BILL ANALYSIS
AB 3037
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 3037 (Yee)
As Amended May 3, 2004
Majority vote
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 6-1 INSURANCE
11-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Koretz, Mullin, Chan, |Ayes:|Vargas, Calderon, Cohn, |
| |Chu, Laird, Leno | |Correa, Diaz, Dutra, |
| | | |Frommer, Jerome Horton, |
| | | |Koretz, Nakano, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Houston |Nays:|Benoit, Bogh, Cox, |
| | | |Mountjoy, Richman, Wyland |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : States the intent of the Legislature to require high
hazard industries to include an employer-employee committee or
liaison to work in conjunction with their existing injury and
illness prevention program (IIPP). Specifically, this bill
states that such programs shall be written and include at least
the following elements:
1)Identification of the person or persons responsible for
implementing the program.
2)The employer's system for identifying and evaluating workplace
hazards.
3)The employer's methods and procedures for correcting unsafe or
unhealthy conditions and work practices.
4)An occupational health and safety training program designed to
instruct employees in general safe and healthy work practices.
5)The employer's system for communicating with employees on
occupational health and safety matters.
6)The employer's system for ensuring that employees comply with
safe and healthy work practices, including disciplinary
action.
AB 3037
Page 2
EXISTING LAW requires every employer to establish an effective
IIPP, and specifically permits (but does not require) employer
and employee occupational safety and health committees to be
included in IIPP.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : In California, every employer is required to provide
a safe and healthful workplace for his or her employees. Since
1991, California law also has required every employer to have a
written and effective IIPP.
The general philosophy behind IIPPs is that such programs help
reduce the costs and risks associated with workplace injuries
and illnesses. These costs are borne both by the injured worker
(through job loss, serious injury or death) and by the employer
(increased workers' compensation costs and decreased
productivity). Proponents of IIPPs contend that such programs
help employers reduce costs by identifying what needs to be done
to promote safety and health at the workplace and outline
polices and procedures to achieve their safety and health goals.
Under existing law an employer is permitted, but not required,
to utilize joint employer-employee occupational safety and
health committees as part of their IIPP. Proponents generally
argue that such collaborative efforts provide employees with
meaningful participation in safety and health issues affecting
their workplace and can simultaneously reduce workplace deaths,
injuries and illnesses.
This bill is sponsored by WORKSAFE!, a worker safety coalition.
As originally introduced, this bill would have required
specified employers to include joint committees or "safety
liaison teams" in their IIPPs, and would have provided a 5%
discount on workers' compensation premiums when an employer's
program met certain criteria. WORKSAFE! argued that the
original bill would strengthen occupational safety and health
protection for workers by requiring joint committees and safety
liaisons for high-hazard and unsafe employers. WORKSAFE! also
argued that this bill would have provided incentives for
employers to provide safe and healthy workplaces by setting up a
reward system. Employers who had effective safety and health
programs that incorporate joint committees and safety liaisons
AB 3037
Page 3
would have been entitled to: 1) a workers' compensation premium
discount; and, 2) a safety presumption for bidding on public
contracts.
Opponents to the original bill argued that the mandated
participation of employer-employee committees violated or was
preempted by the federal National Labor Relations Act. In
addition, the Association of California Insurance Companies
argued that the insurance provisions of the original bill
duplicated safety activities that insurers or the public sector
already provide.
For a further discussion of the provisions of the original bill,
please consult the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment's
March 31, 2004 analysis.
This bill has subsequently been amended to reflect legislative
intent to require high hazard industries to include
employer-employee committees or liaisons in their IIPPs.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0005195