AgdaPkt 2004-06-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A.~ THE CARGIU DECISION: AN EMPLOYEE BY ANY OTHER NAME A number of cities have requested the In its decision, the court repeatedly empha- League's analysis of the Cargill decision. Here it sized that its ruling was limited to the single issue is. of whether, under the Public Employees' Retire- ment Law (PERL) and water district's contract Backg,"l)und with CaIPERS, the district was required to enroll in CalPERS all "temporary" workers who would qualify as common law employees. In 1998, a group of "temporary" workers filed a lawsuit against the Metropolitan Water District of The court specifically did not decide: Southern California. In their lawsuit, the workers argued that, under California common law, they 1) Whether the workers were in fact common were employees of the district and, therefore, law employees of water district; entitled to employee benefits, including retirement! CalPERS benefits. 2) If enrollment was required, whether the workers were entitled to retroactive CalPERS The workers had been assigned to work at the enrollment as of the dates they were first hired; water district by various outside staffing agencies. and Some of the "temporary" workers had worked at the water district for as long as eight years. 3) Whether the workers were water district Note: "Common law" is the body of law estab- employees for any other purpose other than lished by court decisions, as opposed to "statutory CalPERS enrollment. law," which is the body of law created by legislative enactments. Temporary workers may qualify as Implications common law employees by looking at a number of factors, including the extent of control the local agency has over the details of the work to be Even though the court's decision was narrow performed, whether the work is usually done under in scope, its effects and ramifications were felt the direction of the employer or by a specialist statewide. As a cost saving tool, many public without supervision, and whether the employer or agencies use short- and long- term temporary the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, workers to help alleviate staffing shortages and/or and place of work. to provide assistance on special projects. Such workers are generally hired through third-party The Decision staffing firms. Because the workers' salaries were paid by the staffing agencies and not from funds under the direct control of the local agency, In February 2004, the California Supreme it was generally believed that these workers were Court issued its decision in Metropolitan Water not public agency employees entitled to CalPERS District of Southern California v. Superior Court membership. (Cargill), stating that the water district must enroll any "temporary" worker who qualifies as an After Cargill, however, public agencie~ were employee under California common law. Enroll- put on notice to look beyond a worker's job classi- ment was required even if the worker was not fication title and determine whether any of their hired through the district's merit selection process temporary workers could be considered common and received no direct compensation from the law employees. If so, the local agency must, by district. law, enroll the workers in CaIPERS. Continued on Page 4 Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 3