Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger

Summary

The California Supreme Court considered whether the Governor could unilaterally impose mandatory unpaid furloughs that reduced the compensation of represented state employees during a fiscal emergency. The court concluded that the Governor had authority to impose such a furlough only if authorized by an applicable memorandum of understanding, but held that subsequent legislation revising the 2008 Budget Act ratified and validated the challenged two-day-per-month furlough program. The court therefore rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge.

Holdings

1. The Governor and Department of Personnel Administration lacked authority to impose unilaterally a mandatory unpaid furlough reducing the wages and worktime of represented state employees unless an applicable memorandum of understanding specifically granted that authority.
2. Government Code sections 19851, 19849, and 3516.5 did not independently authorize the Governor or Department of Personnel Administration to impose the challenged mandatory unpaid furlough.
3. The February 2009 budget legislation authorized the reduction in employee compensation to be achieved through the then-existing two-day-per-month furlough plan and thereby validated the program.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Governor possessed constitutional or statutory authority to impose unilaterally a mandatory unpaid furlough reducing the wages and hours of represented state employees.
2. Whether Government Code sections 19851, 19849, or 3516.5 authorized the Governor or Department of Personnel Administration to impose the furlough.
3. Whether applicable memoranda of understanding authorized the unilateral furlough.
4. Whether the Legislature's February 2009 revisions to the 2008 Budget Act ratified and validated the furlough program despite any lack of initial executive authority.

Disposition

affirmed