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