BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 578
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
578 (Low)
As Amended April 13, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
|----------------+------+-----------------------+--------------------|
|Labor |5-2 |Roger Hernández, Chu, |Harper, Patterson |
| | |Low, McCarty, Thurmond | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+-----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |12-5 |Gomez, Bonta, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Calderon, Daly, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo |Wagner |
| | |Garcia, Gordon, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, Rendon, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Makes changes to existing law related to variances from
occupational safety and health standards. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Requires an applicant for a permanent variance to an
occupational safety and health standard to also give notice to
workers at the place of employment who will be "affected" by the
AB 578
Page 2
permanent variance, or representatives of the affected
employees.
2)Provides that an applicant for a permanent variance shall
provide certification that the affected employees have been
provided notice of the request.
3)Provides that, upon request, "affected employees" or their
representatives shall be granted party status in permanent
variance proceedings.
4)Requires an employer applying for a temporary variance to an
occupational safety and health standard to also give notice to
workers at the place of employment who will be "affected" by the
temporary variance, or representative of the affected workers.
5)Provides that a temporary variance may be granted only after
notice to employees and other "affected workers" and an
opportunity for a hearing.
6)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.
7)Provides that, upon request, any "affected worker" or
representative of affected workers, shall be granted party
status to the variance proceedings.
8)Makes related and conforming changes.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
AB 578
Page 3
Committee, ongoing costs of approximately $275,000 to $290,000
(special funds) to the Department of Industrial Relations 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: The sponsors argue that the Standards Board has the
authority to grant variances to occupational safety and health
standards. Existing law requires that affected employees be
notified of the variance request. 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.
The sponsors state that this legislation will simply provide that
those employees who are directly affected by the variance be
notified of the variance application and be granted party status
upon request.
A coalition of organizations, including the California Chamber of
Commerce, opposes this measure. They argue that this bill
proposes to significantly expand the employer's notice obligations
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 that current regulation language "appears to
create the concern" giving rise to this bill. However, rather
AB 578
Page 4
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 that may exist in the process
for permanent or temporary variance applications for conveyances.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0000570