BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2103 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 2, 2012 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair AB 2103 (Ammiano) - As Amended: April 10, 2012 Policy Committee: Labor and Employment Vote: 6-1 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill requires payment of a fixed salary to a nonexempt employee to be deemed compensation only for the employee's regular, non-overtime hours, notwithstanding any private agreement to the contrary. Specifically, this bill: Declares legislative intent that enacting this act is meant to overturn a recent California Court of Appeals decision in Arechiga v. Dolores Press (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 567. FISCAL EFFECT No direct fiscal impact to the state; this bill, however, does overturn a state court decision regarding overtime pay and nonexempt employees. COMMENTS 1)Background . Existing law deems eight hours of labor a day's work. It also requires overtime to be paid to employees who work in excess of eight hours in one workday and in excess of 40 hours in one workweek. Statute requires overtime pay to be calculated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Most nonexempt employees are paid an hourly rate of pay, which allows for straightforward overtime pay calculations (i.e., one and half times their rate of pay). Current law also affords employers an exemption in calculating overtime pay per the requirements above. Specifically, statute authorizes employers to adopt a regularly scheduled AB 2103 Page 2 alternative workweek with their employees. This alternative authorizes employees to work no longer than 10 hours per day within a 40-hour workweek. AB 60 (Knox), Chapter 134, Statutes of 1999, requires a nonexempt full-time employee's regular hourly rate to be divided by 40 for the purposes of calculating his or her overtime pay. As such, the overtime rate of the nonexempt employee is determined by multiplying the regularly hourly rate by one-half. This calculation conflicts with the federal Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA), which utilizes the "fluctuating workweek" method. This method calculates the regular rate of pay by dividing the weekly salary by the total number of hours worked in a week, including overtime hours. 2)Arechiga v. Dolores Press (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 567 . Carlos Arechiga began working as a janitor for Dolores Press, Inc. in January 2000. Mr. Arechiga and Dolores Press, Inc. orally agreed he would work 11 hours a day, six days a week, for a total of 66 hours per week. Because Mr. Arechiga was a nonexempt employee under state law, they agreed his work schedule entitled him to earn 26 hours of overtime pay each week. By agreement, Dolores Press, Inc. paid him $880 per week. This agreement was later put in writing with no substantive changes to these provisions. In September 2006, Dolores Press, Inc. terminated Mr. Arechiga. In November 2007, he filed a complaint alleging multiple causes of action against Dolores Press, including a complaint of unfair business practice predicated on his employment agreement violated state law with respect to calculating his overtime pay. Specifically, Mr. Arechiga argued state statute required his overtime pay to be calculated by dividing his regular hourly rate by 40, which is required for nonexempt employees. As such, he asserted his salary of $880 per work only compensated him for a 40 hour work week, not his agreed upon workweek of 66 hours (which included 26 hours of overtime). Mr. Arechiga argued Dolores Press Inc. owed him overtime pay for three years. Dolores Press, Inc. disagreed and cited state law, which authorizes employers to negotiate an alternative workweek schedule (i.e., explicit mutual wage agreement). Under this statute, overtime pay must be calculated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for AB 2103 Page 3 an employee. Dolores Press, Inc. asserted it complied with state law. The trial court ruled in favor of Dolores Press, Inc. because they had an explicit mutual wage agreement. Specifically, the court stated: "Under California law, when there is an explicit mutual wage agreement between the parties, even a fixed salary like the one ÝArechiga] received serves to adequately compensate him for both overtime and regular pay. . . . ÝDolores Press, Inc.] has met its burden." Mr. Arechiga appealed this decision arguing state law does not allow mutual wage agreements for nonexempt employees. Instead, it requires the employee's regular hourly rate to be divided by 40. In February 2011, the California Court of Appeals, Second District upheld the trial court's decision based on the determination that Dolores Press, Inc. had an explicit mutual wage agreement with Mr. Arechiga and statute regarding overtime pay for nonexempt employees does not abolish this agreement. The court cited federal case law in this determination. 3)Purpose . According to the author, AB 60 (Knox), Chapter 134, Statutes of 1999 "codified California's overtime requirements and the long standing provisions of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage orders, which is reflected in the Division of Labor Standards and Employment (DLSE) Manual on overtime pay for non-exempt employees. Specifically, the manual states: "In the past, California law has been construed to allow the employer and the employee to enter into an explicit mutual wage agreement which, if it met certain conditions, would permit an employer to pay a salary to a non-exempt employee that provided compensation for hours in excess of 40 in a workweek. (See, Ghory v. Al-Lahham (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1487, 257 Cal.Rptr. 924). Such an agreement (backing in the regular rate) is no longer allowed as a result of the specific language adopted by the Legislature at Labor Code § 515(d). To determine the regular hour rate of pay for a non-exempt salaried employee, one must divide the weekly salary paid by no more than forty hours." The author further states: "Prior to Ýthe Arechiga] decision, state law was clear. Non-exempt workers could be paid hourly AB 2103 Page 4 or by salary, but any overtime hours worked must be calculated separately and added onto regular pay. This ruling is dangerous because it allows employers to estimate overtime and include it in a fixed salary. That opens the door to workers being required to work additional overtime without being fairly compensated." Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916) 319-2081