BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 855
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 855 (Brown)
As Amended April 1, 2013
Majority vote
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bonta, Jones-Sawyer, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Mullin, Rendon, | |Bradford, |
| |Wieckowski | |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, |
| | | |Ammiano, Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Weber |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Allen, Harkey |Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow, |
| | | |Donnelly, Linder, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Allows a state employee who is absent without leave to
demonstrate he or she is able to resume job duties by submitting
written verification from a licensed healthcare provider, as
specified, and requires the California Department of Human
Resources (CalHR) to grant reinstatement if the appointing power
invokes the "automatic resignation for state service" provisions
before the employee is absent without leave for five consecutive
work days.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that absence without leave, whether voluntary or
involuntary, for a period of five consecutive days is an
automatic resignation from state service.
2)Establishes a process for a permanent or probationary employee
may, within 90 days of the effective date of such separation,
seek reinstatement and for CalHR may grant reinstatement.
3)Allows CalHR to grant reinstatement under the following
circumstances:
a) The employee makes a satisfactory explanation as to the
cause of the absence and their failure to obtain leave;
AB 855
Page 2
and,
b) The employee is found to be ready, able, and willing to
resume his or her job duties or has obtained consent from
his or her appointing power for a leave of absence.
4)Specifies that an employee who is reinstated under these
provisions will not receive salary for the period of his or
her absence.
5)Specifies that if these provisions are in conflict with the
provisions of a memorandum of understanding (MOU), the MOU
will be controlling, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill would have negligible fiscal impact.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "This bill will strengthen
due process for state workers who are absent without leave
(AWOL) by allowing an administrative law judge to make a
determination whether the state properly invoked the AWOL
statute to terminate an employee. This bill also codifies an
existing practice that allows an employee to demonstrate that he
or she is able to return to work by submitting written
verification from a licensed health care provider that shows the
employee is released to return to work."
According to supporters, "Under current law, state departments
have the right - but are not required - to invoke the AWOL
statute if an employee is voluntary or involuntarily AWOL for
five consecutive work days. An AWOL-resigned employee can be
reinstated if the employee satisfactorily explains why 1) the
employee was absent; 2) failed to obtain leave and; 3) the
employee is ready, able and willing to return to work."
"An AWOL-resigned employee has two options when contesting the
appointing power's invocation of the AWOL statute. The employee
can request an informal "Coleman" hearing with the appointing
power. Improper invocations of the AWOL statute are rarely
overturned at Coleman hearings. An AWOL-resigned employee can
also file a written request for reinstatement with CalHR. At
CalHR, an administrative law judge (ALJ) can only recommend
reinstatement if the employee satisfactorily explains 1) why the
employee was absent; 2) why they failed to obtain leave and; 3)
AB 855
Page 3
that the employee is ready, able and willing to return to work.
The ALJ cannot consider whether or not the appointing authority
invoked the AWOL statute to wrongfully terminate the employee."
Supporters conclude, "AB 855 will allow and ALJ to consider
whether or not the AWOL statute was properly invoked by the
department. This bill could potentially save the state money by
reducing future litigation costs associated with improper
invocations of the AWOL statute."
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
FN: 0000429