BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 1050


                                                                    Page  1


          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS


          AB  
          1050 (Low)


          As Amended  February 10, 2016


          Majority vote


           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |      |(May 26, 2015) |SENATE: |26-13 |(August 23,      |
          |           |      |               |        |      |2016)            |
          |           |      |               |        |      |                 |
          |           |      |               |        |      |                 |
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                 (vote not relevant)




          Original Committee Reference:  A. & A.R.


          SUMMARY:  Makes changes related to permanent variances to  
          elevator safety orders.


          The Senate amendments delete the contents of the bill and  
          instead:


          1)Provide that if a request for a permanent variance pertains to  
            a conveyance covered by the elevator safety orders, the  
            applicant shall notify the union representing elevator workers  
            in the region where the building is being constructed or  
            modified and to those workers who will be performing the tasks  
            pursuant to the proposed variance (or their authorized  
            representative).








                                                                    AB 1050


                                                                    Page  2




          2)Provide that these workers, or their authorized  
            representative, shall be granted party status upon request to  
            the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards  
            Board).


          EXISTING LAW:


          1)Permits employers to apply to the Standards Board for a  
            permanent variance from an occupational safety health  
            standard, order, or special order upon showing an alternate  
            program, method, practice, means, device, or process which  
            will provide equal or superior safety for the employees. 


          2)Provides that the Standards Board shall issue such a variance  
            if it determines on the record, after opportunity for an  
            investigation where appropriate and a hearing, that the  
            proponent of the variance has demonstrated by a preponderance  
            of evidence that the conditions, practices, means, methods,  
            operations, or processes used or proposed to be used by an  
            employer are as safe and healthful as those which would  
            prevail under the standard. 


          3)States that the variance shall prescribe the conditions the  
            employer must maintain and the practices, means, methods,  
            operations, and processes which the employer must adopt and  
            utilize to the extent they differ from the standard in  
            question. 


          4)Authorizes the Standards Board to grant a variance from any  
            standard or portion thereof where it determines a variance is  
            necessary to permit an employer to participate in an approved  
            experiment designed to demonstrate or validate new and  
            improved techniques to safeguard the health or safety of  
            workers. 









                                                                    AB 1050


                                                                    Page  3



          5)Provides that a permanent variance may be modified or revoked  
            upon application by an employer, employees, or the division,  
            or by the Standards Board on its own motion, as specified.  


          6)Requires that the Standards Board conduct hearings on such  
            requests for a permanent variance after employees or employee  
            representatives are properly notified and given an opportunity  
            to appear.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Senate Appropriations  
          Committee, the Department of Industrial Relations indicates that  
          it would incur first-year costs of $166,000 and ongoing costs of  
          $160,000 to implement the provisions of this bill. 


          COMMENTS:  Under current law, the Standards Board has authority  
          to consider variances to California/Occupational Safety and  
          Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards when a building is  
          being constructed, repaired, or updated - the vast majority of  
          these variances are requests for conveyances such as elevators  
          and escalators.  Existing law provides that a variance may be  
          considered by the Standards Board only after notice is given to  
          employees.  However, in practice 'employees' are considered to  
          be the employees of the applicant who is seeking the variance,  
          which may not be the employees that will actually work on the  
          project.  For example, in the installation of an elevator, the  
          employees that will be impacted by a variance from a safety  
          order will be the employees of the contractor or elevator  
          manufacturer who are brought in to perform the work.  The author  
          argues that this lack of notification prevents workers who are  
          actually doing the work from participating in the variance  
          hearing or even be notified that a variance has been requested.


          This bill would help ensure that a permanent variance request  
          pertaining to conveyances receives a thorough hearing by  
          requiring that the applicant notify the union representing  
          elevator workers in the region where the building is being  
          constructed or modified and those workers who will be performing  








                                                                    AB 1050


                                                                    Page  4


          the tasks, or their authorized representative, of the request  
          for a variance.  The bill would also grant these workers, or  
          their authorized representative, party status upon request to  
          the Standards Board.


          According to supporters, this bill seeks to correct an oversight  
          in the Cal/OSHA Standards Board variance application process  
          with respect to requests for an elevator, or other public  
          conveyances variance.  They argue that with these variance  
          requests, the building owner is not required to notify those  
          employees who will be installing the conveyance for which a  
          variance application has been filed.  They note that  
          approximately 90% of all permanent variance applications are for  
          elevators and other public conveyances, and approximately 95% of  
          these installations are done by the men and women of the  
          International Union of Elevator Constructors.  This legislation,  
          they argue, simply requires that the variance applicant provide  
          notice to these workers, or their representatives, of the  
          application for a safety order variance.


          The author and supporters believe that this bill will help  
          guarantee that a variance request receives a thorough and fair  
          hearing, while making certain that the Standards Board has all  
          of the relevant facts before making a decision on a variance  
          request.  They argue that this bill ensures that those workers  
          who will be the ones actually doing the work will be notified as  
          part of the application process and will be allowed to  
          participate in the variance hearing.  


          Opponents of the measure are opposed unless amended arguing that  
          this bill creates expansive new notification requirements for  
          conveyance variance applicants.  According to opponents, this  
          bill is substantially similar to AB 578 (Low) of 2015, which  
          Governor Brown vetoed, indicating that it was unclear which  
          employees would be affected by the new notice requirements and  
          questioned why the existing process was not sufficient to  
          protect workers' rights.  Opponents argue that like its  
          predecessor, this bill creates a new expanded category of  
          workers and their representatives to be notified by a conveyance  








                                                                    AB 1050


                                                                    Page  5


          variance applicant and such an expansion creates a number of  
          compliance and enforcement issues. 


          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091  FN:  
          0004009