BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2340|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2340
Author: Monning (D)
Amended: 7/15/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMM : 4-1, 6/23/10
AYES: DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Leno, Yee
NOES: Hollingsworth
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wyland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-3, 8/2/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Ashburn, Emmerson, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-28, 6/1/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Employees right to bereavement leave
SOURCE : California Employment Lawyers Association
DIGEST : This bill adds to employee rights, the right to
inquire about, request, and take up to three days off for
bereavement leave. The provisions of the bill would not
apply to an employee who is covered by a valid collective
bargaining agreement that provides for bereavement leave
and other specified working conditions.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, collective bargaining
agreements, and employer practice allow employees to take
CONTINUED
AB 2340
Page
2
time off work from work without fear of discharge or
discrimination for a number of specified purposes, such as
personal and family sick leave. Employers may grant
employees certain paid or unpaid sick leave, vacation time
off, or other leave for the benefit of their employees.
Workers represented by unions may obtain leave rights
through bargaining.
Among one of the programs currently allowing workers to
take unpaid leave is the California Pregnancy Disability
Leave program which gives pregnant women specified unpaid
leave rights. In addition, as of July 1, 2004, California
workers covered by State Disability Insurance who need to
take time off to bond with a new child or for family
care-giving needs are eligible for the Paid Family Leave
program which allows California workers to take up to six
weeks of partial wage replacement family leave.
Furthermore, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act and
the California Family Rights Act require all public and
private sector employers with 50 or more employees to grant
employees up to 12 weeks per year of unpaid leave to bond
with a newborn child, to care for a family member with a
serious health condition, or to allow the employee to
recover from his or her own serious health condition.
However, neither federal nor state laws currently provide
protected leave for bereavement.
This bill adds to employee rights, the right to inquire
about, request, and take up to three days off for
bereavement leave. The provisions of the bill would not
apply to an employee who is covered by a valid collective
bargaining agreement that provides for bereavement leave
and other specified working conditions.
Prior Legislation
SB 549 (Corbett) of 2007, which was vetoed by the Governor.
This bill is similar to SB 549 (Corbett) from 2007 in that
both would provide employees in California with the right
to take unpaid time off from work upon the death of
specified relatives, however, SB 549 provided for up to
four days of unpaid bereavement leave, whereas this bill
provides for up to three days of unpaid leave. According
to the Governor's veto message:
AB 2340
Page
3
Unfortunately, many California-only standards in areas
such as family lave, overtime, and meal and rest
periods have been developed haphazardly and have
resulted in needless litigation that has created a
perception that California is not friendly to
business. Instead of expanding the confusing network
of laws that presently exist, employers and employees
should be working together to eliminate confusion and
create a system of workplace laws that protects
workers, provides reasonable leave requirements, and
offers both employers and employees flexibility to
meet their respective needs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12
2012-13 Fund
Bereavement leave Minor, if
any, compensation costs for General/
public employees Special
Enforcement $25 $50 $50 Special*
Costs to the Division of Labor
Standards
Enforcement (DLSE) within the
Department
of Industrial Relations to respond to
private
employee complaints
*Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/4/10)
California Employment Lawyers Association (source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Association of California State Supervisors
California Church IMPACT
AB 2340
Page
4
California Labor Federation
California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing
Committee
California State Employees Association
California State University Employees Union
Consumer Attorneys of California
CSEA Retirees, Inc.
Labor Project for Working Families
Los Angeles Caregiver Resource Center/USC
Los Angeles County Office of Education
State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
United Transportation Union
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/4/10)
Associated Builders and Contractors of California
Associated General Contractors
Association of California Healthcare Districts
Association of California Water Agencies
Association of California Water Districts
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
California Bankers Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Construction & Industrial Materials Association
California Independent Grocers Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
CSAC-EIA -California Joint Powers Authority
Department of Industrial Relations
Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
League of California Cities
National Federation of Independent Business
National Right to Work Committee in California
Regional Council of Rural Counties
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
everyone suffers the often devastating loss of a relative
at some point during their life and without legislation
providing the right to bereavement leave, an employer may
legally discharge an employee for requesting or taking any
leave of absence to prepare or attend the funeral of a
loved one. The author argues that no California employee
should have to choose between their employment and grieving
AB 2340
Page
5
the loss of a loved one.
Proponents argue that currently, there is no federal or
state law that provides job protection for an employee who
must take a leave of absence following the death of a
relative. Proponents point out that the Fair Medical Leave
Act and the California Family Rights Act provide California
employees up to twelve weeks per year of unpaid
job-protected leave in order to care for an ailing family
member. However, proponents argue, neither law provides
job-protected leave following the death of the employee's
relative. In addition, proponents argue that courts have
repeatedly noted that the Family and Medical Leave Act
simply does not provide for bereavement leave. Therefore,
the author and proponents contend that in order to protect
employees during this sensitive time of need, this bill
ensures up to three days of unpaid bereavement leave for
California employees and prohibits employers from
discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees
for taking this leave.
Proponents maintain this bill provides an important right
to California employees. Furthermore, proponents argue
that this bill also includes protections to ensure that
employees do not abuse the bereavement leave, including
allowing an employer to require that the employee use
accrued paid time off during the bereavement leave and
requiring that the employee provide documentation of the
death of the family member. Proponents believe that
providing compassionate leave policies and other similar
benefits make good business sense as it allows businesses
to better attract and retain quality workers.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : According to opponents,
although they acknowledge the importance of bereavement
leave, they argue that this bill is a mandate that removes
employer flexibility that is needed to balance bereavement
leave requests with pressing leave requests by other
employees for other reasons. Opponents contend that
coordinating overlapping leave requests can be especially
challenging for small businesses with limited staff and
argue that bereavement leave should be left to employers to
provide on a voluntary basis, something that many employers
already do today along with providing other types of
AB 2340
Page
6
leaves. As an example, opponents argue that a small
business might only be able to accommodate 2 days of
bereavement leave without being unfair to other employees
or bringing operations to a complete halt, and they argue
that this bill exposes businesses to additional lawsuits
that are costly to defend.
Opponents state that the expansion of leave rights to
temporary, part-time and seasonal employees who are not
eligible for many of the leave accruals and benefits
offered to full-time employees is not appropriate.
Opponents argue that employees in these classifications
typically fulfilling short-term duties, and argue that
these classifications are often the stepping stone to
full-time, benefited employment. Opponents argue that
expanding benefits like those proposed in this bill will
make public sector employers question the need for such
positions.
Additionally, some are opposed to the guarantee that
bereavement leave can be used for up to 13 months after the
death of the relative involved. According to opponents,
bereavement leave is typically available to address the
immediate need to grieve and deal with the situation
surrounding the death of a relative and any events that are
planned for anniversary dates 12 months later should be
handled through an employer's general leave policy
including the scheduling of vacation, personal time, or
other leave provisions as available to the employee.
Lastly, opponents argue that imposing new burdens on
employers will impede California's attempt to remain
competitive in attracting and retaining businesses vital to
the creation of jobs and the state's economy.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez,
Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mendoza, Monning, Nava, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres,
Torrico, Yamada, John A. Perez
AB 2340
Page
7
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Blakeslee,
Caballero, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Emmerson, Fletcher,
Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey,
Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello,
Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Smyth, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Tom Berryhill, Furutani, V. Manuel Perez,
Audra Strickland, Vacancy
PQ:nl 8/4/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****