BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 1396
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 4, 2011

                     ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
                                Sandre Swanson, Chair
            AB 1396 (Committee on Labor and Employment) - As Introduced:  
                                  February 28, 2011
           
          SUBJECT  :   Employment contract requirements.

           SUMMARY  :  Requires that all employers provide a written contract 
          to employees who are paid commission.  Specifically,  this bill  :

          1)Declares legislative intent of the bill, in light of the 
            specified court decision, to restore the employee protections 
            that had been in effect by making Labor Code Sections 2751 and 
            2752 apply equally to employers with a fixed place of business 
            in the state and to employers who do not have a fixed place of 
            business in the state.

          2)Requires all employers, by January 1, 2013, to provide a 
            written contract, with specified details, to employees who are 
            paid commission. 

          3)Adds when a contract expires and where the parties continue to 
            work under the terms of the expired contract, the contract 
            terms are presumed to remain in full force and effect until 
            the contract is superseded or employment is terminated by 
            either party.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Requires employers with no permanent and fixed place of 
            business in California to provide written contracts to 
            employees, when the method of payment involves commission, 
            which specifies the way in which the commissions will be 
            calculated and paid. 

          2)Subjects employers who fail to comply with the written 
            contract requirement to civil action for triple damages. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   Unknown

           COMMENTS  :   According to the sponsor of this bill, the 
          Conference of California Bar Associations, in their letter they 
          state, this measure is intended to restore to Californians 








                                                                  AB 1396
                                                                  Page  2

          employed by out-of-state companies on a commission basis the 
          protections provided by Labor Code section 2751, which requires 
          such commission agreements to be in writing.  Labor Code section 
          2751 was declared unconstitutional by the Federal District 
          Court, Northern District, in Lett v. Paymentech, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 
          1999) 81 F.Supp.2d 992, which held that this section violates 
          the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. 
          Constitution because of its discriminatory treatment of 
          out-of-state employers and their in-state counterparts.  
          Although the statue remains on the books it is unenforceable, 
          the protections it is to provide are not there making it a trap 
          for the unwary employee.

          The sponsor asserts, this bill resolves the constitutionality 
          issue by removing the distinction between out-of-state and 
          in-state companies making all subject to the requirement that 
          all commission contracts be in writing.  This is consistent with 
          the approach taken by several other states (e.g., Georgia, 
          Louisiana, Maryland and Tennessee) to address constitutional 
          issues with their own similar statutes.  They also state, the 
          written contract requirement is not only consistent with best 
          business practices, but serves to protect both employees and 
          employers as well, by providing certainty as to agreements 
          entered into and thereby forestalling unnecessary litigation.  

          Finally, the sponsor states this bill includes amendments that 
          were made to the original version of SB 1370 (Ducheny) from last 
          year at the request of the opposition to add clarity and 
          certainty:  
          It clearly defines what constitutes a commission contract, 
          consistent with the California Supreme Court's holding in 
          Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785.  It 
          specifies that an employer is not in violation of the statute 
          merely because a written commission agreement has expired, as 
          long as the parties continue to operate in accordance with the 
          agreement.  And it gives California-based employers who do not 
          already put commission contracts in writing one full year (as 
          most already do), until January 1, 2013, to comply with this 
          bill's requirements.  
           
          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :

          The California Employment Lawyers Association supports this bill 
          stating that by clarifying that all commission contracts must be 
          in writing, the rights and earnings of all California employees 








                                                                  AB 1396
                                                                  Page  3

          are protected.  Written contracts avoid disputes between 
          employers and employees regarding compensation, and prevent 
          costly and time-consuming court cases.  In addition to removing 
          unconstitutional provisions in the statues, this bill will help 
          to assure that California employees and their employers avoid 
          compensation disputes.

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :

          The opposition to this measure, the California Employment Law 
          Council, argues this legislation
          imposes a requirement of a written contract on all commission 
          agreements in this state and there
          is no justification for extending it to every business in 
          California.  They also believe this bill will
          result in needless litigation and they understand the concept of 
          certainty and predictability, 
          however, they state the variety of commission practices which 
          might be interpreted as
          commission-based will not bring clarity to the law.  The Civil 
          Justice Association of California
          opposes this bill due to the treble damages provision should an 
          employer, who use commissions
          as part of a compensation package, violate the law under this 
          bill.

          The California Broadcasters Association have expressed concern, 
          although they have not submitted a formal letter of opposition, 
          that they will be shouldered with continually changing the 
          commission contracts since their members commission structure 
          changes due to promotions. 
           
          PRIOR LEGISLATION  :

          SB 1370 Ducheny of 2010 would have extended the conditions 
          necessitating a written contract of employment to all employers 
          in the State of California.  This bill was vetoed by Governor 
          Schwarzenneger.

          AB 836 (Frew), Statutes of 1963, Chapter 1088, required that 
            out-of-state employers provide a
          written contract under the conditions discussed above, as well 
            as creates a penalty for failing to
          provide such a written contract. 









                                                                  AB 1396
                                                                  Page  4


           
          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
          California Employment Lawyers Association
          Conference of California Bar Associations (sponsor)

           Opposition 
           
          California Chamber of Commerce
          California Employment Law Council
          Civil Justice Association of California
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Lorie Erickson / L. & E. / (916) 
          319-2091