BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1015|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: AB 1015
Author: Wright (D), et al
Amended: 9/6/01 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-1,
7/11/01
AYES: Alarcon, Figueroa, Kuehl, Polanco, Romero
NOES: Oller
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-21, 5/24/01 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Employment: retaliation
SOURCE : California Professional Firefighters
California Independent Public Employees
Legislative
Council
DIGEST : This bill (1) extends employee
anti-discrimination laws to applicants for employment and
job training programs, and (2) prohibits discrimination
against employees and applicants for employment engaged in
lawful conduct outside of employment, as specified. Law
enforcement agencies would be exempt.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/6/01 (1) permit employers to
restrict the use of tobacco products by firefighters, (2)
exempt religious organizations not organized for profit
CONTINUED
AB 1015
Page
2
from the bill's application, and (3) clarify employer
exemptions.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides a framework for the
enforcement of labor laws by the Labor Commissioner, who is
chief of the Division of Labor Enforcement Standards of the
State Department of Industrial Relations. An employer is
prohibited from discriminating against an employee, for,
among other things:
1.Filing a claim with, or testifying before, the Labor
Commissioner for labor law violations.
2.Disclosing to a governmental entity information that the
employee has a reasonable belief is a violation of the
law.
3.Engaging in political activities or political
affiliations.
The Labor Commissioner may accept claims on behalf of an
employee for a loss of wages as a result of demotion,
suspension, or discharge from employment due to lawful
conduct occurring during non-working hours away from the
employer's premises.
This bill:
1.Extends the anti-discrimination provisions to applicants
for employment and job training programs.
2.Prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants
for employment engaged in lawful conduct occurring during
non-working hours away from the employer's premises, but
does not abrogate any employment contracts that protect:
A. An employer against any conduct that is actually
in direct conflict with essential interest of the
employer, and where such conduct would disrupt the
employer's operation.
B. A firefighter against any disease that is presumed
to arise out of and in the course of employment, by
limiting the firefighter's consumption of tobacco
AB 1015
Page
3
products on or off the job.
3.Exempts state and local law enforcement agencies, and
certain religious organizations, from its provisions.
4.Adds findings and declarations about the need to afford
employees an inexpensive administrative remedy for
asserting their rights in areas not enforced by the Labor
Commissioner.
5.Adds a severability clause, stating that if any one part
is declared unconstitutional, all remaining parts would
remain in full force and effect.
6.Provides that this provision does not affect existing law
regarding employment discrimination related to the
consumption of tobacco.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/28/01)
California Professional Firefighters (co-source)
California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council
(co-source)
California School Employees Association
California Applicants' Attorneys Association
State Building and Construction Trades Council of
California
California Alliance for Pride & Equality
Kern County Firefighters, Local 1301
Hemet City Firefighters, Local 2342
Santa Clara County Firefighters, Local 1165
Long Beach Firefighters, Local 372
Marin Professional Firefighters, Local 1775
Los Angeles County Firefighters, Local 1014
Orange County Firefighters, Local 3631
Oakland Firefighters, Local 55
San Miguel Firefighters, Local 1434
San Francisco Firefighters, Local 798
Stockton Firefighters, Local 456
Pasadena Firefighters, Local 89
Professional Engineers in California Government
AB 1015
Page
4
Service Employees International Union
California State Firefighters Association
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
Twin Cities Police Authority
California State Employees Association
Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
California State Council of Laborers
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit
Union
Engineers and Scientists of California
Region 8 States Council of the United Food and Commercial
Workers Union
Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International
Union
California Conference of Machinists
California State Pipe Trades Council
California State Association of Electrical Workers
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
American Civil Liberties Union
Consumer Attorneys of California
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
California Association of Professional Scientists
Ross Valley Fire Department
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/28/01)
California State Association of Counties
League of California Cities
California Employment Law Council
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Cities of Los Angeles, Napa and Roseville
West Sacramento City Council
Fresno Fire Protection District
California Association of Health Facilities
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors
Windsor Fire Protection District
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents argue that this bill
strengthens the authority of the Labor Commissioner to
protect the political and other rights of employees who
have been disadvantaged or disciplined for engaging in
lawful conduct outside of employment. Law enforcement is
AB 1015
Page
5
excluded from these protections.
Proponents state that recent amendments address opposition
concerns about conflict of interest policies and fire
department employment contracts that prohibit tobacco use
on or off the job.
Supporters state that an administrative forum to resolve
free speech rights is a cost-effective, preferable
alternative to court action. For example, in 1993 six
Westminster City Firefighters were retaliated against for
exercising their First Amendment rights of free speech and
association; four were discharged, two were disciplined.
The issues generally involved the firefighters outspoken
public comments concerning Westminster's funding of fire
protection services. After a long litigation history, a
federal appeals court finally resolved the issues with
mixed results (1999 U.S. App. 9th Cir. No. 9656306).
Employees and management ought to have an administrative
remedy, rather than a long litigation process.
Other public employee unions cite examples where local
government employees felt a "chilling effect" in employment
after having testified before state legislative committees.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponent arguments, prior to
the recent amendments, centered opposition on two main
points: conflict of interest policies and non-smoking rules
for firefighters.
Public employers argued that this measure would abrogate
local conflict of interest polices; for instance, policies
that prohibit employees engaging in any activity or
enterprise which are inconsistent with the duties of a
public employee (e.g., caseworkers taking private clients
which may be self-referred from public agency employment).
Over 30 public jurisdictions have adopted policies
prohibiting firefighters or applicants for firefighter
positions from smoking tobacco products on or off the job.
Most were adopted pursuant to collective bargaining
agreements with firefighter unions. Additionally, these
prohibitions are necessary to protect the health of
AB 1015
Page
6
firefighters, especially when firefighters have a
rebuttable presumption in workers' compensation law that
the development or manifestation of cancer shall be
presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment.
Other private industry employer associations state the
measure is not necessary, given current legal protections,
and that the measure just adds confusion to the body of
labor law.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Alquist, Aroner, Calderon, Canciamilla, Cardenas,
Cardoza, Cedillo, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Correa, Diaz,
Dutra, Firebaugh, Frommer, Goldberg, Havice, Jackson,
Keeley, Kehoe, Koretz, Liu, Longville, Lowenthal, Maddox,
Maldonado, Matthews, Migden, Nakano, Nation, Negrete
McLeod, Oropeza, Papan, Pavley, Pescetti, Reyes, Salinas,
Shelley, Simitian, Steinberg, Strom-Martin, Thomson,
Vargas, Washington, Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wright,
Hertzberg
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Bates, Bogh, Briggs, Bill
Campbell, John Campbell, Cox, Daucher, Dickerson,
Hollingsworth, Kelley, La Suer, Leach, Leslie, Mountjoy,
Robert Pacheco, Rod Pacheco, Runner, Strickland, Wyman
NC:cm 9/12/01 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****