Sacramento County Superior Court (United Public Employees Local 1) (PERB I059C)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERI.OR COURT,
Charging Party,
v.
UNITED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
1,
Respondent.
Case No. SA-C0-5-C
PERB Order No. IR-59-C
December 30, 2015
Appearances: Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai by Timothy Yeung, Attorney, for Sacramento
County Superior Court; Leonard Carder by Arthur W. Liou, Attorney, for United Public
Employees, Local
1.
Before: Huguenin, Winslow, Banks, and Gregersen, Members.
DECISION
BANKS, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on a request for injunctive relief filed with PERB on December 7, 2015, by the
Sacramento County Superior Court (Court). The Court's request asks PERB to seek injunctive
telief against the United Public Employees, Local 1 (Local 1), which represents various non-
supervisory office and technical employees
of
the Court, including court reporters, courtroom
clerks, deputy clerks, and judicial secretaries, for a strike which was set to occur on
December 8, 2015, but which in fact did not occur. On December 8, Local 1
's
executive
director provided the Court with written notice
of
a two-day strike by Local I-represented
employees to take place on December
15
and 16. A Memorandum
of
Understanding between
the Court and Local 1 expired September 30, 2015.
The Court's unfair practice charge against Local 1 and accompanying request for
injunctive relief allege, among other things, that the anticipated strike would be unlawful

under County Sanitation District No. 2
v.
Los Angeles County Employees Association (1985)
38 Cal.3d 564 (County Sanitation) and PERB precedent, because it would involve certain
"essential" employees represented
by
Local 1, including court clerks and court reporters
assigned to the Court's Criminal Division, Juvenile Dependency/Delinquency courtrooms, and
Department 47 (Presiding Judge's Calendar).
On December 10, 2015, the Board denied the Court's request for injunctive relief for
the reasons set forth below.
DISCUSSION
When PERB seeks injunctive relief from the courts, the appropriate test requires the
establishment
of
two elements: (1) "reasonable cause" must exist to believe an unfair practice
has been committed; and (2) injunctive relief must be "just and proper." (Public Employment
Relations Bd.
	v.
Modesto City Schools Dist. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 881, 895-896.)
The Court alleges that a two-day strike
by
Local 1-represented employees on
December 15 and 16, 2015 is unlawful because
of
the essential functions the Court performs,
and the roles that court clerks and court reporters play in those essential functions. 	County
Sanitation holds that "strikes by public employees are not unlawful ... unless or until it is clearly
demonstrated that such a strike creates a substantial and imminent threat to the health or safety
of
the public." (Id. at p. 586.) Two categories
of
public employees - police and firefighters - are
statutorily prohibited from striking because the nature
of
their duties makes them "essential" to
the health and safety
of
the public. (Lab. Code,§§ 1138.5 [peace officers] and 1962 [fire
fighters]; County Sanitation, supra, at pp. 572-573.) For all other public employees, the County
Sanitation standard requires that it be "clearly demonstrated," on a case-by-case basis, that their
participation in a strike would create an imminent and substantial threat to public health and
safety. (County Sanitation, supra, at pp. 586-587.) The Court in County Sanitation further
2

-------------
explained that the availability
of
replacement workers goes into the determination
of
whether
an employee or a class
of
employees is "essential." (Id. at p. 587.)
Based on the Court's charge and supporting declarations, we reject the Court's
"essential employees" theory because the Court has not clearly demonstrated that, without
employees in the seven positions it seeks to enjoin from striking, the Court's essential
functions cannot or will not be performed. The Court has not demonstrated that it could not
use managers or supervisors to perform the functions
of
court clerks. The Court's moving
papers do not disclose how many supervisors or managers are qualified and available to
perform the work
of
those employees the Court identifies as "essential."
Additionally, the Court has also not explained why court reporters cannot be reassigned
from cou.rtrooms that would be closed during a strike to courtrooms that the Court intends to
keep open. According to the Court, it needs only four reporters to cover the allegedly essential
functions during the strike. While the Court has provided some information on its efforts to
procure qualified court reporters from agencies in Sacramento or the surrounding area, there
remains some time before the start
of
the anticipated strike to determine whether the Court can
procure sufficient replacement personnel.
The Court has also failed to identify the specific level and nature
of
services that must
be maintained to preserve public health and safety. A declaration submitted by the Court's
interim executive director states that the ten courtrooms will remain open during any strike, but
then identifies only five courtrooms that will be operational: two felony arraignment
departments, one juvenile dependency, one juvenile delinquency, and the Presiding Judge"s
department. In addition to this discrepancy between the number of departments ostensibly
necessary to protect public health and safety and the number of departments that would
maintain operations during the two-day strike, the Court has provided no specific evidence that
3

the absence of a courtroom clerk in the Presiding Judge's department would create an
imminent and substantial threat to public health and safety.
As with other requests for injunctive relief, our decision to deny the Court's request is
made without prejudice and, as the date of the anticipated strike draws closer, the Court is free
to provide additional or supplemental information in the event it is unable to procure sufficient
replacement personnel to perform any essential services.
ORDER ~--------------
The Sacramento County Superior Court's request for injunctive relief in PERB Case
No. SA-C0-5-C is hereby DENIED.
Members Huguenin, Winslow, and Gregersen joined in this Decision.
4