BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    


          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                  AB 2772|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
                                 THIRD READING

          Bill No:  AB 2772
          Author:   Assembly Labor and Employment Committee
          Amended:  4/8/10 in Assembly
          Vote:     21

           SENATE LABOR & INDUS. RELATIONS COMMITTEE  :  4-0, 6/9/10
          AYES:  DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Leno, Yee
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Wyland, Hollingsworth

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  55-20, 5/13/10 - See last page for vote

           SUBJECT  :    Labor Commissioner:  appeals

           SOURCE  :     California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation

           DIGEST  :    This bill clarifies that an employer wishing to  
          appeal a Labor Commissioner decision with the superior  
          court must first post a bond in the amount of the judgment  
          rendered in the administrative hearing.

           ANALYSIS  :    

           Existing law
          1. Authorizes the Labor Commission (LC) to investigate  
             employee complaints and hold administrative hearings to  
             decide disputes over unpaid wages and other related  
             issues between employers and employees.

          2. Permits a party to appeal an order, decision or award of  


                                                               AB 2772

             the LC within 10 days by filing an appeal to the  
             superior court, where the appeal will be heard de novo. 

          3. Provides that whenever an employer files an appeal with  
             the superior court, the employer shall post a bond with  
             the court in the amount of the judgment rendered in the  
             administrative hearing. 

           Prior Legislation
          AB 2509 (Steinberg), Chapter 876, Statutes of 2000, revised  
          statutes relating to the administrative and civil  
          enforcement of wage and hours laws including wage  
          collection and enforcement procedures before the Labor  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No    
          Local:  No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  6/10/10)

          California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (source)
          American Federation of State, County and Municipal  
          Bet Tzedek Legal Services
          California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author's office,  
          Labor Code Section 98.2(b) was included in AB 2509  
          (Steinberg), Session 1999-2000, in response to unscrupulous  
          employers who were avoiding paying off final Labor  
          Commissioner wage judgments by filing unwarranted,  
          dilatory, and expensive court appeals as a strategy to get  
          workers to walk away from valid wage claims.  According to  
          the author's office, a recent California appellate court  
          has held that the language in this code section is merely  
          "directory" and that a specific court order is necessary  
          before an employer can be required to post the undertaking  
          according proponents, this decision - which is binding on  
          Superior courts, state and local agencies, employees and  
          employers until contradicted by another appellate court or  
          the California Supreme Court - is plainly inconsistent with  
          the clear purpose behind enactment of Section 98.2 (b).   



                                                               AB 2772

          Proponents argue that the effect of the appellate court's  
          holding is to leave entirely to the discretion of a court  
          whether or not to issue an order requiring the positing of  
          the bond.  In addition, opponents maintain that this ruling  
          has provided an avenue for unscrupulous employers to delay  
          entry of judgment by filing - at no cost - frivolous  
          appeals of Labor Commissioner awards that they have no  
          intention of pursuing.

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  : 
          AYES:  Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Bill Berryhill,  
            Block, Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles  
            Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La  
            Torre, De Leon, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,  
            Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi,  
            Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie  
            Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, Niello, V. Manuel  
            Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Solorio,  
            Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Villines, Yamada,  
            John A. Perez
          NOES:  Adams, Anderson, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Conway,  
            DeVore, Fuller, Garrick, Gilmore, Harkey, Jeffries,  
            Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Smyth,  
            Audra Strickland, Tran
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Caballero, Hagman, Silva, Skinner,  

          PQ:do  6/10/10   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****