Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: Grand Fathering in California's Assembly Bill, AB 60 ( Answered 5 out of 5 stars,   1 Comment )
Question  
Subject: Grand Fathering in California's Assembly Bill, AB 60
Category: Miscellaneous
Asked by: rcer-ga
List Price: $100.00
Posted: 29 Oct 2004 17:11 PDT
Expires: 28 Nov 2004 16:11 PST
Question ID: 421886
Our company has had an alternate workweek schedule in existence since
1996 that was voted in by secret ballot. Should we have had another
secrete ballot election after passage of AB 60 in 2000?

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 29 Oct 2004 17:46 PDT
If the original schedule was approved by at least two-thirds of the
affected workforce, AND if no one's scheduled to work more than 10
hour days or 40 hour weeks, then you're probably OK.

If your situation is otherwise, then you may need a re-vote.

Please provide as much information as you can on your situation, and
perhaps we'll be able to point you to some good guidance on the topic.

Thanks,  

pafalafa-ga

Clarification of Question by rcer-ga on 01 Nov 2004 06:21 PST
When we first held the election in 1996, it was voted in by secret
ballot by all employees in ballot (100%). I do not have a copy of that
ballot as all records were lost do to water damage several years ago,
but employees who are still with us will atest to the fact.
Answer  
Subject: Re: Grand Fathering in California's Assembly Bill, AB 60
Answered By: pafalafa-ga on 01 Nov 2004 17:10 PST
Rated:5 out of 5 stars
 
Thanks for asking such a challenging question.  Before providing an
answer, there are two important things I want to note:


1).  I've had a lot of experience with laws and regulations, which is
fortunate, because the California code of labor laws and rules is a
nightmare of complexity.

2).  My experience notwithstanding, I am certainly NOT an expert on
this topic.  Please see the disclaimer at the bottom of this page --
Google Answers is no substitute for professional legal advice.



With that out of the way, let's get to it!


The text of the law in question, AB 60 -- poetically titled the
"Eight-Hour-Day Restoration and Workplace Flexibility Act of 1999" --
can be found here:




http://www.dir.ca.gov/IWC/ab60.html



And the section most relevant to your question regarding alternative
work schedules is Section 5 of the Act, which includes this language:


(f) Any type of alternative workweek schedule that is authorized
by this code and that was in effect on January 1, 2000, may be
repealed by the affected employees pursuant to this section.  Any
alternative workweek schedule that was adopted pursuant to Wage Order
Numbers 1, 4, 5, 7, or 9 of the Industrial Welfare Commission is
null and void, except for an alternative workweek providing for a
regular schedule of no more than 10 hours' work in a workday that was
adopted by a two-thirds vote of affected employees in a secret
ballot election pursuant to wage orders of the Industrial Welfare
Commission in effect prior to 1998.  This subdivision does not apply
to exemptions authorized pursuant to Section 515.



Let's break that out a piece at a time:



<<Any type of alternative workweek schedule that is authorized by this
code and that was in effect on January 1, 2000, may be
repealed by the affected employees pursuant to this section.>>

An alternative work schedule that was in effect prior to 2000 can be
repealed by the employees, if they so choose.





<<Any alternative workweek schedule that was adopted pursuant to Wage
Order Numbers 1, 4, 5, 7, or 9 of the Industrial Welfare Commission is
null and void...>>


Alternative workschedules adopted in before the law was passed are
void in the following industry sectors:

--Manufacturing
--Professional, Technical, Clerical, Mechanical and Similar
Occupations --Public Housekeeping
--Mercantile 
--Transportation Industry

[a list of the Wage Order Numbers and corresponding industries can be
seen here:   http://www.dir.ca.gov/IWC/WageOrderIndustries.htm  ]





<<...except for an alternative workweek providing for a regular
schedule of no more than 10 hours' work in a workday that was adopted
by a two-thirds vote of affected employees in a secret ballot election
pursuant to wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission in effect
prior to 1998>>


Ha, Ha!  Fooled you.  They're not really void IF they meet certain criteria:


--workdays are 10 hours or less

--schedule was adopted by 2/3 vote of the employees

--in a secret ballot

--and in accordance with IWC wage orders in effect prior to 1998.


==========


This last little bit of language -- the exceptions to the rule -- are
the key to your situation.

IF

you work in an industry that was covered by an IWC wage order at the
time of your election in 1996 (which I imagine you were, otherwise
there was little incentive to conduct such an election),

AND 

if the results of the election are in accordance with the other
criteria (2/3 vote, secret ballot, 10 hour days or less)

THEN

as far as I understand things, the alternative schedule already in
place can stand, and no re-election is necessary.



But again, I'm just a Google Answers hack -- please check with a
professional on this.


As to who to check with, a local labor lawyer would certainly be one
possibility, but you could always go right to the source as well. 
According to the official summary announcement of the "Eight Hour
Day..." Act, which can be found at:


http://www.dir.ca.gov/IWC/Summary2000.pdf


you can address questions to the following authorities:


"Questions about enforcement of the wage orders should be directed to
the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. Consult the white pages
of your telephone directory under CALIFORNIA, State of, Industrial
Relations for the address and telephone number of the office nearest
you. The Division has offices in the following cities: Bakersfield, El
Centro, Eureka, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Redding,
Sacramento, Salinas, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San
Jose, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara, Santa Rosa, Stockton, and Van Nuys."



I HOPE this information answers your question to your satisfaction. 
But I recognize this is a complex matter, with a lot of ambiguous
legal language to contend with.

So...before rating this answer, please let me know if you need any
additional information.  Just post a Request for Clarification, and
I'll be happy to assist you further.


All the best,

pafalaAfa-ga



search strategy -- Google search on:  [ California ("AB 60" OR AB60) ]
rcer-ga rated this answer:5 out of 5 stars
Great research, talked to my labor attorney and he agrees with this
answer; so far as todate, no one has used this defense in court, guess
we will be the first!

Thanks
John

Comments  
Subject: Re: Grand Fathering in California's Assembly Bill, AB 60
From: pafalafa-ga on 04 Nov 2004 10:15 PST
 
Thanks, John.  Best of luck to you guys.

paf

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy