California State Employees' Assn. v. State of California
Decision Date | 04 May 1973 |
Citation | 32 Cal.App.3d 103,108 Cal.Rptr. 60 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. The STATE of California et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 13670. |
Mohi, Morales, Dumas & Glasman, by Frank C. Morales, Los Angeles, for petitioners and appellants.
Thomas J. Cunningham, John E. Landon, John P. Sparrow, Berkeley, for defendant and respondent Regents.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen. by Anthony S. DaVigo, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for other defendants and respondents.
Plaintiffs California State Employees' Association, et al., filed two separate actions for declaratory relief and writs of mandamus on behalf of all of the employees of the state whose salaries or wages are established either by the State Personnel Board, the Trustees of the California State Colleges (now the Trustees of the California State University and Colleges), or the Regents of the University of California. For purposes of trial and pretrial proceedings the two matters were consolidated.
The complaints for declaratory relief asked the court to interpret and declare plaintiffs' rights with regard to the standard by which their salaries should be established and adjusted. The petitions for writ of mandamus asked that defendants be directed to adjust the salaries and wages of each person in their employ 'found by them in their establishment of salaries and wages to be receiving less than the prevailing salary or wage . . . at least equal to the salary or wage being paid in outside employment.'
Defendant Regents interposed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The other defendants demurred to the alleged causes of action applicable to them.
Seven defendants were designated by name in these two actions--the State of California, the Governor, the Legislature, the State Personnel Board, the Trustees of the California State Colleges, the Regents of the University of California, and the State Controller.
In complaint and petition No. 203440, plaintiffs seek to compel the payment of wage increases to state civil service employees and employees (academic and nonacademic) of the California State Colleges and of the University of California for the fiscal year 1969--1970.
In complaint and petition No. 203622, plaintiffs seek to compel the payment of wage increases to state civil service employees and the nonacademic employees of the California State Colleges and of the University of California for the fiscal year 1970--1971.
After the trial court ruled in favor of defendants this appeal followed: 1
Section 18850 of the Government Code provides: 2
Section 22607 of the Education Code provides, in part:
Based upon these two code sections, plaintiffs' argument appears to be as follows: The exclusive power to establish the salaries and wages of civil service and state college employees is reposed in the Legislature. (See People v. Coleman (1854) 4 Cal. 46, 49.) By virtue of the enactment of the two foregoing statutes, the Legislature effectively delegated the duty to the State Personnel Board and the college trustees to establish the salaries and wages of the state employees within their respective jurisdiction. (Gov.Code, § 18850; Ed.Code, § 22607, see also Cal.Const., art. XXIV (State Civil Service).) The standards for establishing salaries in these two statutes impose mandatory duties upon the State Personnel Board and the college trustees. 3 Thus, the Legislature may not arbitrary withhold funds to pay increases in salaries established to be due. Nor is the Governor a part of the salary-fixing process, and therefore his veto of a salary appropriation by the Legislature to meet the obligation for prevailing salary increases 'created' by the personnel board and the college trustees is a nullity. Finally, plaintiffs contend the board and the trustees must adjust the salaries and wages of the employees by providing increases to at least the extent that funds are appropriated. 4
Plaintiffs' contentions must fail. Their entire argument is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to circumvent pertinent provisions of our state Constitution. Regardless of what standard is to be applied by the salary-fixing agencies, the constitutional power of the Legislature and the Governor cannot thereby be curtailed or limited.
Section 21 of article XIII of our Constitution provides, in part, that 'No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriation made by law . . ..' It has long been established that 'the power to collect and appropriate the revenue of the State is one peculiarly within the discretion of the Legislature.' (Myers v. English (1858) 9 Cal. 341, 349; see Cal.Const., art. IV, § 1.) The Legislature may not divest itself of its constitutionally granted powers. (Slavich v. Walsh (1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 228, 235, 186 P.2d 35.) Further, the Governor has exclusive discretion to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature. (Cal.Const., art. IV, § 10, subd. (a).) He also has the power to 'reduce or eliminate one or more items of appropriation . . ..' (Cal.Const., art. IV, § 10, subd. (b).) Thus, plaintiffs' contention that the Legislature 'effectively delegated' its constitutional power to fix salaries to the State Personnel Board and the college trustees, thereby divesting itself of its inherent authority to limit or restrict appropriations therefor, is without merit. And, of course, the Legislature could not curb the Governor's constitutional right of the veto power.
A careful reading of the statutes also shows that the Legislature expressly placed limitations on the delegation of authority. They read, in part as follows: 'The board shall make no adjustments which require expenditures in excess of existing appropriations which may be used for salary increase purposes.' (Gov.Code, § 18850.) 'The trustees, however, shall make no adjustments which require expenditures in excess of existing appropriations available for the payment of salaries.' (Ed.Code, § 22607.) Finally, and in this connection, section 9610 of the Government Code provides:
In any event, the courts have no authority to compel a separate and equal branch of state government to make appropriation of funds. At the time of the filing of this action, section 1 of article III of the state Constitution provided: 5 As stated in Myers v. English, supra, 9 Cal. at page 349: 'We think the power to collect and appropriate the revenue of the State is one peculiarly within the discretion of the Legislature. It is a very delicate and responsible trust, and if not used properly by the Legislature at one session, the people will be certain to send to the next more discreet and faithful servants.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Serrano v. Priest
...(1905) 146 Cal. 604, 606--607, 80 P. 1031; Myers v. English (1958) 9 Cal. 341, 349; California State Employees' Assn. v. State of California (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 103, 108--109, 108 Cal.Rptr. 60; cf. Igna v. City of Baldwin Park (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 909, 915, 88 Cal.Rptr. 581; Monarch Cablevi......
-
Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc.
...(See Beazell v. Schrader (1963) 59 Cal.2d 577, 580, 30 Cal.Rptr. 534, 381 P.2d 390; California State Employees' Assn. v. State of California (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 103, 106, fn. 1, 108 Cal.Rptr. 60; Wilson v. Household Finance Corp. (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 649, 652, 182 Cal.Rptr. 590.)4 The rec......
-
Mandel v. Myers
...341, 349; Westinghouse Electric Co. v. Chambers (1915) 169 Cal. 131, 135, 145 P. 1025; California State Employees' Assn. v. State of California (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 103, 108-109, 108 Cal.Rptr. 60; Veterans of Foreign Wars v. State of California (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 688, 697, 111 Cal.Rptr. A......
-
In re Holoholo
...State Employees Ass'n v. Flournoy, 32 Cal.App.3d 219, 232-233, 108 Cal.Rptr. 251 (1973); California State Employees Ass'n v. State of California, 32 Cal.App.3d 103, 110-111, 108 Cal.Rptr. 60 (1973). Therefore, the UC is the state for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. B. Waiver by consent ......