United Ass'n of Journeymen v. City & County of San Francisco

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 154·32 Cal. App. 4th 751·38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280·95 Daily Journal DAR 2411·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1377
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 23, 1995A062708California6,373 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stein, J.

The City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter the City) appeals an order issuing a writ of mandate compelling the City to pay certain of its employees the difference between the salary they received in the fiscal year 1991-1992, and the salary they would have received pursuant to the 1991-1992 salary standardization ordinance, had it not been vetoed by the Mayor. The trial court found that the Board had a mandatory duty to pass the ordinance and override the Mayor’s veto.

The City’s appeal raises an issue of first impression: does the Board have the discretion to defer revision of existing wage rates by not passing a salary standardization ordinance, despite the fact that the Commission has conducted a survey of prevailing wages and submitted proposed schedules of compensation recommending increases in existing rates?

We shall conclude that the court erred in granting the union’s petition for a writ of mandate. The court’s construction of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco (charter) as requiring the Board to pass a salary standardization ordinance and override the Mayor’s veto is inconsistent with provisions of the charter giving the Board the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.