Union adds fuel to heated battle over Justice Court

Friday, April 23, 2004 | 9:35 a.m.

A three-way battle over who controls the workers of Clark County Justice Court has taken several unusual twists since the justices last week, in effect, declared the court a separate entity from the county.

Clark County and court officials say they believe they can iron out the mess by early next week, while the Service Employees International Local 1107, which represents county workers, is rallying for a potential court battle.

Justice Court last Friday threw out its collective bargaining agreement with the court's 148 employees, about 100 of whom are union members, and replaced it with "court personnel rules" that court officials say give court employees the same rights and benefits as those offered by the union.

The union, which disagrees strongly with that assertion, called for an emergency meeting of court employees last Saturday and a petition-signing meeting on Wednesday to garner support from other county union workers.

To date the union says it has collected more than 100 signatures of protest from Justice Court employees and 800 signatures on a petition of support from other county union members.

On Monday the union filed a grievance with the Nevada Employee-Management Relations Board against the county, but targeted the Justice Court.

Service Employees Executive Director Jane McAlevey said the union filed its action against the county because it "does not recognize the authority of the court to unilaterally dump the collective bargaining agreement or declare itself independent of county government."

The complaint calls the Justice Court "agents" of the county that declared "the court does not have a bargaining relationship with the union." The suit says the union indeed does have a collective bargaining agreement approved last April. The agreement expires in 2006.

The grievance alleges that the court "interfered, restrained or coerced employees in the exercise of their rights."

County Manager Thom Reilly said the union's grievance -- technically against him and his staff -- "makes sense."

"It is our position that it was unnecessary for court to do what it did," he said. "This could have been prevented without putting (county) staff in the middle.

"Still, we are meeting Tuesday with the judges and I am optimistic we can work it out."

The union, which represents thousands of county workers, isn't taking any chances.

"The Justice Court just cannot do what it did," McAlevey said. "If that is the case, every hotel-casino in town will wake up tomorrow and declare they no longer have collective bargaining agreements with the Culinary Union.

"We've told our members we must keep the union strong and stay united."

Chief Justice of the Peace Tony Abbatangelo says the question is "are they county workers or are they court employees?"

"We think anyone in the court system is a court employee under court control," he said.

Reilly says that while the court can create a new system that applies to some court workers such as bailiffs, law clerks and judicial executive assistants, that system cannot apply to "the vast majority who are county employees assigned to the court. They have all the rights under collective bargaining."

Abbatangelo, who also says he believes a resolution can be reached as early as next week, argues that separation of powers makes the Justice Court a "branch of government, not a department" of the county.

"I find it ironic that county management and the union refuse to recognize the action made by judges and want to go to court over it," Abbatangelo said.

A major bone of contention is the eight justices' demand for a bigger portion of the revenue they generate from fines and administrative fees so that they can fill positions to ease the court's burden.

"There will be 50 to 60 new county positions outside of Metro (Police) this year and we realize we cannot march in before the County Commission and eat up one-third of them," Abbatangelo said. "But we need to be properly staffed."

Reilly said that while court staffing is "a legitimate concern," he said there are staff shortages throughout the county that have to be addressed.

Reilly said county agencies that generate money simply cannot keep what they generate because the county would have no money to operate the agencies that do not produce revenue, such as "Metro Police, the district attorney, the public defender, social services and a host of other departments."

As for what will happen to the court workers while their bosses try to reach a resolution, Abbatangelo, calling himself a longtime advocate of unions, says they will have the same protections as they had under the union.

But the union already is upset with at least one area of the court's proposed rules: a panel comprising three justices will oversee disciplinary actions and terminations.