BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 730
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 15, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
SB 730
(Wolk) - As Introduced February 27, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy | Labor |Vote:| 5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill prohibits, starting February 1, 2016, a train or light
engine used in connection with the movement of freight from
being operated unless it has a crew consisting of at least two
SB 730
Page 2
individuals. Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies that this prohibition shall not include hostler
service or utility employees.
2)Authorizes the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
to assess civil penalties against any person who willfully
violates this bill, according to the following schedule:
a) A civil penalty of $250 to $1,000 for the first
violation.
b) A civil penalty of $1,000 to $5,000 for a second
violation within a three-year period.
c) A civil penalty of $5,000 to $10,000 for a third
violation and each subsequent violation within a three-year
period.
3)Provides that the remedies available to the CPUC are
nonexclusive and do not limit the remedies available under all
other laws or pursuant to contract.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Minor and absorbable costs to the CPUC related to enforcement of
this measure. The CPUC indicates enforcement would be
incorporated into existing inspections.
COMMENTS:
SB 730
Page 3
1)Purpose. Current state law makes no provisions for the minimum
size of railroad crews, nor has the Federal Railroad
Administration adopted any regulations covering railroad crew
size. According to the author, in recent years railroad
companies have reduced the size of crews on trains to one
person. Requiring two pairs of eyes and ears at the head of
every freight engine ensures communication and safety
redundancy, as well as operational efficiency.
The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters is sponsoring this bill
to provide safer operations by reducing the risk that arises
from relying on a single individual. According to the
Teamsters, this bill is designed to maintain the status quo in
freight operations in this state, as the overwhelming majority
of trains operated in the United States run with a two person
crew. Despite that fact, however, the sponosrs are concerned
with intention of the railroad industry is to move to one
person crews.
2)Background. This bill is in part a response to the July 2013
Lac-Megantic tragedy. In that accident, a train crewed by only
one person was left on a grade above Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. The
crew member failed to secure enough hand breaks properly
before retiring for the night. Later that night, the train
rolled uncontrolled down the grade and crashed and exploded
killing 47 people.
Following this incident, the U.S. Department of Transportation
convened an advisory committee and announced its intention to
issue a proposed rule requiring two-person train crews on
crude oil trains, and establishing minimum crew size standards
for most main line freight and passenger rail operations. The
SB 730
Page 4
Federal Railroad Administration has not yet adopted
regulations related to minimum crew size.
3)Opposition. The California Railroad Industry oppose this bill
stating it would place limitations on collective bargaining
agreements. According the opposition, historically, safety and
technology improvements have been a primary catalyst for
negotiations related to crew size. They note rail labor and
rail management have agreed to reductions in crew size from as
many as five persons in the 1980s to two persons on most
territories operating today. Additionally, opponents argue
that the collectively bargained crew size also provides the
parties with flexibility to address needs that arise from
advancements in technology, design, and planning. The
railroads are not asking for one-person crews at this time;
however, they are opposing this legislation so that if safe
operating practices and technology make single person crews
viable in the future, then that option is not foreclosed in
California.
4)Prior legislation. SB 200 (O'Connell) of 1999 was similar, but
not identical, to this bill. SB 200 would have provided that
a common carrier may run freight or work trains only if it
employs on that train at least two persons, one of whom is a
railroad trainman, as defined.
Opposition to SB 200 questioned the legality of the measure
and potential conflict with Labor Code section 6900.5 enacted
by Proposition 17 of 1964 (The Railroad Anti-Featherbedding
Act). The purpose of Proposition 17 was "the elimination of
excess firemen and brakesmen on diesel powered freight
SB 730
Page 5
trains." A Legislative Counsel opinion stated that
Proposition 17 "contemplated an end to state regulation of the
size of train crews in favor of setting the size of train
crews through the collective bargaining process. Opponents
argued that Proposition 17 could be amended or repealed by
statute, only by submission of a measure to the electors. SB
200 ultimately failed passage on the floor of the Assembly.
These legal issues raised under SB 200 continue to be raised
by the opposition today. Sponsors of this bill argue, however,
that the Federal Arbitration Award 282 of 1963 addressed
excess "firemen and brakemen" on freight trains. The intent
of Proposition 17 and Labor Code section 6900.5 was to give
full effect to that award. That award did not cover
conductors and therefore does not preclude the state from
enacting a crew size law that deals with that particular type
of personnel.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
SB 730
Page 6