Trial Court Members And Allies Picket Outside Worcester Court Dedication
October 17, 2007
Over 100 NAGE Trial Court members and supporters, including NAGE staff, Worcester police officers from IBPO Locals 378 and 504, and members of OPEIU Local 6, walked in an informational picket outside the new Worcester Courthouse yesterday during the dedication of the new building.
The Trial Court employees represented by both NAGE and OPEIU are still struggling to negotiate fair contracts with the management team representing Judge Robert A. Mulligan, the chief justice for administration and management.
The sticking points in negotiations are over a fractional difference in money and a very significant difference in language inclusion that addresses on-the-job discrimination.
On economic issues, the union has indicated that it will accept an economic package that equals those recently negotiated by the governor for six different bargaining units and which cover more that one-half of all executive branch employees. Those contracts provide for raises of three percent per year, plus one-third of one percent per year in other economic improvements (such as dental and optical, uniform allowance, reclassifications, etc.). NAGE is prepared to accept such a package for either a one-, two- or three-year agreement. Although the parties agree on across-the-board increases of three percent per year, the CJAM has refused to agree to match the one-third of one percent per year that executive branch employees have received.
“This is not a situation where the parties are far apart on monetary issues,” said National President David J. Holway. “On monetary matters we’re separated by less than thirty-three one-hundredths of one percent in each year of the contract.”
On language issues, however, a wide gulf separates the two.
In the most glaring and inexplicable example, Justice Mulligan refuses to agree to the union’s demand for language in the contract that prohibits discrimination by either party on the basis of age, race, sex, ethnicity, marital status, sexual preference and/or mental or physical handicap.
“This language is so fundamental to any legitimate personnel system and so common in collective bargaining agreements, that Justice Mulligan’s refusal to agree to it raises serious questions about whether he is at all interested in administering a fair and discrimination-free workplace,” said Holway.
The union has also indicated it would agree to a performance evaluation system, provided that the system met certain criteria for fairness. For example, the union believes that any evaluation system must contain a provision requiring that employees be informed in advance of the criteria against which they are to be evaluated, and employees must have access to a fair and impartial appeal procedure if they believe they are being treated unfairly. Management has refused to agree to such provisions.
The union has also repeatedly pointed out to management’s representatives that the executive branch has had a functioning and generally fair personnel evaluation system for 20 years, while the Trial Court has resisted such a system in favor of widespread favoritism and nepotism. Nonetheless, Trial Court management appears interested in a performance evaluation system only if it can control and manipulate the results without any impartial review.
The union seeks only fairness and some protection against the political interference and favoritism that have so discredited the Trial Court for decades. Judge Mulligan, however, has refused to even consider such changes, so the union turned to the informational picket to seek the public’s help.
Picketers at the rally carried signs asking Judge Mulligan to listen to Trial Court employees at the bargaining table, as well as asking Chief Justice Margaret Marshall to intervene in negotiations.
View Photos from the Trial Court Informational Picket