BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 126
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 126 (Steinberg)
As Amended September 2, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :(vote not relevant)
TRANSPORATION BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS
(vote not relevant) (vote not
relevant)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 5-2
(vote not relevant)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| | |Ayes:|Swanson, Alejo, Allen, |
| | | |Furutani, Yamada |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Morrell, Beth Gaines |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes a number of changes to the Agricultural Labor
Relations Act. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that if the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB)
sets aside an election because of employer misconduct that (in
addition to affecting the outcome of an election) would render
slight the chances of a new election reflecting the free and
fair choice of employees, the labor organization shall be
certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for the
bargaining unit.
2)Imposes the following time limits to certain ALRB proceedings
as follows:
a) Within 21 days of the filing of election objections or
the submission of evidence in support of challenges to
ballots, the ALRB shall evaluate the election objections or
challenged ballots and issue a decision determining which,
if any, must be set for hearing;
b) The hearing shall be scheduled to commence within 28
SB 126
Page 2
days of the date of the ALRB's decision to set a hearing;
c) The investigative hearing examiner shall issue a
recommended decision within 60 days of the close of the
hearing. This time period may be extended by 30 days upon
mutual agreement of the parties;
d) Within 45 days of the receipt of any exceptions to the
decision of the investigative hearing examiner, the ALRB
shall issue a decision; and,
e) The ALRB is authorized to grant extensions to these time
limits upon a showing of good cause or by stipulation of
all affected parties.
3)Shortens the time under current law for a request for
mandatory mediation from 180 days to 90 days after an initial
request to bargain.
4)Provides that a party may also request mandatory mediation in
the following circumstances:
a) Sixty days after the labor organization has been
certified, as specified; and,
b) Sixty days after the ALRB has dismissed a
decertification petition upon a finding that the employer
has unlawfully initiated, supported, sponsored or assisted
in the filing of a decertification petition.
5)Provides that the mandatory mediation proceedings of current
law shall not be stayed on the grounds that a specified
petition for review of an ALRB order related to unfair labor
practice charges have been filed.
6)Expands existing law related to judicial injunctions to
provide that the court shall also consider the indirect effect
upon protected rights of all agricultural employees of the
employer in determining whether temporary relief is just and
proper.
7)Provides that when the alleged unfair labor practice is such
that, by its nature, it would interfere with employee free
choice, appropriate temporary relief or a restraining order
SB 126
Page 3
shall issue on a showing that reasonable cause exists to
believe that the unfair labor practice has occurred. The
order shall remain in effect until an election has been held
or for 30 days, whichever occurs first.
8)Provides that temporary relief or restraining orders shall not
be stayed pending appeal.
EXISTING LAW provides for a representation election process in
which a petition is submitted to the 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
the 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 : Unknown
COMMENTS : In 1975 the California Legislature passed the
Agricultural Labor Relations Act (Act) guaranteeing certain
rights to California farm workers. The purpose of the Act is to
"ensure peace in the agricultural fields by guaranteeing justice
for all agricultural workers and stability in labor relations."
The Act states that it is the policy of the State of California
to encourage and 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 Act prohibits
employers from interfering with these rights, protects the
rights of workers to be free from restraint or coercion by
unions or employers, and it prohibits unions from engaging in
certain types of strikes and picketing.
The most significant legislative change to the Act occurred in
2002 when Governor Davis signed two companion pieces of
legislation, SB 1156 and AB 2956. As a result of those bills,
effective January 1, 2003, the Act was amended to provide for
mandatory mediation in selected circumstances where the parties
have been unable to reach a collective bargaining agreement.
Under that process, the mediator attempts to help the union and
the employer reach agreement on a contract, but if that is not
successful, the mediator issues a report that contains the terms
of a contract.
SB 126
Page 4
The mediation process applies only if the employer has employed
25 or more agricultural employees during any calendar week in
the year preceding the filing of the request for mediation. If
the union was certified after January 1, 2003, the mediation
process may be triggered where at least 180 days have elapsed
after the initial demand to bargain. If the union was certified
before January 1, 2003, the process may be triggered 90 days
after a renewed demand to bargain, and where the following
conditions are met: 1) the parties have failed to reach
agreement for at least one year after the union made its initial
demand to bargain; 2) the employer has committed an unfair labor
practice; and, 3) the parties have not previously had a binding
contract between them.
Critics of the current process have stated that farm workers are
an unusually vulnerable workforce demographic in California.
Many farm workers are undocumented workers and have few rights
due to recent court decisions. In addition, many farm workers
work in isolated areas, making inspections for labor regulations
difficult. Critics argue that these conditions present a strong
need for collective bargaining and a union presence, but this
has been blocked by employers through coercion, anti-union
pamphlets, and captive audience meetings that prevent fair
elections from taking place.
This criticism has led to numerous legislative proposals in
recent years, the most prominent of which proposed to create an
alternative procedure to the secret ballot election - the
majority signup election - which would allow employees of a
bargaining unit to select their representative for collective
bargaining by submitting a petition showing that a majority of
employees favor union representation. Several such bills have
passed the Legislature but been vetoed in recent years, the most
recent of which was SB 104 (Steinberg) which was vetoed by
Governor Brown earlier this session.
In addition, SB 1474 (Steinberg) of 2010 would have required the
ALRB to certify a labor organization for purposes of collective
bargaining if a representation election has been set aside for
employer misconduct, as specified. These are generally referred
to as "bargaining orders." This bill contains language that is
similar, but not identical, to SB 1474. SB 1474 was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger.
SB 126
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0002747