THE POLICE IN MANY LARGE CITIES HAVE A LONG TRADITION OF COLLECTIVE ACTION, BUT THE EXTENT OF UNIONIZATION IN OTHER PORTIONS OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTORS HAS BEEN RATHER LOW. THE POTENTIAL FOR UNIONIZATION AMONG COURT EMPLOYEES, HOWEVER, IS EMERGING. A 1977 SURVEY OF COURTS REVEALED THAT THERE ARE 15 STATES WHERE JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES HAVE ORGANIZED. THE TIMING OF UNIONIZATION AND THE LOCATION OF COURT SETTINGS (RURAL VERSUS URBAN) HAVE IMPORTANT WAGE IMPLICATIONS AND RESULTING COSTS TO TAXPAYERS. ONE CONSEQUENCE OF HIGHER COSTS IS THAT UNIONIZATION CONTRIBUTES TO THE CONTINUING MOVEMENT AMONG COURT ADMINISTRATORS TO FUND COURT SYSTEMS ENTIRELY THROUGH STATE RATHER THAN LOCAL EXPENDITURES. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CHANGES THE DECISIONMAKING PROCESS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR FROM ONE THAT IS UNILATERAL TO SOMETHING BROADER. ACCOMPANYING THIS SHIFT OF POWER FROM MANAGEMENT TO LABOR HAS BEEN THE FEAR BY MANAGEMENT THAT CRITICAL CONTROL OVER ESSENTIAL SERVICES HAS BEEN SURRENDERED. FROM THE MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE, THE MAJOR IMPACT OF UNIONIZATION ON COURTS IS A LOSS OF FLEXIBILITY IN DEALING WITH PERSONNEL. COURT EMPLOYEE UNIONIZATION OFTEN HEIGHTENS CONFLICT BETWEEN BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AND ALSO AFFECTS INTRAJUDICIAL RELATIONS. THE REDISTRIBUTION OF POWER RESULTING FROM UNIONIZATION MUST BE CONSIDERED IN A GENERAL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SENSE, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO THE POTENTIAL FOR DISRUPTING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. (DEP)