Automotive unions

(1)Existing law regulates the wages, hours, and working conditions of any man, woman, and minor employed in any occupation, trade, or industry, whether compensation is measured by time, piece, or otherwise, except as specified. Existing law creates the Industrial Welfare Commission and authorizes it to adopt rules, regulations, and orders to ensure that employers comply with those provisions. Existing law makes violations of certain of these provisions a misdemeanor. This bill would specially regulate the wages, hours, and working conditions of domestic work employees, as defined, with specified exceptions. The bill would define domestic work as services related to the care of persons in private households or maintenance of private households or their premises, which would include childcare providers, caregivers of people with disabilities, sick, convalescing, or elderly persons, house cleaners, housekeepers, maids, and other household occupations. The bill would provide an overtime compensation rate for domestic work employees, with specified exceptions. The bill would expressly apply Wage Order No. 15-2001 of the Industrial Welfare Commission, with specified exceptions, to a domestic work employee, except that the new domestic work provisions established by this bill will prevail over provisions that afford less protection. The bill would prescribe standards for determining whether travel time spent by a personal attendant, as defined, accompanying a domestic work employer are to be considered hours worked. The bill would further establish standards for sleeping periods, including accommodations for a domestic work employee who is required to sleep in a private household and would apply provisions regarding meal and rest breaks, as specified, to personal attendants. The bill would require that a domestic worker, after one year of work with the same employer, receive paid days of rest in each calendar year that would be compensated at the employee’s regular rate of pay and calculated pursuant to a specified method related to the number of hours worked in an average week. The bill would require the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to enforce these provisions. The bill would also provide a domestic work employee a private right of action to enforce these provisions. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2)Existing law requires employers to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for injuries incurred by their employees that arise out of and in the course of employment. The failure to secure workers’ compensation as required by the workers’ compensation law is a misdemeanor. Under existing law, employers of persons who engage in specified types of household domestic service and who work less than a specified number of hours are excluded from that definition of employer and are therefore excluded from the requirement to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, as specified. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would remove that exclusion and require all domestic work employers, as defined, to secure the payment of workers’ compensation and would make conforming changes. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide

Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in prescribed protected conduct relating to the enforcement of the employee’s or applicant’s rights. Existing law provides that an employee who made a bona fide complaint, and was consequently discharged or otherwise suffered an adverse action, is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to willfully refuse to reinstate or otherwise restore an employee who is determined by a specified procedure to be eligible for reinstatement. This bill would also prohibit an employer from retaliating or taking adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant has engaged in protected conduct. The bill would provide that an employee who was retaliated against or otherwise was subjected to an adverse action is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages. The bill would subject a person who violates these provisions to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. The bill would also provide that it is not necessary to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in the enforcement of these provisions. Because the willful refusal by an employer to reinstate or reimburse an employee who suffered a retaliatory action under these provisions would be a misdemeanor, the bill would expand the scope of a crime and impose a state-mandated local program.Existing law declares that an individual who has applied for employment, or who is or has been employed in this state, is entitled to the protections, rights, and remedies available under state law, regardless of his or her immigration status. Existing law declares that an inquiry into a person’s immigration status for purposes of enforcing state labor and employment laws shall not be permitted, unless a showing is made, by clear and convincing evidence, that the inquiry is necessary in order to comply with federal immigration law. This bill would make it unlawful for an employer or any other person to engage in, or direct another person to engage in, an unfair immigration-related practice, as defined, against a person for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliating against any person for exercising a right protected under state labor and employment laws or under a local ordinance applicable to employees, as specified. The bill would also create a rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 90 days of the exercising of a protected right is committed for the purpose of, or with the intent of, retaliation.The bill would authorize a civil action by an employee or other person who is the subject of an unfair immigration-related practice, and would require a court to order the appropriate government agencies to suspend for 90 days the business license, as defined, of a person who violates these provisions for a first violation, as specified, and to permanently revoke that license for a 2nd or subsequent violation, as specified. The bill would require the court to send a copy of its order to the Attorney General, and would require the Attorney General to maintain these copies and a database of violations of these provisions, and post copies of the court orders on the Attorney General’s Internet Web site. The bill would authorize a person who prevails in an action pursuant to these provisions to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Existing law prohibits an employer from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. Existing law further prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for that disclosure. Under existing law, a violation of these provisions by the employer is a misdemeanor. Existing law additionally subjects an employer that is a corporation or a limited liability company to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of these provisions.This bill would additionally prohibit any person or entity from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, as provided, and would prohibit any person or entity from retaliating against an employee for that disclosure. This bill would provide that any person or entity that violates these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor, and would further subject an entity that violates these provisions that is a corporation or limited liability company to a civil penalty of not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of these provisions. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.Existing law prohibits an employer or prospective employer, with the exception of certain financial institutions, from obtaining a consumer credit report, as defined, for employment purposes unless it is for a specified position, including, among others, a position in the state Department of Justice, a managerial position, as defined, or a position that involves regular access to $10,000 or more of cash, as specified.This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating, retaliating, or taking any adverse action against an employee because the employee updates or attempts to update his or her personal information, unless the changes are directly related to the skill set, qualifications, or knowledge required for the job.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide

Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, protects and safeguards the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, or sexual orientation. This bill would include “familial status,” as defined, as an additional basis upon which the right to seek, obtain, and hold employment cannot be denied. Hide

Existing law provides that there is a family temporary disability insurance program to provide up to 6 weeks of wage replacement benefits to workers who take time off work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, or domestic partner, or to bond with a minor child within one year of the birth or placement of the child in connection with foster care or adoption. This bill would provide that it is unlawful for an employer or agent of an employer to discharge or in any other manner to discriminate against an individual because he or she has applied for, used, or indicated an intent to apply for or use, family temporary disability insurance benefits. The bill would provide that an employer or an agent of an employer that violates these provisions shall be liable to an individual affected by the violation for actual damages and appropriate equitable relief, including employment or reinstatement. The bill would also provide that if an employee or applicant brings a civil action seeking these remedies and he or she prevails, the court may award the employee or applicant reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Hide

The Corporation Tax Law imposes taxes measured by income and, in the case of a business with business income derived from or attributable to sources both within and without this state, apportions the business income between this state and other states and foreign countries in accordance with a specified 4-factor formula based on the property, payroll, and sales within and without this state, except that in the case of an apportioning trade or business that derives more than 50% of its gross business receipts from conducting one or more qualified business activities, as defined, business income is apportioned in accordance with a specified 3-factor formula. That law, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2011, allows a taxpayer to apportion its business income in accordance with a single sales factor formula, except as provided, pursuant to an irrevocable annual election, as specified. That law also provides that sales of tangible personal property and sales of other than tangible personal property are in this state in accordance with specified criteria. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012, would require a taxpayer, except as provided, to apportion its business income in accordance with a single sale factor and would allow a taxpayer to annually elect to apportion business income in accordance with the 4-factor formula, as provided. This bill also would revise the rules that determine whether a taxpayer is doing business in this state and would revise the provisions that determine whether sales other than tangible personal property occur in this state, including specific provisions for cable systems or networks. This bill would require any aggregate increase in revenues derived from its provisions less a specified amount, as provided, to be deposited into the Middle Class Scholarship Fund, which the bill would establish, and, upon appropriation by the Legislature, allocate those revenues for the purpose of increasing the affordability of higher education. This bill would become operative only if a specified measure is chaptered and establishes a middle-class scholarship program. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide

(1)Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to contact the borrower prior to filing a notice of default to explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure, as specified. Existing law requires a notice of default or, in certain circumstances, a notice of sale, to include a declaration stating that the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has contacted the borrower, or has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower, or that no contact was required for a specified reason. This bill would add mortgage servicers, as defined, to these provisions and would extend the operation of these provisions indefinitely, except that it would delete the requirement with respect to a notice of sale. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, additionally require the borrower, as defined, to be provided with specified information in writing prior to recordation of a notice of default and, in certain circumstances, within 5 business days after recordation. The bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording a notice of default or, until January 1, 2018, recording a notice of sale or conducting a trustee’s sale while a complete first lien loan modification application is pending, under specified conditions. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, establish additional procedures to be followed regarding a first lien loan modification application, the denial of an application, and a borrower’s right to appeal a denial. (2)Existing law imposes various requirements that must be satisfied prior to exercising a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust, including, among other things, recording a notice of default and a notice of sale. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, require a written notice to the borrower after the postponement of a foreclosure sale in order to advise the borrower of any new sale date and time, as specified. The bill would provide that an entity shall not record a notice of default or otherwise initiate the foreclosure process unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust, the original or substituted trustee, or the designated agent of the holder of the beneficial interest, as specified. The bill would prohibit recordation of a notice of default or a notice of sale or the conduct of a trustee’s sale if a foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved and certain conditions exist and would, until January 1, 2018, require recordation of a rescission of those notices upon execution of a permanent foreclosure prevention alternative. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, prohibit the collection of application fees and the collection of late fees while a foreclosure prevention alternative is being considered, if certain criteria are met, and would require a subsequent mortgage servicer to honor any previously approved foreclosure prevention alternative. The bill would authorize a borrower to seek an injunction and damages for violations of certain of the provisions described above, except as specified. The bill would authorize the greater of treble actual damages or $50,000 in statutory damages if a violation of certain provisions is found to be intentional or reckless or resulted from willful misconduct, as specified. The bill would authorize the awarding of attorneys’ fees for prevailing borrowers, as specified. Violations of these provisions by licensees of the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate would also be violations of those respective licensing laws. Because a violation of certain of those licensing laws is a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that the requirements imposed on mortgage servicers, and mortgagees, trustees, beneficiaries, and authorized agents, described above are applicable only to mortgages or deeds of trust secured by residential real property not exceeding 4 dwelling units that is owner-occupied, as defined, and, until January 1, 2018, only to those entities who conduct more than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting period, except as specified. The bill would require, upon request from a borrower who requests a foreclosure prevention alternative, a mortgage servicer who conducts more than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting period to establish a single point of contact and provide the borrower with one or more direct means of communication with the single point of contact. The bill would specify various responsibilities of the single point of contact. The bill would define single point of contact for these purposes. (3)Existing law prescribes documents that may be recorded or filed in court. This bill would require that a specified declaration, notice of default, notice of sale, deed of trust, assignment of a deed of trust, substitution of trustee, or declaration or affidavit filed in any court relative to a foreclosure proceeding or recorded by or on behalf of a mortgage servicer shall be accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence. The bill would require that before recording or filing any of those documents, a mortgage servicer shall ensure that it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and the right to foreclose, including the borrower’s loan status and loan information. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, provide that any mortgage servicer that engages in multiple and repeated violations of these requirements shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to $7,500 per mortgage or deed of trust, in an action brought by specified state and local government entities, and would also authorize administrative enforcement against licensees of the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate. The bill would authorize the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate to adopt regulations applicable to persons and entities under their respective jurisdictions for purposes of the provisions described above. The bill would provide that a violation of those regulations would be enforceable only by the regulating agency. (4)   The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature in relation to foreclosures in the state generally, and would state the purposes of the bill. (5)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Hide

Existing law authorizes employers to provide their employees paid sick leave. This bill would provide that an employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year is entitled to paid sick days, as defined, which shall be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked. An employee would be entitled to use accrued sick days beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment. The bill would require employers to provide paid sick days, upon the request of the employee, for diagnosis, care, or treatment of health conditions of the employee or an employee’s family member, or for leave related to domestic violence or sexual assault. An employer would be prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against an employee who requests paid sick days. The bill would require employers to satisfy specified posting and notice and recordkeeping requirements. The bill would also make conforming changes. This bill would require the Labor Commissioner to administer and enforce these requirements, including the promulgation of regulations, investigation, mitigation, and relief of violations of these requirements. This bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to impose specified administrative fines for violations and would authorize an aggrieved person, the commissioner, the Attorney General, or an entity a member of which is aggrieved to bring an action to recover specified civil penalties against an offender, as well as attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. The bill would specify that it does not apply to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement that provides for paid sick days, nor does it lessen any other obligations of the employer to employees. This bill would further specify that it does not apply to employees in the construction industry covered by a collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly waives the requirements of this article in clear and unambiguous terms. However, the bill would specify that it applies to certain public authorities, established to deliver in-home supportive services, except where a collective bargaining agreement provides for an incremental wage increase sufficient to satisfy the bill’s requirements for accrual of sick days. Hide