Amended in Senate February 20, 2014

Amended in Assembly May 29, 2013

California Legislature—2013–14 Regular Session

Assembly Bill No. 155

Introduced by Assembly Member Alejo

January 22, 2013

begin delete An act to amend Section 226 of the Labor Code, relating to employment. end delete begin insert An act to add Section 87 to the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act (Chapter 1159 of the Statutes of 1990), relating to water. end insert

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 155, as amended, Alejo. begin delete Employment: payroll records: right to inspect. end delete begin insert Monterey County Water Resources Agency: Salinas River Management Program. end insert

begin insert

Existing law, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act, establishes the Monterey County Water Resources Agency as a flood control and water agency within the County of Monterey.

end insert begin insert

This bill would require the agency to establish a multiobjective, multibenefit consensus-based comprehensive Salinas River Management Program and would require the agency to establish a steering committee to develop the program. By requiring the agency to establish a new program, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

end insert begin insert

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

end insert begin insert

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

end insert begin delete

Existing law requires an employer to furnish each employee with an accurate itemized statement showing, among other things, the gross and net wages earned, the inclusive dates of the pay period, and all deductions. Existing law requires the employer to keep on file a copy of the statement for at least 3 years at a specified location. Existing law affords current and former employees the right to inspect or copy records pertaining to their employment, upon reasonable request to the employer. Under existing law, if the employer provides copies of the records, the employer is authorized to charge any actual costs of reproduction of the employee’s records to the current or former employee.

end delete begin delete

This bill would require the employee to elect to inspect or copy, or receive a copy of, or any combination thereof, his or her employment records and would require the employer to comply with that election. The bill would entitle a former employee terminated for workplace violence or harassment only to receive a copy of the records, without any charge by the employer. The bill would define “actual cost of reproduction” to mean only the per page cost to the employer for the physical duplication of the records. The bill would also declare the Legislature’s intent in this regard.

end delete

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee:  begin delete no end delete begin insert yes end insert . State-mandated local program:  begin delete no end delete begin insert yes end insert .

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

begin insert

begin insert SECTION 1. end insert   

end insert

begin insert Section 87 is added to the end insert begin insert Monterey County Water
Resources Agency Act end insert begin insert (Chapter 1159 of the Statutes of 1990), to
read: end insert

begin insert

begin insert 87. end insert   

(a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the
following:

(1) The Salinas River watershed consists of 4,200 square miles
of land. Much of the watershed is prime agricultural and
rangeland, providing a strong base for the region’s economy.
Much of the land within the watershed provides housing,
employment, recreation, and education opportunities for central
coast residents and visitors from throughout the state, nation, and
world.

(2) The Salinas River watershed includes portions of the
Counties of Monterey and San Luis Obispo and each of those
counties is concerned about the ability of its communities to sustain
a high quality of life with regard to agriculture, housing,
commerce, education, and environmental protection.

(3) The Salinas River watershed includes numerous streams,
creeks, rivers, wetlands, and estuaries that form the natural
drainage system that directs rainwater to the ocean. The Salinas
River watershed also includes numerous manmade water
collection, drainage, and water disposal projects and systems that
also direct rainwater to the ocean.

(4) The Salinas River watershed includes millions of square feet
of impervious surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, homes,
commercial and agricultural structures, schools, and playgrounds,
all of which reduce the amount of natural groundwater recharge
that would otherwise be available to reduce rainwater runoff.

(5) The Salinas River watershed includes flood control structures
that were designed and constructed many years ago. Those flood
control structures are now proving to be inadequate to protect the
area’s agricultural lands, commercial, residential, and public
sector buildings, and environmental resources.

(6) Recent floods along the Salinas River watershed have
resulted in significant physical and economic loss. The severe
floods of 1995 damaged approximately 30,000 acres of agricultural
land, resulted in the permanent loss of 1,100 acres of prime
farmland to erosion, flood-related losses were estimated at two
hundred forty million dollars ($240,000,000), and virtually all the
flood control levees along the Salinas River were destroyed or
severely damaged. In 1998, flooding caused 50 roads and highways
to be closed, with 29,000 acres of farmland damaged, and created
agricultural losses of over seven million dollars ($7,000,000). In
2011, the reported agricultural losses from flooding included
approximately four million dollars ($4,000,000) in lost gross
production value and approximately one million five hundred
thousand dollars ($1,500,000) in cleanup and ranch repair.

(7) The Salinas River flows through and irrigates some of the
richest and most fertile agricultural lands in the state and even
the world. The crops grown here are shipped to almost every
corner of the globe. If a disastrous flood is to occur, the impact
will be felt worldwide and have serious consequences on our state
and national economy.

(8) The County of Monterey agriculture sector generates nearly
eight billion two hundred million dollars ($8,200,000,000) annually
and supports more than 73,000 jobs, including, but not limited to,
farm workers, packing house employees, truck drivers, and
warehouse personnel. According to a Department of Food and
Agriculture report, the County of Monterey is the fourth largest
agricultural producing county in the state representing almost 10
percent of the state’s annual agricultural production. The County
of Monterey grows more than 50 crops with an annual gross
production of over one million dollars ($1,000,000), including,
but not limited to, strawberries, lettuce, broccoli, celery, and wine
grapes.

(9) There is a need for a local, intergovernmental, and
cooperative governance structure, with public-private partnership
involvement, for the Salinas River watershed in order to develop
and implement a systemic, rational, and cost-effective program of
flood control and watershed management.

(10) It is the intent of the Legislature, through the enactment of
this section, to enable the local governments and local residents
of the Salinas River watershed to exercise appropriate powers to
ensure that the human, economic, and environmental resources
of the watershed are preserved, protected, and enhanced in terms
of watershed management and flood protection.

(b) The agency shall establish a multiobjective, multibenefit
consensus-based comprehensive Salinas River Management
Program. The program shall address the long-term management
of the Salinas River to protect the unique environmental, cultural,
and agricultural resources within the Salinas Valley.

(c) The agency shall establish a steering committee that shall
develop the program. The steering committee shall include
representatives from all major interested parties, including, but
not limited to, landowners, regulatory agencies, environmental
organizations, the agency, and local governments, including, but
not limited to, the County of Monterey.

end insert

begin insert

begin insert SEC. 2. end insert   

end insert begin insert

If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

end insert

begin delete

SECTION 1.  

The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:

(a) In 1988, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed
into law, Senate Bill 2155 that amended employees’ preexisting
statutory right to inspect their itemized pay records under Section
226 of the Labor Code and extended to them a new right to receive
a copy of these basic pay records upon reasonable request to their
employer.

(b) Senate Bill 2155 was sponsored by California Rural Legal
Assistance, Inc., and was supported by the Alien Legalization
Program for Agriculture (whose membership included the
California Farm Bureau Federation and the Western Growers
Association), the California Labor Federation, and others. There
was no opposition to Senate Bill 2155, which passed by 37 “Aye”
and no “No” votes in the Senate and by 70 “Aye” and 1 “No” votes
in the Assembly.

(c) According to the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial
Relations March 1988 analysis of Senate Bill 2155, as introduced,
the bill’s proponents contended that Senate Bill 2155 was
“necessary to ensure that workers have the right to obtain copies
of their payroll records, especially in the case of undocumented
workers who are applying for amnesty under the federal
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).”

(d) The Senate Rules Committee’s August 11, 1988, Senate
Floor Analysis (for final passage of the bill as amended in the
Assembly) stated: “This bill would permit current or former
employees to copy payroll deduction records that are maintained
by the employer. ... Employers would be empowered to charge
former and current employees for the actual costs of reproducing
the records.”

(e) The Department of Industrial Relations, in its August 26,
1988, Enrolled Bill Report recommending that the Governor sign
the bill, stated: “This bill would require an employer, who is
mandated by law to keep wage deduction records, to allow
employees to inspect and/or copy such records. [The bill also]
permits employers to charge employees for the actual costs of
reproducing the records.”

(f) The Department of Finance, in its August 29, 1988, Bill
Analysis recommending that the Governor sign the bill, stated:
“[Senate Bill] 2155 gives employees or former employees the right
to copy these records and allows the employer to take reasonable
steps to verify the identity of the employee and to charge for the
reproduction of the records.”

(g) The author of the bill, Senator Nicolas C. Petris, in his
September 6, 1988, letter urging Governor Deukmejian to sign
Senate Bill 2155 into law, stated “Senate Bill 2155 clarifies current
law by spelling out that when employers are required to make basic
pay records ‘available’ to workers, that means they are required
to provide a copy, upon reasonable request.”

(h) Despite more than 20 years of consistent interpretation of
these provisions of the Labor Code, the California Superior Court
in the County of Riverside determined, in Esteban v. JSO, Inc.
d.b.a. America’s Labor Supply, Inc., Docket No. INC-1104544,
that the Labor Code provisions enacted by Senate Bill 2155 do not
obligate an employer to make copies: “If the Legislature wanted
to require an employer to copy records on request, it could easily
have said so.”

(i) The amendments made by this bill to provisions of Section
226 of the Labor Code enacted by Senate Bill 2155 are expressly
intended to overturn Esteban v. JSO, Inc., and are further intended
to make clear that these provisions afforded a current or former
employee the right to inspect or copy, or receive copies of, his or
her payroll records, or any combination thereof; that it was solely
the employee, and not the employer, who was authorized to make
that election under the statute; and that the amendments to these
provisions made by this bill are declaratory of existing law.

SEC. 2.  

Section 226 of the Labor Code is amended to read:

226.  

(a) Every employer, semimonthly or at the time of each
payment of wages, shall furnish each of his or her employees,
either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying
the employee’s wages, or separately when wages are paid by
personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing
showing all of the following: (1) gross wages earned, (2) total
hours worked by the employee, except for any employee whose
compensation is solely based on a salary and who is exempt from
payment of overtime under subdivision (a) of Section 515 or any
applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, (3) the
number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if
the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions,
provided that all deductions made on written orders of the
employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages
earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee
is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits
of his or her social security number or an employee identification
number other than a social security number, (8) the name and
address of the legal entity that is the employer and, if the employer
is a farm labor contractor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section
1682, the name and address of the legal entity that secured the
services of the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in
effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours
worked at each hourly rate by the employee and, beginning July
1, 2013, if the employer is a temporary services employer as
defined in Section 201.3, the rate of pay and the total hours worked
for each temporary services assignment. The deductions made
from payment of wages shall be recorded in ink or other indelible
form, properly dated, showing the month, day, and year, and a
copy of the statement and the record of the deductions shall be
kept on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of
employment or at a central location within the State of California.
For purposes of this subdivision, “copy” includes a duplicate of
the itemized statement provided to an employee or a
computer-generated record that accurately shows all of the
information required by this subdivision.

(b) An employer that is required by this code or any regulation
adopted pursuant to this code to keep the information required by
subdivision (a) shall afford current and former employees the right
to inspect or copy records pertaining to their employment, upon
reasonable request to the employer, except that a former employee
terminated for workplace violence or harassment shall be entitled
only to receive a copy of the records, without any charge by the
employer. The employer may take reasonable steps to ensure the
identity of a current or former employee. In making a request under
this subdivision, an employee shall elect to inspect or copy the
records, or to receive a copy of the records, or any combination
thereof. If the employer provides copies of the records, the
employer may charge the actual cost of reproduction to the current
or former employee. For purposes of this subdivision, “actual cost
of production” means only the per page cost to the employer for
the physical duplication of the records.

(c) An employer who receives a written or oral request to inspect
or copy records, or to receive a copy of the records, or any
combination thereof, as specified by the employee pursuant to
subdivision (b) pertaining to a current or former employee shall
comply with the request as soon as practicable, but no later than
21 calendar days from the date of the request. A violation of this
subdivision is an infraction. Impossibility of performance, not
caused by or a result of a violation of law, shall be an affirmative
defense for an employer in any action alleging a violation of this
subdivision. An employer may designate the person to whom a
request under this subdivision will be made.

(d) This section does not apply to any employer of any person
employed by the owner or occupant of a residential dwelling whose
duties are incidental to the ownership, maintenance, or use of the
dwelling, including the care and supervision of children, or whose
duties are personal and not in the course of the trade, business,
profession, or occupation of the owner or occupant.

(e) (1) An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing
and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision
(a) is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or fifty
dollars ($50) for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs
and one hundred dollars ($100) per employee for each violation
in a subsequent pay period, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of
four thousand dollars ($4,000), and is entitled to an award of costs
and reasonable attorney’s fees.

(2) (A) An employee is deemed to suffer injury for purposes
of this subdivision if the employer fails to provide a wage
statement.

(B) An employee is deemed to suffer injury for purposes of this
subdivision if the employer fails to provide accurate and complete
information as required by any one or more of items (1) to (9),
inclusive, of subdivision (a) and the employee cannot promptly
and easily determine from the wage statement alone one or more
of the following:

(i) The amount of the gross wages or net wages paid to the
employee during the pay period or any of the other information
required to be provided on the itemized wage statement pursuant
to items (2) to (4), inclusive, (6), and (9) of subdivision (a).

(ii) Which deductions the employer made from gross wages to
determine the net wages paid to the employee during the pay
period. Nothing in this subdivision alters the ability of the employer
to aggregate deductions consistent with the requirements of item
(4) of subdivision (a).

(iii) The name and address of the employer and, if the employer
is a farm labor contractor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section
1682, the name and address of the legal entity that secured the
services of the employer during the pay period.

(iv) The name of the employee and only the last four digits of
his or her social security number or an employee identification
number other than a social security number.

(C) For purposes of this paragraph, “promptly and easily
determine” means a reasonable person would be able to readily
ascertain the information without reference to other documents or
information.

(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a “knowing and intentional
failure” does not include an isolated and unintentional payroll error
due to a clerical or inadvertent mistake. In reviewing for
compliance with this section, the factfinder may consider as a
relevant factor whether the employer, prior to an alleged violation,
has adopted and is in compliance with a set of policies, procedures,
and practices that fully comply with this section.

(f) A failure by an employer to permit a current or former
employee to inspect or copy records, or to receive a copy of the
records, or any combination thereof, as specified by the employee
pursuant to subdivision (b) within the time set forth in subdivision
(c) entitles the current or former employee or the Labor
Commissioner to recover a seven-hundred-fifty-dollar ($750)
penalty from the employer.

(g) The listing by an employer of the name and address of the
legal entity that secured the services of the employer in the itemized
statement required by subdivision (a) shall not create any liability
on the part of that legal entity.

(h) An employee may also bring an action for injunctive relief
to ensure compliance with this section, and is entitled to an award
of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

(i) This section does not apply to the state, to any city, county,
city and county, district, or to any other governmental entity, except
that if the state or a city, county, city and county, district, or other
governmental entity furnishes its employees with a check, draft,
or voucher paying the employee’s wages, the state or a city, county,
city and county, district, or other governmental entity shall use no
more than the last four digits of the employee’s social security
number or shall use an employee identification number other than
the social security number on the itemized statement provided with
the check, draft, or voucher.

end delete