BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Committee on Industrial
Relations 1999-2000 Regular Session Hilda L. Solis,
Chair
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
Bill No: AB 1889
Author: Cedillo
Version: As Amended May 16, 2000
Subject:
State funds: unionization
Support:
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO (Sponsor)
Service Employees International Union
State Building & Construction Trades Council of California
California Conference of Machinists
California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit
Union
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Communication Workers of America, District 9
Engineers & Scientists of California, Local 20 IFPTE
Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees International Union
Region 8 States Council of the United Food & Commercial
Workers
Transport Workers Union
California School Employees Association
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees
Opposition:
University of California
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Motion Picture Association of America California Group
American Electronics Association
California Association of Nonprofits
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Associated General Contractors of California
Associated General Contractors, San Diego Chapter
California Healthcare Association
Northern California Grocers Association
National Right to Work Committee
Associated Builders and Contractors
Roofing Contractors Association of California
Roland Technical Corporation
California Association of Health Facilities
California Moving & Storage Association
California School Bus Contractors Association
California Landscape Contractors Association
Purpose:
To prohibit public employers or state contractors from
using state funds to discourage or encourage unionization.
Analysis:
Existing federal and state law recognize the rights of
employees to freely associate, organize, and collectively
bargain with their employer. The regulation of labor
relations for many, but not all, private sector employees
is covered by the National Labor Relations Act. Most state
and local government employees are covered by various labor
relations statutes and ordinances, except Legislative
employees.
State law does not specifically prohibit employers or state
contractors from using state funds to discourage or
encourage unionization.
This Bill prohibits public employers and state contractors
recipient of state funds or resources from using them to
discourage or encourage unionization by that recipient's
employees or any other employees. The prohibition also
includes persons receiving revenue from property owned by
the state, and revenue received because of lease or
concession. Excepted would be fixed-price contracts or
where payment does not depend on contractor costs. It also
specifically provides that:
Hearing Date: June 28, 2000 AB
1889
Consultant: Patrick Henning Page
2
Senate Committee on Industrial Relations
-Employers and grant recipients that incur costs associated
with possible prohibited activity must maintain sufficient
records to show that no reimbursement from state funds has
been sought, and make those records available to the
Attorney General upon request. violators must reimburse the
state for costs and pay a civil penalty equal to twice the
costs.
-Fund recipients must account for all monies received, and
certify that no prohibited activity occurred; if involved
in such activity, fund recipient must account separately
for those expenditures.
-Service contractors found in violation would be subject to
a civil penalty of $1,000 per employee per violation. For
contracts in excess of $10,000, the contract must
specifically list prohibited activity. Before disbursement
of funds, the contractor must certify that no funds were
utilized for prohibited activity.
-For permitting meetings in state controlled facilities to
promote prohibited activity, employers would be liable for
a $1,000 civil penalty, per employee per meeting.
-In addition to the Attorney General, any person may file a
court action to enforce the above provisions and the court
may grant to the prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorney's
fees and costs. However, potential plaintiffs must first
notify the Attorney General of their intent, and may
commence action only after the Attorney General has not
taken action after 60 days.
-Employer activity excluded from these provisions includes
any action associated with grievance handling, collective
bargaining, and permitting a labor organization from using
its premises for meetings.
The provisions of this measure are severable and potential
invalidity of one section would not affect others.
Hearing Date: June 28, 2000 AB
1889
Consultant: Patrick Henning Page
3
Senate Committee on Industrial Relations
Comments:
1. Proponents argue that employers should use their own
money, rather than state funds, to
discourage or encourage unionization. They cite as
precedents the prohibition of the use
of federal funds in the Job Training Partnership Act, the
Workforce Investment Act, the
National and Community Service Act, and the Head Start
Programs Act, as well as state
laws in New York State and Massachusetts that are designed
for a similar purpose.
2. Opponents generally state that this bill would prohibit
most activity on the employers' part to remain union free.
Employers who provide managerial training for staff could
be considered as employing managerial programs as a way to
discourage unionization; in order to protect themselves,
separate financial records would have to be maintained.
Such onerous provisions could increase employer costs and
negatively impact competitiveness.
The University of California argues that the measure would
prohibit the University from using state funds for
legitimate labor relations activities, such as
disseminating factual information relating to possible
effects of upcoming actions affecting it. Too, the
California Chamber of Commerce and others argue the bill as
an unconstitutional suppression of free speech rights.
3. Vote History . This measure passed the Assembly Labor
and Employment Committee by a 6 to 3 vote and the Assembly
Floor by a 48 to 28 vote.
4. Prior Legislation . This measure is similar to AB 442
(Cedillo) of 1999 which was vetoed by the Governor. AB
442's differences include:
- a prohibition only against discouraging
unionization;
- quarterly financial reports from all fund recipients
who discourage unionization;
Hearing Date: June 28, 2000 AB
1889
Consultant: Patrick Henning Page
4
Senate Committee on Industrial Relations
-debarment from receiving state funds for 3 years for
violators;
-Labor Commissioner enforcement.
Hearing Date: June 28, 2000 AB
1889
Consultant: Patrick Henning Page
5
Senate Committee on Industrial Relations