BILL ANALYSIS
AB 569
Page A
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 569 (Emmerson) - As Amended: April 27, 2009
Policy Committee: Labor and
Employment Vote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes, for the construction and transportation
industries only, a collective bargaining agreement to include an
exemption from existing meal period requirements of existing
law. The bill also specifies:
1)That in order to receive this exemption, the agreement provide
for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of
employees, include rest periods for the employees, final and
binding arbitration of disputes concerning application of its
rest period provisions, premium wage rates for all overtime
hours worked, and regular hourly pay at least 30% more than
the state minimum wage.
2)That the exemption for these two industries does not affect
the nature or scope of the law related to meal periods, for
employers not specifically covered by this measure.
FISCAL EFFECT
Potential minor decrease in costs to Division of Labor
Enforcement (DLSE) within the Department of Industrial Relations
(DIR) related to fewer enforcement investigations.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Current law prohibits an employer from employing
any person for a work period of more than five hours without
providing a meal period of at least 30 minutes. If the total
work period per day for the employee is no more than six
AB 569
Page B
hours, the meal period may be waived by mutual consent of the
employee and employer. The meal period is generally unpaid as
long as the employee is relieved of all duty, while rest
periods are considered as "hours worked" and must be
compensated at the employee's regular pay rate.
Current law 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 revoke the agreement at any time. If an employer
fails to provide a meal period or rest period, the employer
must 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.
2)Purpose . This bill is sponsored by the United Parcel Service
(UPS), which asserts that 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- for reasons such as traffic delays -
require some flexibility regarding when to take a meal period.
This measure will allow flexibility through collective
bargaining in the transportation industry
Supporters in the construction industry note that previous
wage orders (regulations) formulated by the Industrial Welfare
Commission (IWC) had provided an exemption for construction
industry for workers with valid collective bargaining
agreements. However, as a result of recent court rulings,
this exemption is no longer valid without a change to state
law. They assert that this bill will provide some needed
clarity in the current meal period rules for the construction
industry.
1)Opposition . Various associations of retailers, manufacturers,
and hospitals assert that the scope of this bill is too
narrow, and that it should broadened to include all
industries. The California Nurses Association asserts that the
exemption weakens meal and rest break provisions, which are
important to workers' health and productivity.
2)Previous 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
AB 569
Page C
subsequently amended to be broader in scope and not limited to
the transportation industry. The bill was held in the Senate
Rules Committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081