BILL ANALYSIS AB 569 Page A ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 569 (Emmerson) As Amended April 27, 2009 Majority vote LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0 ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Ayes:|Monning, Bill Berryhill, |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, Ammiano, | | |Eng, Furutani, Gaines, | | | | |Ma, Portantino | |Charles Calderon, Davis, | | | | |Duvall, Krekorian, Hall, | | | | |Harkey, Miller, | | | | |John A. Perez, Price, | | | | |Skinner, Solorio, Audra | | | | |Strickland, Torlakson | |-----+--------------------------+-----+---------------------------| | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY : Establishes specified collective bargaining agreement exemptions related to requirements of existing law concerning meal periods. Specifically, this bill : 1)Provides that specified provisions of current law related to meal periods do not apply to an employee employed in the construction industry who is covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement that meets certain conditions. 2)Provides that specified provisions of current law related to meal periods do not apply to an employee employed as a commercial driver in the transportation industry who is covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement that meets certain conditions. 3)Adds uncodified language to specify that these provisions of the bill shall not be construed to affect the interpretation of the nature or scope of the law related to meal periods other than for employees or employers specifically covered by these provisions. EXISTING LAW : 1)Prohibits an employer from employing any person for a work period of more than five hours without providing the employee AB 569 Page B with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes [Labor Code section 512 (a)]. 2)Provides that if the total work period per day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee [Labor Code section 512 (a)]. 3)Authorizes paid on-duty meal periods when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty, the parties have agreed to the paid on-duty meal period in writing, and the written agreement authorizes the employee to revoke the agreement at any time [See, for example, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 9 Section 11(C)]. 4)Provides that if an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided (Labor Code Section 226.7). FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, a potential minor decrease in costs to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement related to fewer enforcement investigations. COMMENTS : This bill is sponsored by the United Parcel Service (UPS), who argues that it would allow unionized transportation companies with a valid collective bargaining agreement to negotiate flexible terms for the timing of meal periods because current law significantly restricts the freedom of drivers to decide for themselves when they can take their meal periods. They contend that existing law penalizes drivers who require some flexibility for personal safety or other reasons as it relates to taking a meal period, including being stuck in traffic or seeking to take a break in a safe neighborhood. This measure will allow flexibility through collective bargaining in the transportation industry and relieve UPS from disciplining employees who require some flexibility for their meal period. In addition, UPS points out that in 2007 the Assembly passed a similar measure, AB 1034 (Keene) on a 71-0 vote. They state that, although opponents of this measure have complained that they are not included, they have clearly not shown an ability to AB 569 Page C seek similar flexibility on their own. UPS states that it continues to support broader solutions, but cannot continue to unfairly discipline their drivers where a collectively bargained solution is readily available with a flexible solution agreed to by management and labor. In addition, the Associated General Contractors argue that many construction companies operate under a collective bargaining agreement. However, as a result of recent case law [discussed above in the analysis], without this legislation a collective bargaining agreement does not supersede the statute. Therefore, this bill will provide some needed clarity in the current meal period rules for the construction industry. Opponents object to this measure unless amended to provide clarity to all industries. They state that currently all industries, business, and occupations are subject to a restrictive statute which has resulted in costly litigation. They believe that a comprehensive solution must be reached in order to provide all businesses regardless of size, type or union status with appropriate clarity and guidance for the compliance and enforcement of meal period laws. Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0000678