In Re Local 1201, Afscme, Rutland Dept.

Citations: 469 A.2d 1176; 143 Vt. 512; 1983 Vt. LEXIS 580; 118 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2105Docket: 82-379

Court: Supreme Court of Vermont; November 1, 1983; Vermont; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Local 1201, AFSCME serves as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees of the City of Rutland's Department of Public Works (DPW) and petitioned the Vermont Labor Relations Board (VLRB) to include the dispatcher position in the DPW bargaining unit. The City opposed this inclusion, arguing that the dispatcher is classified as a confidential employee under 21 V.S.A. 1722(6). The VLRB dismissed the Union's petition, agreeing with the City’s classification. The Union appealed, asserting that the VLRB's conclusions were unsupported by its findings and legally erroneous.

The facts indicate that the dispatcher position had existed for seven years and was previously represented by the Union until a decertification in February 1982. Following this, the Union sought to reclassify the dispatcher position under the DPW unit, which prompted the City's first objection citing the confidentiality of the role. The dispatcher's job responsibilities had not significantly changed over the years, with only two individuals having occupied the position.

The dispatcher operates under the assistant superintendent, who is accountable to the Commissioner of Public Works. The dispatcher and the assistant superintendent share office space and a telephone line, with the dispatcher having access to a confidential file containing sensitive communications regarding union matters. However, there was no established confidential relationship between the dispatcher and the assistant superintendent, nor was it demonstrated that the dispatcher required access to the confidential file for job performance.

The dispatcher is responsible for maintaining radio contact with work crews, handling telephone communications, keeping a communications log, managing employee time sheets, and recording vehicle mileage, fuel consumption, and equipment repairs. He tracks each employee's work and vacation time and must notify the assistant superintendent of any discrepancies in submitted time sheets. However, the dispatcher does not have the authority to discipline employees or recommend disciplinary action and has no discretion in these matters, as he submits daily records to his supervisor. The assistant superintendent also lacks the authority to discipline employees regarding discrepancies; only the Commissioner of Public Works has that power. While the assistant superintendent may discuss labor relations issues with the Commissioner, these discussions are conducted confidentially, and the dispatcher is excluded from these conversations. Temporary replacements for the dispatcher are always selected from Union employees, despite the supervisor's discretion to choose non-Union employees.

The excerpt references the definition of "confidential employee" under the Vermont Municipal Labor Relations Act and notes that the term is not explicitly defined in the federal Labor Management Relations Act. However, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has established criteria for identifying confidential employees, which the federal courts have endorsed. Confidential employees are those who assist management in formulating labor relations policies and may be excluded from collective bargaining units. The excerpt cites relevant case law, including decisions by the United States Supreme Court, and indicates that Vermont courts will look to federal interpretations for guidance on similar labor matters. The Vermont statute defines a "confidential employee" as one whose responsibilities or access to sensitive information make union representation incompatible with their official duties.

The City argued that the dispatcher's duties involve knowledge and access to personnel administration information, making his inclusion in the DPW collective bargaining unit incompatible with loyalty to management. The VLRB sided with the City, stating that the dispatcher’s responsibilities related to personnel administration precluded him from being part of the bargaining unit. However, the document critiques the VLRB's conclusion, asserting that there is insufficient evidence to support it. The dispatcher's role is primarily clerical, involving the recording of hours worked without discretion in tabulating results or recommending disciplinary actions, which are solely at the discretion of the Commissioner of Public Works. The dispatcher’s duties do not create a conflict of interest, similar to a town treasurer’s routine tasks. The VLRB acknowledged that the dispatcher does not need access to confidential files, and there is no evidence that he acts in a confidential capacity regarding labor relations. The summary concludes that the dispatcher does not meet the definition of a confidential employee under 21 V.S.A. 1722(6), and thus, should not be excluded from the Union. The VLRB's conclusion is deemed erroneous and is reversed.