- Who We Are
- Our Team
- What We Do
Presidential Appointments To The National Labor Relations Board Are Invalid
In Noel Canning v. National Labor Relations Board (--- F.3d ----, C.A.D.C., January 25, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals considered a challenge to a ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) on the grounds that the NLRB lacked a quorum because three of its five members had been appointed by the President without Senate approval at a time when the Senate was not actually in an intersession recess. The court ruled that the Recess Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution allows Recess appointments only during “the Recess,” which does not include intrasession recesses during which actionless, pro forma sessions are held.
Lead Agency Could Not Bypass CEQA Review By Adopting A Voter-Sponsored Initiative As An Ordinance Instead Of Placing The Initiative On The Ballot
A court of appeal created a split of authority when it ruled that California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) review was necessary when a city approved a project, by adopting as an ordinance, an initiative petition that contained certified signatures of 15 percent of the registered voters instead of submitting the initiative to a vote of the electorate. (Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court of Tuolumne County, (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 5 Dist., October 30, 2012).
New CEQA Decision Provides Guidance and Caution in Agency Actions Approving Water Supply Contracts
In a decision handed down October 4, 2012, the Third District Court of Appeal has held that El Dorado Irrigation District’s approval of a water supply contract to provide increased water entitlements to the Shingle Springs Rancheria is not exempt from CEQA due solely to the size of the increase. (Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation District (3d DCA No. C064280.) The decision provides guidance on the scope of CEQA categorical exemptions, what constitutes an “unusual circumstance” precluding the finding of a CEQA exemption, and what factors a public purveyor must take into account in its determination of potential effect of new water supply agreements. It further advises public agencies that LAFCo decisions conditioning water service to annexed lands (like the Rancheria) must be obeyed to the same extent as statutory dictates.
Employers are Required to Provide Meal and Rest Periods but Not Required to Ensure That Employees Utilize the Meal and Rest Periods
In a much anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court held that employers subject to the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders are required to provide employees with meal and rest periods during which they are relieved “of all duty, with the employee thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he or she desires, but the employer need not ensure that no work is done.” (Brinker Restaurant Corporation, et al, v.
Furlough Of Correctional Officers Did Not Violate Labor Code
The Governor’s mandate through executive order of a three-day-per-month furlough of employees represented by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (“CCPOA”) did not violate the labor code. David W. Tyra, Kristianne T. Seargeant, Meridith H. Packer, and several other attorneys from Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard successfully represented the Governor in defense of the validity of the executive order that established the furlough. Brown v. The Superior Court of Alameda County (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App.