Editor's note: Your ProbateShark fanaticizes the Kawamotos and Solos of the world being picketed for the unfair labor practice of "Elder Cleansing". Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Stamford court worker says union push led to firing
Rob Varnon
Published 12:02 am, Thursday, April 17, 2014
1 of 3 
Kristen Rich, a former assistant clerk in the Stamford Probate Court, claims she was fired for trying to organize a union after testifying at a public hearing in Hartford on proposed legislation that would allow probate workes to unionize. She has since filed a labor board complaint against probate for her termination. Photograhed in Stamford, Conn., on Tuesday, April 15, 2014. Photo: Jason Rearick | Buy this photo
Stamford Probate Court clerk Kristen Rich recently testified in Hartford that probate court workers need the protections offered by a union, in support of a bill that would have allowed her and other probate workers to organize.
Then she was fired.
She said she was retaliated against for publicly supporting the bill, which failed to get out of committee. Her former boss, Judge Gerald Fox Jr., says she was not.
Rich filed a complaint with the state Labor Board claiming she was fired for trying to organize a union, and is fighting for the right to collect unemployment insurance.
"They stole my job. The job that I loved," she said, a few days after filing a complaint with the state Labor Board. "They embarrassed me. Stole my opportunity."
If it is determined that she was targeted after supporting a union movement, then it will be a black eye for a probate system that has had to undergo drastic changes in recent years after financial problems forced it out of extremely dated practices. One of those changes was to more than halve the number of probate courts in the state, and that in large part is what led to the unionization effort.
Not just estates and trusts
The Probate Court system is more than 300 years old in Connecticut. Its elected judges primarily oversee decedents' estates and trusts, but they also handle issues affecting children, the elderly, people with intellectual disabilities and those with psychiatric problems, including the appointment of guardians, emancipating minors and the sterilization of adults with intellectual disabilities.
For years the probate courts operated as nearly independent political fiefdoms. In 2005, financial problems brought the system under very heavy scrutiny involving legislative hearings that would eventually lead to an overhaul of it.
At the time, John H. Langbein, Sterling professor of law and legal history at Yale law schools, called Connecticut's system a disgrace and scandal blaming the multiplicity of courts, use of people who are not legally trained as judges, allowing practicing attorneys to sit as judges, incentive fee system and the self-serving opposition to change mounted by probate judges to protect their turf.
Some of those issues were addressed in 2009 legislation, which reduced the number of courts from more than 100 to 54 and also requiring judges to be admitted to the bar.
Judge Paul Knierim, the state Probate Court Administrator, said those reforms have helped the court modernize and other reforms are still being made.
He said the reduction in the number of courts and the centralizing of payroll and other back office support positions has saved the state millions of dollars, and now the probate system is no longer losing money. About 75 percent of the system is covered by fees and 25 percent from the general fund.
Reform helps spark union drive
But the consolidation led to job security concerns among court staff members. They serve at the pleasure of the judges, who are elected, so theoretically, when new judges enter office they can dismiss all the current staff at the court and bring in their own people. Some court workers have said they lack job security because of this system.
Knierim took issue with this claim, explaining that judges rely on the experience of existing staff when they come into office. Their next election ultimately hinges on how they are perceived in the community and so having good staff is one of the keys to being re-elected, he said.
Then she was fired.
She said she was retaliated against for publicly supporting the bill, which failed to get out of committee. Her former boss, Judge Gerald Fox Jr., says she was not.
Rich filed a complaint with the state Labor Board claiming she was fired for trying to organize a union, and is fighting for the right to collect unemployment insurance.
"They stole my job. The job that I loved," she said, a few days after filing a complaint with the state Labor Board. "They embarrassed me. Stole my opportunity."
If it is determined that she was targeted after supporting a union movement, then it will be a black eye for a probate system that has had to undergo drastic changes in recent years after financial problems forced it out of extremely dated practices. One of those changes was to more than halve the number of probate courts in the state, and that in large part is what led to the unionization effort.
Not just estates and trusts
The Probate Court system is more than 300 years old in Connecticut. Its elected judges primarily oversee decedents' estates and trusts, but they also handle issues affecting children, the elderly, people with intellectual disabilities and those with psychiatric problems, including the appointment of guardians, emancipating minors and the sterilization of adults with intellectual disabilities.
For years the probate courts operated as nearly independent political fiefdoms. In 2005, financial problems brought the system under very heavy scrutiny involving legislative hearings that would eventually lead to an overhaul of it.
At the time, John H. Langbein, Sterling professor of law and legal history at Yale law schools, called Connecticut's system a disgrace and scandal blaming the multiplicity of courts, use of people who are not legally trained as judges, allowing practicing attorneys to sit as judges, incentive fee system and the self-serving opposition to change mounted by probate judges to protect their turf.
Some of those issues were addressed in 2009 legislation, which reduced the number of courts from more than 100 to 54 and also requiring judges to be admitted to the bar.
Judge Paul Knierim, the state Probate Court Administrator, said those reforms have helped the court modernize and other reforms are still being made.
He said the reduction in the number of courts and the centralizing of payroll and other back office support positions has saved the state millions of dollars, and now the probate system is no longer losing money. About 75 percent of the system is covered by fees and 25 percent from the general fund.
Reform helps spark union drive
But the consolidation led to job security concerns among court staff members. They serve at the pleasure of the judges, who are elected, so theoretically, when new judges enter office they can dismiss all the current staff at the court and bring in their own people. Some court workers have said they lack job security because of this system.
Knierim took issue with this claim, explaining that judges rely on the experience of existing staff when they come into office. Their next election ultimately hinges on how they are perceived in the community and so having good staff is one of the keys to being re-elected, he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.