Legal actions seek to overturn furloughs
UPDATED: September 20, 2010Local 1000 challenges illegal Executive Order on many fronts
Local 1000's legal team, attorneys for several other labor organizations and the governor completed oral arguments in the California Supreme Court on Sept. 8. All parties now wait for the panel of justices to render a decision that will impact all other furlough cases currently in the lower courts.
Furloughs overturned for SCIF employees
In this lawsuit, we argued that the governor's executive order on furloughs was unlawful for employees of the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). San Francisco Superior Court Judge Charlotte Woolard agreed with Local 1000 attorneys that the governor's furlough order violated the California insurance code. On Sept. 10, 2009, she ordered that furloughs immediately cease for 6,200 SCIF employees represented by Local 1000. Local 1000 pursued retroactive back pay for its members. Though SCIF has already provided nearly all the back pay to members, Schwarzenegger's attorneys appealed Woolard's decision. On June 11, 2010, the First District Court of Appeal issued a decision in favor of SEIU Local 1000, finding that the furloughs of SCIF employees were unlawful and the back pay award appropriate. However, the Supreme Court has taken up review of this case, along with the decision from the Attorneys' Union (CASE). We expect an oral argument in the next few months.
New furloughs challenged
In response to the new Executive Order of 3 furlough days, Local 1000 took action - amending several lawsuits to challenge the new order. Local 1000 also sought a temporary restraining order against the new furloughs. Although both the Superior and the Appellate Courts ruled on our side, the Supreme Court took the unprecedented action of reversing the decision and staying further action pending its ruling on the September 8th arguments.
Non-General Fund employees should be exempt from furloughs
Yet another lawsuit challenges the furloughs of tens of thousands of state employees whose salaries are not paid out of the General Fund, (such as Caltrans, CalPERS, DMV and Employment Development Department). Local 1000 won its argument, in Alameda County Superior Court, that since the furlough order was designed to save General Fund money, the measure cannot legally be applied to those workers whose salaries are paid from other revenue streams. The governor has appealed this decision. The case is now fully briefed before the First District Court of Appeal, and the parties await a date for oral argument.
Local 1000 has also filed a new lawsuit naming all other affected departments not previously named in the original non-General Fund case. This action began proceeding jointly with other Union actions through the Alameda Superior Court. However, due to the Supreme Court intervention mentioned above, the matter has been stayed.
New lawsuit seeks to overturn illegal 'self directed' furloughs
A new Local 1000 legal action seeks to force the state to pay full wages to state workers on so-called "self-directed furloughs," including employees of 24-hour care facilities and the Employment Development Department (EDD). The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, seeks full pay for workers who have been subjected to the pay cut associated with furloughs but ordered to bank their furlough days. The lawsuit would apply to many workers at prisons, mental health facilities, developmental centers and veterans homes - all residential institutions with 24-hour custody and care.
The suit also applies to the EDD, where workers are subject to furloughs even though caseloads have skyrocketed due to a 12 percent state unemployment rate. Many EDD workers are required to work five-day weeks with promises of future days off. This action also began proceeding jointly with other Union actions through the Alameda Superior Court. However, due to the Supreme Court intervention mentioned above, the matter has been stayed.
Furlough implementation violates state Administrative Procedures Act
Local 1000 challenged the governor's executive order as violating the Administrative Procedures Act, which lays out a process for changing state rules and regulations. A Sacramento Superior Court judge agreed with Local 1000 attorneys and denied Schwarzenegger's attorneys' motion to dismiss the case. Local 1000 filed requests for the state to provide relevant documents. The Supreme Court decision may affect this case.
Third furlough day order violates Emergency Services Act
The Union filed another lawsuit that asserted Schwarzenegger's imposition of the third furlough day violated the Emergency Services Act (ESA). In the suit, Local 1000 attorneys argued that the state's fiscal crisis was not an emergency and that the governor's actions were, in fact, political expediency related to a labor dispute for which the ESA cannot be used. In addition, the suit contends that since the Legislature has passed a revised budget, any fiscal emergency justifying the furloughs no longer existed. Local 1000 filed the lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2009 and is seeking a final order overturning the third furlough day each month. The Supreme Court decision may affect this case.
Unfair Labor Practice charge filed against governor
Local 1000 has also filed Unfair Labor Practice charges against the governor, citing his double dealing as a key reason our contract bill has not been ratified by the Legislature. In our August 11 filing with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), Local 1000 attorneys cited the governor's repeated violations of the Dills Act, which governs public sector bargaining, and stated, "The governor needed state workers as economic human shields for his political posturing." PERB has yet to issue a warning letter or a complaint.
In this lawsuit, we argued that the governor's executive order on furloughs was unlawful for employees of the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). San Francisco Superior Court Judge Charlotte Woolard agreed with Local 1000 attorneys that the governor's furlough order violated the California insurance code. On Sept. 10, 2009, she ordered that furloughs immediately cease for 6,200 SCIF employees represented by Local 1000. Local 1000 pursued retroactive back pay for its members. Though SCIF has already provided nearly all the back pay to members, Schwarzenegger's attorneys appealed Woolard's decision. On June 11, 2010, the First District Court of Appeal issued a decision in favor of SEIU Local 1000, finding that the furloughs of SCIF employees were unlawful and the back pay award appropriate. However, the Supreme Court has taken up review of this case, along with the decision from the Attorneys' Union (CASE). We expect an oral argument in the next few months.
New furloughs challenged
In response to the new Executive Order of 3 furlough days, Local 1000 took action - amending several lawsuits to challenge the new order. Local 1000 also sought a temporary restraining order against the new furloughs. Although both the Superior and the Appellate Courts ruled on our side, the Supreme Court took the unprecedented action of reversing the decision and staying further action pending its ruling on the September 8th arguments.
Non-General Fund employees should be exempt from furloughs
Yet another lawsuit challenges the furloughs of tens of thousands of state employees whose salaries are not paid out of the General Fund, (such as Caltrans, CalPERS, DMV and Employment Development Department). Local 1000 won its argument, in Alameda County Superior Court, that since the furlough order was designed to save General Fund money, the measure cannot legally be applied to those workers whose salaries are paid from other revenue streams. The governor has appealed this decision. The case is now fully briefed before the First District Court of Appeal, and the parties await a date for oral argument.
Local 1000 has also filed a new lawsuit naming all other affected departments not previously named in the original non-General Fund case. This action began proceeding jointly with other Union actions through the Alameda Superior Court. However, due to the Supreme Court intervention mentioned above, the matter has been stayed.
New lawsuit seeks to overturn illegal 'self directed' furloughs
A new Local 1000 legal action seeks to force the state to pay full wages to state workers on so-called "self-directed furloughs," including employees of 24-hour care facilities and the Employment Development Department (EDD). The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, seeks full pay for workers who have been subjected to the pay cut associated with furloughs but ordered to bank their furlough days. The lawsuit would apply to many workers at prisons, mental health facilities, developmental centers and veterans homes - all residential institutions with 24-hour custody and care.
The suit also applies to the EDD, where workers are subject to furloughs even though caseloads have skyrocketed due to a 12 percent state unemployment rate. Many EDD workers are required to work five-day weeks with promises of future days off. This action also began proceeding jointly with other Union actions through the Alameda Superior Court. However, due to the Supreme Court intervention mentioned above, the matter has been stayed.
Furlough implementation violates state Administrative Procedures Act
Local 1000 challenged the governor's executive order as violating the Administrative Procedures Act, which lays out a process for changing state rules and regulations. A Sacramento Superior Court judge agreed with Local 1000 attorneys and denied Schwarzenegger's attorneys' motion to dismiss the case. Local 1000 filed requests for the state to provide relevant documents. The Supreme Court decision may affect this case.
Third furlough day order violates Emergency Services Act
The Union filed another lawsuit that asserted Schwarzenegger's imposition of the third furlough day violated the Emergency Services Act (ESA). In the suit, Local 1000 attorneys argued that the state's fiscal crisis was not an emergency and that the governor's actions were, in fact, political expediency related to a labor dispute for which the ESA cannot be used. In addition, the suit contends that since the Legislature has passed a revised budget, any fiscal emergency justifying the furloughs no longer existed. Local 1000 filed the lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2009 and is seeking a final order overturning the third furlough day each month. The Supreme Court decision may affect this case.
Unfair Labor Practice charge filed against governor
Local 1000 has also filed Unfair Labor Practice charges against the governor, citing his double dealing as a key reason our contract bill has not been ratified by the Legislature. In our August 11 filing with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), Local 1000 attorneys cited the governor's repeated violations of the Dills Act, which governs public sector bargaining, and stated, "The governor needed state workers as economic human shields for his political posturing." PERB has yet to issue a warning letter or a complaint.