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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more