Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1726 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(Cite as: 21 V.S.A. § 1726)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1975–2000 · leading case: Milton Educ. & Support Ass'n v. Milton Bd. of Sch. Trs., 759 A.2d 479 (Vt. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Milton Educ. & Support Ass'n v. Milton Bd. of Sch. Trs., 759 A.2d 479 (Vt. 2000). · cites it 8× “See 21 V.S.A. § 1726 (unfair labor practices).”
Ohland v. City of Montpelier, 467 F. Supp. 324 (D. Vt. 1979). · cites it 2× “The focus of the state court litigation on this matter was whether the discharge constituted an unfair labor practice under Vt.Stat.Ann. tit. 21, § 1726 (1978). In the instant proceeding the issue is whether the discharge violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.”
Burlington Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Burlington, 457 A.2d 642 (Vt. 1983). · cites it 3× “Thus, since it was unilaterally imposed by the City during a period when it was engaged in contract negotiations with the Association, we hold that the City violated 21 V.S.A. § 1726 (a)'(5) and committed an unfair labor practice.”
Ohland v. Dubay, 336 A.2d 203 (Vt. 1975). · cites it 4× “21 V.S.A. § 1726(a) (3). 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a) (4) categorizes as an unfair labor practice actions which discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges of complaints or given testimony under Chapter 22 of Title 21.”
Weissenstein v. Burlington Bd. of Sch. Commissioners, 543 A.2d 691 (Vt. 1988). · cites it 3× “” 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(1). The act further provides that: (a)(8) Nothing in this chapter or any other statute of this state shall preclude a municipal employer from making an agreement with the exclusive bargaining agent to require an agency service fee to be paid as a condition…”
Chittenden South Educ. Ass'n v. Hinesburg Sch. Dist., 514 A.2d 1065 (Vt. 1986). · cites it 2× “See 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(5). The School Board attacks the VLRB ruling and order on four different grounds.”
Burlington Area Pub. Employees Union, Local 1343 v. Champlain Water Dist., 594 A.2d 421 (Vt. 1991). · cites it 2× “*518 The Union did not file a separate grievance concerning the grievant’s exclusion from the Step III hearing, but it filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board, alleging that the District had violated 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(1) 2 of the Municipal Employee Relations Act…”
Milton Bd. of Sch. Directors v. Milton Staff Ass'n, Local 130, 656 A.2d 993 (Vt. 1995). “He concluded, however, that the Union had secured more limited protection by contractualizing its statutory rights under 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(5) 1 by stating in the agreement that “[Negotiations shall take place in good faith in order to reach agreement upon the subsequent…”
Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 300 v. Enosburg Falls Water & Light Dep't, 527 A.2d 1150 (Vt. 1987). · cites it 4× “This is an appeal by the Enosburg Falls Water and Light Department (Department) from a Vermont Labor Relations Board (Board) decision holding that the Department committed unfair labor practices in violation of 21 V.S.A. § 1726. We affirm. The International Brotherhood of…”
Hinesburg Sch. Dist. v. Vermont NEA, 522 A.2d 222 (Vt. 1986). · cites it 3× “Although the Labor Board noted that “the charges filed by *562 the School allege violation by various teacher organizations and their agents in addition to the strikers themselves,” and that its “refusal to issue a complaint will mean only the actions of individual strikers will…”
Local 2787, AFSCME v. City of Montpelier, 643 A.2d 838 (Vt. 1993). “21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(5). The city thus acted in violation of its collective bargaining agreement when it presented its conversion “proposal” directly to city employees without first contacting the police union.”
CHITTENDEN SO. EDUC. v. Hinesburg Sch. Dist., 514 A.2d 1065 (Vt. 1986). · cites it 2× “See 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(5). The School Board attacks the VLRB ruling and order on four different grounds.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1726(a) — 3 cases
Ohland v. Dubay, 336 A.2d 203 (Vt. 1975). “21 V.S.A. § 1726(a) (3). 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a) (4) categorizes as an unfair labor practice actions which discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges of complaints or given testimony under Chapter 22 of Title 21.”
Burlington Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Burlington, 457 A.2d 642 (Vt. 1983). “Thus, since it was unilaterally imposed by the City during a period when it was engaged in contract negotiations with the Association, we hold that the City violated 21 V.S.A. § 1726 (a)'(5) and committed an unfair labor practice.”
Dube v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Warehousemen, Local No. 597, 430 A.2d 440 (Vt. 1981).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1726(a)(1) — 5 cases
Ohland v. City of Montpelier, 467 F. Supp. 324 (D. Vt. 1979). “The focus of the state court litigation on this matter was whether the discharge constituted an unfair labor practice under Vt.Stat.Ann. tit. 21, § 1726 (1978). In the instant proceeding the issue is whether the discharge violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.”
Weissenstein v. Burlington Bd. of Sch. Commissioners, 543 A.2d 691 (Vt. 1988). “” 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(1). The act further provides that: (a)(8) Nothing in this chapter or any other statute of this state shall preclude a municipal employer from making an agreement with the exclusive bargaining agent to require an agency service fee to be paid as a condition…”
Burlington Area Pub. Employees Union, Local 1343 v. Champlain Water Dist., 594 A.2d 421 (Vt. 1991). “*518 The Union did not file a separate grievance concerning the grievant’s exclusion from the Step III hearing, but it filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board, alleging that the District had violated 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(1) 2 of the Municipal Employee Relations Act…”
Ohland v. Dubay, 336 A.2d 203 (Vt. 1975). “21 V.S.A. § 1726(a) (3). 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a) (4) categorizes as an unfair labor practice actions which discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges of complaints or given testimony under Chapter 22 of Title 21.”
Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 300 v. Enosburg Falls Water & Light Dep't, 527 A.2d 1150 (Vt. 1987). “This is an appeal by the Enosburg Falls Water and Light Department (Department) from a Vermont Labor Relations Board (Board) decision holding that the Department committed unfair labor practices in violation of 21 V.S.A. § 1726. We affirm. The International Brotherhood of…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1726(a)(2) — 1 case
Burlington Area Pub. Employees Union, Local 1343 v. Champlain Water Dist., 594 A.2d 421 (Vt. 1991). “*518 The Union did not file a separate grievance concerning the grievant’s exclusion from the Step III hearing, but it filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board, alleging that the District had violated 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(1) 2 of the Municipal Employee Relations Act…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1726(a)(5) — 6 cases
Milton Educ. & Support Ass'n v. Milton Bd. of Sch. Trs., 759 A.2d 479 (Vt. 2000). “See 21 V.S.A. § 1726 (unfair labor practices).”
Chittenden South Educ. Ass'n v. Hinesburg Sch. Dist., 514 A.2d 1065 (Vt. 1986). “See 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(5). The School Board attacks the VLRB ruling and order on four different grounds.”
Milton Bd. of Sch. Directors v. Milton Staff Ass'n, Local 130, 656 A.2d 993 (Vt. 1995). “He concluded, however, that the Union had secured more limited protection by contractualizing its statutory rights under 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(5) 1 by stating in the agreement that “[Negotiations shall take place in good faith in order to reach agreement upon the subsequent…”
Local 2787, AFSCME v. City of Montpelier, 643 A.2d 838 (Vt. 1993). “21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(5). The city thus acted in violation of its collective bargaining agreement when it presented its conversion “proposal” directly to city employees without first contacting the police union.”
Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 300 v. Enosburg Falls Water & Light Dep't, 527 A.2d 1150 (Vt. 1987). “This is an appeal by the Enosburg Falls Water and Light Department (Department) from a Vermont Labor Relations Board (Board) decision holding that the Department committed unfair labor practices in violation of 21 V.S.A. § 1726. We affirm. The International Brotherhood of…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1726(a)(8) — 1 case
Weissenstein v. Burlington Bd. of Sch. Commissioners, 543 A.2d 691 (Vt. 1988). “” 21 V.S.A. § 1726(a)(1). The act further provides that: (a)(8) Nothing in this chapter or any other statute of this state shall preclude a municipal employer from making an agreement with the exclusive bargaining agent to require an agency service fee to be paid as a condition…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1726(b) — 2 cases
Hinesburg Sch. Dist. v. Vermont NEA, 522 A.2d 222 (Vt. 1986). “Although the Labor Board noted that “the charges filed by *562 the School allege violation by various teacher organizations and their agents in addition to the strikers themselves,” and that its “refusal to issue a complaint will mean only the actions of individual strikers will…”
Dube v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Warehousemen, Local No. 597, 430 A.2d 440 (Vt. 1981).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1726(b)(1) — 2 cases
Hinesburg Sch. Dist. v. Vermont NEA, 522 A.2d 222 (Vt. 1986). “Although the Labor Board noted that “the charges filed by *562 the School allege violation by various teacher organizations and their agents in addition to the strikers themselves,” and that its “refusal to issue a complaint will mean only the actions of individual strikers will…”
Dube v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Warehousemen, Local No. 597, 430 A.2d 440 (Vt. 1981).
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1726(b)(3) — 1 case
Hinesburg Sch. Dist. v. Vermont NEA, 522 A.2d 222 (Vt. 1986). “Although the Labor Board noted that “the charges filed by *562 the School allege violation by various teacher organizations and their agents in addition to the strikers themselves,” and that its “refusal to issue a complaint will mean only the actions of individual strikers will…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.