BILL ANALYSIS
SB 789
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 789 (Steinberg)
As Amended April 14, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :23-14
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 10-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Monning, Ammiano, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Coto, |
| |Furutani, Ma, Portantino | |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, |
| | | |John A. Perez, Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, Torlakskon |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Bill Berryhill, Gaines |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, Audra Strickland |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Authorizes agricultural employees to select collective
bargaining representation through a specified "majority signup
election" process, in addition to the existing representation election
process provided for under current law. Specifically, this bill :
1 Provides that, as an alternative to the secret ballot election
process established under existing law, a labor organization may be
certified as the exclusive bargaining representative through a
"majority signup election."
2)Requires a labor organization that wishes to become the exclusive
bargaining representative through the "majority signup election"
process to submit a petition with the Agricultural Labor Relations
Board (ALRB), accompanied by representation cards signed by more
than 50% of the currently employed employees.
3)Specifies that such a petition must allege the following:
a) That the number of agricultural employees currently employed
by the employer is not less than 50% of the employer's peak
agricultural employment for the current calendar year;
b) That no valid election has been conducted within the
previous 12 months;
SB 789
Page 2
c) That no labor organization is currently certified as the
exclusive representative of the agricultural employees named in
the petition; and,
d) That the petition is not barred by an existing collective
bargaining agreement.
4)Specifies the content of representation cards used and requires
ALRB, upon request of a labor organization, to issue standardized
representation cards for use with a petition for "majority signup
election."
5)Requires a labor organization submitting a petition for a "majority
signup election" to personally serve the petition on the employer
the same day that the petition is filed with ALRB.
6)Requires the employer, within 48 hours after the petition is served,
to file with ALRB its response to the petition, including a complete
and accurate list of the full names, current street addresses, and
job classifications of all employees in the bargaining unit.
7)Requires ALRB, upon receipt of a petition for "majority signup
election," to immediately commence an investigation. Within five
days of receipt of the petition, ALRB shall make an administrative
determination whether the petition requirements have been met and
the labor organization has submitted the requisite number of
representation cards by comparing the names on the cards to the
names on the list submitted by the employer.
8)Specifies that if ALRB determines that the labor organization has
submitted the requisite number of representation cards and met other
requirements, it shall immediately certify the labor organization as
the exclusive bargaining representative. If ALRB determines that
the labor organization has not submitted the requisite number of
cards, it shall grant the labor organization 30 days to submit
additional representation cards.
9)States that an employer's duty to bargain with the labor
organization begins immediately after the labor organization is
certified.
10)Authorizes any person, within five days after ALRB certifies a
labor organization, to submit an objection to the certification on
SB 789
Page 3
one or more of the following grounds:
a) Allegations in the majority signup petition were false;
b) ALRB improperly determined the geographical scope of the
bargaining unit;
c) The "majority signup election" was conducted improperly;
or,
d) Improper conduct affected the results of the "majority
signup election."
11)Requires the ALRB to conduct a hearing upon an objection petition
and, if it determines that any of the above allegations are true, to
revoke the certification of the labor organization.
12)Provides that if ALRB finds that an employer has willfully or
repeatedly committed specified unfair labor practices, it may impose
a civil penalty of up to $20,000 for each violation.
13)Adds specified unfair labor practice charges to the list of charges
to which ALRB must give priority over all other cases, except cases
of a similar character.
EXISTING LAW provides for a representation election process in which a
petition is submitted to ALRB signed by a majority of agricultural
employees in a bargaining unit, or accompanied by cards signed by a
majority of the employees in the unit. If ALRB finds that the
petition is accurate and meets specified conditions, existing law
requires it to conduct an election by secret ballot within seven days
of the filing of the petition.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
this bill will result in unknown, probably minor ($100,000) net
decrease in costs to the ALRB (General Fund).
COMMENTS : This bill is sponsored by the United Farm Workers (UFW),
who argues that it will allow a majority of farm workers to choose a
representative union by either a secret ballot election or a "majority
signup" process, both to be controlled and overseen by the ALRB.
The author's office notes that farm workers are an unusually
vulnerable workforce demographic in California. The author also
SB 789
Page 4
states that many farm workers work in isolated areas, making
inspections for labor regulations difficult. The author argues that
these conditions present a strong need for collective bargaining and a
union presence. There is overwhelming evidence, of workers being
prohibited from engaging in the collective bargaining process due to
organizing efforts being blocked by employers through coercion,
anti-union pamphlets, and captive audience meetings prevent fair
elections from taking place.
The California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO states that the statistics on
employer interference in union organizing campaigns, as detailed in a
report by Cornell University scholar Kate Bronfenbrenner, are
alarming: Ninety-two percent of private-sector employers require
employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union
propaganda. Seventy-five percent of employers hire outside
consultants to run anti-union campaigns. Half of employers threaten
to shut down if employees join a union. In 25 percent of organizing
campaigns, private-sector employers illegally fire workers because
they want to form a union.
The author believes that majority choice elections will allow
California's farm workers to choose the best options for having a fair
say as it relates to their working conditions. Finally, the United
Farm Workers point out that farm workers have been singled out for
decades: excluded from the National Labor Relations Act, the Federal
Insecticide Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Federal Child Labor
laws. Even today, farm workers are not covered by California's
eight-hour day overtime laws. They argue that farm workers deserve
the rights afforded by this bill.
The National Right to Work Committee (NRWC) states that card check is
Big Labor's latest scheme to organize workers without even giving them
the protection of a secret ballot vote free from union coercion. Card
check recognition is a fundamentally flawed process due in large part
to its lack of confidentiality among workers, opponents argue.
Further, unlike a secret ballot process where workers retain their
ability to choose, under card check union officials often use lies,
coercion, and intimidation tactics to pressure workers to sign union
authorization cards. NRWC cites two articles from the Las Vegas
Review-Journal that relate stories of employees who were threatened if
they refused to support the union effort.
The California Chamber of Commerce states that labor unions in
California are experiencing a decline in membership. Bolstering their
SB 789
Page 5
numbers should occur because workers see a need, not by adulterating
the election process. They reject attempts to undermine the secret
ballot process in California in any way as this sends the wrong
message to new or growing businesses that could create jobs for
California citizens.
This bill is almost identical to SB 180 (Migden) from 2007. That
measure was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. SB 650 (Padilla) from
2007 was similar to SB 180, but also contained a 2013 sunset date.
That bill was similarly vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. AB 2386
(Nunez) from 2008 would have authorized agricultural employees to
select collective bargaining representation through a new "mediated
election" process. That measure was also vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0001658