Court Opinion

ID: 9730670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:20:34.310833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:08.497342
License: Public Domain

KAUFMAN, J.
I concur in all of the majority opinion except that portion of part II which purports to hold county could not validly enact an ordinance to the effect that supervisorial employees may not be represented by the same employee organization which represents the rank and file. As to that portion I dissent.
As the majority opinion correctly indicates, the amendment to the employee relations resolution adopted by county does not purport to and cannot be construed to prohibit representation of both units by the same employee organization. The question of the validity of an ordinance which does so provide is therefore not at issue in this case and should not be decided. While the language of Government Code section 3502 would appear to support the conclusion reached by the majority, it is not necessarily conclusive. The question has not been briefed by the parties, and its resolution should be deferred until decision of a case in which its resolution is necessary to the decision. (See 6 Witkin Cal. Procedure (2d ed.) Appeal, § 223, pp. 4212-4213.)
Appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 10, 1978. Richardson, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.