GILB v. CHIANG
Filed 7/2/10
CERTIFIED
FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
DAVID A. GILB, as Director,
etc. et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
JOHN CHIANG, as Controller,
etc. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants;
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, etc. et al.,
Interveners and Appellants.
C061947
(Super.
Ct. No. 34200880000026CUWMGDS)
Story continued from part II…..
The Controller also cites Madden v. Riley (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 814, where this court said the
approval, by the Governor and Department of Finance, of travel expenses for a
law enforcement officer to attend a convention in Reno did not preclude the
controller from examining the facts to ascertain whether the business of the
convention in fact included duties incident to the officer's employment. (Id.
at p. 820.) However, as explained in Tirapelle
determination of the factual circumstances necessary to establish the validity
of the claims. Here, it is undisputed
that the employees' claims are valid. A
delay in partial payment pursuant to White
v. Davis would not call for the Controller to determine any factual circumstances.
The Controller and
intervener SEIU argue DPA's pay letter lacked
authority because section 19826, subdivision (b), (fn. 18, ante) prohibits DPA from adjusting salaries for â€
| Description | The main issue in this appeal is whether the California Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) has authority to direct the State Controller temporarily to defer paying state employees' salaries (except for federally-mandated minimum wages) when appropriations are unavailable due to the state Legislature's failure to enact a timely state budget. (Gov. Code, § 12440.[1]) Although DPA merely sought to implement a California Supreme Court decision (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528), the Controller disagrees with DPA's interpretation of the judicial opinion. Plaintiffs DPA and its director David A. Gilb (collectively, DPA) sought declaratory and other relief against defendants State Controller John Chiang and the Office of State Controller (collectively, the Controller). Various state employee groups intervened in support of the Controller.[2] Despite †|
| Rating |
