A judge Friday morning upheld the furloughs mandated by the 2010 Legislature, ending the union’s court challenge for now.
An appeal is permitted. The union’s two challenges in other venues remain alive. The unfair labor practice complaint goes to four days of hearing at the Public Employment Relations Commission in June. And the separate grievance is on hold pending the outcome of the ULP proceedings and the court case.
On the court case, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christine Pomeroy granted the state’s motion for a summary judgment and dismissed the Federation’s basis for the lawsuit.
Pomeroy said there was no violation of the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution because there was a “rational relationship” between the Legislature’s policy bill calling for the 10 furlough days and budget language calling for savings from compensation through the furloughs, or temporary layoffs.
The judge also said the state’s actions did not impair the union’s General Government contract. She said taken as a whole, the contract’s article dealing with temporary layoffs did allow the state to impose the 10 furlough days because of a “revenue shortfall.” The union had argued that the contract provision allowed furloughs only for emergency financial situations and that the state knew since 2008 it had a budget problem. The state could have made up the $73.3 million in targeted savings by using a myriad of other options, the union argued.
The court decision affects only the furloughs that run through next month. It does not affect the negotiated flexible furloughs, or temporary salary reduction plan, in the 2011-2013 contract that is awaiting legislative ratification.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment Policy
We appreciate our readers and thank you for adding to the discussion. The following guidelines are established to ensure respectful tone in the comments of readers so we can all enjoy the site.
• Keep comments on topic - any comment that appears to be off-topic will be edited or deleted.
• Profanity - we’re PG13 here. Moderate language is allowed, but we reserve the right to edit out anything offensive.
• Personal attacks - personal attacks on the authors or other commentators will result in an immediate ban.
• Editor’s right - While we encourage comments that challenge or offer constructed criticism, we reserve the right to edit or remove any post, and to ban a user.*
• External linking - external links are ok, if they are relevant to the original post and your comment. Simply linking to your own site will be frowned upon.
Final Words
You, and only you, are responsible for your words. Once your comment is submitted, that’s it — you’re immortalized. Think before you submit.
*WFSE members are protected under the following Communications Ethics policy:
Under the provisions of the AFSCME “Bill of Rights for Union Members” regarding communications, “Members shall suffer no impairment of freedom of speech concerning the operations of this union. Active discussion of union affairs shall be encouraged and protected within this organization.”
If you believe your comments were removed unfairly, you may protest the removal of your post to the Communications Committee. Leave your protest at Contact Us on WFSE.org