California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate 3 D cosponsors

SB 1399 — Employment: garment manufacturing.

Last action — Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law makes garment manufacturers liable for guaranteeing payment of wages to employees of their contractors. This bill would expand the definition of garment manufacturing to include dyeing, altering a garment's design, and affixing a label to a garment. The bill would prohibit any employee engaged in the performance of garment manufacturing to be paid by the piece or unit, or by the piece rate, except as specified. The bill would impose a statutory penalty of $200 against a garment manufacturer or contractor, payable to the employee, for each pay period in which the employee is paid by the piece rate. This bill would define "brand guarantor" for purposes of these provisions as a person contracting for the performance of garment manufacturing, as specified, regardless of whether the person with whom they contract performs manufacturing operations or hires a contractor or subcontractor to perform manufacturing operations. This bill would specify that a garment manufacturer or brand guarantor who contracts with another person for the performance of garment manufacturing operations shares joint and several liability with any manufacturer and contractor for the full amount of unpaid wages, any other compensation, damages, and penalties to any and all employees who performed manufacturing operations for any violation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and civil penalties, as specified. This bill would create a rebuttable presumption in a claim filed with the Labor Commissioner to recover unpaid wages, if an employee has provided the Labor Commissioner with labels or other information that the commissioner finds credible relating to the identity of any brand guarantor or garment manufacturer that the brand guarantor or garment manufacturer is liable with the contractor for any amounts found to be due to the employee. The bill would also give the Labor Commissioner authority to enforce these provisions by issuing a stop order or a citation. Existing law requires every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing to keep certain records for three years, including, among other things, contract worksheets indicating the price per unit agreed to between the contractor and manufacturer. This bill would also require every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing and brand guarantors to keep all contracts, invoices, purchase orders, work orders, style or cut sheets, and any other documentation pursuant to which garment manufacturing work was, or is being, performed for 4 years. Existing law requires the commissioner to deposit $75 of each garment manufacturer's registration fee into a separate account to be disbursed by the commissioner only to persons determined by the commissioner to have been damaged by the failure to pay wages and benefits by a garment manufacturer, contractor, or subcontractor. Existing law requires the commissioner to promulgate all regulations and rules necessary to carry out the provisions of this part. The commissioner, upon good cause, may impose, in their discretion, the terms of penalties, the revocation of registrations, and the confiscation or disposal of goods in accordance with those rules and regulations. This bill would name the separate account into which a portion of a garment manufacturer's registration fee is deposited the Garment Manufacturers Special Account. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to determine which claims for payment from the Garment Manufacturer's Special Account are accepted, and the amount of money, if any, that is to be disbursed from the account on an accepted claim.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  2. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  3. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.) (August 20).

  4. August 18 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.

  5. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (July 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

  7. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  8. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 25. Noes 11. Page 3840.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 3772.) (June 18).

  11. Set for hearing June 18.

  12. June 9 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  13. Set for hearing June 9.

  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 4. Noes 0.) (May 14).

  16. Re-referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R.

  17. Set for hearing May 14 in L., P.E. & R. pending receipt.

  18. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  19. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  20. Read first time.

  21. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 25.

  22. Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 4 co-sponsors · 117 not signed on · 4 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (4)

Not signed on (117)

117 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 117 →

"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

Do pass as amended.

Passed 12 Yea · 4 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5001
Unaffiliated 7301
Republican 0100
Total 12402
% of votes cast 67%22%0%11%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Quirk — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Chau — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Voepel — Nay
Fong — Nay
Bigelow — Nay
Diep — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Not Voting
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay

Official roll call →

3rd Reading SB1399 Durazo et al.

Passed 25 Yea · 11 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 17802
Democratic 8002
Republican 0300
Total 251104
% of votes cast 63%28%0%10%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Leyva — Yea
Allen — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Roth — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Hill — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Pan — Yea
Beall — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Monning — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Chang — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Wilk — Nay
Moorlach — Nay
Bates — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Borgeas — Nay
Glazer — Not Voting
Dodd — Not Voting
Skinner — Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Not Voting
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Not Voting
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5100
Republican 0100
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Leyva — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Hill — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Bates — Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 6000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Leyva — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Hill — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican 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 SB 1399 do?
Existing law makes garment manufacturers liable for guaranteeing payment of wages to employees of their contractors. This bill would expand the definition of garment manufacturing to include dyeing, altering a garment's design, and affixing a label to a garment. The bill would prohibit any employee engaged in the performance of garment manufacturing to be paid by the piece or unit, or by the piece rate, except as specified. The bill would impose a statutory penalty of $200 against a garment manufacturer or contractor, payable to the employee, for each pay period in which the employee is paid by the piece rate. This bill would define "brand guarantor" for purposes of these provisions as a person contracting for the performance of garment manufacturing, as specified, regardless of whether the person with whom they contract performs manufacturing operations or hires a contractor or subcontractor to perform manufacturing operations. This bill would specify that a garment manufacturer or brand guarantor who contracts with another person for the performance of garment manufacturing operations shares joint and several liability with any manufacturer and contractor for the full amount of unpaid wages, any other compensation, damages, and penalties to any and all employees who performed manufacturing operations for any violation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and civil penalties, as specified. This bill would create a rebuttable presumption in a claim filed with the Labor Commissioner to recover unpaid wages, if an employee has provided the Labor Commissioner with labels or other information that the commissioner finds credible relating to the identity of any brand guarantor or garment manufacturer that the brand guarantor or garment manufacturer is liable with the contractor for any amounts found to be due to the employee. The bill would also give the Labor Commissioner authority to enforce these provisions by issuing a stop order or a citation. Existing law requires every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing to keep certain records for three years, including, among other things, contract worksheets indicating the price per unit agreed to between the contractor and manufacturer. This bill would also require every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing and brand guarantors to keep all contracts, invoices, purchase orders, work orders, style or cut sheets, and any other documentation pursuant to which garment manufacturing work was, or is being, performed for 4 years. Existing law requires the commissioner to deposit $75 of each garment manufacturer's registration fee into a separate account to be disbursed by the commissioner only to persons determined by the commissioner to have been damaged by the failure to pay wages and benefits by a garment manufacturer, contractor, or subcontractor. Existing law requires the commissioner to promulgate all regulations and rules necessary to carry out the provisions of this part. The commissioner, upon good cause, may impose, in their discretion, the terms of penalties, the revocation of registrations, and the confiscation or disposal of goods in accordance with those rules and regulations. This bill would name the separate account into which a portion of a garment manufacturer's registration fee is deposited the Garment Manufacturers Special Account. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to determine which claims for payment from the Garment Manufacturer's Special Account are accepted, and the amount of money, if any, that is to be disbursed from the account on an accepted claim.
Who sponsors SB 1399?
SB 1399 is sponsored by Durazo, Maria Elena (Democratic), Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Ash (Democratic), Gonzalez, Lena A. (Democratic), and Wendy Carrillo.
What is the current status of SB 1399?
This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 1399?
Track SB 1399 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1399

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 SB 1399

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →