BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1167
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
1167 (Mendoza)
As Amended August 16, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 25-12
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Labor |5-2 |Roger Hernández, Chu, |Patterson, Linder |
| | |McCarty, O'Donnell, | |
| | |Thurmond | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |13-6 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Calderon, Eggman, |Obernolte, Wagner |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Santiago, Weber, | |
| | |Wood, McCarty | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SB 1167
Page 2
SUMMARY: Requires the Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (DOSH) to propose for the Occupational Safety and Health
Standards Board (Standards Board) review and adoption, standards
that minimize heat-related illness and injury among indoor
workers by July 1, 2018. Specifies that this requirement does
not prohibit the DOSH from proposing, or the Standards Board
from adopting, a standard that limits the application of high
heat provisions to certain industries.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides a framework for a safe and healthy workplace through
the DOSH and the Standards Board in the adoption and
enforcement of standards.
2)Requires all employers to provide a safe and healthy
workplace, and empowers DOSH to issue citations if evidence is
found of employee exposure to workplace hazards in violation
of a DOSH standard.
3)Requires employers, with some exceptions, to establish,
implement and maintain an effective Injury and Illness
Prevention Program (IIPP) that includes, among other things,
the following:
a) A system for identifying workplace hazards, including
scheduled periodic inspections to identify unsafe
conditions and practices - as well as methods and
procedures for correcting them.
b) A training program designed to instruct employees in
general safe and healthy work practices, and
SB 1167
Page 3
c) A system for communicating with employees, including
provisions that encourage employees to inform employers of
hazards at the worksite without fear of reprisal.
4)Requires, under the DOSH Heat Illness Prevention regulations,
all employers with outdoor worksites to take the following
steps to protect their employees from heat illnesses:
a) Provide heat illness prevention training to all
employees.
b) Provide enough fresh water free of charge so that each
employee can drink at least one quart per hour, or four
eight-ounce glasses, for the shift.
c) Provide access to shade and encourage employees to take
a cool-down rest period in the shade for at least five
minutes when an employee believes he or she needs a
preventive recovery period.
d) Develop and implement written procedures for complying
with the heat illness prevention standard.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, administrative costs to the Department of Industrial
Relations (DIR) of approximately $232,000 (special funds) in the
first year of implementation and $224,000 (special funds) in the
second year, to create the indoor heat standard.
Enforcement costs are unknown and difficult to predict. DOSH
currently utilizes six safety engineers to enforce outdoor heat
SB 1167
Page 4
requirements at a cost of $1.4 million annually. Cost estimates
related to enforcement of this bill could be in the $1.4 million
range if DOSH needs the same resources to enforce a new indoor
heat standard.
COMMENTS: A recent Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board
decision affirms the responsibility of employers to ensure
indoor heat illness is addressed through their IIPP. The case
stemmed from a 2012 serious citation issued to Tri-State
Staffing and warehouse operator National Distribution Center for
the heat illness suffered by an employee who was working inside
a metal freight container with a temperature of over 100
degrees. DOSH penalized both companies for failing to implement
an effective IIPP and both companies appealed the citation
winning, their case before an administrative law judge (ALJ).
In March 2015, DOSH appealed that decision to the Occupational
Safety and Health Appeals Board stating that the employers had
failed to effectively correct the indoor hazard and had not
trained employees on indoor heat exposure.
In November 2015, the ALJ's decision was overturned by the
Appeals Board reinforcing the responsibility that employers have
to protect the health and safety of their workers, including
those working indoors. While this recent Appeals Board decision
helps reinforce the importance of indoor heat preparedness,
proponents argue that it is not enough to protect workers. This
bill requires the adoption of a standard that minimizes
heat-related illness and injury among indoor workers.
Arguments in Support
According to proponents, every year, an unknown number of
workers in California die from heat illness. More are
hospitalized, and even far more suffer exposure but fear
retaliation and never report symptoms to their employer. They
SB 1167
Page 5
argue that the problem goes beyond just one industry since
affected workers range from warehouse workers to laundry workers
to restaurant workers where temperatures can quickly reach
unsafe and deadly levels without the proper temperature controls
or cooling systems.
While current law requires employers to address all known
hazards as part of their IIPP, proponents argue that many
employers fail to maintain an adequate prevention program and
thus many workers remain at risk. Lastly, they state that the
IIPP is general in nature and the basic procedures set forth in
the outdoor heat illness regulations would better protect
employees facing the same hazard in indoor environments.
Arguments in Opposition
Opponents of this bill argue that this bill is unnecessary since
existing regulations already require employers to have written
procedures, to conduct worksite evaluations, to identify and
correct worksite hazards, and train employees through their
IIPP. They argue that the IIPP provides both the guidance as
well as the flexibility in designing a prevention, training and
response proposal that responsibly balances the health and
safety of workers with employer needs. Additionally, they note
that Cal/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
has prepared an instructive informational piece with
recommendations for the prevention of heat illness for indoor
working environments.
Analysis Prepared by:
Lorie Alvarez / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN:
0003987
SB 1167
Page 6