BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 26 Hearing Date: June 27,
2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Jones-Sawyer |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 23, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Sarah Mason, Sarah Huchel |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Medical cannabis
SUMMARY: Requires, after July 1, 2018, Medical Marijuana Regulation and
Safety Act (Act) license applicants with 20 or more employees to
implement an employee training program to educate, inform, and
train the licensee's agents and employees on compliance with the
Act.
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation
(Bureau) within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) to
oversee the licensing and regulation of medical marijuana.
(Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 19300, et seq.)
2)Defines a "licensing authority" as the state agency
responsible for the issuance, renewal, or reinstatement of the
license, or the state agency authorized to take disciplinary
action against the license. (BPC § 19300.5 (w))
3)Requires a license applicant with 20 or more employees to
provide a statement that the applicant will enter into, or
demonstrate that it has already entered into, and abide by the
terms of a labor peace agreement, as a condition of state
licensure under the Act. (BPC § 19322 (a)(6))
4)States that "employee" does not include a supervisor, and
"supervisor" means an individual having authority, in the
AB 26 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 2
of ?
interest of the licensee, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off,
recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline
other employees, or responsibility to direct them or to adjust
their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if,
in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that
authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but
requires the use of independent judgment. (BPC § 19322
(a)(6))
This bill:
1)Beginning July 1, 2018, requires applicants with 20 or more
employees to attest on an application that the applicant will
implement an employee training program approved by the
licensing authority within one year of licensure.
2)Beginning July 1, 2018, requires the licensing authority to
deny an application of an applicant with 20 or more employees
unless the applicant attests that the applicant will implement
an employee training program approved by the licensing
authority within one year of licensure.
3)Requires a licensee to implement an employee training program,
or contract with a third party to provide an employee program,
to educate, inform, and train the licensee's employees on
compliance with the Act.
4)Requires an employee training program to include, but not be
limited to, training on applicable statutory requirements,
industry best practices, occupational health and safety
standards, and workplace protections.
5)Requires each licensing authority to adopt standards for the
approval of employee training programs. Such standards shall
prohibit approval of an employee training program provided by
a third party provider who operates an apprenticeship program
approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship
Standards.
6)Authorizes a licensing authority to approve a workplace
training organization as a third-party provider of employee
training programs. Defines a "workplace training
organization" as a labor union organization representing wage
earners or salaried employees for mutual aid and protection
AB 26 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 3
of ?
and for dealing collectively with cannabis employers.
7)Requires a licensing authority to revoke the license of any
licensee with 20 or more employees that fails to implement an
employee training program within one year of licensure.
8)Requires each licensing authority to charge a fee for
approving a training program provided by workplace training
organization. Total fees assessed shall not exceed the
reasonable regulatory costs for training program. Each
licensing authority may adjust fees as needed, but no more
than once per year, to generate sufficient revenue to cover
the costs of training program approval.
9)Requires revenues collected to be deposited in the appropriate
fee account within the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety
Act Fund.
10)States that no reimbursement is required because the only
costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime
or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes
the penalty for a crime or infraction, or changes the
definition of a crime.
FISCAL
EFFECT: This bill is keyed "fiscal" by the Legislative Counsel.
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis
dated January 21, 2016:
This estimate is subject to significant uncertainty, as the
number of licensees, the number of training programs, the
complexity of the training, and numerous operational decisions
are all unknown at this time. Staff estimates the Bureau may
incur the following costs (funded through a previously
authorized GF loan to the Medical Marijuana Regulation and
Safety Act Fund, to be repaid through licensure fee revenue):
1)Developing training program standards and developing processes
for application and review of training programs, would likely
result in contract or staff costs in the hundreds of thousands
of dollars. The bill requires approved training on
substantive legal requirements, industry best practices, and
AB 26 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 4
of ?
occupational health and safety standards for numerous types of
industries.
2)Costs for initial verification of training programs could
range from minor too significant, depending on how many
training programs apply for approval. If only a few larger
training programs apply, costs would be lower because one
approved training program would serve multiple licensees. If
more licensees develop their own training programs, approval
costs could be much more significant. If a large number of
training programs apply, it may also require a more
sophisticated Information Technology (IT) solution to track
applicants.
3)To verify licensees are implementing training programs should
be fairly minor and absorbable, assuming the check is
paper-based. If on-site visits are required, costs would
increase. Any ongoing costs for this activity will be
recovered through license fees.
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the United Food and
Commercial Workers Union . According to the Author's office,
"There is currently no training program for employees in the
medical marijuana industry. Even though these employees work
with ill patients, deal with environmental impacts of
cultivation, security issues, and manufacturing and
processing of edible products for consumption. The employees
need to be trained in dealing with patients, security and
state and federal laws."
2. California's Medical Marijuana Regulatory Background.
California began regulating medical marijuana with the
passage of the Compassionate Use Act in 1996, which exempted
patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability
under state law for the possession and cultivation of
marijuana. In 2003, the Legislature authorized the formation
of medical marijuana cooperatives-nonprofit organizations
that cultivate and distribute marijuana for medical uses to
their members through dispensaries. Most recently, the
Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (Act) passed in
2015, which consisted of three separate bills enacted
AB 26 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 5
of ?
together to license and regulate medical marijuana AB 243
(Wood, Chapter 688, Statues of 2015); AB 266 (Bonta, Chapter
689, Statutes of 2015); and SB 643 (McGuire, Chapter 719,
Statutes of 2015). These bills created a comprehensive state
licensing system for the commercial cultivation, manufacture,
retail sale, transport, distribution, delivery, and testing
of medical cannabis. Medical marijuana cooperatives will be
phased out under the Act and replaced by state licensed
businesses.
The Act went into effect on January 1, 2016, and licensure
requirements will follow when the regulatory entities
responsible for implementation pass necessary regulations.
The Act distributes state responsibilities among six
agencies:
The Bureau: license and regulate dispensaries,
transporters, and distributors.
Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW): monitor and
reduce environmental impacts of marijuana cultivation.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB):
regulate the environmental impacts of marijuana
cultivation on water quality and instream flows.
California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA): regulate medical marijuana cultivation and issue
licenses to growers.
Department of Public Health (DPH): develop and
enforce regulations and standards for medical marijuana
product manufacturers and testing laboratories.
Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR): develop
pesticide use guidelines for the cultivation of medical
marijuana.
This bill requires license applicants with 20 or more
employees to implement a training program to educate, inform,
AB 26 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 6
of ?
and train the licensee's agents and employees on compliance
with the Act within one year of licensure. The licensee may
either conduct the training by his or herself or hire a third
party provider, which may be a union organization. However,
this bill prohibits any third party provider of employee
training programs from engaging in apprenticeship programs
regulated by the Division of Apprenticeship Standards.
It is unclear why this exclusion from apprenticeship programs
exists; one would think that organizations that already
provide training programs would be ideally suited for this
new industry. The rationale for these provisions is unclear.
1. Related Legislation. AB 1575 (Bonta) of 2016 amends various
provisions of the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety
Act. ( Status : This bill is currently pending in the Senate
Governance and Finance Committee.)
SB 837 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) of 2016 makes
a number of changes to the Act. Some changes are
inconsistent with AB 1575, and some duplicate. ( Status : This
bill is currently pending in the Assembly Budget Committee.)
2. Previous Legislation. AB 266 (Bonta, Cooley, Jones-Sawyer,
Lackey, and Wood, Chapter 689, Statutes of 2015) enacted the
Act for the licensure and regulation of medical marijuana,
established the Bureau within the DCA, required the CDFA to
administer the provisions of the act related to cultivation,
required the DPH to administer the provisions of the Act
related to manufacturing and testing of medical cannabis and
required BOE to adopt a system for reporting the movement of
commercial cannabis and cannabis products.
AB 243 (Wood, Chapter 688, Statutes of 2015) required the
CDFA, the DPR, the DPH, the DFW, and the SWRCB to promulgate
regulations relating to medical marijuana and its
cultivation, as specified, required various state agencies to
take specified actions to mitigate the impact that marijuana
cultivation has on the environment, and established the Act
Fund.
SB 643 (McGuire, Chapter 719, Statutes of 2015) established
AB 26 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 7
of ?
standards for the prescription of medical cannabis, required
the Medical Board of California to prioritize its
investigative and prosecutorial resources to identify and
discipline physicians and surgeons that have repeatedly
recommended excessive cannabis to patients for medical
purposes or repeatedly recommended cannabis to patients for
medical purposes without a good faith examination, as
specified, authorized counties to impose a tax upon specified
cannabis-related activity, and set forth standards for the
licensed cultivation of medical cannabis.
3. Arguments in Support. The United Food and Commercial Workers
Union (UFCW) writes, "With the passage of the Act, UFCW
strongly supports the creation of a robust program to train
cannabis workers in the industry at the California DCA.
Professional licensing and safety standards are widely
accepted norms throughout the State of California for a
variety of occupations and we should do the same for workers
employed in the cannabis industry. Cannabis workers need
vital knowledge of their product and how best to serve the
needs of people suffering from serious diseases."
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support:
United Food and Commercial Workers Union (Sponsor)
(1/25/2016 version):
California Labor Federation
Central Coast Forest Association
City of Santa Monica
League of California Cities
Opposition:
None on file as of June 22, 2016.
-- END --
AB 26 (Jones-Sawyer) Page 8
of ?