Striking Court Staff Rejects 12% Raise Offer

Hundreds of striking Los Angeles County court clerks rejected what county officials called their final pay offer Friday, setting the stage for the sort of lengthy walkout that both sides have predicted could create chaos in the nation’s busiest judicial system.

Meeting at the bargaining table only minutes after a rousing union rally on the steps of the Los Angeles County Courthouse, representatives for the 600 court clerks took the county’s improved offer of a 12% raise over the next three years to a crowd of striking workers assembled in a nearby courtroom.

But the more than 300 clerks gathered there quickly rejected the county’s offer and sent their negotiators back to the table at 3 p.m, union officials said. Thirty minutes later, the talks ended with a union counteroffer of 16% received without comment by representatives of the county and courts.

“This is not good,” Chief Administrative Officer David Janssen said late Friday as talks ended with no resumption scheduled.

Barring an unanticipated weekend breakthrough in negotiations, the clerks will begin their second week on strike Monday, as their first walkout in at least a quarter-century continues. And that possibility bodes ill for the county’s court system because experts have warned that it could be hobbled by anything but a brief walkout by Municipal and Superior Court clerks.

On Friday, the fourth day of the job action, union officials estimated that more than 90% of 400 Superior Court clerks remained on strike, while a rising number of Municipal Court clerks--perhaps half of the court’s 150--also participated in the walkout.

Although court officials offered much lower estimates of striking workers, no one was disputing that the walkout was posing increasingly serious consequences for the system.

“From what I can tell, the courts are still functioning but at a somewhat reduced level,” Janssen said. “It is having an impact on services, and we would hope the courts would be able to continue operating if clerks continue to strike.”

Given Friday’s events, union officials said their membership intends to do just that.

“I am in a state of shock over the strength of our membership,” said Karlene George, president of the Superior Court clerks union. “We intend to stay on strike until we get an acceptable offer.”

Although court officials did not return calls seeking comment, Janssen said the contract proposal rejected by the clerks represented the county’s “last, best and final offer.” As such, he said, it means “there is no reason to go beyond that” offer.

As the two sides inched ever closer to impasse, the continuation of a strike took on particular significance for Monday, when the beginning of a new week of court cases can translate into an avalanche of proceedings that must be addressed, particularly in criminal courts.

“Monday is a very critical day . . . for the courts,” said Esther Richards, a spokeswoman for the striking Municipal Court clerks. “We have a lot of trials that have to [proceed] . . . or be dismissed,” she said. “You also have people in custody who will be picked up all weekend long [and] they have a right to be arraigned on Monday.”

To date, officials of the Superior and Municipal courts have said the strike has not resulted in the forced dismissals of any criminal cases.

But its impact was undeniable.

With no clerks on the picket lines Friday, the Van Nuys courts were eerily quiet compared to the previous day, when strikers could be heard on the top floors of nearby buildings blowing whistles and chanting for raises.

But even as calm descended on the government plaza, it was clear that in one courtroom the strike disrupted the flow of business. And not just because of paperwork.

The issue arose when a defense lawyer did not appear in court Thursday to represent his client in a misdemeanor trial.

The defendant is accused of scuffling with police during a protest at Cal State Northridge last year.

Attorney Meir J. Westreich said it was against his philosophy to cross a picket line, and his action delayed a trial that began Sept. 22.

“This court will not be held hostage,” said Municipal Judge Anthony J. Mohr, who threatened to hold Westreich in contempt and ordered him to explain the actions during a one-hour hearing Friday.

Mohr warned Westreich of a lawyer’s “obligations to clients,” adding that the trial was costing taxpayers at least $5,547 a day.

The judge said he would inform Westreich by mail of whether he would be fined.

And even as county officials said the strike had so far caused only minimal problems, union leaders insisted otherwise.

“The court has said that our absence has not hurt the court,” Richards told a cheering crowd of clerks during their late morning rally downtown.

But those public statements concerning the strike’s lack of impact, Richards said, were at odds with a letter--sent to clerks by the Municipal Court administrator--warning of “substantial impact” from the strike that could “adversely affect the public.”

“I would have never struck three or four years ago,” said Municipal Court clerk Tracy Kincheloe, who marched with the others. “My loyalty was to my bench officer.”

But after years without a raise, she said, she needed to take action. “You have to wed your loyalty to a judge against your family’s financial situation. Family comes first.”

Kincheloe’s judge, Ernest L. Aubry, died Feb. 28. “He said last time we struck he didn’t want to see me in court. He wanted to see me out on the picket lines or he’d take me out there himself.”

On Friday, Kincheloe wore a sweater that Aubry gave her. “It’s kind of a reminder why I’m out here today,” she said.