Los Angeles County Employees Union, Local 434 v. County of Los Angeles

Petitioners appeal from a judgment which denied them a peremptory writ of mandate.

Facts

As will be seen the only dispute concerning the facts is orismological. What actually happened is common ground.

*271 Petitioner Flossie Bertram is an employee of the respendent county. 1 Petitioner Los Angeles County Employees Union (“Union”) is the certified bargaining agent for certain county employees, including Flossie Bertram. It joined in the petition in its own behalf and on behalf of its members whose interests are affected by the procedures of which Bertram complains and which we are about to relate.

The amount of compensation to which Bertram was entitled was governed, in part, by a salary ordinance of the county, referred to by the parties as “section 231.” Speaking generally, this ordinance determined the amount of compensation due to an, .employee who suffers an industrial injury which “the Director of Personnel or the Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Board determines to be compensable.” Subsection (3) (a) of the ordinance provides that when an employee is absent as a result of such an injury he “shall receive compensation equal to the difference between his base…