Case Title: Grievance of VSEA, Tracey Barnard et. al.

Citation: 164 Vt 214, 666 A.2d 1182

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN_RE_GRIEVANCE_OF_VSEA.94-603; 164 Vt 214; 666 A.2d 1182

[Filed 22-Sep-1995]    

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 No. 94-603


Grievance of                                      Supreme Court
VSEA, Tracey Barnard, et al.
                                                  On Appeal from
                                                  Labor Relations Board

                                                  September Term, 1995


Charles McHugh, Chairman

       Samuel C. Palmisano, VSEA Legal Counsel, Montpelier, for
  grievants-appellants

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and David Herlihy, Assistant
  Attorney General, for defendant-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       JOHNSON, J.  Food service employees of the Vermont Criminal Justice
  Training Council (VCJTC) lost their positions when the food service
  function was contracted out.  They appeal from an order of the Vermont
  Labor Relations Board (VLRB) dismissing their grievance. We affirm.

       VCJTC operates the Vermont Police Academy in Pittsford, providing
  basic and advanced training to law enforcement officers and firefighters. 
  Prior to 1993, its food service was operated by the State and staffed by
  public employees, who were hired and employed under the State Employees
  Labor Relations Act and the collective bargaining agreement (the contract)
  between the State and its employees.

       In January 1993, VCJTC's executive director, Francis Aumand, advised a
  union representative and food service employees that layoffs might result
  from the contracting out of the food service function.

       The relevant provision of the contract is  Article 2, § 3, which
  states in part:

 

          No employee will be laid off or otherwise be removed from
     employment as a result of contracting out except in circumstances
     where the work is beyond the capacity of State employees, or that
     the work or program can be performed more economically under
     an outside contract, or that an outside contractor has management
     techniques, equipment or technology which will result in better
     public service and increased productivity.  Prior to any such lay
     off or other job elimination under this paragraph the VSEA will be
     notified and given an opportunity to discuss alternatives. . . .

          When a State agency contemplates contracting out
     bargaining unit work and publishes a formal Request For Proposal,
     a concurrent notice of such publication will be sent to VSEA
     President or Executive Director and the Department of Personnel.
     Upon request, VSEA shall be permitted to inspect the RFP
     specifications.


       Meetings between management and the union regarding the proposed
  layoffs were held on March 1, 1993 and June 11, 1993.  At the first of
  these meetings, employees suggested the alternatives of laying off a law
  enforcement training coordinator and the possibility of part- or flex-time
  scheduling.  At the June 11, 1993 meeting, the union and employees offered
  seven proposals, to each of which the State responded in writing on June
  22, 1993.  The affected food service employees were laid off on June 25,
  1993.

       Based on alleged violations of Article 2, § 3 of the contract, the
  union filed a grievance on behalf of the employees who had been laid off. 
  After hearing and argument, a majority of the Board found that Article 2, §
  3 had not been violated, concluding that savings had been reasonably
  contemplated by contracting out the food service.  The Board further found
  that the union's major proposals for an alternative solution had been
  submitted at a meeting on June 11, 1993 and that these ideas were discussed
  and considered in good faith.  One member of the Board dissented.

       Central to the Board's decision was the majority's conclusion that the
  union had not set forth reasonable alternatives to contracting out.  It
  stated:

          In examining the facts of this case in light of this mutual
     obligation, we are struck by the failure of VSEA and the involved
     employees to sufficiently respond to the impending layoffs from
     the time they were aware such layoffs were possible until they
     actually occurred.

 

  The present appeal followed.

       As we said in Vermont State Colleges Faculty Fed'n v. Vermont State
  Colleges, 152 Vt. 343, 566 A.2d 955 (1989), "In reviewing the Board's
  conclusion, this Court may `only ask whether the findings of fact taken as
  a whole justify the Board's ultimate conclusion.'" Id. at 348, 566 A.2d  at
  958 (quoting In re Liquor Control Dep't Nonsupervisory Employees, 135 Vt.
  623, 625,