BILL ANALYSIS
AB 569
Page A
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
William W. Monning, Chair
AB 569 (Emmerson) - As Proposed to be Amended: April 22, 2009
SUBJECT : Meal periods.
SUMMARY : Establishes specified collective bargaining agreement
exemptions related to requirements of existing law concerning
meal periods. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that specified provisions of current law related to
meal periods do not apply to an employee employed in the
construction industry who is covered by a valid collective
bargaining agreement that meets certain conditions.
2)Provides that specified provisions of current law related to
meal periods do not apply to an employee employed as a
commercial driver in the transportation industry who is
covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement that meets
certain conditions.
3)Adds uncodified language to specify that these provisions of
the bill shall not be construed to affect the interpretation
of the nature or scope of the law related to meal periods
other than for employees or employers specifically covered by
these provisions.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits an employer from employing any person for a work
period of more than five hours without providing the employee
with a meal period of not less than 30 minutes [Labor Code
section 512 (a)].
2)Provides that if the total work period per day of the employee
is no more than six hours, the meal period may be waived by
mutual consent of both the employer and employee [Labor Code
section 512 (a)].
3)Authorizes paid on-duty meal periods when the nature of the
work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty, the
parties have agreed to the paid on-duty meal period in
writing, and the written agreement authorizes the employee to
AB 569
Page B
revoke the agreement at any time [See, for example, Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order 9 Section 11(C)].
4)Provides that if an employer fails to provide an employee a
meal period or rest period, the employer shall pay the
employee one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular
rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest
period is not provided (Labor Code Section 226.7).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : California law currently regulates meal periods of
employees via statute and regulation. The Industrial Welfare
Commission (IWC) is the state agency generally empowered to
formulate regulations (known as Wage Orders) governing
employment.
The meal period provisions of the IWC's Wage Orders have
remained largely unchanged since 1947. Under those provisions,
non-exempt employees are entitled to 30-minute unpaid meal
periods depending on the number of hours worked. In 1999, the
Legislature enacted Labor Code Section 512 to codify the
language regarding meal periods that had previously been
contained in most of the IWC wage orders<1>.
Labor Code Section 512 provides in relevant part as follows:
"(a) An employer may not employ an employee for a work
period of
more than five hours per day without providing the employee
with a meal
period of not less than 30 minutes, except that if the
total work period per
day of the employee is no more than six hours, the meal
period may be
waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee.
An employer
may not employ an employee for a work period of more than
10 hours per
day without providing the employee with a second meal
-------------------------
<1> Labor Code Section 512 was enacted by Assembly Bill 60,
Chapter # 134, Statutes of 1999, the "Eight-Hour-Day Restoration
and Workplace Flexibility Act of 1999."
AB 569
Page C
period of not less
than 30 minutes, except that if the total hours worked is
no more than 12
hours, the second meal period may be waived by mutual
consent of the
employer and the employee only if the first meal period was
not waived.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Industrial Welfare
Commission
may adopt a working condition order permitting a meal
period to commence
after six hour of work if the commission determines that
the order is
consistent with the health and welfare of the affected
employees."
In 2000, the IWC conducted a legislatively mandated review of
the remedy available to employees against an employer that
failed to provide a meal or rest period mandated by applicable
law. At the time, the only remedy available to an employee was
to obtain an injunction against the employer ordering the
employer to provide the meal and rest periods. In an effort to
provide employers with an incentive to comply with the meal and
rest period provisions, the IWC adopted a proposal which
required employers to pay employees one hour's pay for each day
on which an employee did not receive a meal or rest period.
In 2000, the Legislature adopted Labor Code Section 226.7
codifying the new remedy:
"(a) No employer shall require any employee to work during
any meal
or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the
Industrial Welfare
Commission.
(b) If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal
period or rest period
in accordance with an applicable order of the Industrial
Welfare Commission,
the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of
pay at the
employee's regular rate of compensation for each work day
that the meal or
AB 569
Page D
rest period is not provided."
THE MAJOR POINTS OF CONTENTION IN RECENT YEARS
The debate in recent years over California's meal period law has
largely focused on the following main issues:
Obligation to "Provide" Meal Periods
As discussed above, Labor Code Section 512 provides that "an
employer may not employ an employee for a work period of more
than five hours per day without providing the employee with a
meal period of not less than 30 minutes."
There has been much dispute over the precise meaning of this
term. Representatives of workers and organized labor have
generally argued that the use of the term "provide" means that
an employer must actually provide the meal period and ensure
that employees are able to actually take it. On the other hand,
the business community has generally argued such an
interpretation is unreasonable and too restrictive and that
therefore the term "provide" means simply that an employer must
make the meal period available to the employee (but not
necessarily ensure that the employee does in fact take the meal
period).
As discussed below, the courts have been grappling with this
issue as well in recent years, and the issue is currently before
the California Supreme Court.
Time Parameters in Which Meal Periods Must Be Provided
Another controversial issue has involved when an employer must
provide meal periods. As discussed above, Labor Code Section
512 and the IWC wage orders specify that employers cannot allow
employees to work more than five hours without taking a
30-minute meal period.
Some of the litigation in recent years has focused on whether
the meal period must be completed before the end of the fifth
hour of work. Some employers claim that they have been sued
over issues such as whether the meal period extended into the
sixth hour of work, even if only by a few minutes.
On-Duty Meal Periods
AB 569
Page E
The IWC Wage Orders provide: "Unless the employee is relieved of
all duty during a 30 minute meal period, the meal period shall
be considered an 'on-duty' meal period an counted as time
worked. An 'on-duty' meal period shall be permitted only when
the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved
of all duty and when by written agreement between the parties an
on-the-job paid meal period is agreed to. The written agreement
shall state that the employee may, in writing, revoke the
agreement at any time."
There has been some dispute about when the "nature of the work"
supports the provision of an on-duty (as opposed to an unpaid
off-duty) meal period.
In 2002, the DLSE issued an opinion letter that stated the
following:
"In determining whether the 'nature of the work' prevents
an employee from being relieved of all duty, the Division
of Labor Standards Enforcement starts with the premise that
the general requirement for an off-duty meal period is
remedial in nature, and any exceptions to that general
requirement must be narrowly construed, so as to avoid
frustrating the remedial purpose of the regulation. The
Division has always followed an enforcement policy that
this determination must be made on the basis of a
multi-factor objective test. The factors that should be
considered include the type of work, the availability of
other employees to provide relief to an employee during a
meal period, the potential consequences to the employer if
the employee is relieved of all duty, the ability of the
employer to anticipate and mitigate these consequences such
as by scheduling the work in a manner that would allow the
employee to take an off-duty meal break, and whether the
work product or process will be destroyed or damaged by
relieving the employee of all duty. The Division will
conclude that an off-duty meal period must be provided
unless these factors, taken as a whole, decisively point to
the conclusion that the nature of the work makes it
virtually impossible for the employer to provide the
employee with an off-duty meal period. Finally, the burden
rests on the employer for establishing the facts that would
justify an on-duty meal period.
AB 569
Page F
Some in the employer community have argued that this is an
overly-restrictive interpretation that makes it impossible for
an employer to ever be able to lawfully provide an on-duty meal
period. There have been some efforts in recent years
(legislative and otherwise) to expand this interpretation and
the circumstances under which an on-duty meal period may be
provided.
Collective Bargaining Agreement Carve-Outs
Unlike California's overtime laws, the laws governing meal
periods do not provide a blanket collective bargaining agreement
carve-out that allows the parties to an agreement to negotiate
the provision of meal periods by contract.
However, there are a few industry-specific situations in which
such authority has been extended to collective bargaining
situations.
For example, Labor Code Section 512(c) provides that the meal
period requirements of current law do not apply to employees in
the wholesale baking industry who are covered by a valid
collective bargaining agreement that meets certain specified
criteria. Labor Code Section 512(d) provides a similar
exception to employees in the motion picture industry or
broadcasting industry covered by a valid collective bargaining
agreement.
In addition, in 2003, the IWC amended Wage Order 9 to apply the
meal and rest period provisions of that order to commercial
drivers employed by governmental entities. In addition,
legislation was enacted to specifically authorize the IWC to
provide for a collective bargaining exemption when it extended
the meal and rest period requirements to public sector
commercial drivers.
In recent years, other industries have sought legislative
authority to allow them to negotiate the terms of their
provision of meal periods to their employees via the collective
bargaining process. Most notable among these has been the
transportation industry, which has sponsored several such bills
in recent years. However, each of these bills has been vetoed
by Governor Schwarzenegger. The following portion of the veto
message for AB 2593 (Keene) from 2006 is representative of the
Governor's sentiment:
AB 569
Page G
"This bill seeks to provide relief for unionized
employers and employees in the transportation industry
from California's confusing meal period laws and
regulations. This confusion has resulted in costly
litigation against employers and even termination of
employees that do not comply with the law's burdensome
requirements. While well-intentioned, I cannot
support this bill because it singles out a specific
group of employers and employees for relief from a
problem that plagues almost every industry in this
state."
Additional Hour of Pay Under Labor Code Section 226.7
One of the most controversial points of contention over
California's meal period law has involved whether the remedy
provided in Labor Code Section 226.7 constituted a "penalty" or
"wages." However, as discussed below, this issue largely was
resolved in 2007 by the California Supreme Court.
THE 2004 PROPOSED DLSE REGULATION
On December 10, 2004, the Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement (DLSE) of the Department of Industrial Relations
(DIR) submitted a proposed emergency regulation to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) regarding the provision of meal and
rest periods in the workplace. As a proposed emergency
regulation, there was a five (5) calendar day public comment
period, which ended on December 15, 2004. OAL had until
December 20, 2004 to act on the proposed regulation.
On December 20, 2004, DLSE withdrew the proposed emergency
regulation and resubmitted a revised proposed regulation under
the regular rulemaking process on January 4, 2005.
DLSE proposed to adopt section 13700, Meal and Rest Periods, in
Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. According to
DLSE's notice of proposed rulemaking:
"DLSE proposes to adopt section 13700 to clarify that the
one hour of
pay an employer must pay an employee for each workday in
which a
meal or rest period is not provided in accordance with the
AB 569
Page H
applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Order is considered a penalty
as well
as to clarify the time parameters and criteria under which
meal periods
can be provided to employees."
The proposed meal period regulation contained three distinct
provisions:
Obligation to "Provide" Meal Periods
The first provision of the regulation attempted to define when
an employer has met the statutory requirement of "providing" a
meal period. Under the proposed regulation, an employer would
have been deemed to have provided a meal period if the employer:
(1) makes the meal period available and affords the employee an
opportunity to take it; (2) posts the applicable IWC wage order;
and (3) maintains accurate time records.
The first provision also provided that "as a further precaution"
an employer may inform an employee in writing of the
circumstances under which he or she is entitled to a meal period
and the employee acknowledges in writing that he or she
understands those rights.
Time Parameters in Which Meal Periods Must Be Provided
The second provision of the proposed regulation related to the
time parameters in which meal periods must be provided. Labor
Code Section 512 and the IWC wage orders specify that employers
cannot allow employees to work more than five hours without
taking a 30-minute meal period.
The proposed regulation provided that a meal period may begin
before the end of the sixth hour of the work period.
Furthermore, an employee may request and commence their meal
period after the end of the sixth hour of work, so long as they
were provided the opportunity to take a meal period before the
end of the sixth hour of work.
The proposed regulation contained four examples to illustrate
this provision.
Additional Hour of Pay Under Labor Code Section 226.7
AB 569
Page I
The final provision of the proposed regulation provided that any
amount paid or owed by an employer under Labor Code Section
226.7 is a "penalty" and not a "wage."
FINAL OUTCOME OF THE 2004 PROPOSED REGULATIONS
After questions emerged about the legal authority of DLSE to
promulgate the proposed regulation, this committee conducted an
oversight hearing on the subject on January 26, 2005.
Subsequently, the Legislature passed ACR 43 (J. Horton) which,
among other things, made a legislative declaration that the DLSE
did not have the authority to promulgate the proposed regulation
concerning meal and rest periods, and that the proposal was
inconsistent with existing law.
On January 13, 2006, DLSE announced that it would not file the
proposed regulation with the OAL by the applicable deadline.
THE MURPHY V. KENNETH COLE DECISION
One of the most controversial points of contention over
California's meal period law has involved whether the remedy
provided in Labor Code Section 226.7 constituted a "penalty" or
"wages."
Following the enactment of Labor Code Section 226.7, employers
defending class action lawsuits for such compensation generally
raised this issue in two contexts, arguing that such payments
constitute "penalties." First, they argued that, as penalties,
employees had no private right of action to recover such
compensation. Second, employers argued that as "penalties," the
payments under Labor Code Section 226.7(b) were limited by the
one-year statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil
Procedure Section 340(a) rather than the longer statute of
limitations provided for wage claims under the Labor Code.
As discussed above, the proposed 2004 DLSE regulation attempted
to specify that such amounts paid or owed by employers were
"penalties" and not "wages."
However, in 2007, the California Supreme Court resolved the
issue when it held that the "additional hour of pay" due to an
employee is a wage, not a penalty. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole
AB 569
Page J
Productions, Inc., (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 1094. Specifically, the
Court stated:
"We hold that section 226.7's plain language, the
administrative and legislative history, and the
compensatory purpose of the remedy compel the conclusion
that the 'additional hour of pay' is a premium wage, not a
penalty."
RECENT CALIFORNIA APPELLATE CASES REGARDING THE MEANING OF AN
EMPLOYER'S OBLIGATION TO "PROVIDE" MEAL PERIODS
Most recently, much of the case law in this area has focused on
the meaning of an employer's obligation to "provide" meal
periods under Labor Code Section 512 and the IWC Wage Orders.
In Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th
949, the California Court of Appeal for the First District
stated that employers have "an affirmative obligation to ensure
that workers are actually relieved of all duty." Many legal
observers have concluded that this means that employers have an
affirmative obligation to make employees take their meal periods
and that employees cannot refrain or refuse to take their meal
periods. However, others have argued that the language in
Cicairos does not go that far.
For example, in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court
of San Diego (Hohnbaum) (2008) 165 Cal. App. 4th 25, the
California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District interpreted
the applicable law to mean that employers must provide meal
periods by making them available, but need not ensure that they
are taken. Employers, however, cannot impede, discourage or
dissuade employees from taking meal periods.
In October 2008, the California Court of Appeal for the Second
District reached a similar holding in Brinkley v. Public Storage
(2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1278. In that case, the court
similarly held that employers only have to make meal periods
available, essentially equating the "provide" language in the
law with language covering rest periods, which only require
employers to "authorize and permit" employee to take them.
Both the Brinker and the Brinkley courts attempted to
distinguish and provide a more narrow reading to the First
District Court of Appeal's decision in Cicairos.
AB 569
Page K
However, on October 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court
granted review of the California Court of Appeal decision in
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego County
(Hohnbaum). Similarly, on January 13, 2009, the California
Supreme Court granted review in Brinkley v. Public Storage. The
Brinker and Brinkley decisions are now companion cases under
review by the California Supreme Court.
The California Supreme Court's grant of review supersedes the
Brinker and Brinkley decisions, and they may not be cited or
relied on by a court or a party in any other action.
(California Rules of Court 8.1105(e) and 8.1115(a)). In its
review of these cases, the California Supreme Court is expected
to confirm whether the law imposes upon employers an affirmative
duty to ensure that employees actually take meal periods or
rather, that the employer must merely make that meal period
available to the employee and afford the employee the
opportunity to take the meal period.
IWC WAGE ORDER 16 AND THE BEARDEN v. U.S. BORAX, INC. CASE
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 16 governs on-site
occupations in the construction, drilling, logging and mining
industries.
Wage Order 16 contains an express exemption to the meal period
rules where a collective bargaining agreement exists.
Specifically, Section 10(E) of Wage Order 16 provides that the
meal period requirements:
"shall not apply to any employee covered by a valid
collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly
provides for the wages, hours of work, and working
conditions of the employees, and if the agreement provides
premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and a
regular hourly rate of pay for those employees of not less
than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage."
However, in 2006 a California Court of Appeal held that this
collective bargaining exemption contained in Wage Order 16
conflicted with the Labor Code and was therefore invalid.
Bearden v. U.S. Borax, Inc. The court specifically held that
because the statute contained express exceptions to the general
rule requiring employers to provide meal periods, the IWC's
addition of an additional exemption (for collective bargaining
AB 569
Page L
agreements in the construction industry) was beyond the
authority of the IWC and in conflict with the statute.
Therefore, the court held that this provision was invalid and
unenforceable.
MOST RECENT EFFORT AT COMPROMISE: AB 1711 (LEVINE) OF 2007-08
Last year, the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO sponsored
legislation that sought to address several of the more
controversial issues involving meal periods in an effort to
provide more employer flexibility. Specifically, Assembly Bill
1711 (Levine) sought to make a number of changes to the current
law surrounding meal periods.
First, the bill would have specified that meal periods may not
commence before the third hour of work and must be completed
before the sixth hour of work. In essence, this would have
provided employers a three-hour window during which to provide
the meal period.
Second, the bill would have permitted on-duty meal periods when
mutually agreed to in writing between employer and the employee,
and when the nature of the work prevents the employee from being
relieved of work due to one of the following conditions:
1) The employee is the only employee at the worksite
and the essential functions of the job cannot be
performed unless the employee remains on-duty.
2) State and federal law impose a requirement that the
employee not be relieved of all duties.
Third, the bill would have provided an exemption for all
employees in all industries covered by a valid collective
bargaining agreement that met specified criteria.
However, the bill was opposed by some members of the employer
community, largely because they expressed concern that it did
not go far enough to address the issues of all employers and did
not deal with the issues surrounding the nature of the meaning
of an employer's obligation to "provide" meal periods. The
sponsor and the author decided not to move the bill.
RECENT BUDGET DISCUSSIONS
AB 569
Page M
Over the last few years, Governor Schwarzenegger and Members of
the Senate and Assembly Republican Caucuses have proposed
amendments to California's meal period laws as part of the
larger budget discussion. Most recently, those proposals have
been included in the "economic stimulus" proposals set forth by
both the Governor and the Republican Caucuses.
For example, one of the most recent proposals set forth by the
Governor states that an employer must "make available to the
employee an opportunity to take" a meal period. In addition,
the Governor's proposal would authorize the Department of
Industrial Relations (DIR) to adopt regulations defining the
circumstances in which the nature of the work prevents an
employee from being relieved of all duty (and therefore subject
to an on-duty meal period).
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT :
This bill is sponsored by the United Parcel Service (UPS), who
argues that it would allow unionized transportation companies
with a valid collective bargaining agreement to negotiate
flexible terms for the timing of meal periods because current
law significantly restricts the freedom of drivers to decide for
themselves when they can take their meal periods. They contend
that existing law penalizes drivers who require some flexibility
for personal safety or other reasons as it relates to taking a
meal period, including being stuck in traffic or seeking to take
a break in a safe neighborhood. This measure will allow
flexibility through collective bargaining in the transportation
industry and relieve UPS from disciplining employees who require
some flexibility for their meal period.
In addition, UPS points out that in 2007 the Assembly passed a
similar measure, AB 1034 (Keene) on a 71-0 vote. They state
that, although opponents of this measure have complained that
they are not included, they have clearly not shown an ability to
seek similar flexibility on their own. UPS states that it
continues to support broader solutions, but cannot continue to
unfairly discipline their drivers where a collectively bargained
solution is readily available with a flexible solution agreed to
by management and labor.
In addition, the Associated General Contractors argue that many
construction companies operate under a collective bargaining
agreement. However, as a result of recent case law [discussed
AB 569
Page N
above in the analysis], without this legislation a collective
bargaining agreement does not supersede the statute. Therefore,
this bill will provide some needed clarity in the current meal
period rules for the construction industry.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION :
Opponents object to this measure unless amended to provide
clarity to all industries. They state that currently all
industries, business, and occupations are subject to a
restrictive statute which has resulted in costly litigation.
They believe that a comprehensive solution must be reached in
order to provide all businesses regardless of size, type or
union status with appropriate clarity and guidance for the
compliance and enforcement of meal period laws.
They contend that this bill would carve out a collective
bargaining exemption for the transportation and construction
industry from abiding to the current statute and instead allow
them to negotiate meal and rest period provisions within their
collective bargaining agreement. Opponents argue that all union
companies should be allowed to collectively bargain these
provisions and that non-union company should receive the same
flexibility by clarifying the current statute.
In addition, opponents state that employees need meal and rest
breaks. Companies want their employees to have a safe,
productive and respectful working environment. But California
law (since 2000) is too rigid and confusing. It is now spawning
hundreds of class action lawsuits and dozens of employee
terminations. Bills to "carve-out" specific industries pass the
legislature each year, which reflect a widespread agreement
between labor and employers that a fix is needed.
PRIOR LEGISLATION :
This provisions of this bill related to the transportation
industry are similar to the introduced version of AB 1034
(Keene) from last session. AB 1034 was subsequently amended to
be broader in scope and not limited to the transportation
industry. The bill was held in the Senate Rules Committee.
These provisions are also similar to AB 2593 (Keene) from 2006,
which was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. In his veto
message, the Governor stated the following:
AB 569
Page O
"This bill seeks to provide relief for unionized
employers and employees in the transportation industry
from California's confusing meal period laws and
regulations. This confusion has resulted in costly
litigation against employers and even termination of
employees that do not comply with the law's burdensome
requirements. While well-intentioned, I cannot
support this bill because it singles out a specific
group of employers and employees for relief from a
problem that plagues almost every industry in this
state.
In addition, this legislation could inadvertently
impact pending litigation as well as potential
rulemaking. A number of recent court cases have
significantly impacted meal period law. One recent
appellate decision could effectively invalidate large
portions of the Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage
Orders. Such an action would have a significant
effect on employers and employees throughout
California. While I appreciate that the sponsors and
supporters of the bill need the relief sought, I
cannot support legislation that addresses this issue
in such a narrow manner.
The Labor and Workforce Development Agency is closely
monitoring these cases to determine what actions it can
take to provide better guidance to employers and employees
on how to comply with the law. It is premature to take any
legislative action until these pending court cases and
regulatory matters have been resolved."
In addition, provisions of this bill are similar to language
contained in AB 3018 (Koretz) from 2003, which was also vetoed
by Governor Schwarzenegger.
AMENDMENTS REQUESTED BY LABOR REPRESENTATIVES :
Representatives of organized labor have not expressed concerns
with the general concept of collective bargaining agreement
carve-out for the construction industry or for commercial
drivers in the transportation industry. However, they have
requested that the language in this bill be amended to be
consistent with the approach taken in AB 1711 (Levine) and SB
AB 569
Page P
529 (Cedillo) from last session. This language is also more
consistent with the general collective bargaining agreement
exemption provided under existing law related to the payment of
overtime.
Therefore, the representatives of labor suggested that the
substantive language in the bill be replaced with the following:
"Sections 512 (a) and (b) do not apply to an employee employed
in the construction industry who is covered by a valid
collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly
provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions
of employees, and expressly provides for meal periods for
those employees, final and binding arbitration of disputes
concerning application of its meal period provisions, premium
wage rates for all overtime hours worked, and regular hourly
rate of pay of not less than 30 percent more than the state
minimum wage rate.
"Sections 512 (a) and (b) do not apply to an employee employed
as a commercial driver in the transportation industry who is
covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the
agreement expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and
working conditions of employees, and expressly provides for
meal periods for those employees, final and binding
arbitration of disputes concerning application of its meal
period provisions, premium wage rates for all overtime hours
worked, and regular hourly rate of pay of not less than 30
percent more than the state minimum wage rate."
The author and the sponsor have indicated that they are willing
to take these amendment to the bill and the amendments will be
taken in Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Associated General Contractors
United Parcel Service (sponsor)
Opposition
AB 569
Page Q
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
California Construction & Industrial Materials Association
California Hospital Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
Lumber Association of California and Nevada
National Federation of Independent Business
Western Growers
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091