BILL ANALYSIS
AB 569
Page A
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 569 (Emmerson)
As Amended April 27, 2009
Majority vote
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Monning, Bill Berryhill, |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, Ammiano, |
| |Eng, Furutani, Gaines, | | |
| |Ma, Portantino | |Charles Calderon, Davis, |
| | | |Duvall, Krekorian, Hall, |
| | | |Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |John A. Perez, Price, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, Audra |
| | | |Strickland, Torlakson |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+---------------------------|
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
AB 569
Page B
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
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 : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, a potential minor decrease in costs to the Division
of Labor Standards Enforcement related to fewer enforcement
investigations.
COMMENTS : 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
AB 569
Page C
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
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.
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0000678