IN A VICTORY for Council 2, the State Supreme Court ruled in March that two Yakima County judges were wrong in refusing to negotiate with about 100 court employees who are members of Local 87.

The court ruled that the law stipulates that the judges — Susan Hahn of Yakima County Superior Court and Ruth Reukauf of Yakima County District Court — must negotiate with the employees over working conditions.

“This is an important decision,” says Tom Barrington, Council 2’s Staff Representative in Yakima.

“It is the second one that has ruled that our members can be represented by us in negotiations with judges, and we hope this will end any discussion on whether the judges are bound by RCW 41.56 to negotiate.”

The first dispute took place in Spokane about 10 years ago.

The employees involved in the Yakima dispute work for Yakima County Superior Court’s Juvenile Department (Local 87P) and the Yakima County District Court (Local 87).

Following the ruling, Council 2 began negotiations with the judges on April 27. An initial stumbling block arose when the judges said they were unwilling to accept a single arbitrator for grievances that might arise during negotiations. Council 2 proposed a tribunal, consisting of one arbitrator chosen by Council 2, one chosen by the judges and a third chosen by the two arbitrators.

“They have not yet given us an answer on that,” says Barrington, who is handling negotiations for the union. “But at the time we proposed it they seemed to be open to the idea.”

Once that hurdle has been cleared, further negotiations on working conditions are expected to move forward.

Barrington praises the patience shown by members of the two Locals. The dispute began about 18 months ago, Barrington says, and it has been “a long haul.”

Negotiations over the employees’ wages already have been held with Yakima County. Only non-wage-related matters — such as hours of work, evaluations and discipline — are being negotiated with the judges.

The Yakima case followed a similar dispute in Spokane about 10 years ago in which district court judges refused to bargain with court employees, citing separation of powers. They said if they were required to bargain collectively they would not be able to fulfill their duties in the courts.

Council 2 filed an unfair labor practice. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the judges, saying the separation of powers issue was not involved. The court ordered the judges to bargain with the employees.

When the second, and most recent, dispute began in September 2002, the Yakima County judges argued that the promulgation of an administrative rule by the State Supreme Court — General Rule 29 — prevented them from negotiating with employees over workplace conditions. They said the working conditions could be decided solely by the presiding judge of each court and should not be the subject of negotiations.

Although the reasons were different, the issue raised by the judges was essentially the same as the issue that had been raised in the Spokane hearing. The Yakima judges argued that Rule 29 gave them the legal background to pursue the separation of powers issue.

Council 2 vigorously opposed the judges’ refusal to negotiate and applied to the Washington State Supreme Court in early 2003 for a special order instructing them to do so. The union also launched an advertising campaign in the local press and aired commercials on local radio stations.

In rejecting Council 2’s petition for a special order in its March decision, the Supreme Court ruled instead that the Yakima County judges were public employers subject to the previsions of RCW 41.56 that require them to negotiate in good faith with Council 2. “We hold that the remedy petitioners (Council 2) seek is not available because they possess an adequate remedy at law under the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act,” the court ruled. The Public Employment Relations Commission has original jurisdiction to order an employer to negotiate if they refuse to do so contrary to Rule 41.56.

The court said that because the Act and General Rule 29 are not in irreconcilable conflict, the Yakima judges are subject to the Act. The court said that General Rule 29 requires only that judges maintain supervision over their employees, not that they should unilaterally determine their working conditions.

“This is the second time we have opposed this issue and we have won both times,” says Audrey Eide, general counsel for Council 2.

Spokane attorney Bill Powell represented Council 2 in both the Spokane and Yakima hearings.