BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 1311


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  January 6, 2016 


                     ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT


                               Roger Hernández, Chair


          AB 1311  
          (Cooper) - As Proposed to be Amended January 6, 2016


          SUBJECT:  Employment: security services


          SUMMARY:  Provides 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 the following  
          workweek.  


          EXISTING LAW:


          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) Exempts temporary employees from the above-discussed  
             requirements if the employee's assignment is for 90 days or  








                                                                    AB 1311


                                                                    Page  2





             longer and the employee is not currently paid weekly.
              
          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown


          COMMENTS: This bill addresses a technical issue regarding the  
          pay provisions of private security guards.  According to the  
          sponsor, this issue 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 the sponsor notes  
          reflects the fact that their employees frequently work on the  
          weekends, unlike many employers.


          Therefore, this bill 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.


          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT


          The sponsor argues 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.  They argue that this bill is not an attempt to change  
          the weekly payroll rule, but rather an industry specific  
          standard that will assist temporary services employers in  








                                                                    AB 1311


                                                                    Page  3





          complying with the law without impacting the rights of  
          employees.  


          PRIOR LEGISLATION





          The language in this bill is identical to language that was  
          inserted last year into AB 1042 (Cooper).  However, AB 1042 also  
          included a number of other provisions, including language to  
          expand the number of private security officers who fall under  
          the licensure and regulation of the Department of Consumer  
          Affairs.  AB 1042 was vetoed by Governor Brown, but his veto  
          message reflected concerns with the other provisions of the  
          bill, not the clarifying language that has been amended into  
          this bill.





          PROPOSED AMENDMENT





          As proposed to be amended, this bill will add an urgency clause.


          


          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:










                                                                    AB 1311


                                                                    Page  4







          Support


          California Association of Licensed Security Agencies, Guards and  
          Associates




          Opposition


          None on file.




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