California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 2674 — Employment records: right to inspect.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 842, Statutes of 2012.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced March 05, 2012. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 7 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) Existing law requires that every employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, furnish to each of his or her employees, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee's wages, or separately when wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing specified items. Existing law requires an employer to keep a copy of the statement and the record of deductions on file for at least 3 years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California. This bill would provide that the term "copy," for purposes of these provisions, includes a duplicate of the itemized statement provided to an employee or a computer-generated record that accurately shows all of the information that existing law requires to be included in the itemized statement. (2) Under existing law, an employee has the right to inspect the personnel records that his or her employer maintains relating to the employee's performance or to any grievance concerning the employee. This bill would require an employer to maintain personnel records for a specified period of time and to provide a current or former employee, or his or her representative, an opportunity to inspect and receive a copy of those records within a specified period of time, except during the pendency of a lawsuit filed by the employee or former employer relating to a personnel matter. The bill would provide that an employer is not required to comply with more than 50 requests for a copy of the above-described records filed by a representative or representatives of employees in one calendar month. The bill would provide that the above provisions shall not apply with respect to an employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement provides, among other things, for a procedure for inspection and copying of personnel records. In the event an employer violates these provisions, the bill would permit a current or former employee or the Labor Commissioner to recover a penalty of $750 from the employer, and would further permit a current or former employee to obtain injunctive relief and attorney's fees. Under existing law, an employer who fails to permit an employee to inspect the employee's personnel records is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or imprisonment, as specified. This bill would, instead, provide that a violation of the above provisions requiring that personnel records be made available for inspection constitutes an infraction. Although this bill would change a violation of the above provisions requiring that personnel records be made available for inspection from a misdemeanor to an infraction, by expanding the scope of what would constitute an infraction, 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. (4) This bill would incorporate changes to Section 226 of the Labor Code proposed by AB 1744 and SB 1255, to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are chaptered and became effective on or before January 1, 2013, and this bill is chaptered last.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 842, Statutes of 2012.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 53. Noes 26. Page 6567.).

  5. Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 6488.)

  6. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 30 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 23. Noes 13. Page 4889.).

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 4788.)

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  12. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  13. From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

  14. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 3. Noes 1.) (June 26).

  16. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (June 13). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  17. Referred to Coms. on L. & I.R. and JUD.

  18. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  19. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 48. Noes 25. Page 4712.)

  20. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  21. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 2).

  22. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (April 18). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  23. Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

  24. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. Read second time and amended.

  25. Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

  26. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. Read second time and amended.

  27. Referred to Com. on L. & E.

  28. From printer. May be heard in committee April 5.

  29. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Swanson · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Swanson

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 2674 SWANSON Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 53 Yea · 26 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 522401
Republican 0200
Democratic 1000
Total 532601
% of votes cast 66%33%0%1%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Gordon — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Butler — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Garrick — Nay
Fong — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Allen — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Hall — Yea
Campos — Yea
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Fletcher — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huber — Yea
Carter — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Knight — Nay
Lara — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Nay
Cook — Nay
Monning — Yea
Olsen — Nay
Pan — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Smyth — Nay
Swanson — Yea
Valadao — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Williams — Yea
Halderman — Nay
Jeffries — Nay
Donnelly — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Norby — Nay
Silva — Nay
Torres — Not Voting
Achadjian — Nay
Ammiano — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Logue — Nay
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Nay
Miller — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Perea — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Eng — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Davis — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

3rd Reading AB2674 Swanson By Wright

Passed 23 Yea · 13 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 211204
Democratic 2000
Republican 0100
Total 231304
% of votes cast 58%33%0%10%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Evans — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
De León — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Liu — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Wyland — Not Voting
Runner — Not Voting
Cannella — Nay
Fuller — Nay
Harman — Nay
Huff — Nay
Blakeslee — Nay
Dutton — Nay
Pavley — Not Voting
Walters — Nay
Alquist — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
Lieu — Not Voting
Price — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
Correa — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
La Malfa — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

AB 2674 SWANSON Assembly Third Reading

Passed 48 Yea · 25 Nay · 7 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 472307
Democratic 1000
Republican 0200
Total 482507
% of votes cast 60%31%0%9%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Gorell — Yea
Halderman — Nay
Hall — Not Voting
Eng — Yea
Butler — Yea
Carter — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Fong — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Allen — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Hill — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Block — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Pan — Yea
Perea — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Furutani — Not Voting
Garrick — Nay
Fletcher — Not Voting
Portantino — Not Voting
Hagman — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Campos — Yea
Jeffries — Nay
Conway — Nay
Cook — Not Voting
Knight — Nay
Lara — Not Voting
Logue — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Miller — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Olsen — Nay
Silva — Nay
Smyth — Nay
Valadao — Nay
Wagner — Nay
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Not Voting
Buchanan — Yea
Huber — Yea
Ma — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torres — Yea
Williams — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Davis — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Galgiani — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 12 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11500
Democratic 1000
Total 12500
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Fuentes — Yea
Campos — Yea
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Hill — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Davis — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Lara — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 2674 do?
(1) Existing law requires that every employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, furnish to each of his or her employees, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee's wages, or separately when wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing specified items. Existing law requires an employer to keep a copy of the statement and the record of deductions on file for at least 3 years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California. This bill would provide that the term "copy," for purposes of these provisions, includes a duplicate of the itemized statement provided to an employee or a computer-generated record that accurately shows all of the information that existing law requires to be included in the itemized statement. (2) Under existing law, an employee has the right to inspect the personnel records that his or her employer maintains relating to the employee's performance or to any grievance concerning the employee. This bill would require an employer to maintain personnel records for a specified period of time and to provide a current or former employee, or his or her representative, an opportunity to inspect and receive a copy of those records within a specified period of time, except during the pendency of a lawsuit filed by the employee or former employer relating to a personnel matter. The bill would provide that an employer is not required to comply with more than 50 requests for a copy of the above-described records filed by a representative or representatives of employees in one calendar month. The bill would provide that the above provisions shall not apply with respect to an employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement provides, among other things, for a procedure for inspection and copying of personnel records. In the event an employer violates these provisions, the bill would permit a current or former employee or the Labor Commissioner to recover a penalty of $750 from the employer, and would further permit a current or former employee to obtain injunctive relief and attorney's fees. Under existing law, an employer who fails to permit an employee to inspect the employee's personnel records is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or imprisonment, as specified. This bill would, instead, provide that a violation of the above provisions requiring that personnel records be made available for inspection constitutes an infraction. Although this bill would change a violation of the above provisions requiring that personnel records be made available for inspection from a misdemeanor to an infraction, by expanding the scope of what would constitute an infraction, 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. (4) This bill would incorporate changes to Section 226 of the Labor Code proposed by AB 1744 and SB 1255, to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are chaptered and became effective on or before January 1, 2013, and this bill is chaptered last.
Who sponsors AB 2674?
AB 2674 is sponsored by Swanson.
What is the current status of AB 2674?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced March 05, 2012. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 2674?
Track AB 2674 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2674

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 2674

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →