THE ANALYSIS IS BASED ON A 1977 SURVEY OF JUDGES, COURT ADMINISTRATORS, AND LABOR OFFICIALS IN 50 STATES AND ON INDEPTH INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED IN 6 STATES CHOSEN FOR THEIR SPECIAL APPROACH TO COURT PERSONNEL RELATIONS. THE SURVEY FOUND THAT COURT EMPLOYEES IN 14 STATES HAVE ORGANIZED EITHER UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT OR IN A DE FACTO MANNER. USUALLY COURT EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ORGANIZED STATEWIDE; UNIONIZATION IS MORE LIKELY TO BE FOUND ONLY IN CERTAIN JOB CATEGORIES, COURT LEVELS, AND LOCATIONS. STATES WITH HIGH LEVELS OF COURT UNIONIZATION ARE THOSE WITH HIGH LEVELS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS. JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES IN SUCH HIGHLY UNIONIZED STATES AS HAWAII, NEW YORK, AND MICHIGAN ARE WELL ORGANIZED, WHILE THOSE IN THE SOUTH AND MIDWEST ARE NOT. THE UNIONIZATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES CREATES QUESTIONS INVOLVING SEPARATION OF POWERS, COURT STRUCTURE, AND FUNDING, PARTICULARLY IN LOCALITIES WHERE JUDICIAL LEADERSHIP AND THE POLITICAL CLIMATE ENCOURAGE JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE. THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN DETERMINING WHO SHOULD REGULATE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS INVOLVING COURT PERSONNEL, AND IN IDENTIFYING THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEES. IN SOME STATES, THE JUDICIARY HAS ACCEPTED THE REGULATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. A PETITION BY COURT EMPLOYEES FOR RECOGNITION AS A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT OFTEN DRAWS ALL GOVERNMENTAL BRANCHES INTO CONFLICTS OVER FUNDING, CONTROL OF PATRONAGE, AND THE FUTURE SHAPE OF THE COURT STRUCTURE. ANOTHER PROBLEM IS THAT SOME EMPLOYEES WHO ARE FUNCTIONALLY TIED TO THE COURTS ARE NOT CLASSIFIED AS JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES. THE ISSUES THAT WILL ACCOMPANY THE INCREASING UNIONIZATION OF COURT PERSONNEL WILL BE RESOLVED NOT ONLY THROUGH LITIGATION BUT ALSO THROUGH THE POLITICS OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS. A TABULAR SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF THE STATES WITH ORGANIZED COURT EMPLOYEES IS PROVIDED. (LKM)