Supreme Court of California

In employee organizations' suit claiming that the Governor lacked authority to unilaterally implement an involuntary furlough of represented state employees that reduces such employees' hours and earnings by approximately 10 percent, trial court's conclusion that the Governor possessed the authority to impose the furlough in response to the fiscal emergency facing the state is affirmed where: 1) under existing constitutional provisions and statutes, the Governor on December 19, 2008, possessed authority to institute a mandatory furlough of represented state employees, reducing the earning of such employees, only if specifically granted such unilateral authority in an applicable memorandum of understanding entered into between the state and the employee organization representing the affected employees; 2) even if the Governor lacked authority to institute the challenged furlough plan unilaterally, plaintiffs' challenge to the furlough plan must be rejected as in mid-February 2009 - shortly after the furlough program went into effect - the Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, legislation reducing the appropriations for employee compensation contained in the original 2008 Budget Act by an amount that reflected the savings the Governor sought to obtain through the two-day-a-month furlough program; and 3) the 2009 budget legislation validated the Governor's furlough program at issue as the Legislature's 2009 enactment of the revisions to the 2008 Budget Act operated to ratify the use of the two-day-a-month furlough program as a permissible means of achieving the reduction of state employee compensation mandated by the act.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/04/2010
• Published 10/04/2010

Judges

• GEORGE

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Patrick J. Whalen, Edmund G. Brown, Jr