Legal Tangle Slows Union Efforts for Court Clerks

San Diego County’s court clerks--who play a key role in keeping the overburdened courts trudging along--are in a statewide political battle involving judges, politicians and a powerful public employees union.

Earlier this year, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Local 3300, organized non-supervisory Superior Court employees. Last month, the union petitioned to organize workers in Municipal Court.

Bargaining talks over a contract for Superior Court employees have bogged down on jurisdictional issues, while a Municipal Court administrator warned that there might be state constitutional hurdles to overcome before a contract could be negotiated for Municipal Court employees.

The result is that AFSCME officials are at odds with judges and court administrators over the meaning of state laws that establish employment and salary guidelines for court employees.

According to Arlene Holt, AFSCME’s Southern California director, a bill in Sacramento that would affect Superior Court clerks’ employment status statewide was drafted specifically with San Diego County Superior Court clerks in mind.

The AFSCME-sponsored bill was introduced by Sen. Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles) and would reinstate some Superior Court clerks and other employees under civil service rules. Superior Court employees previously worked under civil service, but a law that became effective Jan. 1 took them out of civil service and into a personnel system administered by Superior Court judges.

The possible effect of the Rosenthal bill is just one issue currently facing court clerks in San Diego striving to negotiate their first labor contract.

Attempts by AFSCME to bargain for recently organized Superior Court employees have also been stymied by differing interpretations of confusing state laws that apply to court workers.

Other equally confusing laws have Municipal Court administrators and the union disagreeing over whether Municipal Court workers are employed by the county, the state or the court. The question of who employs the workers will have to be answered before AFSCME can negotiate a contract.

In Superior Court, the issues in dispute also include whether judges have the authority to approve any wage increases negotiated by the county with the union. AFSCME represents about 425 Superior Court employees.

County labor relations officials, with the backing of Superior Court judges, have argued that state law requires that the judges approve all salary increases.

Ed Lehman, AFSCME business representative in San Diego, said the union’s position is that approval by the judges is not required.

The issue of the judges’ role becomes more confusing because they were not parties in a recent bargaining agreement reached between AFSCME and the county on behalf of non-supervisory Superior Court employees.

The impasse over the judges’ role in salary negotiations has led the union to file an unfair labor practice grievance with the county’s labor relations office.

AFSCME recognizes the Superior Court as a separate and independent employer, Lehman said. However, the county has historically acted as the agent for Superior Court employees, thus making the county the exclusive bargaining agent for the workers on all issues, he said.

In the past, salaries for Superior and Municipal Court employees were pegged to salaries negotiated by the County Employees Assn. for county clerical workers. Although some clerks were CEA members, court employees were not organized into bargaining units and had no input in CEA negotiations with the county.

“We disagree with the county and the judges, who say the county lacks exclusive jurisdiction to bargain with us over wages. Our interpretation of state law is that county officials have a duty to negotiate both economic and non-economic issues with us,” Lehman said.

Union lawyers are preparing a lawsuit (expected to be filed next month) as a supplement to the unfair labor charge, Lehman added.

San Diego County Superior Court Executive Director Kenneth Martone challenged the union’s position. The county has no authority to bargain on matters other than those pertaining to economic issues, Martone said. All other personnel matters fall under the responsibility of the judges and the court’s personnel rules, he added.

Superior Court judges and administrators are also standing firm in opposition to Rosenthal’s bill, which would amend existing law and permit some Superior Court employees to work under civil service and exclude others who perform the same duties.

The Assembly changed the law in 1989, stripping Superior Court employees of civil service benefits and putting them under the jurisdiction of Superior Court judges, who now have the authority to dictate employment rules and policies for court employees.

The Rosenthal bill, which passed the Senate and is under consideration in the Assembly, would allow Superior Court employees who previously worked under civil service to return to it. Employees who were never covered by civil service would remain under the jurisdiction of the judges and administrators.

In a letter to the chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, San Diego County Superior Court Presiding Judge Judith McConnell complained that the bill “would mean that the court would have two separate systems and possibly separate standards for two separate groups of employees of a single court system.”

Meanwhile, AFSCME organizers, encouraged by their success in organizing Superior Court clerks, petitioned the county labor relations office two weeks ago to hold union elections for Municipal Court clerks and other employees. If the organizing drive is successful, AFSCME will represent about 617 workers.

Unlike their counterparts in Superior Court, Municipal Court employees were not removed from civil service jurisdiction. Municipal Court clerks’ duties and responsibilities differ little from those of their Superior Court counterparts, according to Pat Parris, a Municipal Court clerk for eight years and court employee for 15.

“Whether you’re a Superior or Municipal court clerk, you are literally the judge’s liaison with the public. We keep the court flowing. We’re responsible for overseeing everything the judge rules from the bench. We have to deal with defense attorneys, prosecutors, probation officers, police officers and crime victims,” Parris said.

“We are also responsible for the follow-up paper work that comes with sentences handed down by the judge. We have to work with the state Department of Corrections and County Jail. We are skilled and have many responsibilities, and we are underpaid,” she added.

Non-supervisory Municipal Court employees earn $20,000 to $32,000 annually, said one court official. In Superior Court, the same employees earn $12,500 to $30,000, Martone said.

Before AFSCME expressed an interest in representing them, Superior and Municipal court employees were unorganized and unrepresented in bargaining talks with the county.

“The representation of Superior Court employees by AFSCME comes under a new section of the government code enacted with trial court funding legislation in 1988,” Martone said.

D. Kent Pedersen, Municipal Court administrator, said he did not object to AFSCME’s representation of court employees.

“I really do want the best for our employees,” Pedersen said. “ . . . I support our employees effort to seek representation.”

Parris and other Municipal Court employees praised Pedersen for intervening on their behalf in the past and obtaining additional economic benefits from the county.

“Pedersen was always looking out for our best interest. He would go to the county and Board of Supervisors and get us more money,” said Pat Conlin, a clerk who works in traffic court.

However, Pedersen warned that, if AFSCME succeeds in organizing Municipal Court employees, wages and economic issues could also bog down in bargaining talks. As in Superior Court, Pedersen said, Municipal Court administrators question whether wage increases for court employees can be granted without the judges’ approval.

“Quite honestly, I don’t know where that (bargaining) would lead. . . . There’s a real question now whether collective bargaining would include salaries because of a (state) constitutional question,” Pedersen said.

Municipal Court employees are not county or state employees, he added.

“They are court employees. It’s a unique situation. . . . Municipal Court employees are in a highly unique position as public employees. The California Constitution says the state Legislature prescribes their qualifications, salaries and benefits,” Pedersen said.

However, he acknowledged that Municipal Court employees’ salaries have been tied to those of county clerical workers.

“But any way you look at any future negotiations, I can’t see the judges and administrative staff kept out of the bargaining process,” Pedersen said.

Lehman argued that Municipal Court is part of the county administration, albeit as a separate department. But AFSCME would not object if the court chose to appoint an administrator to join with the county in bargaining with the union, he said.

“We won’t have any problem at all if there is a Municipal Court administrator at the bargaining table. The Municipal Court administration is part of the county. . . . It’s a separate department under county administration and the employees are county employees,” Lehman said.

Surprisingly, AFSCME and Superior Court administrators agreed on one economic issue that has pitted both groups against the county. Recently, the county gave bonuses of between $200 and $500 to employees whose bargaining units ratified contracts with the county earlier this year.

Municipal Court employees were awarded the bonuses, but those in Superior Court failed to receive them. Lehman asked Martone to support the union’s call for equal compensation for Superior Court clerks and Martone obliged.

“It is the position of the San Diego Superior Court that Superior Court employees should receive no less compensation than Municipal Court employees performing similar functions,” Martone said in a July 27 letter to Ethel M. Chastain, county director of the Department of Human Resources.

Chastain and other county officials did not return a reporter’s phone calls.

Municipal Court employees said they were eager to vote for AFSCME to represent them in bargaining talks. Earlier this year, Superior Court clerks voted 252-12 for AFSCME representation. Lehman said he also expects the Municipal Court clerks to vote overwhelmingly for AFSCME representation.

“Most clerks are women, either single or single mothers,” Parris said. “ . . . We deserve to be better-represented. I think the judges are supportive of our effort. I think they feel we deserve it. But, frankly, I think they also take us for granted. That’s been our tradition, being taken for granted.”