American Federation of State etc. Employees v. County of Los Angeles, AFL-CIO
Citation | 194 Cal.Rptr. 540,146 Cal.App.3d 879 |
Decision Date | 04 August 1983 |
Docket Number | AFL-CIO |
Parties | AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 685,, an unincorporated association, Petitioner and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent and Respondent, Rodolfo Valdez Berumen, Intervenor and Respondent. Civ. 66581. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Reich, Adell & Crost and Hirsch Adell and Alexander B. Cvitan, Los Angeles, for petitioner and appellant.
John H. Larson, County Counsel and Alan K. Terakawa, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondent and respondent.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. and Joaquin G. Avila, San Antonio, Morris J. Baller, San Francisco, John E. Huerta and Ana I. Segura, Los Angeles, for intervenor and respondent.
Petitioner American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 685, AFL-CIO appeals from a judgment denying its petition for a writ of mandate, wherein petitioner sought to compel respondent County of Los Angeles to make fiscally-related reductions in rank of deputy probation officers in the inverse order of seniority.
Due to the economic exigencies of a reduced budget for fiscal year 1981, the department of probation was required to develop a surplus plan for the removal of certain personnel from the department's payroll. An initial plan would have called for the reduction from level II to level I of all deputy probation officers hired on or after April 16, 1973, in inverse order of seniority with no exemptions. Apparently, Michael Ishikawa, respondent's affirmative action compliance officer took exception to the plan, in that it showed an adverse impact on Hispanic employees and would detrimentally affect the department's ability to adequately serve the non-English-speaking client population. As a result, the plan was returned to the probation department for revisions.
The revised budget curtailment plan provided for the reduction in rank of all level II deputy probation officers hired on or after October 20, 1972, and included exemptions for 69 certified bilingual deputy probation officer positions.
Although the probation department had recognized the need for bilingual, particularly Spanish-speaking, deputy probation officers as early as 1971 and had taken steps to provide adequate bilingual services for the department's client population, a complaint in 1977 prompted County Supervisor Edelman to order the development of a plan to increase the Spanish-speaking deputy probation officer staff. The criteria utilized to determine the department's need for bilingual Spanish-speaking employees were: (1) the percentage of Spanish-surnamed persons served by the department, and (2) a survey of those persons certified bilingual in Spanish and occupying positions certified as requiring such skills on a continuing and frequent basis. Spanish-speaking bilingual certification has never been limited to or favored Hispanics per se. No comprehensive study of the extent of the need had ever been done, although it was widely recognized in the department that the need was continually increasing. In some field offices served by level II deputies, 30 to 40 percent of the clientele require bilingual services.
Without the budget curtailment plan bilingual exemption, the department's capacity to serve non-English-speaking juvenile wards in various county institutions would be severely impaired. Further, 38 deputy probation officer field service positions of demonstrated bilingual need would have been filled by noncertified bilingual officers, in that no level I deputy probation officers are assigned to field services. Twelve of the 69 persons exempted were non-Hispanic; some of the exempted positions required bilingual skills other than Spanish.
In seeking approval of the county director of personnel for the exemptions, pursuant to civil service rule 19.05, Acting Chief Probation Officer Kenneth Fare wrote:
Petitioner contends the trial court erred in finding that the civil service rules permit exemptions for certified bilingual employees to the order of reductions.
Petitioner further contends the trial court erred in ruling petitioner was estopped from challenging bilingual ability as a legitimate basis for exemption from the usual rule of seniority.
Petitioner asserts the trial court erred in ruling the exemptions did not deprive those union members, who had seniority but were demoted as a result of the exemptions, of their right to equal protection of the laws.
Finally, petitioner avers the trial court erred in finding that union members were not denied their right to procedural due process notice and hearing prior to demotion.
There is no merit to petitioner's contention the trial court erred in finding that the civil service rules permit exemption for certified bilingual employees to the order of reductions. As petitioner concedes, the interpretation of civil service rules is purely a question of law. (Cf. Wilson v. County of Santa Clara (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 78, 84, 137 Cal.Rptr. 78.) Accordingly, we begin with the well-settled rule of statutory construction that various parts of a statutory framework must be harmonized by considering each portion in the context of the whole. (Moyer v. Work men's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230, 110 Cal.Rptr. 144, 514 P.2d 1224.)
Civil service rule 19 governs county layoffs and reemployment. Rule 19.01 provides authority for the appointing power to "lay off or reduce " (emphasis added) an employee for reasons of economy, lack of work or lack of adequate positions in a particular class. Rule 19.03 provides generally for the order of layoff or reduction of permanent employees as follows: "Employees ... shall be laid off or reduced on the basis of inverse order of seniority in County service ...." Rule 19.06 provides authority for the appointing power to make reductions to lower level positions in lieu of layoffs when deemed in the best interests of the service. Rule 19.06 further requires that reductions be made in the same order (inverse seniority) specified in rules 19.02 ( ) and 19.03 (governing permanent employees specifically). Similarly, rule 19.07 provides that an employee may request reduction in lieu of layoff.
Finally, rule 19.05 provides exceptions to the general order, reading:
It is apparent that rule 19 sets forth a comprehensive scheme governing the circumstances, the order (by employment status and within the category of permanent employee), and exceptions to the general order, in which layoffs and reductions are to be made, for each part of rule 19 concerned with layoffs makes reference also to reductions. Indeed rule 19.05 makes...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Richards v. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), D-2197
...v. Adams, 149 Ill.2d 331, 173 Ill.Dec. 600, 597 N.E.2d 574 (1992); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 685, AFL-CIO v. County of Los Angeles, 146 Cal.App.3d 879, 194 Cal.Rptr. 540 (1983). Selective enforcement of regulatory or criminal laws has been held to co......
-
Superior Court of Fresno Cnty. v. Pub. Emp't Relations Bd.
...Forest (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 871, 880, 181 Cal.Rptr.3d 530 [municipal resolution]; American Federation of State etc. Employees v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 879, 884, 194 Cal.Rptr. 540 [civil service rule].) Accordingly, we conclude the interpretation of Personnel Rules, l......
-
Muzquiz v. City of Emeryville
...the judgment was supported by the rest of the evidence properly admitted. (American Federation of State etc. Employees v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 879, 887, 194 Cal.Rptr. 540.) As to the specific items of evidence at issue here, there was neither error nor Appellant expre......
-
Weisbuch v. County of Los Angeles
...determine whether there is such an entitlement. Cal. Const. art. 11, § 4(f); American Fed'n of State, County & Mun. Employees Local 685 v. Los Angeles County, 146 Cal.App.3d 879, 194 Cal.Rptr. 540, 546 (1983). The governing regulations establish that Dr. Weisbuch can claim no entitlement to......