BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2676
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 25, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2676 (Labor and Employment) - As Introduced: March 5, 2012
Policy Committee: Labor and
Employment Vote: 6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Employment and Development Department
(EDD) to provide the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB)
with any information, including, but not limited to, employee,
wage, and employer information for use in the investigation of
enforcement of existing law. Further specifies this information
be provided to the extent permitted by federal law.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor, absorbable costs to EDD to comply with this measure.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Existing law establishes the Agricultural Labor
Relations Act (ALRA), which delineates the rights of
California farm workers. The ALRA states it is the policy of
the state to protect the right of farm workers to act together
to help themselves; to engage in union organizational
activity; and to select their own representatives for the
purpose of bargaining with their employer for a contract
covering their wages, hours, and working conditions. The ALRA
is enforced by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB).
Two cases associated with the organization of farmworkers at
specific companies have moves through the regulatory and civil
court process since 1989. Specifically, farmworkers employed
by the Ace Tomato Company and the San Joaquin Tomato Growers
Inc. went out on strike to protest pay and working conditions.
They also demanded union representation. These workers have
AB 2676
Page 2
been pursuing these cases through the ALRB and the courts.
The following is a summary of an administrative law judge's
(ALJ) decision issued in August 2010 regarding the Ace Tomato
Company, which is relevant to both cases:
Twenty-one years ago, Ace employees voted for representation
by the union. Ace filed objections to the election. More
than three years later, the objections were overruled, and a
certification issued. Ace refused to bargain with the union,
resulting in an unfair labor practice charge. The ALRB issued
its decision, finding an unlawful refusal to bargain, which
Ace appealed. The Court of Appeal summarily denied the
appeal, and the case was released for compliance in March
1995. One requirement of the ALRB's order in this case was
that Ace preserve and, upon request, make available to the
ALRB, payroll records to establish any bargaining makewhole
due to the unit employees."
After this order was issued, Ace did not comply with the order
to provide payroll and wage information to the ALRB. For over
six years, no substantive action was taken and compliance with
the initial order failed to occur. On April 21, 2001, ALRB
ordered the case transferred to the General Counsel's office
in Sacramento. That office investigated methodologies to
calculate makewhole wages due to employees. Almost nine years
passed without such a specification being issued.
On May 15, 2009, the ALRB staff filed a motion to close the
case (for Ace and the San Joaquin Tomato Growers Inc.). The
ALRB granted the motion to close the cases in February 2010
stating the following:
""Regrettably, we grant the Regional Director's motion to
close this matter because the state of the record, the
unavailability of crucial records, the unsubstantiated nature
of many of the representations made thus far, and the passage
of time make it highly unlikely that material issues of fact
regarding whether any makewhole relief is owing and, if so,
the amount owed, can ever be fairly resolved."
On February 12, 2010, the United Farmworkers of America filed
a motion for reconsideration in each case asking they not to
be closed. The ALRB denied the motion, but reopened matters
on its own motion and the matters for further hearing with an
AB 2676
Page 3
ALJ.
2)Purpose . According to the author, one of the reasons for
delay in those cases is that, despite the fact that a judgment
and a remedy had been issued to the workers, the ALRB had
numerous difficulties in determining a methodology for
calculating the relief.
The author states: "EDD collects wage data and additional
information that would assist enforcement efforts and speed up
the time it takes ALRB employees to compute and disperse
monetary remedies to employees. EDD is currently prohibited
from providing this information by �existing law], which
prohibits the release of information collected?to specified
public agencies for specified law enforcement purposes.
Currently, the ALRB has to negotiate a memorandum of
understanding to receive very limited types of data and is
restricted by a confidentiality clause from introducing it
into evidence in hearings. This creates unnecessary work for
the ALRB's regional staff and causes significant delays in
enforcement."
This bill requires EDD to provide the ALRB with any
information, including, but not limited to, employee, wage,
and employer information for use in the investigation of
enforcement of existing law.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081