Steve Baratta, Union Buster

NorCo DA-Elect Steve Baratta ran as a Democrat. During his campaign, he staked out positions that are a bit left of center, at least for prosecutors. He opposed the death penalty. He'd decriminalize possession of marijuana. He opposes cash bail for many crimes. He refused to wage a write-in campaign as a Republican, and criticized incumbent Terry Houck for doing so. But before he's even sworn into office, he's taking a very Republican position. He's a union basher. I've told you about his decision to terminate two highly regarded county detectives protected by a union contract that specifically requires "just cause" for their removal. He just happened to pick the two detectives who negotiate the contract. If he gets away with this, no unionized worker is safe in his office. That includes all the clerks. Like the detectives, they can be fired at any time for any reason, including a bad reason.  

When I spoke to Baratta, he told me that the law supports his expansive view of his power to hire and fire, regardless of any union contract.  Let's look at the law. 

Pennsylvania's Constitution, like the US Constitution, provides for three separate, equal and independent branches of government - judiciary, executive and legislative. It specifically reserves to the courts the right to supervise their own employees. (Article V, Sec. 10.)  This is why many unionized court workers are still considered "at will." 

Like the courts, the office of District Attorney is also established by Pa,'s Constitution, (Article IX, Sec. 4). It would be a part of the executive branch, not the courts. No constitutional provision gives that office the exclusive power to hire and fire its staff.      

State law, however, does throw a monkey wrench into things. The County Code (Section 1620) provides that the "salary board" (Executive and County Council) have the sole power to negotiate with unions representing court workers as well as other staff for other elected or even appointed officers. But it goes on to provide that this "shall in no way affect the hiring, discharging and supervising rights and obligations with respect to such employes as may be vested in the judges or other county officers."

A strict reading of this statute suggests that no county union is safe, regardless of any "just cause" provisions in a collective bargaining agreement.  A Northampton County Corrections Director who is appointed by the Executive and confirmed by County Council, could ignore union contracts negotiated by his boss. So could a constitutional row officer like the Prothonotary.  This is precisely the rationale being advanced by Baratta. 

The law should never be interpreted to produce absurd results. Let me give you an example. Law provides that a person who breaks out of prison commits a felony, but no prisoner will be prosecuted if he escapes because the jailhouse is on fire. As one English judge pithily reasoned, "he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt." 

I'll concede that an independently elected District Attorney stands in a superior position to a row officer appointed by the county. He can argue that he has the exclusive right (by statute, not Constitution) to hire, fire and supervise. But he has to assert that right when the contract is being negotiated.  In one Berks County case, an elected row officers actually notified the "salary board" (County Commissioners) that "I do not authorize any negotiation on behalf of myself in regard to the hiring, termination or supervision of employees in my office." In another Lackawanna County case involving a contract negotiated by deputy Sheriffs, the Sheriff was uninvolved in negotiations. In stark contrast to those cases, incumbent District Attorney Terry Houck accepted collective bargaining agreements. Abd Baratta was on the bench. 

Baratta might be able to argue that he must be consulted before any new contract is negotiated with detectives or his clerical staff. But he's unable to unilaterally change the terms of a contract that was agreed upon before he even assumed office. 

What Baratta is actually doing is undermining the morale of his office before he steps foot inside the door. He could have made better use of his time by familiarizing himself with several ongoing investigations and prosecutions.