BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    





          SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
                             Senator Tony Mendoza, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:               AB 359       Hearing Date:    June 24,  
          2015 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Gonzalez                                             |
          |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
          |Version:   |May 18, 2015                                         |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:    |No               |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|Alma Perez-Schwab                                    |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          
                             Subject:  Grocery workers.


          KEY ISSUES
          
          Should the Legislature establish a worker retention requirement  
          when there is a change in ownership or control of a grocery  
          establishment requiring that eligible grocery workers be  
          retained by the successor employer for a transition employment  
          period of at least 90 days? 

          Should the successor grocery employer be required to consider  
          offering the worker continued employment if at the end of the  
          90-day transition period the employee's work performance is  
          satisfactory?

          Should the successor employer be required to employ these  
          workers during this transition period under the successor's  
          terms and conditions  and  pursuant to the terms of a relevant  
          collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the incumbent  
          employer and representatives? 


          ANALYSIS
          
           Existing law  establishes the Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act  








          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 2  
          of ?
          
          (The Act) which requires contractors and subcontractors that are  
          awarded contracts or subcontracts by an awarding authority to  
          provide janitorial or building maintenance services within the  
          California, to follow specified procedures when a service  
          contract is being terminated or will be terminated. 
          (Labor Code 1060-65)  
           
          Existing law  requires the terminated contractor, within three  
          working days after notification by the awarding body of the  
          termination of the contract, to provide to the successor  
          contractor, the name, date of hire, and job classification of  
          each employee employed at the site or sites covered by the  
          terminated service contract at the time of the contract  
          termination. 

           Existing law  requires that the successor contractor or  
          subcontractor do the following:
               
                 Retain, for a 60-day transition employment period,  
               employees who have been employed by the terminated  
               contractor or its subcontractors, if any, for the preceding  
               four months or longer at the site or sites covered  unless   
               the successor contractor or subcontractor has reasonable  
               and substantiated cause not to hire a particular employee  
               based on his/her performance or conduct while working under  
               the terminated contract. 

                 Make a written offer of employment to each employee  
               stating the time within which the employee must accept that  
               offer (not less than 10 days).  Nothing in The Act requires  
               that the successor contractor or subcontractor pay the same  
               wages or offer the same benefits as were provided by the  
               prior contractor or prior subcontractor. 

                 If at any time the successor contractor or subcontractor  
               determines that fewer employees are needed to perform  
               services under the new service contract, the successor  
               contractor or subcontractor shall retain employees by  
               seniority within the job classification. 

                 During the initial 60-day transition employment period,  
               the successor contractor or subcontractor shall not  
               discharge without cause an employee retained pursuant to  
               The Act.  Cause shall be based only on the performance or  
               conduct of the employee. 







          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 3  
          of ?
          

                 At the end of the 60-day transition employment period,  
               the successor contractor or subcontractor shall provide a  
               written performance evaluation to each employee retained.  

                 If the employee's performance during the 60-day period  
               is satisfactory, the successor contractor or subcontractor  
               shall offer the employee continued employment which shall  
               be at-will employment under which the employee may be  
               terminated without cause.  

           Existing law  provides that an employee who was not offered  
          employment or who has been discharged in violation of The Act  
          may bring an action against a successor contractor or  
          subcontractor in any superior court of the State of California  
          having jurisdiction.  Upon finding a violation of The Act, the  
          court shall award backpay, as specified, including the value of  
          benefits, for each day during which the violation occurred, as  
          well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 

           Additionally, in the public transit industry, existing law   
          requires an awarding body to give a 10 percent bid preference to  
          a bidder who agrees to retain the employees of the prior  
          contractor for a period of not less than 90 days. Similarly, the  
          successor contractor or subcontractor is required to make a  
          written offer of employment to each employee to be rehired  
          stating the time within which the employee must accept that  
          offer.  The wages and benefits do not need to be at the same  
          level as those provided by the previous contractor or  
          subcontractor and an aggrieved employee may bring an action  
          against the successor contractor or subcontractor in any  
          superior court having jurisdiction.  (Labor Code Section 1070 et  
          seq.)
           

          This Bill  would establish a worker retention requirement for the  
          change in ownership or control of grocery establishments, as  
          specified.  Specifically, this bill: 

             1)   Requires an incumbent grocery employer, within 15 days  
               after the execution of the transfer document, to provide to  
               the successor grocery employer the name, address, date of  
               hire, and employment occupation classification of each  
               eligible grocery worker.








          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 4  
          of ?
          

             2)   Requires the successor grocery employer to maintain a  
               preferential hiring list of these eligible grocery workers  
               for a period beginning upon execution of the transfer  
               document and continuing for 90 days after the grocery  
               establishment is fully operational and open to the public  
               under the successor grocery employer.


             3)   Requires a successor grocery employer to retain each  
               eligible grocery worker hired from the preferential hiring  
               list for a period of at least 90 days.  During this 90-day  
               transition period, eligible grocery workers shall be  
               employed under the terms and conditions established by the  
               successor grocery employer and pursuant to the terms of a  
               relevant collective bargaining agreement, if any.


             4)   Provides that if the successor grocery employer  
               determines that it requires fewer workers than were  
               required by the incumbent grocery employer, it shall retain  
               workers by seniority within each job classification, as  
               specified.


             5)   Provides that during the 90-day transition employment  
               period, the successor grocery employer shall not discharge  
               without cause an eligible grocery worker.


             6)   Provides that at the end of the 90-day transition  
               period, the successor grocery employer shall make a written  
               performance evaluation for each eligible grocery worker.   
               If the worker's performance is satisfactory, the successor  
               grocery employer shall consider offering the worker  
               continued employment under the terms and conditions  
               established by the successor grocery employer and as  
               required by law.


             7)   Requires the incumbent grocery employer to post public  
               notice of the change in control that must include, among  
               other things, the name and contact information of the  
               successor grocery employer and the effective date of the  
               change in control. 







          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 5  
          of ?
          


             8)   Defines, among others, the following terms:


               a)     "Grocery establishment" means a retail store that is  
                 over 15,000 square feet in size and that sells primarily  
                 household foodstuffs for offsite consumption, as  
                 specified. 


               b)     "Incumbent grocery employer" means the person that  
                 owns, controls, or operates a grocery establishment prior  
                 to a change in control.


               c)     "Successor grocery employer" means the person that  
                 owns, controls, or operates a grocery establishment after  
                 a change in control.


               d)     "Eligible grocery worker" means individuals whose  
                 primary place of employment is at the grocery  
                 establishment subject to a change and who have worked for  
                 the incumbent grocery employer for at least six months  
                 prior to the transfer.  However, it excludes managerial,  
                 supervisory or confidential employees.


               e)     "Change in control" means any sale, assignment,  
                 transfer, contribution, or other disposition of all or  
                 substantially all of the assets or a controlling  
                 interest, including by consolidation, merger, or  
                 reorganization, of the incumbent grocery employer or any  
                 person who controls the incumbent grocery employer or any  
                 grocery establishment under the operation or control of  
                 either the incumbent grocery employer or any person who  
                 controls the incumbent grocery employer.


             9)   Specifies that parties subject to this bill may, by  
               collective bargaining agreement, provide that the agreement  
               supersedes the requirements of this bill.









          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 6  
          of ?
          
             10)  Provides that this bill shall not apply to grocery  
               establishments that will be located in geographic areas  
               designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a "food  
               desert," as specified, provided that both of the following  
               apply:


               a)     More than six years have elapsed since the most  
                 recent grocery establishment was located in the area  
                 designated as a food desert.


               b)     The grocery establishment stocks and sells fresh  
                 fruits and vegetable in amounts and of a quality that is  
                 comparable to what the establishment sells in its three  
                 geographically closest stores, which are located outside  
                 of the food desert.


             11)  Specifies that this bill does not preempt any city,  
               county, or city and county ordinances that provide greater  
               protection to eligible grocery workers.


             12)  Establishes specified recordkeeping requirements for the  
               incumbent grocery employer and successor grocery employer  
               to document compliance with these requirements.


             13)  Makes related legislative findings and declarations.


          COMMENTS
          
          1.  Background on Wages and Working Conditions of Food Retail  
            Workers:

            A 2014 study by the Food Labor Research Center at U.C.  
            Berkeley (commissioned by the United Food and Commercial  
            Workers) titled, "Shelved: How Wages and Working Conditions  
            for California's Food Retail Workers Have Declined as the  
            Industry has Thrived," made the following findings:

            "California's food retail industry has shown consistent and  
            robust growth in sales and employment, with employment growing  







          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 7  
          of ?
          
            faster than in the economy overall.  Between 2000 and 2011,  
            the number of grocery stores in California - the largest  
            segment of food retail establishments in the state- increased  
            by 5%, from 9,893 to 10,403.  California's food retail  
            industry paid workers $7.7 billion in 2011, and generated  
            gross revenue of $98.2 billion in 2013.  While grocery store  
            jobs have grown faster than overall employment since the year  
            2000, general merchandise store jobs have grown much faster -  
            almost tripling in number.  From 1990 to 2012, general  
            merchandise employment grew 176%, increasing from 41,000  
            employees to 113,100 employees, while overall employment grew  
            by only 14%. Employment in grocery stores grew 23%, from  
            240,800 to 296,300.  We estimate that there are now  
            approximately 383,900 food retail workers in California?

            ?While California food retail industry employment has grown in  
            the past decade, food retail workers' wages have declined.  
            According to Census data, in 2010 dollars, median hourly wages  
            of grocery store workers - the largest segment of food retail  
            workers - fell from $12.97 in 1999 to $11.33 in 2010, a  
            decline of 12.6%.  Moreover, the proportion of food retail  
            workers earning poverty wages increased dramatically, from 43%  
            in 1999 to 54% in 2010.  This means that in 2010, more than  
            half of all California food retail workers earned less than  
            the hourly wage needed to reach an annual income of $22,458,  
            the minimum income necessary to provide them with a low  
            standard of living for a family of three in the Western U.S.  
            if they worked full-time for the full year (2,080 hours).   
            While food retail workers' median hourly wages declined  
            drastically in the decade prior to 2010, overall private  
            sector median hourly wages rose slightly, from $16 to $16.16 -  
            an increase of 1%.  As a result of these divergent trends, by  
            2010 the median hourly wage for grocery store workers had  
            declined to about 70% of that earned by the California  
            workforce overall.  Similarly, while grocery store workers  
            suffered a serious decline in weekly wages over this period,  
            general merchandise workers experienced a slight weekly wage  
            increase. As a result, by 2012, grocery store workers' weekly  
            wages, which were once much higher than those of general  
            merchandise store workers, had fallen to nearly the same  
            level."

          2.  Local Ordinances on the Issue: 

            In December 2005, the City of Los Angeles adopted the Grocery  







          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 8  
          of ?
          
            Worker Retention Ordinance which required that grocery stores  
            of a specific size (15,000 sq. ft. or larger) that undergo a  
            change of ownership to do the following during a 90-day  
            transition period: 

               1.     The incumbent owner must prepare a list of employees  
                 with at least six months' employment as of the date of  
                 transfer in ownership, and the successor employer must  
                 hire from that list during the transition period. 
               2.     During the transition period, the hired employees  
                 may be discharge only for cause. 
               3.     At the conclusion of the transition period, the  
                 successor employer must prepare a written evaluation of  
                 each employee's performance. 
               4.     If the employee's performance is satisfactory, the  
                 employer must consider offering continued employment.
               5.     If the workforce is unionized, however, the union  
                 and the employer may agree on terms that supersede the  
                 Ordinance. 

            The California Grocers Association filed a complaint against  
            the City of Los Angeles on the grounds that it was preempted  
            by provision of the Health and Safety Code, the Labor Code,  
            and federal labor law, and that it violated the equal  
            protection provisions of the state and federal Constitutions.  
            The case was appealed and a final decision by the Supreme  
            Court of California was issued on July 18, 2011. The  
            California Supreme Court held that the Los Angeles ordinance  
            was not preempted as intruding upon either matters of health  
            and safety already regulated by the state or matters of  
            employee organization and collective bargaining fully occupied  
            by federal labor law. The court also concluded that the  
            ordinance was fully consistent with both state and federal  
            equal protection clauses. California Grocers Association v.  
            City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. 4th 177 (2011).  

            This worker retention approach is also consistent with other  
            grocery worker retention ordinances adopted in the City and  
            County of San Francisco, the City of Santa Monica, and the  
            City of Gardena, as well as substantially similar worker  
            retention ordinances for other industries adopted in the City  
            of San Jose (airport workers), the City of Oakland  
            (hospitality workers), the City of Emeryville (hotel workers),  
            and the City of Berkeley (marina workers). Additionally,  
            similar worker retention requirements can be found throughout  







          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 9  
          of ?
          
            the United States including New York City (building service  
            workers), Philadelphia (service contract workers), Providence  
            Rhode Island (hospitality and building service workers), and  
            D.C. (health care, food service, and janitorial workers). 


          3.  Research on the Los Angeles Ordinance Submitted by Sponsor: 

             The sponsor of this bill has submitted a letter from a  
            Professor at the University of California at Davis that  
            analyzes data on the retail industry in Los Angeles since 2005  
            (when the local grocery worker retention ordinance was  
            enacted).  The letter states the following:

               "Thus, overall, approximately 80,909 people were employed  
               in retail grocery sales in 2005, which grew to 95,990 in  
               2013.  This is more than an 18% increase in employment in  
               this timeframe?

               ?[T]he number of stores in Los Angeles County alone grew  
               from approximately 1,170 in 2006 to 1,280 in 2013.  This is  
               more than an 8.5% increase?

               ?Based on this data, I would conclude overall that the  
               grocery industry in Los Angeles has continued to grow since  
               2005 at a rate that is substantially greater than the  
               overall economy."
          
            However, critics of the bill argue that this research  
            encompasses significantly more time and geography than the  
            City of LA ordinance. While the aforementioned data covers  
            2005 through 2013, they argue that the ordinance has been in  
            effect only since July 2011.  Between passage of the ordinance  
            and that time, the ordinance was stayed as litigation  
            proceeded through to the CA Supreme Court. In addition, they  
            argue that the data covers the County of Los Angles while the  
            ordinance merely applies to the City of Los Angeles.   
            Therefore, they contend that the differences are so  
            significant as to make the information meaningless.

          4.  Need for this bill?

            Existing law already contains specified worker retention  
            requirements for certain categories of workers. For example,  
            in the janitorial industry, existing law requires a successor  







          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 10  
          of ?
          
            contractor to retain employees for 60 days and to offer  
            permanent employment to satisfactory employees at the end of  
            the 60-day period.  In addition, in the public transit  
            industry, existing law requires an awarding body to give a 10  
            percent bid preference to a bidder who agrees to retain the  
            employees of the prior contractor for a period of not less  
            than 90 days. 
           
            Proponents of the measure argue that good middle class grocery  
            jobs and the benefits that come with them should not be lost  
            just because shareholders of billion-dollar retailers seek to  
            make even more profits through a Wall Street-style merger. In  
            1990, a Wall Street Journal Pulitzer Prize winning article  
            took a look at the impact of the 1986 Safeway buy-out which  
            returned to its new buyers $7.2 billion from an initial $129  
            million investment.  According to the article, "?63,000  
            managers and workers were cut loose from Safeway through store  
            sales or layoffs. While the majority were re-employed by their  
            new store owners, this was largely at lower wages, and many  
            thousands of Safeway people wound up either unemployed or  
            forced into the part-time work force." ("Safeway Buy-Out? Take  
            a Trip down Memory Lane," March 5, 2014)  

            The author and sponsors believe that this bill is necessary to  
            protect grocery workers who can be terminated when  
            billion-dollar grocery store corporations merge to generate  
            more profits.   The bill would establish a worker retention  
            requirement for specified grocery establishments that is  
            similar to the janitorial industry retention requirement  
            referenced above.  
          5.  Staff Comments  :
            
            As noted above, existing law contains similar employee  
            retention requirements for employees in the janitorial and  
            building maintenance industry, under the Displaced Janitor  
            Opportunity Act enacted in 2001, as well as employees in  
            public transit service contracts enacted in 2003.  Both  
            sections of the Labor Code contain similar retention and  
            procedural requirements.  Provisions governing public transit  
            service contracts require that the existing contractor provide  
            the name, addresses, dates of hire, wages, benefit levels, and  
            job classifications of employees to the successor contractor.   
            Provisions of the Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act, on the  
            other hand, only requires that the name, date of hire and job  
            classification of employees be provided. Additionally, under  







          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 11  
          of ?
          
            the public transit service contracts, employees are to be  
            retained for a 90 day transition period while displaced  
            janitors are only required to be retained for 60 days.  

            Furthermore, the public transit retention provisions require  
            employee retention unless there is reasonable and  
            substantiated cause not to, however, that cause is limited to  
                   performance or conduct under the prior contract  or  employee  
            failure to pass any controlled substances and alcohol test,  
            physical examination, criminal background check, or other  
            standard hiring qualification lawfully required by the  
            successor contractor or subcontractor.  Provisions of the  
            Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act, on the other hand, require  
            the retention of employees  unless  the successor has reasonable  
            and substantiated cause not to hire based on performance or  
            conduct while working under the terminated contract.  However,  
            these provisions do not include any background checks or  
            hiring qualifications. 

            This bill proposes that grocery workers be retained for 90  
            days and requires the incumbent employer to provide to the  
            successor the name, address, date of hire, and employment  
            occupation classification of each eligible grocery worker.  
            This bill, like the displaced janitor provisions, does not  
            require any employee to pass any controlled substances and  
            alcohol test, physical examination, or criminal background  
            check.  

            The Committee may wish to consider to what extent the  
            different retention provisions in Labor Code [and proposed  
            with this bill] should mirror each other for equity and  
            consistency.  

            Additionally, in their opposition letter, the California  
            Grocers Association point to an issue with the bill. They  
            state that under the proposed bill, the incumbent grocery  
            employer is required to post and maintain signage at the  
            grocery establishment regarding the change of control prior to  
            sale and until the establishment is fully operational and open  
            to the public under the successor employer. However, they  
            argue, the incumbent grocery employer's right to control the  
            property generally terminates with the sale. Once the sale is  
            completed, the incumbent employer would generally have no  
            authority or legal standing to dictate the place and manner of  
            postings.  







          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 12  
          of ?
          

            The author may wish to amend the bill to state that the  
            successor grocery employer shall ensure that the required  
            notice continues to be posted until the establishment is fully  
            operational and open to the public.  



          6.  Proponent Arguments  :
            
            According to the author, there are currently no state-level  
            protections for grocery workers who can be terminated, through  
            no fault of their own, when billion-dollar grocery store  
            corporations merge together to generate more profits.  
            Proponents argue that a change of workers raises public health  
            concerns since the effects are carried over to the grocery  
            store's clientele. They argue that experienced workers possess  
            valuable knowledge and skills regarding proper sanitation  
            procedures and local/state health regulations to ensure high  
            standards of food safety. AB 359 will allow grocery workers 90  
            days to work at the successor grocery store, which allows a  
            reasonable amount of time for the successor employer to hire  
            them if they are satisfied with their performance or for the  
            employee to pursue employment elsewhere.
            
            Proponents state that there are approximately 383,900 grocery  
            workers in California that seek to benefit from this policy.  
            According to a report recently released by the Food Labor  
            Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley,  
            more than half of all California food retail workers earned  
            less than the hourly wage needed to live above the Census  
            defined supplemental poverty measure. Proponents further argue  
            that more than half of the state's workforce in the service  
            industry are women and are increasingly becoming the family  
            head of household, working 2 or 3 part-time jobs to meet their  
            basic needs. They believe that now is the time to strongly  
            advocate the willingness to close the income gap and pursue  
            employment retention strategies that reflects our values and  
            commitment to progress.

            Proponents argue that as the largest provider of food to the  
            nation, California should provide workers who sell groceries  
            good jobs - jobs that will allow their families to purchase  
            and enjoy that food themselves, and allow them to work in an  
            appropriately staffed, healthy, and safe environment.   







          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 13  
          of ?
          
            Overall, proponents argue that this bill ensures workers have  
            a fair chance to prove that they are capable of meeting the  
            needs of the new employer. 

          7.  Opponent Arguments  :

            A coalition of employers opposes this bill and argues that it  
            unfairly forces grocery employers to hire a predecessor's  
            employees, undermines the at-will employment presumption in  
            California, ensures continued union representation and  
            subjects employers to litigation. Opponents argue the  
            following in opposition to this bill: 

                     Denies Employers the basic choice of whom to hire in  
                 their workforce. They believe the choice of whom an  
                 employer wants to hire and retain should be left to the  
                 employer, not the government. This bill establishes an  
                 unequivocal mandate that precludes the successor employer  
                 from conducting any pre-hiring background checks or  
                 interviews to determine if the employees of the  
                 predecessor meet the unique and specific employment  
                 criteria of the subsequent employer.

                     The bill is designed to ensure that an incumbent  
                 union for the prior employer will remain the bargaining  
                 unit for the successor employer.  Under the federal  
                 "successor employer" doctrine, a subsequent employer who  
                 intends and voluntarily chooses to (1) hire the majority  
                 of its predecessor's employees and (2) is generally in  
                 the same business  must recognize  the incumbent union and  
                 bargain with it in good faith. NLRB v. Burns Int'l  
                 Security Services, Inc., 406 U.S. 272, 281 (1972).  
                 Because this bill mandates subsequent employers to hire  
                 the predecessor's employees for at least the 90-day  
                 retention period and, thereafter, only terminate such  
                 employees for unsatisfactory performance committed during  
                 the 90-day period, it limits a successor employer's  
                 ability to voluntarily choose its workforce, thereby  
                 triggering the successor employer doctrine - essentially  
                 forcing an employer to offer continued employment to the  
                 predecessor's workforce ensuring recognition of the  
                 incumbent union. They believe that not offering  
                 employment could lead to unfair labor practice charges  
                 and civil litigation by the employees or incumbent union.








          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 14  
          of ?
          
                     Similarly, they argue that the bill forces employers  
                 to adhere to terms of a contract to which it is not a  
                 party. The bill would require that employees be retained  
                 according to the "terms and conditions" established by  
                 the successor grocery employer and pursuant to the terms  
                 of a relevant collective bargaining agreement (CBA).  
                 Thereby forcing the successor employer to abide by these  
                 contractual provisions, even though the successor  
                 employer is not actually a party to that CBA. They argue  
                 that this conflicts with the CA Supreme Court decision in  
                 CA Grocers Association v. City of Los Angeles, wherein  
                 the Court agreed that a successor grocery employer  
                 covered under the LA ordinance had no duty to bargain or  
                 engage in negotiations with the incumbent bargaining  
                 representative until after the transition period expired.  
                 They conclude that it is unreasonable to suggest that a  
                 successor employer has a duty to abide by the terms of  
                 any existing CBA during the transition period. 

            Also writing in opposition is the CA Grocers Association which  
            raises a number of concerns. Among other things, they state  
            that their member companies experience with this concept has  
            shown that they have a chilling effect on commerce and hamper  
            efforts to transition current grocery businesses to new  
            ownership rather than close locations outright. In some  
            instances, potential purchasers have declined to proceed with  
            transactions when they have learned of the requirement to  
            retain employees not of their own choosing. They also argue  
            that the bill targets only certain types of grocery retail,  
            they argue that if the compelling interest is ensuring the  
            welfare of residents then the bill should apply to all retail  
            outlets selling foodstuff not just those that meet the square  
            footage and involvement parameters. 

            In conclusion, opponents argue that this bill will not impact  
            the unemployment rate or provide stability to employees in the  
            grocery industry. Instead, they argue, eliminating a successor  
            grocery employer's ability to voluntarily choose its own  
            workforce will ultimately discourage those employers from  
            investing in failing grocery stores or even taking over an  
            existing grocery establishment. 

            8.  Prior Legislation  :

            AB 350 (Solorio) of 2011:  Failed passage on the Senate Floor 







          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 15  
          of ?
          
            AB 350 would have renamed the Displaced Janitor Opportunity  
            Act to the Displaced Property Service Employee Opportunity Act  
            and made the provisions of the act applicable to property  
            services, which included licensed security, building  
            maintenance, window cleaning, and food cafeteria services. 

            SB 1521 (Alarcon) of 2004: Vetoed by the Governor  
            This bill would have (1) extended, from 60 to 90 days, the  
            transition employment period for retaining janitors under the  
            Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act, and would have (2) expanded  
            responsibility to building owners. 

            SB 2850 (Ridley-Thomas) of 2004: Vetoed by the Governor  
            This bill would have enacted the Private Security Service  
            Assurance Act, which would have required contractors awarded  
            contracts to provide private security to retain, for a period  
            of 90 days, certain employees who were employed at that site  
            by the previous contractor. The provisions of this bill would  
            have mirrored the Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act.
              

          SUPPORT
          
          Community Food and Justice Coalition (Co-Sponsor)
          Roots of Change (Co-Sponsor) 
          United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council  
          (Co-Sponsor)
          American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 
          California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO 
          California Professional Firefighters 
          California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation 
          California School Employees Association 
          California Teamsters Public Affairs Council 
          Food Chain Workers Alliance 
          Hunger Action Los Angeles 
          Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy 
          North Valley Labor Federation 
          Orange County Communities for Responsible Development 
          Orange County Labor Federation, AFL-CIO 
          Partnership for Working Families 
          Service Employees International Union  
          Tri-Counties Central Labor Council 
          UFCW Golden State Local 8 
          UFCW Local 135 
          UFCW Local 324 







          AB 359 (Gonzalez)                                       Page 16  
          of ?
          
          UFCW Local 648 
          UFCW Local 770 
          UFCW Local 1167 
          UFCW Local 1428 
          UFCW Local 1442
          Western Center on Law & Poverty 
          

          OPPOSITION
          
          Building Owners and Managers Association of California
          California Business Properties Association
          California Chamber of Commerce
          California Grocers Association
          California Retailers Association
          Camarillo Chamber of Commerce
          Chamber Alliance of Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties
          East Valley Business Legislative Advocacy Committee 
          El Centro Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau
          Family Business Association
          Fullerton Chamber of Commerce
          International Council of Shopping Centers
          NAIOP - Commercial Real Estate Development Association
          Orange Chamber of Commerce
          Oxnard Chamber of Commerce
          Rancho Cordova Chamber of Commerce
          Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce 
          San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce 
          San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
          Santa Maria Chamber of Commerce Visitors and Convention Bureau
          South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce 
          Southwest California Legislative Council
          Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce


                                      -- END -