California League of City Employee Associations v. Palos Verdes Library Dist.
Decision Date | 07 December 1978 |
Docket Number | P,AFL-CI |
Parties | CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF CITY EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATIONS, a Division of Service Employees International Union, Local 660,laintiff and Respondent, v. PALOS VERDES LIBRARY DISTRICT, Board of Library Trustees, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 51995. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
John H. Larson, County Counsel, Los Angeles, William F. Stewart, Division Chief, and Joe Ben Hudgens, Principal Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.
Don P. Bonfa, City Atty., and James Georges, Deputy City Atty., as amicus curiae on behalf of appellant.
Lemaire, Faunce & Katznelson and Edward L. Faunce, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.
Plaintiff employee organization, on behalf of its member employees of defendant Palos Verdes Library District, petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandamus. The trial court granted judgment for plaintiff, compelling defendant to reinstate certain fringe benefits for long-term employees, which defendant had purported to eliminate by resolution of August 14, 1975. Defendant appeals.
The three benefits in question were: (1) a longevity salary increase, equal to 2 percent of base pay, awarded at the end of the 9th, 12th, 15th and 18th years of service; (2) a 5th week of vacation for full-time professional employees after 10 years of continuous service; and (3) a 4-month fully paid sabbatical for librarians at the end of each 6 years of full-time service.
These benefits were included in the library district's "Personnel Policies and Procedures" adopted by the board of library trustees on July 27, 1966, and have been implemented as a matter of practice for a long period of time. During "meet and confer" sessions (see Gov.Code, § 3505 et seq.) for the fiscal year 1975-1976, defendant offered the employees a 6 to 6.6 percent salary increase conditioned on the elimination of the 3 benefits in question. No memorandum of understanding between the parties was reached. On August 14, 1975, the defendant unilaterally adopted the 6 to 6.6 percent salary increases, together with the elimination of the benefits as to all employees who had not yet completed the specific conditions precedent to qualify for the benefits.
The trial court ruled that defendant did not have the power unilaterally to eliminate these benefits as to those employees who had been working towards them prior to August 14, 1975. In its memorandum opinion the trial court stated:
The trial court therefore granted a writ of mandate compelling defendant to reinstate the benefits for employees who had performed service prior to August 14, 1975.
Defendant contends (1) "The Longevity Benefits in Question do not Constitute Fundamental Vested Rights of Employees of Appellant District" and (2) "Even if the Longevity Benefits in Question were Fundamental Vested Rights, they were Adequately Offset by the Salary Increase Approved by Appellant Board for Fiscal Year 1975-76." We hold these contentions to be without merit.
Defendant's basic argument is that the terms and conditions relating to employment by a public agency are strictly controlled by statute or ordinance rather than by ordinary contract standards. (Markman v. County of Los Angeles, 35 Cal.App.3d 132, 134-135, 110 Cal.Rptr. 610.) 1
Nevertheless, the cases also recognize that "(a)lthough there may be no right to tenure, public employment gives rise to certain obligations which are protected by the contract clause of the Constitution, including the right to the payment of salary which has been earned." (Kern v. City of Long Beach, 29 Cal.2d 848, 852-853, 179 P.2d 799, 802.)
The courts have recognized, for instance, that an employee begins earning pension rights from the day he starts employment. "While payment of these benefits is deferred, and is subject to the condition that the employee continue to serve for the period required by the statute, the mere fact that performance is in whole or in part dependent upon certain contingencies does not prevent a contract from arising, and the employing governmental body may not deny or impair the contingent liability any more than it can refuse to make the salary payments which are immediately due." (Id., at p. 855, 179 P.2d at p. 803; see In re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal.3d 838, 846-847, 126 Cal.Rptr. 633, 544 P.2d 561; see also Waite v. Waite, 6 Cal.3d 461, 472-473, 99 Cal.Rptr. 325, 492 P.2d 13.)
This principle is not limited simply to pension cases. (See Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist., 70 Cal.2d 240, 248, 74 Cal.Rptr. 398, 449 P.2d 462 ( ); Frates v. Burnett, 9 Cal.App.3d 63, 69, 87 Cal.Rptr. 731 ( ); Ivens v. Simon, 212 Cal.App.2d 177, 182, 27 Cal.Rptr. 801 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cal Fire Local 2881 v. Cal. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys.
...of public employment benefits. (E.g., California League of City Employee Associations v. Palos Verdes Library Dist . (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 135, 137, 150 Cal.Rptr. 739 (California League ) [finding contract clause protection for terms and conditions of employment that constituted longevity be......
-
Retired Emps. Ass'n of Orange Cnty., Inc. v. Cnty. of Orange
...at p. 1223, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 634). County's position is further undermined by California League of City Employee Associations v. Palos Verdes Library Dist. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 135, 150 Cal.Rptr. 739, which implied vested rights to certain pay, vacation, and sabbatical benefits that were base......
-
Beggs v. City of Portales, 26,903.
...at retirement may be a significant inducement in determining employment."); Cal. League of City Employee Ass'ns v. Palos Verdes Library Dist., 87 Cal.App.3d 135, 150 Cal.Rptr. 739, 742 (Ct.App.1978) (finding salary increases and promised vacation "were important to the employees, had been a......
-
San Diego Police v. San Diego Retirement System
...Thorning v. Hollister Sch. Dist., 11 Cal.App.4th 1598, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 91 (1992) and Cal. League of City Employee Ass'ns v. Palos Verdes Library Dist., 87 Cal.App.3d 135, 150 Cal.Rptr. 739 (1978), Association argues that the district court erroneously characterized the retiree health benefit......
-
Statutes as Contracts? The 'California Rule' and Its Impact on Public Pension Reform
...the court must evaluate “the effect of [the benefit] in human 126. Cal. League of City Emp. Ass’ns v. Palos Verdes Library Dist., 150 Cal. Rptr. 739, 741 (Ct. App. 1978). While public employees who have achieved “permanent” employment status have a vested property interest in that employmen......