BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    ”



                                                                    AB 1509


                                                                    Page  1


          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS


          AB  
          1509 (Roger HernŠndez)


          As Amended  August 31, 2015


          Majority vote


           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |54-26 |(May 14, 2015) |SENATE: |27-13 |(September 2,    |
          |           |      |               |        |      |2015)            |
          |           |      |               |        |      |                 |
          |           |      |               |        |      |                 |
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Original Committee Reference:  L. & E.


          SUMMARY:  Revises various provisions of law related to  
          employment retaliation.


          The Senate amendments add language to provide that legislation  
          enacted last year (AB 1897 (Roger HernŠndez), Chapter 728,  
          Statutes of 2014) shall not be interpreted to impose liability  
          on a client employer that is a household goods carrier under  
          specified circumstances.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Senate Appropriations  
          Committee, the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR)  
          indicates that it would incur administrative costs (special  
          funds) of $120,000 in the first year, and $112,000 ongoing to  
          implement the provisions of the bill.










                                                                    AB 1509


                                                                    Page  2


          COMMENTS:  According to the author, California law contains a  
          strong public policy to protect employees from retaliation for  
          exercising their rights.  This is an acknowledgement of the fact  
          that substantive labor and employment laws are meaningless if  
          workers are reluctant to exercise their rights for fear of  
          employer retaliation.


          According to the author, recent cases and examples highlight  
          several major gaps in existing California statutes that prohibit  
          retaliation against employees for engaging in protected  
          activity.  This bill will close those gaps in order to protect  
          California workers.


          Supporters state that this bill will fill in the gaps in the law  
          of retaliation by clarifying that existing prohibitions against  
          retaliation apply to a "client employer" or a "controlling  
          employer." In addition, it will clarify that an employer cannot  
          retaliate against a worker because that worker is related to  
          another worker who engaged in protected activity.


          Senate amendments add language related to AB 1897.  Enacted last  
          year, AB 1897 contained a limited exemption for certain  
          subcontracting work performed by "motor carriers," as specified.  
           It was assumed that this exemption also applied to certain  
          "household goods carriers."  However, those entities are  
          regulated by a different code section than "motor carriers."   
          Therefore, the amendments to this bill clarify that the same  
          limited exemption applies to certain work performed by  
          "household goods carriers," and cross-references the appropriate  
          statutory citation.


          There is no opposition on file.


          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091  FN:  
          0001757









                                                                    AB 1509


                                                                    Page  3