Labor & Employment Law Blog

The California Supreme Court recently upheld the Governor's unilaterially-implemented mandatory furloughs of represented state employees.  Professional Engineers in California Government, et al. v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al., California Supreme Court Case NO. S183411, October 4, 2010. The Court determined that the Budget Act of 2008 "reasonably included the furlough plan that was then in existence," therefore the Legislature approved the Governor's furlough plan as required by law. The Court's ruling was premised on state law that specifically requires the Legislature to approve provisions of memoranda of understanding requiring the expenditure of state funds in the annual Budget Act.  

Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed nine out of the eleven employment-related bills we were tracking that made it to his desk for approval.

In Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California to deny class certification on the ground that a class action would not be a superior method of litigating the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on account of (1) potential liability proportionate to the actual harm, if any, to the plaintiff and class members, (2) the size of the potential damages, and (3) the defendant's good faith compliance. The Ninth Circuit held that none of those three considerations was a proper basis for the District Court to deny class certification.  

AALRR attorney Thomas Lenz was quoted by the Riverside Press-Enterprise on September 10, 2010, in an article on labor negotiations. 

In a long-awaited decision, the National Labor Relations Board held that a union’s display of a peaceful stationary banner at the location of an employer with whom it had no dispute did not violate the secondary boycott provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. Likening such activity to the mere distribution of handbills that was found lawful by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1988 decision in Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. Trades, the Board concluded that the bannering merely attempted to “persuade” members of the public to assist it in its objectives, and not to “coerce” or “restrain” anyone in violation of the law.

The following employment-related legislation met the August 31, 2010 deadline for passage by the California Legislature. Among the legislation are bills limiting the use of credit checks, allowing exemptions from meal and rest periods for certain employees covered by collective bargaining agreements, requiring paid bereavement leave, and extending paid marrow and organ donation leave to certain private employers. Governor Schwarzenegger has until September 30, 2010 to sign, veto, or let the bills become law without his signature.

With the August 31, 2010 deadline for legislative bills to be passed a week away, several employment-related bills are working their way through the California legislature to Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk.

A trio of bills were recently enrolled and should reach the Governor’s desk shortly:

AB 2340 (Monning) Bereavement Leave - This bill would allow for three days unpaid leave for bereavement ...

AALRR represents Flooring Solutions of Nevada, Inc. ("FSI") in a dispute with the Painters Union. After FSI's labor agreement expired in early 2007 the Painters claimed to continue to represent FSI's employees. The Painters' claim was based upon a card check clause in the expired agreement and unilateral steps the Painters took just before contract expiration. A National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB ...

Last week, in a long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court handed employers a setback by holding that age-related comments by non-decision makers can be relevant and admissible as evidence in age discrimination cases. In the case of Reid v. Google, Inc., the Court specifically rejected the "stray remarks doctrine," by which any remarks made by non-decision making co-workers or decision-making supervisors outside the decisional process were deemed irrelevant and insufficient to support an age discrimination claim.

On July 28, 2010 Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have removed the exemption for agricultural employees from overtime and meal period requirements under California law.