BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1235
Page A
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1235 (Hayashi)
As Amended May 18, 2009
Majority vote
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 5-0 APPROPRIATIONS 13-4
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Monning, Eng, Furutani, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Ma, Portantino | |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| | | |Hall, Miller, |
| | | |John A. Perez, Price, |
| | | |Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, Torlakson, |
| | | |Krekorian |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+---------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes a specified collective bargaining
agreement exemption related to requirements of existing law
concerning meal periods for registered security officers.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that specified provisions of current law related to
meal periods do not apply to an employee who is a registered
security officer who is employed by a private patrol operator
and who is covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement
that meets certain conditions.
2)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)].
AB 1235
Page B
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)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 supported by the California Association
of Licensed Security Agencies, Guards and Associates (CALSAGA),
who states that it is the only trade association in California
representing the private security industry with nearly 300
member companies employing 60,000 security officers in the
state.
CALSAGA states that the industry continues to be susceptible to
class action lawsuits over alleged meal break violations. They
argue that these lawsuits don't solve anything and hurt both
employees and employers alike.
They contend that, due to the nature of contract private
security work, the requirement for an off-duty meal period is
not practical from a public safety, homeland security or
administrative perspective. From a public safety perspective,
allowing or even requiring a security officer to leave his or
her post unattended is essentially an advertisement to criminals
that a site is unprotected. Administratively, because security
officers are dispersed throughout many sites, it makes it
virtually impossible to designate employees from a company to
drive from site to site to relieve officers of duty to ensure
mandatory meal breaks are taken. Furthermore, CALSAGA contends
that nearly all employees prefer to perform eight hours of work
for eight hours of pay with an on-duty meal period, as opposed
to having to work for eight-and-a-half hours to get eight hours
of pay. CALSAGA concludes that security officers are
AB 1235
Page C
increasingly being called upon to protect some of California's
most critical infrastructure sites, from energy facilities to
oil refineries. In many cases, their mere presence acts as a
crime deterrent.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) supports this
bill. One SEIU representative, writing in support of the bill,
states, "Security officers we represent and security officers we
are organizing want this change in the law. More than a break in
the middle of the day, they want the opportunity to go home
early. They do not need the mid-day rest or a relief from duty.
They and their employers believe they can remain attentive to
their work while eating. They want to go home early, to be with
their families, to get more rest off the job, especially if
private security is, as is often the case, their second job."
A coalition of employer groups opposes this measure, arguing
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.
In addition, the California Nurses Association opposes this
bill, arguing that this compromise in labor standards - despite
a collective bargaining agreement in place - will undermine the
existing law that protects the right of all workers to have a
lunch break.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0001015