BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1513| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1513 Author: Williams (D) Amended: 9/9/15 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE LABOR & IND. REL. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/24/15 AYES: Mendoza, Stone, Jackson, Leno, Mitchell SENATE LABOR & IND. REL. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 9/9/15 (pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10) AYES: Mendoza, Jackson, Leno, Mitchell NOES: Stone ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/16/15 (Consent) - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Employment: workers compensation and piece-rate compensation.Employment: Workers compensation and piece-rate compensation SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill provides an affirmative defense and safe harbor for employers who, by December 15, 2016, fully compensate their employees, as specified, for all under-compensated or uncompensated rest periods, recovery periods, or unproductive time between July 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015. ANALYSIS: Existing law: AB 1513 Page 2 1)Requires that, when an employee is compensated on a "piece rate" basis, the employer must include in the employee's wage stub the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis. (Labor Code §226) 2)Provides that, if an employee suffers injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to provide a wage stub, the employee is entitled to recover the greater of all actual damages or $50 for the initial pay period in which a violation occurs and $100 per employee for each violation in a subsequent pay period, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of $4,000, and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees. (Labor Code §226 (e)) 3)Provides that the Industrial Welfare Commission with the ability to adopt or amend working condition orders with respect to break periods, meal periods, and days of rest for any workers in California consistent with the health and welfare of those workers. (Labor Code §516) 4)Requires every employer to authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work period. The employer must provide a rest period of 10 minutes for every 4 hours worked, and rest periods must be counted as hours worked and not be deducted from the employee's wages. (IWC Wage Orders 1-15; Labor Code §226.7) 5)Requires that, if an employer fails to provide an employee a rest period, the employer must pay the employee one hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided. (IWC Wage Orders 1-15; Labor Code §226.7) 6)Provides additional rest periods, known as recovery periods, to provide employees with a cooloff period to avoid heat illness. If an employer fails to provide an employee a recovery period, the employer must pay the employee one hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period is not provided. (Labor Code §226.7) Existing court decisions require that nonproductive time, which is time under the employer's control for which the employee is AB 1513 Page 3 not producing "pieces", rest periods, and recovery periods must be compensated separately and distinctly at the minimum wage or more. (Gonzelez v. Downtown LA Motors (215 Cal.App.4th 36 (2013)) and Bluford v. Safeway Stores (C066074 (2013))) This bill: 1)Codifies the Gonzalez and Bluford decisions that nonproductive time, rest breaks, and recovery breaks are separately compensated. 2)Codifies that, for rest and recovery periods, the rate of compensation is the higher of the average hourly rate or the applicable minimum wage. 3)Codifies that, for nonproductive time, the rate of compensation is not less than the minimum wage. 4)Codifies how nonproductive time, rest breaks, and recovery break compensation is calculated. 5)Allows employers to utilize an affirmative defense against claims of an employer's failure to timely pay compensation due for rest periods, recovery periods, and nonproductive time if the alleged failure occurred between July 1, 2012, and December 31, 2015 if the employer: a) Make payments to all current and former piece-rate employees for uncompensated or undercompensated rest and recovery periods and nonproductive time, plus interest, from July 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015; or b) Make payments to all current and former piece-rate employees in an amount equal to 4% of the gross earnings from July 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015. Deductions for previous separate payments for rest, recovery, and nonproductive time are permitted, but must not exceed 1% of the employee's gross earnings during the same period. c) Provides a statement to the current and former employees that shows the calculation of hours worked and how the employer determined the wages due. d) Provides payment to the current and former employees no later than December 15, 2016. AB 1513 Page 4 e) Provide notice to the Labor Commissioner on the employer's election to make payments to current and former employees by July 1, 2016. f) Preserves all records of hours worked, calculations of hours worked, and records of make whole payments to employees until December 16, 2020, and also furnish these records to the current or former employee upon request. If the employer complies with the above, the employer shall have an affirmative defense for any action that seeks back wages, penalties, or liquidated damages relating to an employer's failure to timely pay compensation due for rest periods, recovery periods, and nonproductive time, including to paying less than the minimum wage or having an inaccurate wage stub. 6)Permits specified employers to have an additional four months to program their payroll systems as long as the employer pays piece rate employees for all rest and recovery periods at or above the applicable minimum wage during the extension and pays the difference between the amounts paid and the amounts owed, plus interest, by April 30, 2016. To qualify for this additional four months, an employer must: a) Have been acquired by another legal entity on or after July 1, 2015 and before October 1, 2015; b) Have employed at least 4,700 employees in this state at the time of the acquisition; c) Have employed at least 17,700 employees nationwide at the time of the acquisition; and d) Have been a publically traded company on a national securities exchange at the time of the acquisition. 7)Tolls the statute of limitations from January 1, 2016 to July 1, 2016 for any claims based on the failure to compensate rest periods, recovery periods, and nonproductive time for piece-rate compensated employees where the employer has not provided notice to employees as discussed above. If the employer has provided a notice to the former or current AB 1513 Page 5 employee, the statute of limitations is tolled until December 15, 2016. 8)Prohibits the safe harbor from applying to any of the following: a) The damages or penalties were previously awarded in an order or judgment that was final and not subject to further appeal as of January 1, 2016; b) Claims where the employees were not advised of their right to take rest or recovery breaks, the breaks were not made available, or employees were discouraged from taking such breaks; c) Claims based on the failure to provide paid rest periods, recovery periods, or nonproductive time asserted in an action filed prior to April 1, 2015 where the case contains an allegation that the employer has intentionally stolen wages through the use of fictitious worker names; d) Claims asserted in a court filing prior to March 1, 2014 or claims asserted prior to March 1, 2014 and amended prior to July 1, 2015; e) Claims for unpaid wages, damages, and penalties that accrue after January 1, 2016; and f) An employer that is a new motor vehicle dealer. Background Piece rate compensation and recent court decisions. Piece rate compensation, as the name suggests, is a method of calculating worker compensation by piece or unit, rather than by hour. For example, workers could be paid by unit sewn, bushel picked, or truck unpacked. However, under both federal and state law, the worker's compensation must still be at least the minimum wage for the hours worked. This requirement is well established in the law, and it was not the subject of recent litigation. Rather, recent litigation addressed whether nonproductive time and rest breaks needed to be counted as hours worked when calculating the minimum wage equivalency for piece rate wages. AB 1513 Page 6 As was discussed above, both Gonzalez and Bluford found that rest periods, recovery periods, and nonproductive time must be compensated separately and at least at the minimum wage. While these decisions were in keeping with prior legal decision and statutes in California, many stakeholders raised concerns on the impact of Gonzalez and Bluford. For employers who did not compensate their employees for their nonproductive time, the potential liability from these decisions on employers can be significant. Post-Gonzalez, it is clear the employer would be liable for separately compensated nonproductive time, rest breaks, and recovery breaks. However, the employer would also face, at a minimum, liability for paying less than the minimum wage, producing an incorrect wage stub, and failure to provide rest breaks. These violations trigger a penalty structure that is geared for employers who refuse to follow the minimum wage law and engage in wage theft, rather than employers who were caught up in an adverse court decision. This creates a challenging dynamic: while on one hand some employers may be facing insolvency due to liability they could not foresee, aggrieved workers are owed wages for their time. Comments How AB 1513 works. Broadly speaking, AB 1513 can be divided into two portions. The first portion deals with separate compensation for nonproductive time and rest and recovery periods. The second portion creates a narrow safe harbor for employers to address their liability under Gonzalez and Bluford. Each with be discussed below. Piece rate compensation and separate compensation for nonproductive time and rest and recovery periods. As noted above, both Gonzalez and Bluford held that piece rate workers must separately compensate the workers' nonproductive time, as well as their rest and recovery breaks. AB 1513 codifies that requirement, with nonproductive time being separately compensated at the minimum wage or higher. Importantly, however, rest and recovery periods would be separately compensated as an average of the hourly piece rate. By doing so, it would ensure that workers are not facing a disincentive in the form of a lower average hourly wage if they take necessary breaks for their health and well-being. AB 1513 Page 7 AB 1513's safe harbor provisions. As was discussed above, AB 1513 contains an unusual provision: a limited safe harbor for employers from claims resulting from Gonzalez and Bluford. In a nutshell, the AB 1513 safe harbor provides an 11 month window for the employer to do the following: 1)Calculate back wages for both former and current workers; 2)Notifying the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement that the employer is utilizing the safe harbor; 3)Transmitting the back wages the effected workers, including information on how the back wages were calculated; and 4)If, after due diligence, a worker cannot be found, transmitting the wages to DLSE, with a processing fee. If an employer decides to do all of the above, he or she would have a limited safe harbor from resulting from the Gonzalez and Bluford decisions. However, it is important to note that the safe harbor isn't a simple immunity from claims due to underpayment or nonpayment of nonproductive time and/or rest and recovery periods. Rather, it is an affirmative defense - the employer would need to prove-up that he or she met the above requirements. Outside of a good faith error, the employer loses the affirmative defense if he or she fails to meet the above requirements, and therefore loses access to the safe harbor. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: Yes SUPPORT: (Verified9/10/15) California Conference of Machinists California Labor Federation California Teamsters Public Affairs Council California Trucking Association Driscoll's Strawberry Associates, Inc. Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. Maricopa Orchards Monterey County Farm Bureau AB 1513 Page 8 The Wonderful Company OPPOSITION: (Verified9/10/15) California Citrus Mutual California Cotton Growers Association California Cotton Ginners Association California Employment Law Council California Fresh Fruit Association California Grain and Feed Association California Pear Growers Association California Tomato Growers Association Nisei Farmers League Western Agricultural Processors Association ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Proponents argue that AB 1513 addresses a historically vexing challenge of calculating appropriate piece rate compensation, yet balances the needs of workers and employers. Specifically, proponents note that AB 1513 provides clear guidance for employers on appropriate wages during rest periods, recovery periods, and nonproductive time, and that these wage rates would not create disincentives for workers who want to take their breaks. Proponents also note that AB 1513 that provides an affirmative defense for employers, but only if they retroactively compensate employees for their rest periods, recovery periods, and nonproductive time. Proponents argue that AB 1513 is a fair compromise for both employers and workers, addressing a situation where there was a significant development in case law. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents, including California Citrus Mutual and the California Cotton Growers Association, oppose AB 1513. While acknowledging that AB 1513 allows employers to come into compliance and avoid continued exposure from non-productive time wage claims, opponents argue that AB 1513 contains provisions that unfairly excludes participation by some agricultural employers. Opponents argue that safe-harbor exclusions, as expressly inserted by use of the March 1, 2014 date sacrifices some companies to continued legal exposure in exchange for legal protections afforded to others. Opponents AB 1513 Page 9 also point to the provision excluding any company for which an active claim is open alleging the adding of "ghost" employees to reduce or eliminate employee wages from use of payment calculation formulas and exposure protections afforded by AB 1513. ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/16/15 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins NO VOTE RECORDED: Quirk Prepared by: Gideon L. Baum / L. & I.R. / (916) 651-1556 9/11/15 8:43:13 **** END ****