BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
1474 (Steinberg)
Hearing Date: 5/27/2010 Amended: A I
Consultant: Bob Franzoia Policy Vote: L&IR 4-2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 1474 would permit agricultural employees, as an
alternative procedure, to select their labor representatives by
submitting a petition to the Agricultural Labor Relations Board
(ALRB) accompanied by representation cards signed by a majority
of the bargaining unit. This bill would also extend existing
prohibitions and penalties to employers who engage in unfair
labor practices with regard to a majority signup election.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund
Alternative election Potentially significant reduction in
costs General
process compared to current process
Investigation of filings of Unknown new costs potentially
in the range General
unfair labor practices of $50 annually; likely decreasing in
future
years; unknown increase, if any, in
penalty
revenues
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
Under current law, the selection of representation by
agricultural employees requires that, after a petition has been
presented to the ALRB, the ALRB has seven days to investigate
and conduct an election. The ALRB assigns employees to monitor
voting locations and other activities in order to ensure an
impartial election process. Costs to the ALRB to conduct
elections under this process has ranged from approximately
$7,500 for a small (40 electors), one day election with a single
voting site to approximately $80,000 for a larger election (1430
electors) with multiple voting sites. For larger elections, the
ALRB has received assistance on a reimbursement basis from other
state and federal entities.
This bill would create a majority signup election whereby
agricultural employees would elect their labor representatives
by signing representation cards. Under a majority signup
election, labor representatives would deliver or mail the
representation cards to the ALRB for tabulation and comparison
against a list of current employees in the bargaining unit. If
more than 50 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit
sign representation cards, then the ALRB would certify the
election and recognize the labor representative.
Under this bill, the employer would have 48 hours after the
petition is served to file with the ALRB its response to a
petition. The ALRB would have 48 hours after a petition for
majority signup election if filed to determine whether the labor
organization submitted
Page 2
SB 1474 (Steinberg)
the number of representation cards required. This bill
prescribes what information must be included on a representation
card.
From 2000 to 2009, there have been approximately 50 petitions
for representation or decertification. In some years, there has
been as few as one petition and as many as 11 petitions. This
analysis assumes that if majority signup elections are
authorized, there would be an increase in both petition types
and there would be an initial increase in allegations of
misleading statements, forgery or fraud relating to
representation or decertification petitions. These allegations
would require investigation by the ALRB. There have been an
estimated 27 representation petitions during that period where
the petition failed, was withdrawn or dismissed. While it is
unlikely all of the same employers are conducting business now
in the manner they may have been conducting business up to as
much as nine years ago, it is anticipated that the ability to
conduct majority signup elections will result in a significant
increase in petitions in the next years.
The cost of an investigation will depend in part on the type of
allegation, the number of workers subject the petition and the
vote. For example, if there is an allegation that three
representation cards were forged and the vote was 1,200 to 100,
the time needed to investigate is much less than if there is an
allegation that three representation cards were forged and the
vote was 16 to 14. Staff estimates investigations will cost an
average of $5,000. If ten allegations are filed, and an
increase in allegations, and thus investigations, is likely to
occur in the first years that majority signup elections are
held, investigative costs could be up to $50,000 or more.
Investigating the allegations would result in new costs and
would not be an offset of savings that may result from the ALRB
conducting fewer elections under the current process. Overall,
however, this bill should result in a significant ongoing
reduction in costs associated with selecting representatives in
comparison to the current process which is far more complex and
labor intensive.
This bill is similar to SB 789 (Steinberg) 2009. That bill was
vetoed by the Governor with the following veto message:
This measure is identical to measures I have previously vetoed.
SB 789 sets in place a "majority signup election" process for
agricultural employees to select union representation. This
process fundamentally alters an employee's right to a secret
ballot election that allows the employee to choose, in the
privacy of the voting booth without coercion or manipulation,
whether or not to be represented. While I support the right of
agricultural employees to voluntarily seek and choose
representation if they wish, and ensuring that existing labor
laws are enforced is a top priority for my administration, I
cannot support this alteration of the secret ballot process.
This bill is also similar to SB 180 (Migden) 2007 and SB 650
(Migden) 2007 both of which were vetoed by the Governor.
This issue was also addressed by AB 2386 (Nunez) 2008. That
bill was vetoed, too, by the Governor with the following
message:
Page 3
SB 1474 (Steinberg)
In 1975, the historical Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA)
was passed by the California Legislator in order to "ensure
peace in the agricultural fields by guaranteeing justice for all
agricultural workers and stability in labor relations." The
ALRA allowed for a secret ballot election and provided
protections so that an agricultural worker could decide
privately without fear of retaliation or intimidation whether or
not to be represented by a union.
AB 2386 creates a new and unique process for how agricultural
workers choose or decline union representation. I am concerned
that aspects of AB 2386's novel process weaken workers' existing
privacy rights and protections under the ALRA. Specifically, I
am concerned that authorizing the union seeking to represent
workers to receive and distribute election ballots from the
Agricultural Labor Relations Board (board), complete information
on the ballot envelopes, and return the workers' ballots to the
board unnecessarily compromises the workers' right to privacy
protected by the existing secret ballot process.
However, as I indicated last year in my veto of SB 180, I remain
committed to ensuring that agricultural workers receive all
workplace protections that our labor laws afford. To that end,
I
am calling for the creation of a dedicated funding source to
facilitate enhanced oversight and education in the agricultural
industry. I am directing my Labor and Workforce Development
Agency to work with the proponents of this bill and all
stakeholders to develop a proposal which will create such a
program in a fiscally responsible way, for the ultimate benefit
of both agricultural employees and employers.
Staff notes there is a Finance Letter proposing 32 redirected
positions and $5.2 million in federal funds in 2010-11 and
approximately $4 million ongoing for the Division of
Occupational Safety and Health. Preliminary information
indicates 16 positions and $2.3 million will be for a Targeted
Agricultural Enforcement Program. The dollars are a permanent
increase in federal funds, not a new dedicated fund.