BILL ANALYSIS
AB 569
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 569 (Emmerson)
As Amended August 20, 2010
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |72-2 |(May 21, 2009) |SENATE: |27-1 |(August 25, |
| | | | | |2010) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. & E.
SUMMARY : Establishes specified collective bargaining agreement
exemptions related to requirements of existing law concerning
meal periods.
The Senate amendments :
1 Add collective bargaining exemptions for security officers
employed by private patrol operators, and employees employed
by gas companies, electric companies, and publicly owned
utilities.
2)Specify that the collective bargaining exemption applies to
employees employed in a "construction occupation" rather than
the "construction industry."
3)Define "construction occupation" to mean all job
classifications associated with construction (as specified),
including work involving alteration, demolition, building,
excavation, renovation, remodeling, maintenance, improvement
and repair, and any other similar or related occupation or
trade.
4)Define "commercial driver" to mean an employee who operates a
vehicle as specified in certain provisions of the Vehicle
Code.
5)Add uncodified language to specify that these provisions of
the bill do not affect the nature or scope of the law relating
to meal periods for security officers who are not covered by a
valid collective bargaining agreement.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
AB 569
Page 2
1)Provided 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)Provided 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)Added 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : The supporters of this bill, which includes United
Parcel Service (UPS) and Associated General Contractors (AGC),
argue that it will provide an immediate necessary flexibility
for collectively bargained commercial drivers and employees of
the construction industry. UPS notes that, while they continue
to support broader approaches to meal period flexibility, UPS
argues that it cannot continue to discipline their collectively
bargained drivers when flexible solution agreed to by management
and employees is available.
Associated General Contractors (AGC) argues that the various
interpretations of meal period law by enforcement officials have
led to significant confusion and litigation. AGC reports that
in order to avoid liability, contractors are forced to police
their workforce to their meal periods without interruption.
Although many construction companies operate under collective
bargaining agreements, they have lost their ability to bargain
on the meal period issue due to recent case law. Finally, AGC
notes that, in this economic climate, providing flexibility for
collectively bargained contractors will supply key relief from
litigation.
The California Nurses Association (CNA), writing in opposition
to this measure, argues that by carving out groups of workers
under collective bargaining agreements will compromise basic
AB 569
Page 3
labor law that protects the ability of all workers to have a
lunch break. CNA believes that carving out specific industries
will encourage other employers to push for similar exemptions,
which employers will use as a take-away during negotiation. CNA
notes that it is difficult for registered nurses (RNs) to
receive meal breaks due to staffing issues and nurse to patient
ratio laws. CNA believes that the best way for RNs to take
their meal breaks is to be backed-up by existing law, and
therefore opposes any collective bargaining carve out that could
create a precedent for the healthcare industry.
Other opponents, such as the California Manufacturing and
Technology Association, the California Hospital Association, the
Associated Builders and Contractors of California, and other
employer organizations, have taken an 'oppose unless amended'
position, arguing that this bill should be amended to provide
meal period flexibility to all employers. These opponents feel
that current meal period law is too rigid and inflexible, and
this bill should follow the example of other meal period
legislation that applied to all employers.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0006606