Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen Helpers Union Local 597 v. University of Vermont

Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen Helpers Union Local 597 v. University of 
Vermont  (96-254); 167 Vt. 564; 702 A.2d 75

[Filed 28-Jul-1997]

                          ENTRY ORDER

                 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-254

                         JUNE TERM, 1997



Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen   }   APPEALED FROM:
Helpers Union Local 597               }
                                      }
     v.                               }     Labor Relations Board
                                      }
University of Vermont                 }
                                      }     DOCKET NO. 95-79


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       The University of Vermont appeals a decision of the Vermont Labor
  Relations Board certifying the Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen, Helpers
  Union Local 597 as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for
  employees of the Police Services Department of the University.  We affirm.

       In October 1995, the union filed a petition with the Board for an
  election of a collective bargaining representative for a bargaining unit
  comprised of eleven patrol officers employed by the University.  The
  University objected, contending that the proposed bargaining group was not
  an appropriate unit under the relevant statutory criteria.  The University
  also argued, alternatively, that should the unit be certified, it should
  include other employees from the Police Services Department, including
  support staff.

       Following a hearing, the Board ruled in favor of the union, concluding
  that the proposed unit, expanded to include dispatchers and service
  officers, was appropriate.  See 3 V.S.A. § 941(b) ("No bargaining unit or
  collective bargaining representative shall be recognized by the employer
  until the board has determined the appropriate unit to be represented and
  has formally certified its determination.").  The Board found that these
  employees represent a "distinct, unique and identifiable group," noting the
  highly integrated nature of their work, the shared dangers and stresses of
  police work, as well as the unique training and qualifications required by
  law enforcement officers and staff, all giving rise to a community of
  interests specific to the Police Services Department.  The Board also found
  that the department head, Chief David Richard, had considerable supervisory
  authority and substantial influence on the conditions of employment,
  potential matters for negotiation.  The Board further noted that because
  the Police Services unit was the first such group of University employees
  to seek separate recognition as a bargaining unit, certification did not
  pose a threat of over-fragmentation to the extent that it would jeopardize
  the operation of the University or the effective representation of its
  other employees.

       The Board ordered a secret ballot election and, following a
  sixteen-to-one election result favoring organization into the proposed unit
  and representation by the union, issued an Order of Certification.

 

  The issue is whether the Board's certification of the bargaining unit is
  supported by the findings taken as a whole.  The State Employees Labor
  Relations Act provides three criteria which the Board is to consider when
  evaluating the appropriateness of a collective bargaining unit:

     (1)  The authority of governmental officials at the unit level
     to take positive action on matters subject to negotiation.

     (2)  The similarity or divergence of the interests, needs,
     and general conditions of employment of the employees to be
     represented. . . .

     (3)  Whether over-fragmentation of units among state
     employees will result from certification to a degree which is likely
     to produce an adverse effect either on effective representation of
     state employees generally, or upon the efficient operation of state
     government.

   3 V.S.A. § 941(f).

       This Court has determined that the relative weight to be given each
  criterion is a judgment falling within the Board's field of expertise.  In
  re Liquor Control Dep't Non-supervisory Employees, 135 Vt. 623, 625, 383 A.2d 612, 613 (1978).  Indeed, the overall standard of review we apply in
  examining the Board's unit determinations is one of substantial deference,
  as those determinations fall within the particular province of the Board. 
  "We . . . presume the actions of an administrative body to be correct,
  valid and reasonable, with a clear and convincing showing required to
  overcome the presumption."  International Ass'n of Firefighters Local 2287
  v. City of Montpelier, 133 Vt. 175, 178, 332 A.2d 795, 797 (1975); accord
  Vermont State Colleges Faculty Fed'n v. Vermont State Colleges, 152 Vt.
  343, 350, 566 A.2d 955, 959 (1989); In re VSEA, Inc., 143 Vt. 636, 642, 471 A.2d 230, 234 (1983). Furthermore, "[i]n reviewing the Board's unit
  determination . . . we should only ask whether the findings of fact taken
  as a whole justify the Board's ultimate conclusion."  In re Liquor Control,
  135 Vt. at 625, 383 A.2d  at 613.

       The University asserts that the Board misapplied the statutory
  criteria and that its conclusions are unsupported by the evidence.  It
  argues that the statute establishes a "presumption" in favor of broad
  bargaining units that can be overcome only by a sufficient showing of both
  a similarity of interests within the bargaining unit, and a sufficient
  divergence of interests from the rest of the University employees.  The
  University contends, moreover, that such a divergence of interests does not
  exist.

       There is no mention, however, of such a presumption in the Act, and
  the Board has indicated in its decisions that there is merely a strong
  policy favoring broader units that can be influential in the absence of
  evidence indicating that certification of a smaller unit is warranted. See
  Champlain Valley Union High Sch. Staff Ass'n v. Champlain Valley Union High
  Sch. Bd. of Sch. Directors, 3 VLRB 426, 433-34 (1980).  This is not such a
  case.  As noted, the Board found, and the record disclosed, a substantial
  community of interest among the members of the Police Services Department. 
  Furthermore, a showing of a sufficient divergence of interests is not
  necessary to overcome the Board's general policy favoring larger bargaining
  units.

       The University also argues that even if the Board applied the
  statutory criteria properly,

 

  its conclusions are nevertheless unsupported by the evidence.  On the
  contrary, the substantial evidence relating to the unique nature of the
  work, qualifications, and training of the unit's employees amply supports
  the Board's findings and its conclusion that the Police Services Department
  constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit.

       Affirmed.




                              BY THE COURT:



                              _______________________________________
                              Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Chief Justice

                              _______________________________________
                              Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice

                              _______________________________________
                              John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

                              _______________________________________
                              James L. Morse, Associate Justice

                              _______________________________________
                              Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice