NCJ Number
62577
Journal
Judges' Journal Volume: 17 Issue: 4 Dated: (FALL 1978) Pages: 44-49
Date Published
1978
Length
6 pages
Annotation
WITH ITS EMPLOYEES JOINING UNIONS IN MANY STATES IN THE COUNTRY, COURTS ARE FIGHTING THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BATTLE.
Abstract
NOT EVERY STATE HAS ACCEPTED COURT UNIONIZATION IN GOOD FAITH. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS HAS ATTACKED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STATUTE. ITS SUPREME COURT HAS ENJOINED THE STATE LABOR BOARD FROM FURTHER PROCESSING CLAIMS AGAINST THE JUDICIARY AND IS IN LITIGATION IN NINE CAUSES OF ACTION NOT YET RESOLVED. THE MAIN ISSUE IS WHETHER THE COURT IS THE SOLE EMPLOYER OF JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES. MICHIGAN, IN CONTRAST, HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT IS AN EMPLOYER EVEN WHEN FUNDS ARE PROVIDED BY THE COUNTRY. THE ARTICLE EXAMINES CRITICAL ISSUES IN 14 OTHER STATES WHICH HAVE ALREADY FOUGHT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BATTLE, INCLUDING HAWAII, MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, AND NEW YORK. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS COVERING COURT EMPLOYEES IN SEVERAL STATES ARE WELL ESTABLISHED, AND THE MAJORITY OF THESE STATES HAVE A PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT WHERE COURT EMPLOYEES ARE INCLUDED. AT PRESENT, THE UNIONS AND THE COURTS SEEM WILLING TO RECOGNIZE EATH OTHER'S SEPARATE SPHERES OF INFLUENCE. UNIONS BARGAIN FOR STRENGTH ON WAGES, HOURS, AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT, WHILE COURTS RETAIN THE RIGHT TO HIRE, ADMINISTER, DISCIPLINE, AND REMOVE EMPLOYEES. NOTES ARE PROVIDED. (MJW)