The State Worker

Chronicling civil-service life for California state workers

October 4, 2011
CCPOA loses furlough argument in appellate court

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for 100609 gavel.jpgAnother union furlough argument fell Monday when San Francisco's 1st District Court of Appeal told a trial court to change a favorable ruling to an unfavorable one against the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, which had claimed the policy as carried out for its members was an illegal pay cut.

The appellate court's decision in Brown v. Superior Court of Alameda County was a blow to the union whose 32,000 or so members stood to collectively gain millions of dollars -- no one is sure exactly how much -- in back pay and interest had the decision gone the other way. CCPOA says that it is deciding its next move in a case that stretches back more than two years.

CCPOA did win that argument in Alameda County Superior Court, claiming that "self-directed" furloughs -- which cut a prison officer's pay but deferred his or her corresponding time off -- violated state laws, including its minimum wage statute.

The appellate court action bogged down while attorneys for the union and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger argued over whether the trial court decision could be appealed and while other litigation that examined furlough authority and furlough process took the legal limelight.

After a lot of legal wrangling (click here for a refresher), the court decided that it would take the case and oral arguments in August. Appellate court Justice James A. Richman wrote Monday's decision, with Justices J. Anthony Kline and James R. Lambden concurring. In essence, they said earlier court decisions that affirmed the legality of furloughs applied in this case, too.

The justices also rejected CCPOA's argument that deferring the time off was an illegal pay cut, since there's no deadline for redeeming the time off. And arguing that officers worked for free in violation of minimum wage law, is "premature," according to the court, because that can't be litigated until someone leaves service with furlough time on the books. The justices ordered the trial court to recall its order in favor of CCPOA and issue a new order denying the union's petition.

On its website, CCPOA said that it's reviewing its options. It could appeal to the California Supreme Court or it could decide not to challenge the appellate court's ruling.
1st District Court of Appeal ruling: Brown v. Superior Court of Alameda County

On October 14, The Sacramento Bee will temporarily remove commenting from sacbee.com. While we design the upgrade, we encourage you to tell us what you like and don't like about commenting on sacbee.com and other websites. We've heard from hundreds of you already and we're listening. Please continue to add your thoughts and questions here. We also encourage you to write Letters to the Editor on this and other topics.



About The State Worker

Jon Ortiz The Author

Jon Ortiz launched The State Worker blog and a companion column in 2008 to cover state government from the perspective of California government employees. Every day he filters the news through a single question: "What does this mean for state workers?" Join Ortiz for updates and debate on state pay, benefits, pensions, contracts and jobs. Contact him at (916) 321-1043 and at jortiz@sacbee.com.

FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK

State Pay Database

This database allows you to search the salaries of California's 300,000-plus state workers and view up to four years of their pay history.

Categories


October 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Monthly Archives