BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1336
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1336 (Frazier)
As Amended April 17, 2013
Majority vote
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 5-2 JUDICIARY 7-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Roger Hernández, Alejo, |Ayes:|Wieckowski, Alejo, Chau, |
| |Chau, Gomez, Holden | |Dickinson, Garcia, |
| | | |Muratsuchi, Stone |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Morrell, Gorell |Nays:|Wagner, Gorell, |
| | | |Maienschein |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, | | |
| |Bradford, | | |
| |Ian Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, | | |
| |Rendon, Pan, Quirk, Weber | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow, | | |
| |Donnelly, Linder, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Enacts various provisions of law related to
enforcement of prevailing wage law by specified joint-labor
management committees. Specifically, this bill :
1)Extends the statute of limitations for civil actions for
failure to pay prevailing wage brought by specified joint
labor-management committees from 180 days to 24 months after
the wages were due.
2)Provides that in such civil actions, the court shall award
restitution to an employee for unpaid wages plus interest,
liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid wages owed,
and may impose specified civil penalties, injunctive relief,
or any other appropriate form of equitable relief.
AB 1336
Page 2
3)Provides that the court shall award a prevailing joint
labor-management committee its reasonable attorney's fees and
costs incurred in maintaining the action, including expert
witness fees.
4)Specifies that such a civil action shall not be based on the
employer's misclassification of the craft of a worker in its
certified payroll records.
5)Specifies that these provisions do not limit any other
available remedies for a violation of the law.
6)Provides that a copy certified payroll records provided to a
joint labor-management committee shall be marked or
obliterated on to prevent disclosure of an individual's social
security number (but not their name).
7)Provides that a copy of certified payroll records provided to
a multiemployer Taft-Hartley trust fund that requests the
records for the purpose of allocating contributions to
participants shall be marked or obliterated only to prevent
disclosure of an individual's full social security number, but
shall provide the last four digits of the social security
number.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill will result in minimal fiscal impact to the
Department of Industrial Relations.
COMMENTS : This bill is sponsored by the State Building and
Construction Trades Council of California, who argues that it
will enhance the state's enforcement efforts to combat the
underground economy, protect the public's investment in
infrastructure and protect workers from wage theft.
The sponsor states that the change in the statute of limitations
for claims will allow for adequate time for a legal remedy for
workers cheated out of wages they are owed since victims of wage
theft are underpaid for years on multiple projects and only come
forward when their employment with the contractor ends.
In addition, the sponsor states that under current law, a joint
labor-management committee that requests certified payroll
records receives them only with the workers' addresses and not
AB 1336
Page 3
the workers' names. However, many instances of wage theft
involve payroll records that do not report all the hours an
employee is actually working. Providing the names of the
employees will allow the committee to properly follow-up and
determine if the payroll records are fraudulent.
Finally, the sponsor states that this bill will provide
Taft-Hartley trust funds with the last four digits of social
security numbers, enabling the correct allocation of health
benefits and pension contributions to workers for which the
contributions were made. The sponsor states that the redaction
of this information severely hinders this process and often
lawsuits are required to obtain this information. Many
instances of wage theft involve payroll records that do not
report all the hours the employee is actually working and there
are occasions when the employer has gone out of business or
refuses to cooperate in an audit, so the certified payroll
records are the only practicable means for allocating benefit
contributions.
The Associated General Contractors of California (AGC) opposes
this bill unless amended. Primarily, AGC argues deleting the
requirement that the civil action be commenced not later than
180 days after acceptance of the public work, or the filing of a
valid notice of completion, whichever is later, is unnecessary
and would create an imbalance with other enforcement provisions
in the prevailing wage statutes that require the Division of
Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) to issue a civil wage and
penalty assessment within 180 days of the events described
above. AGC argues that DLSE regularly and routinely issues such
assessments within the proscribed 180 day period, and there is
no legitimate basis for creating a different period of time for
joint labor-management committees.
The Construction Employers' Association (CEA) also opposes this
measure, raising particular concern with the provisions of the
bill specifying the civil remedies that may be pursued by joint
labor-management committees. CEA states that courts have long
held that plaintiffs may only file suit against the actual
employer for wage claims. Conversely, Labor Code Section 1775
imposes "joint and several liability" between a contractor and
subcontractor for wage claims. Because this bill directs courts
to adhere to Section 1775, CEA contends that the bill is
imposing "joint and several liability" where it did not
AB 1336
Page 4
previously exist. Furthermore, pursuant to 1775 (b) the Labor
Commissioner may waive penalties related to a subcontractor's
violation. However, CEA expresses concern that the courts do
not have the same level of expertise as the Labor Commissioner
when it comes to certified payroll enforcement and could
potentially impose penalties that are not otherwise due pursuant
to 1775 (b). CEA states that if the goal of this measure is to
penalize those entities who violate wage law, the bill should be
amended to speak only to those entities.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0000564