Prof. Engineers in Cal. Government v. Brown CA1/3

Filed 2/18/15 Prof. Engineers in Cal. Government v. Brown CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT et al., A141028 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG13673444) EDMUND G. BROWN, as the Governor etc., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG), the exclusive bargaining representative for some 10,000 state engineers and related professionals in state Bargaining Unit 9, appeals the denial of its petition for a writ of mandate challenging the imposition of one-day-per-month furloughs on its members during the 2012-2013 fiscal year. PECG contends that these legislatively authorized furloughs contravene the terms of the 2011-2013 memorandum of understanding (MOU) previously entered with the state and approved by the Legislature, thus unconstitutionally impairing the terms of a binding labor contract. As the trial court held, however, the terms of the MOU did not preclude imposition of the furloughs, the furloughs and consequent salary reductions were in full compliance with California law, and there was no impairment of contractual rights. We shall therefore affirm denial of the writ.

1

Background Although the parties’ briefing recounts the history of the public employee furloughs and furlough litigation that arose out of California’s recent fiscal crisis, beginning with two-days-per-month furloughs imposed for the period from February 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, the issue in this case can be stated and analyzed quite simply, without belaboring the history of these events. In March 2011, PECG and the Department of Personnel Administration, now the California Department of Human Resources, agreed to the terms of a Unit 9 MOU for the period April 1, 2011, through July 1, 2013. The agreement was subsequently ratified by the members of PECG, approved by the Legislature in Senate Bill No. 151 (Stats. 2011, ch. 25), and signed into law by the Governor on May 16, 2011. Article 5.14 of the MOU provides for a “Personal Leave Program 2011” as follows: “Effective with the pay period following agreement and then continued for 12 months, full time bargaining unit employees shall be subject to a personal leave program (PLP 2011) eight (8) hours per month in the manner outlined below: [¶] 1. Effective with the pay period following agreement each full time employee’s monthly pay shall be reduced by 4.62%. However, salary rates and salary ranges shall remain unchanged. PLP 2011 shall end after 12 pay periods.” The PLP was thus in effect from June 2011 through May 2012. Article 26, subdivision (A) of the MOU provides: “Due to the savings achieved through this contract, the State shall not implement a new furlough program during the months employees participate in the Personal Leave (PLP) 2011.” Unlike the majority of the state’s 21 bargaining units, PECG was unable to reach agreement with the Department of Human Resources to an extension of the personal leave program and consequent reduction in employee compensation beyond May 2012. Following an impasse in negotiations, the Legislature enacted and the Governor signed Assembly Bill No. 1497, which amended section 3.90 of the Budget Act of 20121 to read