Local 1000 attorneys tell Supreme Court:
governor's furlough scheme is illegal
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.
Our attorneys argued that Gov. Schwarzenegger had "a tool box of ways to achieve cost savings--including collective bargaining--instead of illegally implementing furloughs... Instead, the governor chose to unilaterally implement furloughs when the Legislature would not grant him the legal power to do so."
The governor's legal team argued that the governor had existing administrative authority in place when the ongoing budget crisis caused a fiscal emergency.
A key argument made by Local 1000's legal team is that existing state law mandates a 40-hour workweek, but due to furloughs, the governor has sidestepped this state law.
"This law was a remedial statute enacted for the benefit of workers," said Anne Giese, an attorney for Local 1000. "To cherry-pick a phrase from this law and use that to authorize a furlough simply cannot be validated."
The Supreme Court has 90 days to publish its decision.
The governor's legal team argued that the governor had existing administrative authority in place when the ongoing budget crisis caused a fiscal emergency.
A key argument made by Local 1000's legal team is that existing state law mandates a 40-hour workweek, but due to furloughs, the governor has sidestepped this state law.
"This law was a remedial statute enacted for the benefit of workers," said Anne Giese, an attorney for Local 1000. "To cherry-pick a phrase from this law and use that to authorize a furlough simply cannot be validated."
The Supreme Court has 90 days to publish its decision.