Judge denies union’s effort to block layoffs
UPDATED: 12:45 P.M.A Superior Court judge has denied a request by the state employees union for a restraining order to block the layoff of 120 state workers.
Judge Dennis Pearson dismissed the Vermont State Employees Association lawsuit against the administration of Gov. Jim Douglas after a two-hour hearing in Chittenden Superior Court in Burlington.
The union argued that the Douglas administration needs the Legislature’s permission to proceed with the layoffs.
The Vermont State Employees Association filed a lawsuit Thursday asking a court to block the layoff of 120 state workers before the layoffs take effect today.
A hearing on the union’s request for an emergency restraining order was scheduled for this morning in Chittenden County Superior Court. At issue is whether the administration of Gov. Jim Douglas needs the Legislature’s permission to proceed with the layoffs.
The union argues that the layoffs cannot take effect without the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Committee’s approval as set out in the state budget approved by lawmakers. And if the workers do lose their jobs, the suit said, they “risk facing foreclosure, possible homelessness, repossession of their cars, and risk losing their medical benefits.”
“Some won’t be able to pay their child support, will be forced to retire early, accept lower paying jobs, move out of state or otherwise relocate in order to get by,” the suit said.
In addition, Vermont residents would suffer from cutbacks in services, the complaint said.
The state has about 8,000 employees.
The suit was filed on behalf of 21 state workers who have received layoff notices. It names Douglas, Administration Secretary Neale Lunderville and interim Department of Human Resources Commissioner Linda McIntire as defendants.
Douglas administration officials say the language adopted by the Legislature is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers between the executive and the legislative branches.
Lunderville said Thursday that the requirement was “a frontal assault on executive authority” and delaying the layoffs could lead to more cuts.
“The longer that we wait to proceed with these actions, the less savings we can achieve,” he said.
The state’s first choice was concessions in union contracts, but because administration officials and the union couldn’t agree on the concessions, layoffs were the only other option for reaching payroll savings, Lunderville said.
“The power to do that still lies with the union,” he said.
The Legislature initially approved a requirement that the administration obtain permission for the layoffs.
After the state Attorney General’s Office said the requirement could violate the separation of powers, lawmakers in special session Wednesday reworded the appropriations act to require a plan from the administration before laying off 1 percent or more of state employees.