BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2772|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2772
Author: Assembly Labor and Employment Committee
Amended: 4/8/10 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUS. RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 4-0, 6/9/10
AYES: DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Leno, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wyland, Hollingsworth
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 55-20, 5/13/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Labor Commissioner: appeals
SOURCE : California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
DIGEST : This bill clarifies that an employer wishing to
appeal a Labor Commissioner decision with the superior
court must first post a bond in the amount of the judgment
rendered in the administrative hearing.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law
1. Authorizes the Labor Commission (LC) to investigate
employee complaints and hold administrative hearings to
decide disputes over unpaid wages and other related
issues between employers and employees.
2. Permits a party to appeal an order, decision or award of
CONTINUED
AB 2772
Page
2
the LC within 10 days by filing an appeal to the
superior court, where the appeal will be heard de novo.
3. Provides that whenever an employer files an appeal with
the superior court, the employer shall post a bond with
the court in the amount of the judgment rendered in the
administrative hearing.
Prior Legislation
AB 2509 (Steinberg), Chapter 876, Statutes of 2000, revised
statutes relating to the administrative and civil
enforcement of wage and hours laws including wage
collection and enforcement procedures before the Labor
Commissioner.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/10/10)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
Bet Tzedek Legal Services
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
Labor Code Section 98.2(b) was included in AB 2509
(Steinberg), Session 1999-2000, in response to unscrupulous
employers who were avoiding paying off final Labor
Commissioner wage judgments by filing unwarranted,
dilatory, and expensive court appeals as a strategy to get
workers to walk away from valid wage claims. According to
the author's office, a recent California appellate court
has held that the language in this code section is merely
"directory" and that a specific court order is necessary
before an employer can be required to post the undertaking
according proponents, this decision - which is binding on
Superior courts, state and local agencies, employees and
employers until contradicted by another appellate court or
the California Supreme Court - is plainly inconsistent with
the clear purpose behind enactment of Section 98.2 (b).
CONTINUED
AB 2772
Page
3
Proponents argue that the effect of the appellate court's
holding is to leave entirely to the discretion of a court
whether or not to issue an order requiring the positing of
the bond. In addition, opponents maintain that this ruling
has provided an avenue for unscrupulous employers to delay
entry of judgment by filing - at no cost - frivolous
appeals of Labor Commissioner awards that they have no
intention of pursuing.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Bill Berryhill,
Block, Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La
Torre, De Leon, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, Niello, V. Manuel
Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Solorio,
Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Villines, Yamada,
John A. Perez
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Conway,
DeVore, Fuller, Garrick, Gilmore, Harkey, Jeffries,
Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Smyth,
Audra Strickland, Tran
NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, Hagman, Silva, Skinner,
Vacancy
PQ:do 6/10/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED