (factors for single-employer determination)
- Vt. State Emps.’ Ass’n v. State, 562 A.2d 1054 (Vt. 1989) (deference to Labor Relations Board interpretations within its expertise)
- Vt. Camping Ass’n v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Training, 497 A.2d 353 (Vt. 1985) (interpretive principles when administrative body construes statutory terms)