California Statewide Law Enforcement Ass'n v. Department of Personnel Administration

*4 Opinion

Many millions of dollars are at stake in this case. At issue is the process by which a public employee labor union and the Governor negotiate benefits for state employees and then present their collective bargaining agreement to the Legislature for approval and funding. Such agreements, which have been under the public’s radar in the past, are now coming to light due to the massive budget deficit the state is facing.

California’s collective bargaining system for state employees provides an enhanced pension benefit for what are known as “safety members.” The “common thread” that has made employees eligible for safety member retirement status is that their principal duties expose them “to potentially hazardous activity” (Glover v. Board of Retirement (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1327, 1333 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 224 ]) and the “ ‘risk of injury from the necessity of being able to cope with potential dangers inherent in [the principal duties of the job].’ [Citations.]” (City of Huntington Beach v. Board of Administration (1992) 4 Cal.4th 462, 469 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 514 , 841 P.2d 1034 ]; see also City of Oakland v. Public Employees’ Retirement System (2002) 95 Cal.App,4th 29, 63 [ 115…