BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó






           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                        AB 561|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520    Fax: (916)      |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                                   THIRD READING 


          Bill No:  AB 561
          Author:   Campos (D)
          Amended:  8/31/15 in Senate
          Vote:     21  

           SENATE LABOR & IND. REL. COMMITTEE:  4-1, 7/13/15
           AYES:  Mendoza, Jackson, Leno, Mitchell
           NOES:  Stone

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE:  5-2, 8/27/15
           AYES:  Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
           NOES:  Bates, Nielsen

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  42-30, 6/2/15 - See last page for vote

           SUBJECT:   Agricultural labor relations


          SOURCE:    United Farm Workers

          DIGEST:   This bill creates an expedited process from the  
          enforcement of monetary penalties ordered by the Agricultural  
          Labor Relations Board (ALRB) and also requires agricultural  
          employers to post a bond if they wish to appeal a final order in  
          the amount equal to the economic value of the monetary  
          penalties.

          ANALYSIS:
               
          Existing law:

          1)Provides for a secret ballot election process for agricultural  
            workers where a petition has been submitted, as specified,  








                                                                     AB 561  
                                                                    Page  2


            asking for the opportunity for workers to decide whether to  
            select a particular union as their collective bargaining  
            representative.  (Labor Code §§1140 to 1166.3)

          2)Requires that if the ALRB rules that any person has engaged in  
            or is engaging in any such unfair labor practice, the Board  
            must issue order requiring such person to cease and desist  
            from such unfair labor practice and to take affirmative  
            action. Affirmative action may include: 

             a)   Reinstatement of employees with or without backpay; 

             b)   Making employees whole, when the board deems such relief  
               appropriate, for the loss of pay resulting from the  
               employer's refusal to bargain; and 

             c)   Such other relief as will effectuate the policies of  
               this part.  
          (Labor Code §1160.3)

          3)Provides for a mandatory mediation process for negotiating a  
            collective bargaining agreement between an agricultural  
            employer and a certified labor organization if all of the  
            following conditions are met:

             a)   The parties have failed to reach agreement for at least  
               one year after the date on which the labor organization  
               made its initial request to bargain; 

             b)   The employer has committed an unfair labor practice, and  


             c)   The parties have not previously had a binding contract  
               between them.

            The mandatory mediation process only applies to agricultural  
            employers of 25 or more employees.

            (Labor Code §1164 & §1164.3)

          This bill:

          1)Provides that within one year of an order of the ALRB finding  
            liability for a makewhole award, back pay calculation, or  







                                                                     AB 561  
                                                                    Page  3


            other monetary award to employees, the ALRB and general  
            counsel shall process any compliance decision concerning the  
            award to final board order.

          2)Provides that, if the ALRB finds liability as discussed above  
            but requires a compliance proceeding to determine monetary  
            damages, then the ALRB order must be processed as a final  
            board order within one year of the date when a board order  
            concerning liability becomes final because no appeal was  
            sought or the date when a reviewing court dismisses an  
            employer's appeal or decides in favor of the board concerning  
            the employer's liability. 

          3)Provides that, if the if an employer's liability and  
            compliance proceedings are consolidated, the ALRB must act  
            reasonably and without delay in reaching a final decision  
            concerning the liability and amounts owed to workers.

          4)Requires an employer to post a bond if he or she petitions for  
            a writ of review or otherwise appeals or seeks to overturn or  
            stay any order of the ALRB involving make-whole, backpay, or  
            other monetary awards to workers. The bond must be 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.  

          5)Requires that the bond discussed above must be an appeal bond  
            issued by a licensed surety or a cash deposit with the ALRB in  
            the amount of the order, decision, or award. The bond must be  
            on the condition that, if any judgment is entered against the  
            employer, the employer shall pay the amount owed pursuant to  
            the judgment, and if the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed  
            without entry of judgment, the employer shall pay the amount  
            owed pursuant to the order, decision, or award of the board  
            unless the parties have executed a settlement agreement for  
            payment of some other amount.

          Background
          
          Both the author and sponsor point to the Ace Tomato Co. union  
          election and subsequent cases as the inspiration for this bill.  
          In 1989, a majority of workers voted to be represented by United  
          Farm Workers (UFW). After legal proceedings, the ALRB certified  
          the UFW as the bargaining representative of the workers in 1992.  







                                                                     AB 561  
                                                                    Page  4


          The employer refused to negotiate with UFW, leading to the ALRB  
          ordering that Ace Tomato Co. pay makewhole penalties to its  
          employees.

          However, it wasn't until 2013 that UFW and Ace Tomato Co. were  
          able to reach a partial settlement on the monetary penalties due  
          to workers. In 2010, the Executive Secretary of ALRB explained  
          why the case remained unresolved: 

            The payroll and other records needed to determine what  
            employees earned during the makewhole period are no longer  
            available. Their unavailability resulted initially from the  
            legally unsupported position of employers' counsel that no  
            makewhole relief was owing and his resultant refusal to  
            produce those records in 1995 when this case was originally  
            released for compliance. Given the passage of years since the  
            inception of this case, the current unavailability of the  
            payroll records is not surprising. Fault for this state of  
            affairs lies with the parties, for not fully producing  
            employee records or other relevant information; with the  
            regional office, for not using all legal means available to it  
            to procure the necessary records and achieve final  
            adjudication; and with the Board, which is ultimately  
            responsible for enforcing its own orders. ALRB Administrative  
            Order 2010-04, Pg. 4. (Emphasis added)

          In short, the ALRB acknowledged that both the regional offices  
          and the Board itself allowed for significant time to pass,  
          leading to the destruction of documents necessary to enforce the  
          order.

          AB 561 seeks to prevent a similar situation by requiring that  
          process monetary penalties within one year if there is no  
          compliance proceeding, one year or at the cessation of appeals  
          if there is a compliance hearing, or reasonably and without  
          delay by the ALRB if the liability and compliance proceedings  
          are combined. 

          AB 561 also requires employers to file a bond in order to appeal  
          an order of the ALRB, echoing the bond requirements for  
          employers who appeal unpaid wage rulings. The author and sponsor  
          believe that requiring the filing of a bond will ensure that  
          aggrieved agricultural receive owed back wages and benefits  
          should the employer lose his or her appeal. 







                                                                     AB 561  
                                                                    Page  5



          FISCAL EFFECT:   Appropriation:    No          Fiscal  
          Com.:YesLocal:   No


          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the ALRB  
          indicates that it would incur annual General Fund costs of $2  
          million to implement the provisions of this bill. A 2015-16  
          augmentation to ALRB's budget could potentially be used to  
          perform some of this bill's workload.




          SUPPORT:   (Verified8/28/15)


          United Farm Workers (source)
          California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation


          OPPOSITION:   (Verified8/28/15)


          Agricultural Council of California
          Association of California Egg Farmers
          California Chamber of Commerce  
          California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers
          California Association of Wheat Growers
          California Association of Wine Grape Growers
          California Bean Shippers Association
          California Cotton Ginners Association
          California Cotton Growers Association
          California Farm Bureau Federation
          California Fresh Fruit Association
          California Grain and Feed Association
          California Seed Association
          California Pear Growers Association
          Family Winemakers of California
          Neisei Farmers League
          Pacific Egg and Poultry Association
          Ventura County Agricultural Association
          Western Agricultural Processors Association
          Western Growers Association







                                                                     AB 561  
                                                                    Page  6


          Western United Dairymen


          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:     Proponents argue that that AB 561 will  
          create an expedited process that will help aggrieved farmworkers  
          recover the back pay and benefits that they are owed. Proponents  
          cite the case of Ace Tomato Co., where a union election occurred  
          more than 25 years ago and makewhole payments have yet to be  
          made. Proponents believe that, by creating an expedited process  
          and requiring bonding that will pay the worker in the event of  
          employer insolvency, AB 561 will ensure that workers receive the  
          back pay and benefits that is their rightful due.


          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:     Opponents argue that AB 561 limits  
          the due process rights of employers. Specifically, employers  
          argue that the bonding requirements could deter employers from  
          appealing adverse decisions. Moreover, employers also note that  
          the bonding provisions are a departure from the National Labor  
          Relations Act, upon which the Agricultural Labor Relations Act  
          is based. Finally, opponents note that the Ace Tomato Co. case  
          is extreme exception and argue that the case should not be used  
          alone as a justification to change the law.

          ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  42-30, 6/2/15
          AYES:  Bloom, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu,  
            Chu, Cooley, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia,  
            Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Roger  
            Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina,  
            Mullin, O'Donnell, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,  
            Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams,  
            Atkins
          NOES:  Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang,  
            Dababneh, Dahle, Dodd, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Harper,  
            Jones, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis,  
            Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Steinorth,  
            Wagner, Waldron, Wilk, Wood
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Alejo, Bonilla, Chávez, Cooper, Daly, Irwin,  
            Nazarian, Perea

          Prepared by:Gideon L. Baum / L. & I.R. / (916) 651-1556
          8/31/15 16:00:31









                                                                     AB 561  
                                                                    Page  7


                                   ****  END  ****