In re WORK UNIFORM CASES. SALVADOR GOSHORN et al., v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., [And six other cases.]* 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1588

This coordinated proceeding consists of seven cases filed by employees against their employers: * Hostetter v. County of Yolo (Yolo Co. No. CV03-653); Allen et al. v. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and Regents of the University of California (Alameda Co. No. RG03085207); Robinson et al. v. County of Fresno (Fresno Co. No. 03 CECG 01480); Davis v. County of Tuolumne (Tuolumne Co. No. CV 50113); Hearin v. County of Santa Clara (Santa Clara Co. No. 103 CV008646); and Oliver et al. v. City of Fresno (Fresno Co. No. 03 CECG 04542).

A public employee's uniform is an identifying mark of distinction and a source of pride for the employee and those he or she serves. But, who bears the financial burden for mandated uniforms? The trial court in these coordinated actions sustained demurrers without leave to amend as to all complaints and the employees appealed.

The court held that § 2802 did not require the public entities to pay claims for costs related to employee work uniforms. With regard to county and city employees, payment for uniforms was a part of the employees' compensation and was to be considered like any other payment of wages, compensation, or benefits. The impact of this determination was that it placed the employees' claim of entitlement to compensation for uniform expenses as indemnification under § 2802 in direct conflict with the public entity's power to provide for compensation of its employees and to bargain with employee representatives under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, Gov. Code § 3500 et seq., concerning payment for expenses relating to uniforms. With regard to employees of a public university, the determination of employee compensation wand benefits was a matter within the board of regents' broad constitutional grant of authority to manage its own internal affairs. With regard to state employees, the court concluded that Gov. Code, § 19850.1, evidenced a clear intent that such employees were responsible for uniform expenses subject to provisions agreed upon in the course of collective bargaining.

Once the governing body of a local government approves a MOU entered into under the terms of the MMBA, it "is indubitably binding" on the contracting parties. ( Glendale City Employees' Assn., Inc. v. City of Glendale (1975) 15 Cal.3d 328, 337- 338.)

The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court correctly sustained the demurrers of all defendants to the complaints in the coordinated actions, and affirmed the judgments.

How this affects your agency: Use of the "Meet and Confer" process is preferred by the judiciary where terms, conditions, and benefits of employment are at issue.