BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1522|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1522
Author: Gonzalez (D), et al.
Amended: 8/18/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 3-1, 6/11/14
AYES: Hueso, Leno, Padilla
NOES: Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Mitchell
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/24/14
AYES: Jackson, Corbett, Lara, Leno, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Vidak
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 8/14/14
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-23, 5/29/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Employment: paid sick days
SOURCE : California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California State Council of the Service Employees
International
Union
DIGEST : This bill enacts the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy
Families Act of 2014, which requires employers to provide paid
sick days to employees who work 30 or more days within a year
CONTINUED
AB 1522
Page
2
from commencement of employment.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides for various forms of unpaid
and (in some circumstances) paid leave for employees. Existing
law authorizes, but does not require, employers to provide their
employees with paid sick leave. Any employer that chooses to
provide sick leave must allow an employee to use accrued and
available sick leave, in an amount not less than the sick leave
that would be accrued during six months at the employee's then
current rate of entitlement. Sick leave can be used by the
employee for any of the following reasons:
Being physically or mentally unable to work due to illness,
injury, or a medical condition of the employee.
Obtaining professional diagnosis of treatment for a medical
condition of the employee.
Other medical reasons of the employee, such as pregnancy or
obtaining a physical examination.
To attend to an illness of a child, parent, spouse, or
domestic partner of the employee.
Existing law does not require this sick leave to accrue, from
one year to the next, nor does it vest. In addition, sick leave
does not extend the maximum period of leave to which an employee
is entitled under other leaves, such as the federal Family and
Medical Leave Act, regardless of whether sick leave is received
during that leave.
Existing law prohibits employers from denying an employee the
right to use sick leave or discharge, threaten to discharge,
demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate against an
employee for using, or attempting to use, sick leave to attend
to an illness of a child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner of
the employee. Violation of this right entitles employees to
reinstatement and actual damages or one day's pay, whichever is
greater, and to appropriate equitable relief. The employee can
either file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner, or bring a
civil action for remedies.
Currently, San Francisco County is the only county that has
passed an ordinance requiring employers to provide paid sick
CONTINUED
AB 1522
Page
3
leave for all employees, including temporary and part-time
employees, who work within the county. The San Francisco Paid
Sick Leave Ordinance became effective on February 5, 2007.
This bill enacts the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of
2014, which requires employers to provide paid sick days to
employees who work 30 or more days within a year from the
commencement of employment. Specifically, this bill:
1. Provides that on or after July 1, 2015, an employee who
works for 30 or more days in a within a year from
commencement of employment is entitled to paid sick days.
2. Specifies that paid sick days accrue at a rate of no less
than one hour for every 30 hours worked, and may be used
beginning on the 90th day of employment.
3. Provides that paid sick days may accrue and be carried over
to the following year; however, employers may limit their use
to 24 hours or 3 days in each year.
4. Provides that "employer" includes any person employing
another and includes the state, political subdivisions of the
state, and municipalities.
5. Provides that an "employee" does not include:
An employee covered by a valid collective bargaining
agreement that expressly provides for paid sick days or
similar policy, as specified.
An employee in the construction industry covered by a
valid collective bargaining agreement that was entered into
before January 1, 2015 or waives the requirements of this
bill, as specified.
1. Provides that a public authority must comply with these
requirements for individuals who perform in-home supportive
services, except that these requirements may be satisfied by
entering into a collective bargaining agreement that provides
an incremental hourly wage adjustment in an amount sufficient
to satisfy the bill's requirements.
2. Requires an employer, upon oral or written request of an
CONTINUED
AB 1522
Page
4
employee, to provide paid sick days for the following
purposes:
Diagnosis, care or treatment of an existing health
condition of, or preventive care for, an employee or the
employee's family member; or
For an employee who is a victim of domestic violence,
sexual assault, or stalking as specified.
1. Defines "family member" to include a child, as specified, a
parent, as specified, a spouse, a registered domestic
partner, a grandparent, a grandchild, or a sibling.
2. Does not require an employer to provide compensation to an
employee for accrued, unused paid sick days upon termination,
resignation, retirement, or other separation from employment,
except if an employee is rehired by the same employer within
one year from the date of separation, any previously accrued,
unused paid sick days shall be reinstated.
3. Does not require an employer to provide additional paid sick
days, as specified, if the employer has a paid leave police
or paid time off policy, the employer makes available an
amount of leave that may be used for the same purposes and
under the same conditions, as specified.
4. Allows an employer to lend paid sick days to an employee in
advance of accrual, at the employer's discretion and with
proper documentation.
5. Requires an employer to provide an employee with written
notice that sets forth the amount of paid sick leave
available for use on either the employee's itemized wage
statement, as specified.
6. Provides that an employer has no obligation under this bill
to allow and employee's total accrual of paid sick leave to
exceed 48 hours or six days, as specified.
7. Prohibits an employer from requiring employees to find a
replacement worker as a condition of using his/her paid sick
days.
CONTINUED
AB 1522
Page
5
8. Prohibits an employer from denying an employee the right to
use accrued sick days, discharging, threatening to discharge,
demoting, suspending or in any manner discriminating against
an employee for using accrued sick days, as specified.
9. Establishes a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation
if an employer denies an employee the right to use sick days
or takes other specified adverse action within 30 days of
specified protected activities by the employee.
10.Requires employers to provide written notice [in various
specified languages] and posting requirements, as specified,
or be subject to a civil fine for not compliance. Requires
the Labor Commissioner to create a written notice containing
this information and make it available to employers.
Requires the Labor Commissioner to create a written notice
containing this information and make it available to
employers.
11.Requires employers to retain employee records related to
used and accrued paid sick days for at least three years.
12.Directs the Labor Commissioner to:
Coordinate implementation and enforcement of these
requirements and to promulgate guidelines and regulations;
Investigate alleged violations and order appropriate
relief, including reinstatement, back pay, the payment of
sick days unlawfully withheld, and additional
administrative penalties, as specified; and
In addition to the Labor Commissioner, the Attorney
General may bring a civil action against an employer in a
court of competent jurisdiction to recover relief on behalf
of the aggrieved, as specified.
1. Specifies that this bill establishes minimum requirements
for paid sick days and does not preempt, limit, or otherwise
affect the applicability of any other law or similar
requirement that provides greater accrual or use of sick
days, or that extends other protections to employees.
2. Makes several findings and declarations related to employees
CONTINUED
AB 1522
Page
6
and the need and benefits of providing for paid sick days.
3. Caps various administrative penalties at $4,000.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/18/14)
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO (co-source)
California State Council of the Service Employees International
Union (co-source)
9to5 National Association of Working Women
Alameda Labor Council, AFL-CIO
American Civil Liberties Union of CA
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
Breathe California
Broad and Gusman, LLP Attorneys at Law
California Bus Association
California Catholic Conference of Bishops
California Communities United Institute
California Employment Lawyers Association
California Medical Association
California Nurses Association
California Professional Firefighters
California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Pipe Trades Council
California Teachers Association
California Work and Family Coalition
Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, District 9
Consumer Attorneys of California
Family Caregiver Alliance
Glendale City Employees Association
Health Officers Association of California
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Southern California
District
Council
Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
National Association of Working Women
Next Generation
Organization of SMUD Employees
CONTINUED
AB 1522
Page
7
Parent Voices
San Bernardino Public Employees Association
San Luis Obispo County Employees Association
Santa Rosa City Employees Association
Teamsters
UNITE Here
United Domestic Workers of America, AFSCME, Local 3930
United Nurses Associations of California / Union of Health Care
Professionals
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Western State Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Young Invincibles
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/18/14)
California Chamber of Commerce
Acclamation Insurance Management Services
Air Conditioning Trade Association
Alhambra Chamber of Commerce
Allied Managed Care
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Associated Builders and Contractors - San Diego Chapter
Associated General Contractors
Brawley Chamber of Commerce Brea Chamber of Commerce
California Asian Chamber of Commerce
California Association of Health Facilities
California Association of Licensed Security Agencies, Guards and
Associates
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Attractions and Parks Association
California Automatic Vendors Council
California Bankers Association
California Beer & Beverage Distributors
California Business Properties Association
California Business Roundtable
California Chapter of American Fence Association
California Employment Law Council
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fence Contractors' Association
California Grocers Association
California Hotel & Lodging Association
California Independent Grocers Association
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
CONTINUED
AB 1522
Page
8
California New Car Dealers Association
California Newspaper Publishers Association
California Pool and Spa Association
California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Travel Association
California Trucking Association
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
CAWA - Representing the Automotive Parts Industry
Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce
Chambers of Commerce Alliance of Ventura & Santa Barbara
Counties
Dana Point Chamber of Commerce
Desert Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Center
El Centro Chamber of Commerce
Flasher Barricade Association
Fountain Valley Chamber of Commerce
Fullerton Chamber of Commerce
Gateway Chambers Alliance
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce
Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce
Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce
International Franchise Association
Lodi Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Marin Builders Association
National Federation of Independent Business
Orange County Business Council
Oxnard Chamber of Commerce
Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors
Association of California
Porterville Chamber of Commerce
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce
San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce
San Gabriel Valley Coalition
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce and
Convention-Visitors Bureau
Southwest California Legislative Council
CONTINUED
AB 1522
Page
9
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Tahoe Chamber of Commerce
Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce
Turlock Chamber of Commerce
Visalia Chamber of Commerce
Western Carwash Association
Western Electrical Contractors Association
Western Growers Association
Wine Institute
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author and proponents,
under current state law, nothing requires employers to provide
paid sick days, and as a result, roughly 39% of the workforce
earns no sick leave benefits whatsoever. That leaves seven
million Californians with few options when personal or family
needs arise. Proponents argue that a worker without paid sick
leave is either expected to work while sick, risking the health
and safety of co-workers and customers, or stay home and forego
wages, jeopardizing that worker's own ability to survive. They
argue that given the rising cost of living expenses, workers
just cannot afford to lose a day's pay. According to the
author, this bill appropriately allows workers to earn paid sick
days, which they can use for personal illness, to care for a
sick family member and to recover from domestic violence or
assault.
The author and proponents also point to studies which have found
that providing sick days to workers saves money for businesses
by reducing turnover, reducing the spread of illness in the
workplace, and improving workers' morale and productivity.
Furthermore, proponents argue that an overwhelming majority of
the public believes employers should be required to offer paid
sick days and point to a 2010 poll which found that 74% of
adults surveyed would support a law guaranteeing paid sick days,
with this position enjoying widespread support across party,
gender, and ethnic lines. Finally, they argue that several
local jurisdictions - and the state of Connecticut - have
already passed this measure and found no adverse impact to
employers; therefore, they argue that it is time to allow
workers, the public, and employers access to all of the benefits
offered by earned sick leave legislation.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents representing many large
and small business associations argue that this bill would
CONTINUED
AB 1522
Page
10
unreasonably expand employers' burdens, costs and liability.
They argue that many employers already offer paid sick leave and
believe that California should incentivize this practice rather
than mandate it. With regards to the cost concern, opponents
point out that many employers allow employees to accrue sick
leave per pay period or per month, not according to the number
of hours worked. Accordingly, such employers will have to
completely change their policies in order to mirror the accrual
rate proposed under this bill, resulting in increased cost to
employers. Additionally, this bill mandates that accrued sick
leave carry over from year to year, a practice currently not
required therefore imposing a new burden on employers.
Regarding the various penalties contained in the bill, opponents
argue that, while an employee should be made whole for any
violation of the law, the layering of additional penalties, such
as treble damages, is simply an unjustified windfall. Opponents
also object to the bill's creation of a rebuttable presumption
of retaliation, arguing that the burden will fall on the
employer to prove that employment decisions were valid, instead
of the burden falling on the employee to prove retaliation. For
example, an employee who took paid sick leave returns to work
the following day and is caught stealing, he/she is then
terminated, however, this individual would be protected under
the automatic rebuttable presumption and the burden would then
fall on the employer to prove its actions were valid.
Another point of concern for opponents is the new posting and
notice requirements, with additional penalties for
noncompliance, required in the bill which they argue puts
employers at risk of litigation. Current law already requires
employers to post over 15 different notices and they argue that
at some point the posting of such information becomes just
another added expense without any corresponding benefit to
employees overwhelmed with postings. Also of concern to
opponents is the requirement in the bill that gives local
counties and cities authority to adopt more stringent paid sick
leave requirements than is included in the bill. They argue
that this provision will create inconsistency and confusion for
California employers who operate in different jurisdictions.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-23, 05/29/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta,
Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau,
CONTINUED
AB 1522
Page
11
Chesbro, Dababneh, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Garcia,
Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hall, Roger Hernández,
Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal, Medina, Mullin,
Nazarian, Pan, Perea, John A. Pérez, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk,
Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner,
Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Conway, Dahle,
Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Harkey, Jones,
Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez, Nestande,
Patterson, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooley, Frazier, Muratsuchi, Olsen, Vacancy
PQ:nl 8/18/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED