BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1421
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 1421 (Swanson) - As Amended: April 14, 2009
Policy Committee: Labor and
Employment Vote: 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill provides that time spent in employer-provided transit
from a remote employee parking lot to and from the employee's
place of work shall count as part of the employee's eight-hour
work day. The bill applies to employees at airports, amusement
parks, sports venues and entertainment venues.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor costs to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to
develop regulations and enforce expanded employer
requirements.
2)Lost productivity and/or increased overtime costs to state and
county employers with employees located on affected
facilities, potentially in the millions of dollars annually.
COMMENTS
1)Background . This bill addresses the issue of whether time
spent on an employer-provided transit from a remote parking
facility counts as time worked. In a 2002 case, the California
Supreme Court found that that when an employer requires its
employees to meet at designated places to take its buses to
work and prohibits them from taking their own transportation,
these employees are subject to the control of an employer and
their time spent traveling on the buses is compensable as
hours worked. In a more recent case, however, the Court of
Appeal found that, when the employer-provided transit from a
remote facility is voluntary , and other methods are available
(such as drop-offs, vanpools, or public transportation) the
AB 1421
Page 2
time spent on the employer-provided transit does not count.
2)Purpose . This bill is sponsored by the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), which states most airports and
amusement parks are located in areas where parking immediately
adjacent to those sites is not affordable or available to
employees. As a result, these workers must spend as much as
one hour of uncompensated time per day getting to and from
remote parking facilities to their place of employment.
3)Opposition . The Air Transport Association of America, Inc.
(ATA states that this bill would be unduly burdensome on the
airline industry. ATA states that its member airlines
typically provide transportation for their employees to and
from remote parking lots, incurring both the costs of the
transportation as well as the parking services of their
respective employees. They consider this a benefit to
employees who would otherwise be paying for those services out
of pocket.
The California Employment Law Council (CELC) also opposes this
measure and argues that it would require compensation of
employees who make a voluntary decision to avail themselves of
optional, free transportation from a remote parking location
to the work site. CELC contends that this would have the
perverse consequence of discouraging employers from providing
transportation from remote locations.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081