UPDATE MEET & CONFER BETWEEN THE UNION AND ADMINISTRATION

Termination of Telework for Interpreters

On Thursday morning, July 22nd, the Union met with Administration for the second in a series of Meet and Confer sessions to request an extension of telework based on the recent spike in new COVID cases in Los Angeles County and the emergence of the extremely contagious and virulent Delta variant. 

Considering recent public health developments, together with the Court’s decision to eliminate social distancing and cease to limit the number of people in the courthouse, the Union asked that the interpreters currently on telework continue to telework until the current spike in L.A. County has been brought under control. This is allowable under the emergency telework agreement entered into between CFI and LASC in May of 2020 for the purpose of minimizing exposure to COVID. The agreement already provides for an additional 120 days of interpreter telework at the Court’s discretion after the lifting of the Department of Public Health’s declared state of emergency. 

The Court indicated that it intends to proceed with across-the-board elimination of telework for interpreters under the emergency agreement. In response, the Union requested that at the very least, the most vulnerable and those still experiencing the greatest COVID impacts related to dependent care be kept on telework or partial telework, where applicable. These include those interpreters who are at high-risk, those few interpreters who, for medical reasons, are precluded from receiving the currently available class of vaccines, and those with dependent-care issues.

Points raised by the Union included:

• Remote interpreters are presently being used extensively and with success in various areas, including Children’s Court, mediations, probate, and civil matters, and for simple proceedings such as continuances in both criminal and civil courtrooms. There continues to be plenty of work which lends itself to the use of telework, so that at the very least, interpreters who are the most vulnerable or dependent care impacted can meet the needs of the Court remotely.

• Since the Court has full ability to keep teleworkers off-site under the current emergency teleworking agreement, why incur the added liability of bringing them back on-site, especially those with particularly vulnerable conditions, and those working in locations apt to be particularly contagious, such as Children’s Court which will most likely have an exceptionally high percentage of users present who are unvaccinated due to age limitations on the current vaccines.

• The Presiding Judge has issued an order allowing the continuance of certain Criminal trials for 2 weeks, and Juvenile trials for 4 weeks.  Why not provide an extension of similar length to interpreter teleworkers in the interest of health and safety?

• The Court is encouraging litigants to appear remotely where and whenever possible.  In these cases, however, those interpreting for them must be on the same audiovisual platform whether at home or in a courthouse, because of the complex audio environment and nature of interpreting in remote hearings.

• Should it have the will, the Court has a variety of creative solutions at its disposal to employ any of these potentially life-saving strategies: Interpreters can be brought back on site gradually to allow for the most vulnerable to be the last to return; temporary hybrid part on-site/part off-site assignments could aid in reducing the amount of exposure time in the workplace; our most vulnerable colleagues could remain on telework with periodic review and risk assessment.

• The Union’s request is for the extension of at least some of the current temporary telework assignments under the emergency telework agreement that is currently in effect. This conversation is not about creating or converting current telework to regular telework assignments, which would be an entirely different discussion.

• If a continued telework option does not exist during this dangerous phase of the pandemic, the Court stands to lose the services of those who are medically unable to vaccinate or who, for other medical reasons, will be forced to utilize one of the medical leave options to avoid the increased level of exposure created by the elimination of distancing and removal of courthouse occupancy limits. It would serve the Court far better for these individuals to remain on telework for the time being, and thereby continue to be available to meet Court needs.

• Other large, public entities are taking a more sensible approach:

• L.A. County is allowing extension of telework for employees in some areas of County employment.

• Alameda Superior Court is keeping the small number of teleworkers with an exceptional medical vulnerability to COVID on telework for the time being, with periodic check-ins regarding whether to return on site.

• There is no reason LASC can’t employ some of these strategies to protect its interpreter employees. It is wholly within the Court’s power and ability, under the emergency telework agreement of May 2020, to extend telework assignments for up to 120 days past the lifting of the Department of Public Health’s emergency order (something that still has not happened).

•  We do not want to see any more colleagues die.

The Court’s responses to our requests:

• The on-site need has doubled with the end to both social distancing and limits on court users allowed on site at a given time; therefore, the Court needs all of those currently teleworking back on site.

• The Court is ending teleworking for interpreters at this time. The Court is unwilling to extend any consideration under the teleworking agreement for those who remain at higher medical risk if exposed to COVID, nor those whose medical condition precludes them from the presently available vaccines.

• The Court is not willing to take into consideration any COVID-related dependent-care impacts to interpreters in the decision to end telework.

• The Court clarified that anyone with a medical vulnerability that contraindicates on-site work should go through the Department of Leave Management (DLM) and the interactive process to determine whether an accommodation may be made.

• The Court indicated that those with child-care scheduling issues, or reduced school day hours due to COVID impacts or any other reason can address those temporary scheduling needs through the RTO process, via their Supervisor and Management.

This is not the end of the conversation. There were a number of questions the Union put to the Court between the first and second meet and confer sessions that the parties have yet to discuss in depth. The Union will meet and confer with the Court again next Thursday, July 29th. We are still hopeful that some progress can be made in the effort to provide for safe working conditions for interpreters.

Our bottom line, which we expressed in no uncertain terms to the Court, is that we do not want to see any more colleagues die because the Court was unwilling to provide an adequate – and absolutely available – alternative to on-site work during this new and   dangerous phase of the pandemic, in particular for those among us especially vulnerable to and impacted by COVID-19 and its more dangerous variants.

In unity, your Meet & Confer Team