So shy did the judge turn down the union's motion to immediately block furloughs?

As you know, the Federation is throwing everything at furloughs. Even though they’ve started, there’s much that can be done to mitigate future dates, win retroactive relief for those already furloughed and convince lawmakers this was a stupid idea that costs more in lost federal dollars and overtime than it saves.

The union filed for a preliminary injunction but Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks on July 2 turned it down.

It’s tough to pass all the legal tests to get such an immediate action, but the judge said the union came close to reaching that tough standard.

In legal terms, the judge said the union had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (that is, “more likely than not”) certain necessary elements.

The first element in question was whether a clear legal right was being infringed. The judge said that whether a clear legal or equitable right was being infringed was “close,” but because he couldn't clearly say it was more likely than not, that element was not proved.

The second element Hicks had difficulty with was whether there would be irreparable harm if he declined to issue the injunction.  The judge was unsure about whether that would be true, since the court could order monetary damages (lost wages) if it was later determined that employees were wrongfully furloughed.

As we said earlier, the lawsuit continues with the goal of retroactive relief.

7/2/10:

Federation’s motion to halt furloughs until decisions are reached on grievance and unfair labor practice charges is denied

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks ruled the Federation did not meet the burden of proof,  but called it a close case.

Judge Hicks wrestled with Federation’s argument that the state was failing to participate in meaningful bargaining and agreed there was an inequity - adding “the employer should initiate bargaining.”

The judge implied that the implementation phase of the furlough bill, 75 days after its passage, might not provide the time necessary for meaningful bargaining of the impacts.  However, “the judicial branch should be slow to interfere with the legislature and executive branch’s” attempt to implement the bills.

On the issue of injury, the judge stated “substantial, if it’s your paycheck,” and “collateral” affecting morale not only between the union and its members but also between the workforce and management.  But for the injunction to be applied to stop implementation of the furloughs on July 12, there must be proof of irreparable injury and because the employee could possibly be compensated later on from the grievance and/or ULP rulings, the motion was not granted.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks ruled the Federation did not meet the burden of proof, but capped his remarks off with “a ruling like this does not make me happy."