BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 578
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
578 (Low) - As Amended April 13, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Labor and Employment |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires an applicant for a temporary or permanent
variance to an occupational safety and health standard to give
notice to affected workers at the place of employment, or
AB 578
Page 2
representatives of the affected employees. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Requires an applicant for a permanent variance to provide
certification that the affected employees have been provided
notice of the request.
2)Grants party status in temporary or permanent variance
proceedings, upon request, to affected employees or their
representatives.
3)Provides that a temporary variance may be granted only after
specified is provided.
4)Requires an employer's application for a temporary variance to
contain a certification that the employer has given the
required notice to "affected workers" or their
representatives.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Administrative costs of approximately $275,000 to $290,000
(special funds) to the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR)
to provide additional staff to the Occupational Safety and
Health Standards Board (Standards Board) due to proposed changes
to the temporary and permanent variance hearing process.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. The Division of Occupational Safety and Health
(DOSH) (under the Department of Industrial Relations) enforces
AB 578
Page 3
the health and safety standards adopted by the Occupational
Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board). The
duties of the Standards Board include adopting occupational
safety and health standards, considering petitions for new or
revised standards, and granting variances from such standards.
Current law authorizes the board, upon the application of an
employer, to grant a permanent variance from an occupational
standard or order after specified notice and hearing
requirements are met. Current law also authorizes an employer
to apply to DOSH, for a temporary variance from an
occupational safety or health standard and requires the order
to be granted only if the employer's application satisfies
specified requirements. Existing law provides that a temporary
order may be granted only after notice to employees, and an
opportunity for a hearing, is provided.
2)Purpose. Current law requires the Standards Board to conduct
hearings on requests for variances after employees or employee
representatives are properly notified and given an opportunity
to appear. Standards Board regulations provide that "affected
employees" and an authorized employee representative may elect
to participate as parties at any time before commencement of
the variance hearing. "Affected employee" includes employees
of the employer seeking the variance (rather than other
employees of other employers).
According to the author, requests for variances for elevator
construction and other public conveyances generally come from
the building owner. In these instances, the owner rarely has
affected employees. The workers, hired by the elevator
manufacturer, will be installing the public conveyance but
will not have been a party to the variance proceeding.
AB 578
Page 4
The International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 18 and
Local 8, are sponsoring this bill to provide employees who are
affected by the variance to be notified of the variance
application and be granted party status upon request.
3)Opposition. Opposition, including the California Chamber of
Commerce, are concerned the employer's notice obligations
would expand not only beyond affected employees and their
representatives, but into an unknown region of "workers at the
place of employment who will be affected by the permanent
variance, or representatives of affected workers who may be
affected by or exposed to the hazards by the temporary
variance." The other workers would not be employees of the
employer seeking the variance, making it difficult for the
employer to identify the universe of workers to be notified.
Opponents acknowledge concerns over existing regulatory
language, however, rather than adopt a change in statute that
would impact all industries; they urge the author to look at
changes in regulation that would address any notification
challenges for permanent or temporary variance applications
for conveyances.
4)Prior legislation. AB 1277 (Skinner) from 2014, among other
things, had language that attempted to address issues related
to notification and due process rights of affected employees
in variance proceedings. AB 1277 was held on the Suspense
file in this committee.
AB 578
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081