BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       


           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   SB 796|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 445-6614         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                              UNFINISHED BUSINESS


          Bill No:  SB 796
          Author:   Dunn (D)
          Amended:  9/2/03
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE LABOR & IND. RELATIONS COMMITTEE  :  5-3, 4/9/03
          AYES:  Alarcon, Dunn, Figueroa, Kuehl, Romero
          NOES:  Oller, Margett, McClintock

           SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE  :  4-2, 4/29/03
          AYES:  Escutia, Cedillo, Kuehl, Sher
          NOES:  Morrow, Ackerman
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Ducheny

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE :  Senate Rule 28.8

           SENATE FLOOR  :  21-14, 5/29/03
          AYES:  Alarcon, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Cedillo, Chesbro,  
            Ducheny, Dunn, Escutia, Figueroa, Karnette, Kuehl,  
            Murray, Ortiz, Perata, Romero, Sher, Soto, Speier,  
            Torlakson, Vincent
          NOES:  Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Battin, Brulte, Denham,  
            Hollingsworth, Johnson, Knight, Margett, McClintock,  
            McPherson, Oller, Poochigian
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Florez, Machado, Morrow, Scott,  
            Vasconcellos


           SUBJECT  :    Employment

           SOURCE  :     California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
                      California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation,  
          Inc.
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 796
                                                                Page  
          2



           DIGEST  :    This bill allows employees to sue their  
          employers for civil penalties for employment law  
          violations.  This bill is intended to augment the  
          enforcement abilities of the Labor Commissioner by creating  
          an alternative "private attorney general" system for labor  
          law enforcement.

           Assembly Amendments  (1) provide that the bill will not  
          affect the exclusive remedy provided by workers'  
          compensation provisions of current law, (2) clarify that no  
          penalty is established for any failure to act by the Labor  
          and Workplace Development Agency, as specified, and (3)  
          make clarifying changes.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law authorizes the State Labor and  
          Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) (comprised of the DIR,  
          the Employment Development Department, the Agricultural  
          Labor Relations Board, and the Workforce Investment Board)  
          to assess and collect civil penalties for violations of the  
          Labor Code, where specified.

          Existing law authorizes the Attorney General and other  
          public prosecutors to pursue misdemeanor charges against  
          violators of specified provisions of the code.

          Existing law authorizes an individual employee to file a  
          claim with the Labor Commissioner alleging that his or her  
          employer has violated specified provisions of the code, and  
          to sue the employer directly for damages, reinstatement,  
          and other appropriate relief if the Commissioner declines  
          to bring an action based on the employee's complaint.

          Existing law further provides that any person acting for  
          itself, its members, or the general public, may sue to  
          enjoin any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or  
          practice, and to recover restitution and disgorgement of  
          any profits from the unlawful activity.

          This bill is entitled the "Labor Code Private Attorneys  
          General Act of 2004", and establishes an alternative  
          "private attorney general" system for labor law enforcement  
          that allows employees to pursue civil penalties for  







                                                                SB 796
                                                                Page  
          3

          employment law violations.  Specifically, this bill enacts  
          the "Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004"  
          which:

          1.Establishes a civil penalty where one is not specifically  
            provided under the Labor Code of $100 for each aggrieved  
            employee per pay period for an initial violation, and  
            $200 for each aggrieved employees per pay period for  
            subsequent violations.  The penalty will be $500 per  
            violation for a violator who is not an employer.

          2.Specifies that where the Labor and Workforce Development  
            Agency (LWDA) or any of its subdivisions has discretion  
            to assess civil penalties, a court may exercise the same  
            discretion with respect to the civil penalties  
            established by this bill.  Moreover, the civil penalties  
            do not apply if the alleged violation is a failure to act  
            by the LWDA or any of its subdivisions.

          3.Authorizes aggrieved employees to sue to recover civil  
            penalties under the Labor Code in an action brought on  
            behalf of himself or herself and other current or former  
            employees against whom one or more of the alleged  
            violations was committed.  However, no private action may  
            be maintained where the LWDA or any of its subdivisions  
            initiates proceedings against the alleged violator on the  
            same facts and theories and under the same section or  
            sections of the Labor Code.

          4.Defines an "aggrieved employee" as any person who was  
            employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or  
            more of the alleged violations was committed.

          5.Provides that civil penalties recovered against a person  
            that employs one or more employees shall be distributed  
            as follows:  50 percent to the General Fund (GF), 25  
            percent to LWDA for employer and employee education; and,  
            25 percent to the aggrieved employees.  Civil penalties  
            recovered against persons that do not employ one or more  
            employees are to be divided evenly between GF and LWDA.

          6.Provides for the award of reasonable attorney's fees and  
            costs to an aggrieved employee who prevails in such an  
            action.  Provides that this bill is not intended to  







                                                                SB 796
                                                                Page  
          4

            affect the exclusive remedy provided by workers'  
            compensation provisions of existing law.

           Background
           
          California's Labor Code is enforced by LWDA and its various  
          boards and departments, which may assess and collect civil  
          penalties for specified violations of the code.  Some Labor  
          Code sections also provide for criminal sanctions, which  
          may be obtained through actions by the Attorney General and  
          other public prosecutors. 

          In 2001, the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee held  
          hearings about the effectiveness and efficiency of the  
          enforcement of wage and hour laws by the State Department  
          of Industrial Relations (DIR), one of four subdivisions of  
          the LWDA.  The committee reported that in fiscal year  
          2001-2002, the Legislature appropriated over $42 million to  
          the State Labor Commission for the enforcement of over 300  
          laws under its jurisdiction.  The DIR's authorized staff  
          numbered over 460, making it the largest state labor law  
          enforcement organization in the country.

          Nevertheless, evidence received by the Senate Judiciary  
          Committee indicated that the DIR was failing to effectively  
          enforce labor law violations.  Estimates of the size  
          California's "underground economy" -- businesses operating  
          outside the state's tax and licensing requirements --  
          ranged from 60 to 140 billion dollars a year, representing  
          a tax loss to the state of three to six billion dollars  
          annually.  Further, a U.S. Department of Labor study of the  
          garment industry in Los Angeles, which employs over 100,000  
          workers, estimated the existence of over 33,000 serious and  
          ongoing wage violations by the city's garment industry  
          employers, but the DIR was currently issuing fewer than 100  
          wage citations per year for all industries throughout the  
          state. 

          As a result of these hearings, the Legislature enacted AB  
          2985 (Assembly Labor and Employment Committee), Chapter  
          662, Statutes of 2002, requiring the LWDA to contract with  
          an independent research organization to study the  
          enforcement of wage and hour laws, and to identify state  
          and federal resources that may be utilized to enhance  







                                                                SB 796
                                                                Page  
          5

          enforcement.  The completed study is to be submitted to the  
          Legislature by December 31, 2003.

          This bill would propose to augment the LWDA's civil  
          enforcement efforts by allowing employees to sue employers  
          for civil penalties for labor law violations, and to  
          collect attorneys' fees and a portion of the penalties upon  
          prevailing in these actions, as specified.

           Prior legislation 

          AB 2985 (Assembly Labor and Employment Committee), Chapter  
          662, Statutes of 2002, requires Labor and Workforce  
          Development Agency to contract with independent research  
          organization to study most effective ways to enforce wage  
          and hour laws, and to identify all available state and  
          federal resources available for enforcement; completed  
          study to be submitted to Legislature by December 31, 2003.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  No

          According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,  
          potential increased penalty revenue to the GF and to LWDA.

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  9/4/03)

          California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO (co-source)
          California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation,  
          Inc.(co-source)
          American Federation of State, County and Municipal  
            Employees (AFSCME)
          California Applicants Attorneys Association
          California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit  
          Union
          California Council of Machinists
          California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council
          California State Pipe Trades Council
          California State Association of Electrical Workers
          California Teamsters
          Engineers and Scientists of California, Local 20
          Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees International Union
          Peace Officers Research Association of California
          Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21







                                                                SB 796
                                                                Page  
          6

          Protection and Advocacy, Inc.
          Region 8 States Council of the United Food and Commercial  
          Workers
          Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  9/4/03)

          Associated Builders and Contractors of California
          Associated General Contractors of California
          California Apartment Association
          California Chamber of Commerce
          California Employment Law Council
          California Landscape Contractors Association
          California Manufacturers and Technology Association
          Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC)
          Construction Employers' Association
          Motion Picture Association of America
          Orange County Business Council

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    Proponents, the California Labor  
          Federation asserts that in the last decade state government  
          labor law enforcement functions have failed to keep pace  
          with the growth of the economy and the workforce.   
          Additionally they note that, resources available to county  
          district attorneys, for prosecution of Labor Code  
          violations as crimes, are similarly lacking.

          Proponents contend that the states current inability to  
          enforce labor laws effectively is due to inadequate  
          staffing and to the continued growth of the underground  
          economy.  This inability coupled with the states severe  
          budgetary shortfall requires a creative solution that will  
          help the state crack down on labor law violators.

          The California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation cites the  
          resurgence of violations of Labor Code prohibitions against  
          the "company store," as an example of the need for this  
          bill.  This occurs either when the employee is required to  
          cash his check at a store owned by his employer and the  
          employer charges a fee, or where the employer coerces the  
          employee to purchase goods at that store.  Currently,  
          violations of these code sections are misdemeanors but no  
          civil penalty is attached.  Advocates are unaware of any  
          misdemeanor prosecution having been undertaken in relation  







                                                                SB 796
                                                                Page  
          7

          to these code sections.

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    Opponents contend that this  
          bill tips the balance of Labor Law protection in  
          disproportionate favor to the employee to the detriment of  
          already overburdened employers.  Opponents cite the fact  
          that employees are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs if  
          they prevail in their actions under this bill, yet the bill  
          fails to provide similar attorneys fees and costs for  
          prevailing employers.  Additionally, opponents cite the  
          fact that there are no requirements imposed upon employees  
          prior to filing civil action such as preliminary claim  
          filing with the Labor Commissioner.  Furthermore, opponents  
          complain that aggrieved employees may file on behalf of a  
          class, but are not required to fulfill class certification  
          requirements.

          The California Manufacturers and Technology Association  
          (CMTA) asserts that California has a formal administrative  
          procedure to handle Labor Code violations that is both  
          economical and efficient. According to the CMTA, in many  
          instances the amount in dispute is so small that it would  
          not warrant an employer going to court because the cost of  
          legal representation would be so high.  Finally, the CMTA  
          alleges that, since there is no requirement for the  
          employee to exhaust the administrative procedure or even  
          file with the Labor Commissioner the bill is an "invitation  
          for bounty hunting attorneys to aggressively pursue these  
          cases."


          NC:sl  9/10/03   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****