BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 561 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Jimmy Gomez, Chair AB 561 (Campos) - As Amended April 14, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Labor and Employment |Vote:|5 - 2 | |Committee: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No SUMMARY: This bill makes changes to the Agricultural Labor Relations Act. Specifically, this bill: AB 561 Page 2 1)Provides that within one year of an order of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) finding liability for a makewhole award, backpay calculation, or other monetary award to employees, the ALRB and general counsel shall process any compliance decision concerning the award to final ALRB order. 2)Requires an employer who petitions for a writ of review or otherwise appeals or seeks to overturn or stay any order of the ALRB to post a bond, in the amount of the entire economic value of the order as determined by the ALRB, to ensure that employees receive the benefits of the order if the employer does not prevail. The ALRB shall reasonably determine the entire economic value of the order based on submissions from the parties. FISCAL EFFECT: 1)General Fund administrative costs of approximately $1.3 million for a compliance unit in each of the five field offices to process compliance decisions within one year of an order for a makewhole award, backpay calculation or other monetary award. 2)General Fund administrative costs of approximately $500,000 for the ALRB to process compliance decisions. The Governor's January budget proposes $1.627 million (General Fund) and 13 positions to support and expand the Agricultural Labor Relations Board services to farmworkers, improve the timeliness of hearings, and increase efficiency and accountability. It is not clear to what extent these new resources may be able to absorb some of the workload required pursuant to this bill. AB 561 Page 3 COMMENTS: 1)Background. Existing law establishes the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA), which delineates the rights of California farm workers. The ALRA states it is the policy of the state to protect the right of farm workers to act together to help themselves; to engage in union organizational activity; and to select their own representatives for the purpose of bargaining with their employer for a contract covering their wages, hours, and working conditions. The ALRA is enforced by ALRB. Two cases associated with the organization of farmworkers at specific companies have moved through the regulatory and civil court process since 1989. Specifically, farmworkers employed by the Ace Tomato Company and the San Joaquin Tomato Growers Inc. went out on strike to protest pay and working conditions. They also demanded union representation. What followed is an extremely complex adjudication process involving both the ALRB and the civil courts, a process that is not yet completely resolved. On September 11, 2013, after over two decades of adjudication, the ALRB General Counsel released a press release announcing a $1.05 million dollar global settlement in the Ace Tomato case. Of the settlement, $300,000 was proposed to be dedicated to several non-profit organizations to be used for programs that benefit the children of farm workers. The proposed agreement, however, was subject to the approval of the ALRB. The ALRB had concerns with the $300,000 because it did not directly benefit the agricultural employees actually affected by the alleged failure to give notice and bargain. The ALRB granted conditional approval, however, the settlement AB 561 Page 4 agreement was never finalized by the parties, resulting in additional litigation. Subsequently, disputes have occurred between the ALRB and the General Counsel regarding who had the authority and responsibility to litigate the case further. In a series of decisions, the ALRB indicated that the Regional Director of the ALRB, not the General Counsel, had such responsibility. Recently, the case was back before an Administrative Law Judge for several days of hearing to determine the amount of the makewhole award. It may take several months for the Administrative Law Judge to render a decision. 2)Purpose. The United Farm Workers (UFW) is sponsoring this bill to create an expedited process to help recover back pay and benefits owed to farm workers and their families. Specifically, this bill: a) Provides that within one year of an order of the ALRB finding liability for a makewhole award, backpay calculation, or other monetary award to employees, the ALRB and General Counsel shall process any compliance decision concerning the award to final board order. b) Requires an employer who petitions for a writ of review or otherwise appeals or seeks to overturn or stay any order of the ALRB to post a bond, in the amount of the entire economic value of the order as determined by the ALRB, to ensure that employees receive the benefits of the order if the employer does not prevail. The ALRB shall reasonably determine the entire economic value of the order based on submissions from the parties. 3)Opposition. A large coalition of agricultural employers AB 561 Page 5 opposes this measure, stating concerns with the requirement that an employer seeking a writ of review of any Board decision to first post a bond in the amount of the entire economic value of the order as determined by the Board. Such a requirement, they argue, could deter many employers from seeking their right to appeal. Further, they contend that, in many cases, the entire economic value of the order cannot be known, or is in dispute, which would limit the possibility of obtaining a bond. Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081