NAGE Wins Hampden Superior “Front Counter” Case
June 4, 2009
Management at Hampden Superior Court must no longer require probation officers and assistant chief probation officers to work half-day shifts at the probation department’s front counter, thanks to a win by NAGE Attorney Rebecca Mitchell at the state’s Division of Labor Relations.
“Management’s action in this case greatly reduced the hours these probation employees had to maintain their enormous caseloads,” said Mitchell. “It made their jobs much harder and left probationers with less supervision. We really had to step in for these employees and for public safety, and fortunately, the Division of Labor Relations agreed with us.”
“We have to fight these encroachments wherever they happen, whenever they happen,” said Jack Alicandro, president of NAGE Local 229, the probation officers’ local. “Challenges to the contract don’t always come from the top; sometimes they come one courthouse at a time, and we did the right thing in stopping this one in its tracks.”
Management at Hampden Superior Court had always staffed the public front counter in the probation department with a combination of clerical staff and associate probation officers. The sole exception occurred during the one-hour lunch break from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., when the counter would be covered in half-hour shifts by rotating teams. These five-person teams of clerical personnel, probation officers and assistant chief probation officers were required to assist probationers or others who came to the front counter to conduct probation department business or seek other help. The employees assigned to these five-person teams said that covering the front counter at lunchtime was rarely disruptive to their regular work; with five employees available to answer any client or public needs, the burden on any one employee was minimal. Those employees were able to remain in their offices during such coverage, instead of being stationed at the front counter for 30 minutes. In addition, probationers were told not to report to the office during that lunch period, further reducing the potential burden on employees.
Then, in the spring of 2004, management notified the probation officers and assistant chief probation officers that each one of them would be assigned to cover the front counter for one four-hour shift per week. The probation employees covering the counter could not conduct their normal work (such as conduct interviews and counseling sessions with probationers, make phone calls to social service agencies, or even work on confidential client paperwork) during their entire four-hour shift at the counter.
NAGE Attorney Rebecca Mitchell notified the Trial Court that this practice was an improper change in workload for the affected employees and needed to be bargained. When the Trial Court failed to respond, NAGE filed a prohibited practice charge.
DLR Rules for NAGE, Prohibits Court From Repeat
The Division of Labor Relations ruled that workload is, as state law asserts, a subject of mandatory bargaining. However, the Trial Court argued that language in the contract gave it the right to take any actions deemed necessary to carry out its responsibilities in emergency situations. The Trial Court further argued that the reduction in clerical employees at Hampden Superior Court was such an emergency, and that the union waives its right to bargain in emergencies—in other words, the rules didn’t apply during an emergency.
Mitchell argued that that the demand to bargain disproved the Trial Court’s “waiver” claim, and that the Trial Court’s claims of “emergency” were less than convincing. Hampden Superior Court, she said, broke the law when it changed the workload of those probation officers and assistant chief probation officers and then refused to bargain the change on demand.
The DLR ruled that the Trial Court had no emergency that would require such an action, and even the situation had constituted an emergency, the union did not waive its right to bargain. The Trial Court, said the DLR, had violated the law by changing the workload of those probation employees at Hampden Superior Court and by refusing to bargain on demand. Although the local court management had instituted the schedule change for only a few months, they had asserted the right to make such a change at will in the future. To prevent a repeat of that situation, the DLR ordered Hampden Superior Court to cease and desist the practice and post a notice to employees notifying them of the decision and promising to abide by the law.