BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 327
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
327 (Hernandez)
As Amended September 9, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: Vote not relevant
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Governmental | | | |
|Organization | | | |
| | | | |
|(vote not | | | |
|relevant) | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Labor |6-0 |Roger Hernández, | |
| | |Harper, Chu, Low, | |
| | |Patterson, Thurmond | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Enacts provisions of law related to the provision of
meal periods to employees in the health care industry.
SB 327
Page 2
Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that, notwithstanding any other law, the healthcare
employee meal period waiver provisions of specified Wage
Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) were valid
and enforceable on and after October 1, 2000, and continue to
be valid and enforceable.
2)Provide that this provision is declarative of and clarifies
existing law.
3)Makes related legislative findings and declarations.
4)Contains an urgency clause.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: This bill responds to a recent decision by the
California Court of Appeal regarding the provision of meal
periods for employees in the health care industry.
In Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, 234 Cal. App.
4th 285 (2015), the Court of Appeal held that certain language
contained in a Wage Order of the IWC was invalid to the extent
it conflicts with Labor Code Section 512.
Supporters argue that this recent decision invalidated a meal
period regulation adopted over 20 years ago by the IWC for
employees in the healthcare industry. The court also applied
its ruling retroactively which means that hospitals which relied
on the regulation are at risk for significant wage and hour
class action litigation with a four year statute of limitations.
SB 327
Page 3
They argue that while the California Supreme Court recently
accepted review of the case, it nonetheless poses a significant
adverse impact on healthcare employers and employees,
particularly those working 12-hour shifts who want to waive one
of their meal periods so that they do not have to prolong their
workday by 30 minutes. Because it is unclear when and how the
Supreme Court will resolve the case, hospitals are faced with
the decision whether to immediately and significantly change
their scheduling practices, which may include extending the
shift to 13 hours to accommodate a second, off-duty meal period,
reverting to eight-hour shifts or taking some other action to
minimize potential liability. They contend that, in order to
preserve the status quo preferred by both hospitals and their
employees for over 20 years, as confirmed by the IWC in 2000, a
legislative clarification is necessary.
The Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) opposes this bill
because it would impact pending litigation and argues that it is
against public policy to legislatively affect an individual's
existing legal right in such a retroactive manner. In addition,
CAOC opposes this bill because granting hospitals retroactive
relief from liability could deny workers past wages they have
already earned, because the premium payments required for missed
meal periods are wages, not penalties.
Analysis Prepared by:
Benjamin Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN:
0002283
SB 327
Page 4