UNITED HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES UNIVERSITY DIVISION SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION AFL CIO CLC v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (1983)

United Health Care Employees, University Division, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (hereafter, Union) appeals from the judgment denying its petition for preemptory writ of mandate. The issue is the interpretation of respondent University of California's Staff Personnel Policy 400.10, Compensation of Holiday Work, which provides:

“An employee who is required to work on an observed holiday shall be paid the regular pay at a straight-time rate, including any shift differential. In addition, the employee receives either holiday pay at the regular straight-time rate, including any shift differential, or compensatory time off.”

In denying Union's petition, the court stated:

“Section 400.10 of the Staff Personnel Policy is clear and explicit concerning the compensation to be received by employees required to work on an observed holiday, namely regular pay at a straight-time rate plus either holiday pay at the regular straight-time rate or compensatory time off. The words ‘in addition’ at the beginning of the second sentence of Section 400.10 refer back to the first sentence of the same section, and not to Section 400.2 or any other section.”

Union contends “the court erred by giving an absurd interpretation to section 400.10.”

In California School Employees Assn. v. New Haven Unified School District (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 919, one of the issues before the court was the rate of holiday pay. The language of Division Two of this court is pertinent:

“At the time of the hearing, Education Code section 13656, now section 45203, provided in pertinent part:

‘All employees a part of the classified service shall be entitled to the following paid holidays provided they are in a paid status during any portion of the working day immediately preceding or succeeding the holiday .

‘*

‘. When a classified employee is required to work on any of said holidays, he shall be paid compensation, or given compensating time off, for such work, in addition to the regular pay received for the holiday, at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate of pay .’

“The clear language of the statute provides that the additional rate of compensation for working on a holiday, in addition to regular pay, is time and one-half. Thus, where the classified employee works the holiday, that employee is entitled to one and one-half days off. (Cf. Mannetter v. County of Marin (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 518, 521.) The District's eisegetical interpretation of the statute perverts its clear language. ‘In general, a court should not look beyond the plain meaning of a statute when its language is clear and unambiguous, and there is no uncertainty or doubt as to the legislative intent. (Wallace v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 356, 360.) (Teachers Management & Inv. Corp. v. City of Santa Cruz (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 438, 446.) . [W]e must conclude that where employees received compensating time off, they were entitled to one and one-half days off in addition to the regular pay for the holiday worked. Where employees received compensating wages for the holiday worked, they were entitled to paid compensation in the amount of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay in addition to the regular pay for the holiday.” (Id., 91 Cal.App.3d at pp. 921-922, emphases supplied.)

The record establishes that the personnel department's interpretation and application of staff personnel policy 400.10 have been consistent for a period in excess of 20 years. An administrative agency's interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to great weight by the courts. (Carmona v. Division of Industrial Safety (1975) 13 Cal.3d 303, 310.) Respondent is a State agency. (Ishimatsu v. Regents of the University of California (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 854, 864.)

We discern no error.

The judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate is affirmed.

WHITE, Presiding Judge:

SCOTT and FEINBERG, Judges, concur.