holding that “judicial authority over court personnel [is] an essential element of the judicial function”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “judicial authority over court personnel [is] an essential element of the judicial function”
- addressing the authority of Pennsylvania judges over court employees, including those in the probation offices
- “the Court upheld the constitutionality of PERA in Ellenbogen ‘principally because judges retain the right to hire, discharge, and supervise court personnel’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MANDERINO, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts because currently more than half of the monies necessary to operate the courts come from local taxation — not state taxation. If and when the situation changes the proper managerial representatives might also change.
I agree that court employees have the right to collective bargaining under Act 195, and that judges should not be the managerial representatives who engage in collective bargaining with court employees. I also agree that at the present time the proper representatives are the county commissioners, who are now primarily responsible for raising and allocating funds for the local courts. This may not, however, remain the case.
The legislature, consistent with the implementation of a unified court system mandated by Section 1, Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution, has started a reimbursement program whereby the state repays a portion of the judicial expenses paid by the counties. The legislature has currently allocated $24 million dollars to the State Court Administrator, who is responsible for administering the reimbursement *440 program and allocating monies to the counties for their court costs. Eventually, almost all, if not all court costs and salaries on the county level may be paid by the state as a part of the administration of a unified court system. At present, the state reimburses the counties for approximately thirty-seven percent of their judicial expenses. When the point is reached where the state pays more than fifty percent of court expenses, the county may no longer be the public employer of court employees as defined in this opinion by the Court. At that time, the proper bargaining agent may well be the State Court Administrator, regardless of any legislation to the contrary since if the interest of the counties significantly diminishes, new constitutional issues, not now before us, may affect the authority of county commissioners to act as bargaining representatives for the courts. A statewide bargaining representative may be a desirable goal necessary to implement the mandate of Article 5, Section 1, of the Pennsylvania Constitution for a unified state judicial system.