In Jarvis v. Cory (1980) 28 Cal.3d 562, the Supreme Court's decision that retroactive lump sum payments to state employees whose salaries were frozen in the fiscal year following the passage of the initiative measure denominated "Proposition 13" in June 1978 (Cal. Const., art. XIII A) did not constitute prohibited "additional compensation," is not inconsistent with this conclusion. In Jarvis, a "unique confluence of events" ( id., at p. 566) created "understandable uncertainty" ( id., at p. 576) on the part of state employees regarding their salaries. Thus, their position was analogous to that of the county employees in San Joaquin County Employees' Assn., Inc. v. County of San Joaquin, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d 83, and the teachers in Goleta Educators Assn. v. Dall'Armi, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d 830, while salary negotiations were going on; i.e., their salaries were not "fixed and certain." (Jarvis, at pp. 570-573.) Among the "numerous elements that converged to create such uncertainty were: (1) the fact that, since the Governor vetoed the 2.5 percent raise voted by the Legislature, "salaries were determined by the provisions of the budget of the previous year, much as the interim salary levels in San Joaquin and Goleta were determined by the employment agreements of the previous year" (id., at p. 574); (2) the Governor's veto announcement referred to the freeze as an "interim" measure (ibid.); (3) the term "freeze" itself denotes a temporary measure (id., at p. 575); (4) diligent efforts were being made by the California State Employees' Association before the State Personnel Board and the Legislature to secure higher salaries (id.,at p. 576); (5) the court's decision in Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of Sonoma (1979) 23 Cal.3d 296 152 Cal.Rptr. 903, 591 P.2d 1 (invalidating the Legislature's related attempt to void certain local employment contracts calling for salary raises) was a "perverse turn of events" the "cruel irony" of which must have been evident to the Legislature (id., at pp. 576-577). The court made it abundantly clear that its holding was a narrow one, arising out of the peculiar factual situation presented there: "The conditions surrounding the passage of S.B. 91 are sui generis: we would be astonished to again see so many atypical events and forces combine to clearly demonstrate that wage levels, ostensibly rendered immutable by the Governor's action, still remain imprecise." (Id., at p. 579.)