HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09101991 - 1.36 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Colo
J. Westman, County Counsel ���( ��`
By: Lillian T. Fujii, Deputy County Counsel
DATE; Camey
September 4, 1991 Cv
SUBJECT:
Status Report on Chamber of Commerce v. Bragdon, and
CMA v. Bragdon
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION: Accept and approve County Counsel report on
and continuing defense of the above-noted actions .
STATUS REPORT: In August, 1990, the Board adopted Ordinance
No. 90-72, requiring the payment of prevailing wage rates on major
industrial projects . This action was taken, in part, due to
concern about potential and past consequences on . public and
employee safety, as a result of the employment of low-paid (and
therefore sometimes unskilled) workers on construction projects
involving large industrial plants which store and use toxic
materials .
Shortly after the ordinance' s adoption, the Chemical Manufacturers
Association brought suit in State Superior Court challenging the
validity of the ordinance on the basis of various state laws . (CMA
v. Bragdon et al . , C.C.C . Sup. Ct. No. C90-04067 , Ct. of Ap.
1/A052365 . ) Thereafter, the U.S . Chamber of Commerce filed suit in
federal district court challenging the ordinance on federal legal
grounds . (Chamber of Commerce v. Bragdon, et al . , U.S .D.C. ,
N.D.Cal . , No. C90-3581 CAL. ) At the time of the filing of these
actions, the Board authorized the County Counsel' s defense of the
ordinance, which defense was undertaken.
Since that time, in CMA v. Bragdon (state case) , the ordinance was
upheld _ as being a proper subject of Board .legislation under the
police power, and not pre-empted by the laws raised in that action.
The Chemical Manufacturers Association appealed the Superior Court
judgment, which appeal has since been suspended pending a decision
in the federal court case .
In Chamber of Commerce v. Bragdon, Judge Legge of the United States
District Court ruled that the ordinance is pre-empted by the
National Labor Relations Act, ERISA, and violated the contracts
clauses of the U.S . and California Constitutions . This office
filed a notice of appeal in this case.
The above is a brief summary of the status of the above two cases .
In accordance with the Board' s authorization, this office will
continue defense of the above actions .
LTF11:ct11rr�
CONT 1 Nl�[Y:t�WWAWACHMENT: _ YES S IGNATURE'
Aool Zigook9a.
- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BARO COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S1:
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 10 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT -t, AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Counsel ATTESTED September 10, 1991
County Administrator
PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Y382 7-°1 Y
,DEPUTY