City And County Of San Francisco Labor Agreements

“It is clear from our examination of the law as a whole that the legislature intends to establish reasonable, appropriate and necessary principles, which public authorities must respect in their rules and regulations governing the management of their employer-employee relations, including specific provisions relating to the right of civil servants, as individuals and members of organizations of their choice. negotiate on an equal footing with other employees and workers` organizations, without discrimination; that the legislator did not intend to pre-empt the field of public relations between employers and workers, unless the public authorities did not offer adequate methods of managing employer-employee relations by. uniform and orderly methods of communication between workers and the public bodies that employ them” (§ 3500); and that, if the rules and regulations of a public body do not comply with the standards established by the legislator, the shortcomings of those rules and rules with regard to the rights, obligations and obligations of the employer, the worker and the organization of workers shall be made available by the corresponding provisions of the law. “(emphasis added.) The Act applies in this case (see Los Angeles County Firefighters Local 1014 v. City of Monrovia, above); implement a declaration of intent as soon as it has been duly approved; consideration is not mentioned and it does not appear that the legislator intends to subordinate legislation to traditional concepts of consideration in contract law. We conclude that, pursuant to section 3505.1 of the Government Act, the 1974 Memorandum of Understanding, as soon as it was approved by the Supervisory Board, became mandatory for the city. (See also Huntington Beach` Assn Police Officers v. City of Huntington Beach (1976) 58 Cal. App.3d 492, 496 [129 Cal. Rptr.

893.) [64 Cal. App.3d 457] “This principle applies to agreements between government employees and their employers as well as to private collective agreements. The agreements concluded under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act are, like their private homones, the result of negotiations and concessions; they can only serve as effective instruments to promote good relations between labour relations and management if they are interpreted and implemented in a manner consistent with the objectives and expectations of the parties. (Inscription in italics.) [64 Cal. App. 3 ter 458] The respondents argue that the plaintiffs` August 1975 strike, in violation of the strike conditions of the 1974 Agreement, constitutes a substantial breach of that agreement and justifies the resignation of the respondents` contract (Code Civ., § 1689); Crofoot Lumber, Inc. vs. Thompson (1958) 163 Cal. App. 2d 324 [329 p.2d 302]).

Without reference to the power, the complainants argue that the contractual doctrines of consideration and resignation do not apply to the collective agreements at issue. At Glendale City Employees` Assn., Inc. v. City of Glendale, supra, 15 Cal.3d 328, 339-340, the Supreme Court said: On March 1, more than 1,000 San Francisco city workers and associations protested outside the headquarters of the SF Municipal Transportation Agency and the city`s human resources department to demand that the municipality take immediate action to end sexual harassment and end gender discrimination. in municipal services. The rally came after municipal ombudsman Dolores Blanding published a report detailing allegations of moral harassment, verbal abuse, discrimination and sexual harassment in municipal services. Appeal to all city and county workers, nurses, courts, housing authorities and non-profit workers gathered in SEIU 1021! Our strength lies in our unity and willingness to take action in the fight for our rights, fair contracts and the services we provide to the communities of San Francisco. Join other SEIU 1021 members who are committed to promoting the rights of working families through collective action.

Comment are closed.