Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Fair Scheduling Act (California)


As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) that are being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Readers might remember that about a year ago, I noted that California Bill AB 357 (the Fair Scheduling Act of 2015 Bill) had been shelved because of a lack of support.  That bill sought to require food and retail establishments provide their employees with two weeks advance notice of their schedules and additional "predictability pay" when the employer cancelled or rescheduled its employees' shifts.

This year, SB 878 is a similar bill working its way through the California legislature.  This version of the Fair Scheduling Act would require California grocery, retail, and restaurant employers to provide employees advance notice of their work schedules (at least 7 calendar days) and to pay the employees "modification pay" for any unilateral changes that the employer would make to the work schedule thereafter.  

If a change to the schedule is made more than 24 hours prior to the start of the shift (but within 7 calendar days), the employee would receive an additional hour of pay at his/her regular rate of pay.  If the change to the schedule is made less than 24 hours prior to the start of the shift, the employee would receive modification pay that is at least equal to half of that shift's hours (but no less than 2 hours and no grater than 4 hours).  As always, there are exceptions for acts of God, illness/vacation of another employee (if the employee did not provide 7 days notice of the illness/vacation), among other exceptions.

In April, the California Senate Labor Committee passed the bill by a 4 - 1 vote.  

When readers compare this version of the Fair Scheduling Act with the one that stalled out last year, there are distinct differences that make this version not quite as restrictive on employers.  Whether that will be enough to get the bill passed is hard to say...but given the recent pro-employee laws enacted in the state (California To Raise Minimum Wage to $15/Hour; San Francisco Enacts Broad Paid Leave Law), I would say this has a decent shot.


For additional information:  http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB878

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more