California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 1336 — Prevailing wages: payroll records.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 792, Statutes of 2013.

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 February 22, 2013. 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 8 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

Existing law requires the Labor Commissioner, if the commissioner or his or her designee determines after an investigation that there has been a violation of the public works provisions, to issue a civil wage and penalty assessment to the contractor or subcontractor, or both. The assessment is required to be in writing, describe the nature of the violation and the amount of wages, penalties, and forfeitures due, and include the basis for the assessment. The assessment is required to be served not later than 180 days after the filing of a valid notice of completion in the office of the county recorder in each county in which the public work or some part thereof was performed, or not later than 180 days after acceptance of the public work, whichever occurs last. If the assessment is served after the expiration of the 180-day period, but before the expiration of an additional 180 days, and the awarding body has not yet made full payment to the contractor, the assessment is valid up to the amount of the funds retained. This bill would change the deadline for service of the assessment to not later than 18 months after the filing of a valid notice of completion in the office of the county recorder in each county in which the public work or some part thereof was performed, or not later than 18 months after acceptance of the public work, whichever occurs last. The bill would delete the provisions with regard to an assessment served after the expiration of the 180-day period. Existing law requires contractors engaged in public works to pay employees the prevailing wage, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, and to comply with requirements relating to recordkeeping and employee work schedules. A joint labor-management committee, established pursuant to a specified provision of federal law, is authorized to bring an action against any employer who fails to pay prevailing wages as required by state law. The action is required to be commenced not later than 180 days after the filing of a valid notice of completion in the office of the county recorder in each county in which the public work, or some part thereof, was performed, or not later than 180 days after acceptance of the public work, whichever occurs last. This bill would delete the 180-day requirement and would instead require that the action be commenced not later than 18 months after the filing of a valid notice of completion in the office of the county recorder in each county in which the public work or some part thereof was performed, or not later than 18 months after acceptance of the public work, whichever occurs last. The bill would require, among other things, the court, in an action on prevailing wages, to award restitution to an employee for unpaid wages, plus interest, from the date the wages became payable, and liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid wages owed, and would authorize the imposition of civil penalties only against an employer that failed to pay the prevailing wage to its employees, injunctive relief, or any other appropriate equitable relief. Existing law requires each contractor and subcontractor to keep accurate payroll records showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time, and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by him or her in connection with the public work. Any copy of records made available for inspection by, or furnished to, a joint labor-management committee is required to be marked or obliterated only to prevent disclosure of an individual's name and social security number. This bill would instead require that any copy of payroll records made available for inspection by, or furnished to, a joint labor-management committee, established pursuant to federal law, is required to be marked or obliterated only to prevent disclosure of an individual's social security number. The bill would also require that any copy of records made available for inspection by, or furnished to, a multiemployer Taft-Hartley trust fund that requests the records for the purposes of allocating contributions to participants be marked or obliterated only to prevent disclosure of an individual's full social security number, but provide the last 4 digits of the social security number. The bill would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 792, Statutes of 2013.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 53. Noes 23. Page 2933.).

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

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 25. Noes 11. Page 2102.).

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

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

  9. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (July 2). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  10. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  11. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  12. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (June 12). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

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

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

  15. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 49. Noes 21. Page 1599.)

  16. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  17. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 15).

  18. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 3.) (April 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  19. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 24). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

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

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

  22. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  23. Referred to Coms. on L. & E. and JUD.

  24. Read first time.

  25. From printer. May be heard in committee March 26.

  26. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

  • Frazier · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 8 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Frazier

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 1336 FRAZIER Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 53 Yea · 23 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 492002
Democratic 4000
Republican 0300
Total 532302
% of votes cast 68%29%0%3%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Bloom — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Linder — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nazarian — Yea
Olsen — Nay
Perea — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Waldron — Nay
Williams — Yea
Fong — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Fox — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Campos — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Hall — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Levine — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Logue — Nay
Allen — Nay
Ammiano — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Nay
Mullin — Yea
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Ting — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Chávez — Nay
Conway — Nay
Nestande — Not Voting
Donnelly — Nay
Wagner — Nay
Wilk — Not Voting
Holden — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Daly — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Gorell — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Jim Patterson — Nay
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

3rd Reading AB1336 Frazier By Padilla

Passed 25 Yea · 11 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 221103
Democratic 3000
Total 251103
% of votes cast 64%28%0%8%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hill — Yea
Knight — Nay
Lieu — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Steinberg — Not Voting
Torres — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Fuller — Nay
Hancock — Not Voting
Huff — Nay
Anderson — Nay
Correa — Not Voting
Vidak — Nay
Walters — Nay
Galgiani — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
De León — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Lara — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
Evans — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Yee — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

AB 1336 FRAZIER Assembly Third Reading

Passed 49 Yea · 21 Nay · 8 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 441706
Democratic 5101
Republican 0301
Total 492108
% of votes cast 63%27%0%10%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Linder — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Pan — Yea
Waldron — Not Voting
Weber — Yea
Daly — Yea
Stone — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Campos — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Hagman — Nay
Hall — Yea
Levine — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Logue — Nay
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Mansoor — Nay
Medina — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Chesbro — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Olsen — Nay
Perea — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Williams — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Holden — Not Voting
Chávez — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Gray — Not Voting
Conway — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Nestande — Not Voting
Skinner — Not Voting
Wagner — Nay
Wilk — Not Voting
Donnelly — Nay
Fox — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gorell — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Nay
Bonta, Mia Democratic Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe 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
Bigelow — Nay
Bradford — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Linder — Nay
Pan — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Weber — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Hall — 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 1336 do?
Existing law requires the Labor Commissioner, if the commissioner or his or her designee determines after an investigation that there has been a violation of the public works provisions, to issue a civil wage and penalty assessment to the contractor or subcontractor, or both. The assessment is required to be in writing, describe the nature of the violation and the amount of wages, penalties, and forfeitures due, and include the basis for the assessment. The assessment is required to be served not later than 180 days after the filing of a valid notice of completion in the office of the county recorder in each county in which the public work or some part thereof was performed, or not later than 180 days after acceptance of the public work, whichever occurs last. If the assessment is served after the expiration of the 180-day period, but before the expiration of an additional 180 days, and the awarding body has not yet made full payment to the contractor, the assessment is valid up to the amount of the funds retained. This bill would change the deadline for service of the assessment to not later than 18 months after the filing of a valid notice of completion in the office of the county recorder in each county in which the public work or some part thereof was performed, or not later than 18 months after acceptance of the public work, whichever occurs last. The bill would delete the provisions with regard to an assessment served after the expiration of the 180-day period. Existing law requires contractors engaged in public works to pay employees the prevailing wage, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, and to comply with requirements relating to recordkeeping and employee work schedules. A joint labor-management committee, established pursuant to a specified provision of federal law, is authorized to bring an action against any employer who fails to pay prevailing wages as required by state law. The action is required to be commenced not later than 180 days after the filing of a valid notice of completion in the office of the county recorder in each county in which the public work, or some part thereof, was performed, or not later than 180 days after acceptance of the public work, whichever occurs last. This bill would delete the 180-day requirement and would instead require that the action be commenced not later than 18 months after the filing of a valid notice of completion in the office of the county recorder in each county in which the public work or some part thereof was performed, or not later than 18 months after acceptance of the public work, whichever occurs last. The bill would require, among other things, the court, in an action on prevailing wages, to award restitution to an employee for unpaid wages, plus interest, from the date the wages became payable, and liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid wages owed, and would authorize the imposition of civil penalties only against an employer that failed to pay the prevailing wage to its employees, injunctive relief, or any other appropriate equitable relief. Existing law requires each contractor and subcontractor to keep accurate payroll records showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time, and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by him or her in connection with the public work. Any copy of records made available for inspection by, or furnished to, a joint labor-management committee is required to be marked or obliterated only to prevent disclosure of an individual's name and social security number. This bill would instead require that any copy of payroll records made available for inspection by, or furnished to, a joint labor-management committee, established pursuant to federal law, is required to be marked or obliterated only to prevent disclosure of an individual's social security number. The bill would also require that any copy of records made available for inspection by, or furnished to, a multiemployer Taft-Hartley trust fund that requests the records for the purposes of allocating contributions to participants be marked or obliterated only to prevent disclosure of an individual's full social security number, but provide the last 4 digits of the social security number. The bill would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
Who sponsors AB 1336?
AB 1336 is sponsored by Frazier.
What is the current status of AB 1336?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 22, 2013. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 1336?
Track AB 1336 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1336

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 1336

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →