BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Senator Tony Mendoza, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1042 Hearing Date: July 8,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Cooper |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 23, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Gideon Baum |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Proprietary security services.
KEY ISSUE
Should the Legislature allow temporary services employers to pay
temporary private security officers based on a workweek
(Friday-Thursday) rather than a calendar week (Sunday-Saturday)?
ANALYSIS
Existing law:
1) Provides for the licensure and regulation of proprietary
private security officers (PSOs) and proprietary private
security employers (PPSEs) by the Bureau of Security and
Investigative Services in the Department of Consumer Affairs
(DCA).
(Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 7574 et. seq.)
2) Defines a PSO as an unarmed individual who is employed
exclusively by any one employer whose; primary duty is to
provide security services for his or her employer, services
are not contracted to any other entity or person, and meets
both of the following criteria:
AB 1042 (Cooper) Page 2
of ?
i) Is required to wear a distinctive uniform
clearly identifying the
individual as a security officer.
ii) Is likely to interact with the public
while performing his or her duties.
(BPC § 7574.01)
3) Prohibits any who is not registered with the Bureau from
engaging in the business of a PSO. (BPC § 7574.10)
Existing law also:
1) Defines "temporary services employer" as an employing
unit that contracts with clients or customers to supply
workers to perform services for the clients or customers
and performs certain specified functions, including
determining assignments and paying the worker.
2) Provides that a temporary services employer must pay
his or her employees no less frequently than weekly and
not later than the regular payday of the following
calendar week.
3) Exempt temporary employees from the above-discussed
requirements if the employee's assignment is for 90 days
or longer and the employee is not currently paid weekly.
This bill would:
1) Changes the definition of a PSO to require only one of
the two criteria discussed above;
2) Clarify the definition of interacting with the public
to include, but not limited to acting to prevent
unapproved or unlawful entry, directing persons causing a
disturbance to leave a facility, and ensuring that persons
removing property from a facility are acting within
appropriate policy requirements.
3) Provide that if an employee of a temporary services
employer is employed as a registered security officer, his
or her wages are due and payable no less frequently than
weekly, regardless of when the assignment ends, and must
be due and payable not later than the regular payday of
AB 1042 (Cooper) Page 3
of ?
the following workweek.
COMMENTS
1. Need for this bill?
Simply put, AB 1042 has two core components. The first
component expands the number of private security officers who
fall under the licensure and regulation of the Department of
Consumer Affairs. This language was heard in the Senate
Committee on Business and Professions and was voted out on an
8-1 vote.
The second core component is on the pay provisions of private
security guards, which is being heard for the first time in
our Committee. This provision is born of a recent court case,
Huff v. Securitas Security Services, Case No. 1-10-CV-172614
(2015). In that case, Securitas successfully argued that it
has not violated the temporary services employer requirements
as all of the claimants had assignments in excess of 90 days.
However, in determining this calculation, the court used a
calendar week of Sunday to Saturday, which is not the work
week utilized by Securitas. Rather, this is the default
calendar week used by the Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement (DLSE) for enforcement purposes. Securitas and
other security firms utilize a Friday to Thursday workweek,
which Proponents note reflects the fact that their employees
frequently work on the weekends, unlike many employers.
AB 1042 would provide that, if a temporary employee is
employed as a security officer, the employee's wages are due
weekly and due and payable on the regular payday of the
following workweek.
2. Proponent Arguments :
Proponents argue that most security services firms define the
workweek as Friday to Thursday, and that this schedule is born
of the specific industrial requirements of the security
industry. Proponents argue that AB 1042 not an attempt to
change the weekly payroll rule, but rather an industry
specific standard that will assist temporary services
employers in complying with the law without impacting the
AB 1042 (Cooper) Page 4
of ?
rights of employees.
3. Opponent Arguments :
None on file.
4. Prior Legislation :
SB 940 (Yee), Chapter 169, Statutes of 2008, creates the
temporary services employer pay provisions discussed above.
SUPPORT
California Association of Licensed Security Agencies, Guards and
Associates
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --