CFI :: Region 3 Bargaining Update

July 3, 2005

The week of June 27 meant a furious bargaining schedule in all regions with the deadline for a contract just days away. In Region 3 the parties met June 28. An inexperienced Angela Nicholson, yet another lawyer for the Administrative Office of the Courts, took over the chair as Chief Negotiator in this Region. Ms. Nicholson appears at least to be more efficient than Larry Menth and has been more reasonable on some issues.

Movement was made on both sides of the table bringing us closer to agreement, but remaining, significant disputes having to do with seniority, the transition into benefited positions, a pay increase, team interpreting, and cross-assignments have not been resolved. The Region was clearly not prepared to respond to proposals; as usual neither of the Region’s Co-Chairs was present. Your union bargaining team was left with the feeling that the Region had no intention of reaching a deal on this last scheduled day for negotiations, and that the Administrative Office of the Courts has determined Region 3 should wait and see what happens elsewhere. Though it is clear now that there will be no contract by July 1, the court proposed to set new dates in early July to continue negotiations and the Union agrees to continue talking rather than declare impasse.

After coming unprepared to make proposals on any of the priority issues the court asked that future negotiations be moved to Sacramento, expecting your bargaining committee members to drive more than three hours so that negotiations would be more convenient for Mr. Curt Soderlund the Chief Deputy Executive Officer of the Sacramento Court, who has not been attending bargaining sessions for the past nine months. The court also put across a proposal to make cross-assignments mandatory to all employees obligating them to travel to any court within a 100-mile radius of the home court. The union rejected the proposal.

Meanwhile, the Public Employment Relations Board issued a complaint against Region 3 finding there is evidence of unfair labor practices during negotiations. The complaint finds that in each of 18 charges listed in Case No. SA-CE-1-I the union has presented evidence that:

“Respondent [the Region 3 Courts] failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith with Charging Party [the Union] in violation of Government Code section 71818 and committed and unfair practice under Government Code Section 71825(c) and PERB Regulation 32608(a)

“ This conduct also interfered with charging Party’s right to represent bargaining unit employees in violation of Government Code section 71815 and is an unfair practice under Government Coded section 71825(c) and PERB Regulation 32608(b)”

In short the court has repeatedly refused to provide the bargaining committee information requests that are necessary to proceed with negotiations and to enforce the provisions of the Transitional Agreement. The Region will now have to respond to the complaint in a hearing before the Public Employment Relations Board.

It is appalling that an institution responsible for upholding the law blatantly disobeys it and tramples all over employee rights. Yet the courts do not seem to recognize the contradictions of their actions. Interpreters need to be ready to do whatever necessary to reach a contract or the courts will continue to violate our rights by committing unfair labor practices, and showing favoritism and a complete disregard for the very laws that they are responsible to uphold.

Questions? Comments? – Please contact us at: cfi@mediaworkers.org or (415) 421-6833