Editor's note, 4:08 p.m.: The broken link on this post has been repaired, and the item is updated with more information from the court hearing this morning.
Attorneys for labor and the government met in San Francisco this morning to argue whether state workers in so-called "special fund" departments should have been exempt from furloughs that were put in place during Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration.
The 1st District Court of Appeal heard arguments but didn't hand down its ruling today, said Lynelle Jolley, spokeswoman for the Department of Personnel Administration.
The court has 90 days to make a decision. In this case, it could rule for one side or the other or return the matter to the Alameda trial court for further argument and a ruling there.
Furloughs have continued for employees in unions without contracts since Jerry Brown took over for Schwarzenegger, but the policy is set to end this month because all unionized state workers will be under terms of ratified or tentative agreements that trade furloughs for other compensation cuts.
Although Brown is no fan of furloughs, it appears he's even less inclined to give up defending the policy right now and potentially exposing the state to hundreds of millions of dollars in back pay and interest on lost wages. One small sign that the administration remains engaged in the fight: Attorney David Tyra, whose firm was contracted to litigate furloughs on behalf of the Schwarzenegger administration, appeared in court this morning on behalf of Brown.
SEIU was before the 1st District court last year, but it went on hold when the California Supreme Court took up PECG v. Schwarzenegger, which involved the larger question of whether a governor can impose furloughs on state employees.
The high court said last October that the executive doesn't have that authority, but the Legislature does. And, the court said, it exercised that authority by approving a budget that assumed furlough savings and by approving unspecified (but strongly implied) administrative actions to achieve those savings.
After the Supreme Court's decision, the 1st District Court invited the SEIU parties to submit new arguments taking PECG into consideration. The court set a hearing date for Feb. 23. One of the justices fell ill, however, so the court pushed the date back to today.
Tyra and DPA attorney Will Yamada argued that the PECG ruling was a blanket approval of furloughs for all employees in all departments, regardless of funding source.
SEIU attorney Felix De La Torre said that the union contended that the Legislature didn't intend for furloughs to fall on employees in departments whose funds can't be borrowed by the general fund (such as CalPERS or the California Earthquake Authority), departments where the employees' pay is federally funded (such as units within the Department of Social Services) or departments that aren't funded with appropriations in the Budget Act.
De La Torre said he thinks the appellate court will either send the case back to Alameda Superior Court with instructions to ferret out which employees fall into one of those three categories, or it will rule with the state.
"I have no idea which way they will go," he said.
IMAGE: www.yolocourts.ca.gov
The Author
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.