With all the recent furlough court action, we're just now getting to the latest development in the fourth of the four Alameda cases ruled on by Judge Frank Roesch and now with San Francisco's 1st District Court of Appeal, CCPOA v. Schwarzenegger.
When we last left this case, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's legal team had won a decision from the appellate court to temporarily block Roesch's order to end self-directed Corrections furloughs pending a resolution of the appeal or another order from the appellate court.
On Feb. 26, the appellate court denied CCPOA's motion to dismiss the governor's appeal, although it also said the union's arguments about the timeliness of the appeal had merit. The court said it would treat the appeal as a request for a writ of mandate and set a schedule for the two sides to submit documents to support their positions.
Schwarzenegger filed this opening brief on Monday.
The governor argues that Roesch wrongly concluded that "self-directed" furloughs constitute an illegal salary reduction for Bargaining Unit 6 members and that the self-directed furlough program violates labor law.
Schwarzenegger also contends that even if the self-directed furlough policy shortchanges some members who can't redeem their deferred time off by the deadline of June 30, 2012, they have recourse to individually sue for unpaid wages. "The presence of an adequate remedy at law, however, means (Roesch's) issuance of the writ of mandate in this case was erroneous," the brief says.
CCPOA has until April 28 to file its response, The governor has 15 days to reply after CCPOA files. There's no date set for oral arguments.