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