Predoctoral Fellows and Trainees: Clarifying the Employee Status Under SELRA

Introduction

This commentary analyzes the recent Supreme Court of Vermont decision in In re United Auto Workers, Local 2322 (University of Vermont, Appellant) (2025 Vt. 8). The case arises from a dispute over the proper classification of predoctoral fellows and trainees within the University of Vermont’s proposed bargaining unit under the State Employees Labor Relations Act (SELRA). The University objected to the inclusion of these individuals as "employees" for union representation purposes, while the petitioner, United Auto Workers, Local 2322, sought to represent not only traditional graduate assistants but also predoctoral fellows and trainees. The critical legal question is whether the evidence supports the conclusion that predoctoral fellows and trainees perform work for the University in exchange for compensation, thereby qualifying as employees under SELRA.

Summary of the Judgment

The Vermont Labor Relations Board had previously concluded that all individuals in the proposed bargaining unit, including predoctoral fellows and trainees, were employees because they performed work in return for compensation. On appeal, while several aspects of the Board's decision were not in dispute, the University specifically challenged the conclusion that predoctoral fellows and trainees are employees under the SELRA. The Supreme Court of Vermont, after a detailed review of the record and factual findings, reversed the Board’s conclusion concerning the employee status of predoctoral fellows and trainees. The Court found that the Board’s sparse findings did not sufficiently support the conclusion that these individuals worked for the University in exchange for compensation. Consequently, the matter is remanded for further proceedings to fully address the employee status question.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The decision references several precedents that help illuminate the Court’s reasoning:

• Pratt v. Pallito – This case was cited in relation to the requirement for parties to clearly preserve their arguments before administrative agencies. The Court noted that the University’s timely objection to the bargaining-unit petition preserved its challenge regarding the employee status of predoctoral fellows and trainees.
• In re N.E. Police Benevolent Ass'n and In re Welch – These cases illustrate the principle of deference afforded to agency factual findings. The Court emphasized that agency findings must be viewed as a whole to determine whether they justify the ultimate legal conclusions.
• LaFountain v. Dep't of Labor – Cited for the proposition that the mere absence of agency findings on certain technical issues (like the benefit of grant money flowing to the University) precludes the support for a conclusion about employment status.
• Kuligoski v. Rapoza and the Restatement (Second) of Agency – These were discussed in the context of the "right to control" test, a commonly applied standard in tort cases. The decision noted, however, that the Board did not properly employ this test in its reasoning with respect to predoctoral fellows and trainees.

Legal Reasoning

Central to the Court’s analysis was an evaluation of whether the factual record sufficiently supported the conclusion that predoctoral fellows and trainees were “employees” under the SELRA. The reasoning unfolded in several key steps:

1. Preservation of the Issue: The Court first addressed whether the University properly preserved its challenge by noting that although the University raised an alternative argument regarding the overall bargaining unit, it clearly objected, in a timely manner, to the inclusion of predoctoral fellows and trainees as employees.
2. Review Standard and Factual Findings: The Court then moved to a highly deferential review of the agency’s factual findings under established principles. It acknowledged that while the Board’s conclusions regarding graduate assistants were supported by detailed findings—such as exact work hours, contractual obligations, and compensation details—the Board’s treatment of predoctoral fellows and trainees was not comparably substantiated.
3. Lack of Detailed Support: The Board had largely relied on a nominal inclusion of predoctoral fellows and trainees in the unit without demonstrating that these individuals performed work equivalent to what was required from graduate assistants (e.g., specific teaching or research duties, regular reporting, or discipline based on work performance). Instead, the requirements they fulfilled pertained more to professional development and compliance with program requirements, not direct work benefiting the University in the ordinary sense.
4. Application of the “Right to Control” Test: Though the petitioner referenced the “right to control” test to justify the classification, the Court observed that the Board did not apply this test consistently or fully address the necessary inquiries concerning levels of supervision, control, or detailed expressions of the employment relationship.
5. Legal Conclusion: Based on the insufficient findings specifically pertaining to the “employee” determination for predoctoral fellows and trainees, the Court concluded that the Board’s decision lacked a proper factual foundation. Therefore, accepting the Board’s broad interpretation of “employee” without addressing these substantive differences would be unsound.

Impact of the Judgment

This decision will likely have a significant impact on future labor relations cases involving academic institutions:

• Clarification of Employee Status: The ruling establishes that not all individuals who receive compensation or stipends from academic institutions automatically qualify as employees under labor relations statutes. The nuance of “work” for an employer must be scrutinized based on clear and specific factual findings.
• Review of Agency Findings: The decision reinforces the importance of detailed factual records to support agency conclusions, particularly when distinguishing between varying roles such as graduate assistants and predoctoral fellows and trainees. Agencies will need to ensure that such distinctions are thoroughly analyzed in their orders.
• Future Bargaining Unit Definitions: The decision may affect how bargaining units are defined in academic settings, potentially leading to more litigation over the inclusion or exclusion of particular categories of workers who straddle professional development and employment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several complex legal concepts in the Judgment merit simplification:

• Employee versus Student: The crux of the dispute involves whether receiving a stipend or fellowship constitutes “work” for an employer. Unlike graduate assistants—who are clearly bound by employer-employee duties such as teaching, grading, or research—predoctoral fellows and trainees primarily engage in academic and developmental activities.
• The “Right to Control” Test: Typically used to determine if a worker is an employee, this test examines if the employer can control both the ends to be achieved and the methods used. The Judgment highlights that merely having some supervision does not automatically translate into an employment relationship unless a significant degree of control is proven.
• Preservation of an Issue: In administrative proceedings, it is critical that a party explicitly raise a challenge or objection to ensure that issue is considered on appeal. The Court explained that the University’s method of raising its objection preserved its rights, despite presenting alternative arguments.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court of Vermont’s decision represents a significant precedent in delineating the boundaries of who qualifies as an “employee” under the SELRA. The Court’s reversal of the Board’s conclusion concerning predoctoral fellows and trainees emphasizes that fulfilling academic or professional development requirements does not necessarily equate to performing work as an employee. This judgment mandates that labor relations boards and academic institutions critically assess the factual basis for classifying individuals as employees, ensuring that any inclusion in bargaining units is supported by detailed and specific findings demonstrating an employer-employee relationship.

The decision will likely influence future disputes in academic settings by requiring clearer definitions and documentation of roles, obligations, and compensation. Ultimately, it reinforces the principle that statutory definitions of employment must be applied with both precision and a thorough understanding of the unique functions performed by various categories of workers within educational institutions.