Vanguard Sacramento Bureau Chief
SACRAMENTO, CA – A contentious strike by Sacramento County attorneys – prosecutors, defense lawyers and child support lawyers – that began in late August is still ongoing, although the strikers admitted Monday an agreed-upon “pause” in active picketing has now lasted about as long as the nine-day strike action.
“The strike remains on pause. The parties returned to the negotiation table and continue to discuss new terms,” Sacramento County Attorneys’ Association President Matt Chisholm told the Vanguard Monday.
The planned “brief” cooling off period that began Sept. 7 that was supposed to last just a few days is now entering a third week, with the intent, added Chisholm, at a news conference earlier in the month, to get both sides together.
“The strike may appear to be over to the public given the length of our pause – but while we remain without a tentative agreement to resolve our contract dispute, resuming the strike still remains a possibility.
“But at this point, given that there are still active ongoing discussions between SCAA and labor officials and the County Executive’s office, the strike remains on pause. We are showing good faith in our pause in hopes that the County reciprocates that good faith with a fair agreement as the parties continue to negotiate,” said Chisholm Monday.
The leader refused to provide any more details, other than adding, “Given the sensitive nature of negotiations, I cannot share the details of those negotiations right now, only that it is active and ongoing (and the SCAA is) solely focused right now on getting to tentative agreement our membership can vote on.”
But, about 10 days ago, SCAA said it had file an Unfair Labor Practice complaint, charging, “For more than two years while in negotiations and then impasse procedures with the Sacramento County Attorneys’ Association (SCAA), the county of Sacramento has engaged in a course and pattern of bad faith conduct that, in totality, amounts to unfair labor.”
Chisholm has explained that even before the “pause,” SCAA was honoring trials underway, and some preliminary hearings with attorneys allowed to attend in the interest of “public safety.”
But, except for what Chisholm admitted are “some” members not honoring the picket lines, about 230 county lawyers are on those lines.
The unfair labor practice complaint, filed Sept. 6, “shows the county’s bad faith,” said Chisholm, adding the county’s first offer to SCAA was “designed to be rejected,” which, he added, actually worsened the “position of many of our members.”
The “unfair labor practice” complaint, filed with State of California Public Employment Relations Board and made available to the Vanguard, disputes the county’s “assertions in the media and elsewhere (that) there is currently no full and complete MOU between the county and SCAA. The parties have been at impasse for two years regarding equity increases and retroactive payments for the 2022-2023 fiscal year.”
The complaint adds, “The county has a duty…to act in good faith during applicable impasse procedures…the county under a totality of the circumstances evaluation has failed to do so to the continued detriment of SCAA members, the criminal justice system, and the general public.”
The complaint claims Matt Connolly, the county’s chief labor negotiator, “even before the parties reached impasse is illustrative of the bad-faith and pretextual approach to the county’s participation in the current impasse procedures,” noting the county “grossly misrepresented” its position.
“The county had no intention of respecting the outcome (of a factfinding arbitrator) if it was not in their favor. On the contrary, the county used factfinding as a means of delay to prevent good faith negotiations from progressing,” the union wrote in the complaint.
The arbitrator’s 62-page report recommended in June much of what the union has sought, including cost of living increases and an “equity adjustment of 5.5 percent” to make the SCAA membership “minimally competitive with other jurisdictions.”
Recruitment and retention of experienced attorneys in both the District Attorney’s and Public Defender’s Offices have been key component to the union’s claim it has been losing good lawyers to private practice or other jurisdictions.
But, maintain the strikers, “Not only did the county breach this duty (to abide by the arbitration), but its conduct even before and then after the report was issued establishes a singular motive…to enter into and remain in impasse to preclude and frustrate further negotiation of current or retroactive terms related to equity increases and retroactive pay to the detriment of SCAA members.”
The SCAA has charged the county wants the union to agree to a condition to not ever strike, calling the county’s “conduct during the roughly two-month period since the completion of the fact-finding report continues to evidence bad-faith.
“The county has issued misleading and entirely inaccurate statements to the public about SCAA and SCAA’s position (to create) bias and negative views of SCAA and its members, emailed the represented parties with inaccurate information about protections and work requirements during a strike, and made a predictably unacceptable and seemingly discriminatory offer that has indicia of retaliation against SCAA members for exercising their protected and legal right to strike.”
The SCAA complaint alleges the county has “an incentive and motive to keep the negotiations at impasse,” and that the county’s offer would reduce “retirement benefits,” and is designed to “perpetuate the impasse and frustrate negotiations over the current contract and retroactive benefits.”
The county “disseminated-and continues to disseminate-misleading information that misrepresents the county’s purported offer, current attorney salaries, and the status of an existing contract-specifically, the lack thereof between the parties,” the complaint adds.
The county, the complaint continues, has “acted in bad faith in an effort to deprive SCAA of its right to strike by directly emailing its members false information related to a potential strike,” noting the email was “clearly an attempt to intimidate SCAA members choosing to participate in the strike by increasing the burden on them regarding illness under the threat of disciplinary action.”
The SCAA argues, “When viewed in totality, the only reasonable conclusion is that the county approached this entire process with bad faith (and) has been engaged in a consistent practice of delay for three years, refusing to negotiate in good faith, a practice which continues to this day.”
