HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 226

BYRepresentatives Lux, Ebersole and McMullen

Including judges within definition of public employer for collective bargaining purposes.

House Committe on Commerce & Labor

Majority Report:     The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (10)

     Signed by Representatives Wang, Chair; Cole, Vice Chair; Fisch, Fisher, R. King, O'Brien, Patrick, Sayan, C. Smith and Walker.

House Staff:Chris Cordes (786-7117)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE & LABOR MARCH 2, 1987

BACKGROUND:

The public employees collective bargaining act covers all municipal and county employees, with limited exceptions.  The Washington Supreme Court has found, however, that certain employees who are employees of the superior courts, but who are paid by the county, are only covered under the collective bargaining act with respect to wages.  The court determined that the judicial branch was the employer for purposes of hiring, firing, and working conditions.

In a 1986 decision, the Public Employment Relations Commission applied the court's reasoning to district court employees.  Relying on the court's pronouncements that the operation of the courts is a matter of state concern rather than local concern, the commission held that district court employees are "state employees" for personnel matters other than wages. Therefore, these employees are entitled to collectively bargain with the county employer only over wages and wage-related matters.  The commission did not find a requirement for district court judges to collectively bargain over other personnel matters.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  A statement of legislative intent is provided.  The purpose of the act is to clear up the confusion over collective bargaining for court employees stemming from the Washington state supreme court case of Zylstra v. Piva (1975).

Any collective bargaining agreement executed pursuant to the public employees collective bargaining act applies to each officer and manager, whether elected, appointed or judicial, who is the executive head of the bargaining unit.

The term "public employer" is amended to include judges as public employers.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  A new subsection is added to explain that the legislative intent of the act is to clear up the confusion over collective bargaining for judicial employees stemming from the Washington state supreme court case of Zylstra v. Piva (1975).

A provision is added that requires any collective bargaining agreement executed pursuant to the public employees collective bargaining act to apply to each officer and manager, whether elected, appointed or judicial, who is the executive head of the bargaining unit.

The term "public employer" is changed from the original bill by adding judges as public employers and deleting the original reference to elected officials.

Fiscal Note:    Requested February 12, 1987.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:     Sam Kinville, Washington State Council of County and City Employees; and Mike Ryherd, Teamsters.

House Committee - Testified Against: Gary Lowe, Association of Counties;  Melanie Stewart-Gerla, Washington State District Court Judges Association and Washington State Magistrates Association; and Paul Locke.

House Committee - Testimony For:     The confusion over collecting bargaining for judicial employees should be remedied.  These employees should have the same collective bargaining rights as other public employees at the local level.

House Committee - Testimony Against: It is not clear from the court opinions what authority over judicial employees the legislature may give to local governments. In addition, the bill as proposed would create a dual collective bargaining system with the employees required to bargain with both the county officials and the judges.  If collective bargaining rights are to be granted, the employees should bargain with the governmental entity that is fiscally responsible for these employees.