CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Filed 3/25/11
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondents, ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner and Real Party in Interest. | B228732 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS126192) |
STORY CONTINUE FROM PART I….
3. The MOU Is Ambiguous as to Whether Furloughs are Arbitrable
Turning to the language of the MOU itself, the issue of whether the decision to furlough employees is arbitrable appears to be one requiring the interpretation of sections 1.9 and 3.1 of the MOUs. As discussed above, section 3.1 provides a broad definition of â€
Description | Faced with a deficit exceeding $500 million and an impending cash flow crisis, the Mayor and City Council of Los Angeles (City) approved an ordinance directing the Mayor to adopt a plan to furlough City civilian employees for up to 26 days per fiscal year. The Mayor adopted such a plan, and many employees filed grievances challenging the furloughs to which they were subjected. The grievances were denied and the employees, supported by their union, the Engineers and Architects Association (Union), requested arbitration of the grievances. When the City refused to arbitrate, the Union filed a petition to compel arbitration of over 400 such grievances. Concluding that the grievances were arbitrable, the trial court granted the petition to compel. The City challenged the order compelling arbitration by petition for writ of mandate. We issued an order to show cause and now grant the petition. While there are questions as to whether the issue of furloughs is grievable under the terms of the controlling Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs),[1] we conclude that any agreement to arbitrate the issue of furloughs would constitute an improper delegation of discretionary policymaking power vested in the City Council. |
Rating |