Eight legal actions seek to overturn furloughs
Local 1000 challenges illegal Executive Order on many frontsLocal 1000 has filed eight separate legal cases challenging the governor's furlough scheme and responded to a proposed consolidation in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Rejects Consolidation
The Governor filed a motion to consolidate the furlough cases (except SCIF) in the Supreme Court. While Local 1000 agreed the matter was of vital importance and needed a prompt resolution, the Supreme Court rejected consolidation.
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.
Constitutionality of furloughs challenged
Our first lawsuit was filed in January 2009, in Sacramento Superior Court, asserting that the governor's executive order on furloughs violated the state constitution and various California statutes. The California Supreme Court has assumed jurisdiction over this case and has set a June 23 deadline for submitting briefs and answering the justices' questions on additional legal issues surrounding furloughs.
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.
In a new development, Local 1000 has filed a new lawsuit naming all other affected departments not previously named in the original non-General Fund case. This action will proceed on its own through the Superior Court.
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.
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. This document production will continue through 2010.
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 state finally filed an answer to this complaint and the document production process will be starting in the near future.
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.
The Governor filed a motion to consolidate the furlough cases (except SCIF) in the Supreme Court. While Local 1000 agreed the matter was of vital importance and needed a prompt resolution, the Supreme Court rejected consolidation.
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.
Constitutionality of furloughs challenged
Our first lawsuit was filed in January 2009, in Sacramento Superior Court, asserting that the governor's executive order on furloughs violated the state constitution and various California statutes. The California Supreme Court has assumed jurisdiction over this case and has set a June 23 deadline for submitting briefs and answering the justices' questions on additional legal issues surrounding furloughs.
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.
In a new development, Local 1000 has filed a new lawsuit naming all other affected departments not previously named in the original non-General Fund case. This action will proceed on its own through the Superior Court.
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.
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. This document production will continue through 2010.
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 state finally filed an answer to this complaint and the document production process will be starting in the near future.
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.