In the past, unions have entered into collective agreements with the Yakima County Board of Commissioners on the wages, benefits, working time and working conditions of workers covered by their certificates, including court employees. However, when the unions attempted to negotiate an agreement with the commissioners for 2003, the Yakima County Higher and District Courts informed them in writing that, in accordance with Rule 29 of the Washington Judicial Settlement (GR 29), „recruitment, dismissal and discipline of staff is in the exclusive province of judges.” Resp`ts` response to Ex. A. The judges were therefore „not willing to negotiate and participate in contractual negotiations on [non-wage] working conditions. SSF at 4. As in Spokane County, our decision does not undermine the doctrine of separation of powers, as the PECBA allows judges to negotiate working conditions while retaining the ability to monitor their employees on negotiated terms. By ensuring that workers comply with the rules adopted in collective bargaining, judges also monitor their staff and also comply with GR 29. Since the district court is part of the judicial domain and retains control as such for its inherent functions, we cannot conclude that the legislation of the law is in itself contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers. By law, the district court, not another branch, retains the power to collectively negotiate working conditions and enter into conditions.
As a result, it is difficult to determine how this threatens „independence or integrity” or infiltrates the prerogatives of the district court when the law explicitly gives district judges the power and power to negotiate. 4. RCW 41.56.020 provides that „[d] chapter applies to all county or municipal businesses or any political sub-division of Washington State, including district courts and higher courts.” The unions then asked the court for a written appeal, which was sent to the judges, who asked them to „negotiate with [the unions] independent wage issues concerning all workers subject to judicial supervision in certified collective agreement units”. 2 Mandamus writing request at 7 a.m. The judges responded by asking the court to refuse the Mandamus` application and issue a declaratory judgment which establishes that GR 29 imposes the setting of working conditions exclusively on the presiding judge of each court. In accordance with Appeal Regulation 16.2 (d), the Commissioner decided to uphold the Union`s request and rule. Our inability to harmonize a judicial rule with a statute only occurs when the status is in direct and inevitable conflict with the rule of the court. At State Bar Ass`n, we were asked to interpret a general court rule, GR 12, which „gave the board of directors of the board of directors of the lawyers` association a margin of appreciation to decide whether to bargain collectively with its employees.” Id. After adopting the general rule by our rule, Parliament amended the PECBA so that the bar would negotiate collectively. We decided that the amended status was in direct contradiction to the general rule of the court because „[d]ence this court has adopted a rule about a matter related to the exercise of its inherent power to control the bar, the Legislature may not thereafter reverse or override the court`s rule.” Id.