Supreme Court Gives Mixed Ruling
in Furlough Case
October 4, 2010
The
California Supreme Court this morning ruled that Governor Schwarzenegger
does NOT have “inherent authority” to furlough state employees.
The Court did, however, find that the Governor’s past furlough plan was
approved by the legislature in its budget document. In other
words, the Court upheld the 17-months of furloughs that ended in June
2010.
The decision appears to allow the legal challenge to the current three
day per month furlough plan which was promulgated unilaterally by the
Governor via an executive order. That program has not been
approved by the state legislature.
CAPS will have more later on this as the decision is more fully
evaluated.
---------------------
Furlough Case Submitted
September 9, 2010
The California Supreme Court held oral argument yesterday in the CAPS’
challenge to mandatory furloughs. CAPS made a strong argument and
answered several questions posed by various justices. The case was
submitted, and a decision will be issued within 90 days. CAPS
President Patty Velez had this comment immediately following the
hearing: “We are encouraged by the strong case
presented by our attorneys today.” Velez said. “The law is with
us. We will soon see if the Supreme Court is as well.”
---------------------
California Supreme Court Hears Furlough
Case Today
September 8, 2010
The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in the furlough case beginning at 9am this morning. CAPS Attorney Gerald James will be there to argue the case for CAPS (and PECG), both lead plaintiffs in the case. James will be the third to present arguments following other parties to the case (including other unions), State Controller John Chiang (who is siding with CAPS) will be the fourth speaker, and then of course the Governor. These remarks will likely be interspersed with questions from individual justices. Attorney James will then present the closing arguments for CAPS and the other plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court is hearing this case after it suspended an order from the Alameda Superior Court halting the furloughs. The Court has 90 days to issue a decision after a case is submitted, but CAPS anticipates the decision sooner than that.
Here is a partial summary of the case to be presented orally on CAPS’ behalf:
The Setting of State Employee Salaries and Hours of Work are Legislative Functions. The Governor claims that certain statutes give him the power to cut hours of work and to cut salaries. While CAPS disagrees, these statutes are superseded by the parties’ negotiated labor contracts, even IF the statutes at issue in this case did delegate to the Governor the power he claims. The actual language of the labor contracts prohibits furloughs.
The Dills Act, Which Governs Collective Bargaining in the State Civil Service, Delegates Some But Not All Power To Set Terms and Conditions of Employment. The state Legislature retained authority in two ways: first, the authority to approve negotiated labor contracts when they require appropriation and expenditure of funds; and second, to change the salaries, hours of work and other aspects of state employment when the parties reach a declared impasse in negotiations.
Approved Labor Contracts are “Indubitably Binding.” Once approved by the Legislature, the MOUs are definitive and permit no discretion. This Court has held that binding contracts must be honored, noting in relevant case law: “Why negotiate an agreement if either party can disregard its provisions?” and “What integrity would be left in government if government itself could attack the integrity of its own agreement?” Here all of the labor contracts are expired, yet there is no dispute that the expired MOUs remain in effect as binding contracts, including the provisions of those MOUs which supersede existing law.
Salaries are Set Only By Reaching Agreement, or by the Legislature in the Absence of Such Agreement. If no agreement is reached, the Legislature may set salaries. Here the legislature has determined that the monthly salaries in the MOUs shall continue and the Governor and DPA have no unilateral authority to alter them.
Hours of Work Provisions Prohibit Unilateral Furloughs. All of the MOUs call for 40-hour workweeks. In addition, the Unit 10 MOU contains a “no lockout” provision. These provisions preclude the Governor from withholding employment through the partial closing of offices, or preventing state scientists from working their full schedules. State scientists have a right under their MOU to a 40 hour workweek and cannot be locked out.
The State Rights Clause Does NOT Give the Governor the Right to Furlough. The Governor argues he has rights under the “State Rights Clauses” of the MOUs. The State Rights clause covering state scientists are applicable only to rights which are not “abridged or limited by the MOU” and the state’s action must be consistent with the MOU. Since the 40 hour workweek and salaries are covered by the MOUs, there is no retained right--in an emergency or otherwise--to cut hours or pay of represented employees. The trial court erred in holding that the MOUs allowed furloughs with the language that the state could “take all necessary action to carry out its mission in emergencies”. This ruling ignored the language which limits that action only to items not abridged or limited by the MOU.
An Emergency is NOT a Budget Shortfall or a Fiscal Emergency. An emergency is an act of God, natural disaster, or other emergency or calamity affecting the state beyond the control of the employer or recognized employee organization. Utilizing the trial court’s rationale, the Governor as the state employer could unilaterally abrogate ANY provision of a valid and binding contract ANY time there was a budget shortfall. This would render collective bargaining and any resulting MOUs meaningless.