California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate

SB 113 — Agricultural labor relations.

Last action — Re-referred to Com. on BUDGET pursuant to Assembly Rule 97.

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 2023-2024 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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, the Alatorre-Zenovich-Dunlap-Berman Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975, grants agricultural employees the right to form and join labor organizations and engage in collective bargaining with respect to wages, terms of employment, and other employment conditions, and authorizes employees to elect exclusive bargaining representatives for these purposes. Existing law creates the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and prescribes its composition, duties, and powers. Existing law authorizes the board to hold hearings and conduct investigations and requires that certain procedures be the exclusive method of redressing unfair labor practices. Existing law requires the board to certify the results of an election conducted by secret ballot of employees in a collective bargaining unit to designate a collective bargaining representative, unless the board determines there are sufficient grounds to refuse to do so. Under existing law, any person who willfully resists, prevents, or interferes with a member of the board or its agents or agencies in the performance of their duties is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law refers to the election by secret ballot process as a polling place election. Existing law establishes alternative procedures to the polling place election process to allow a labor organization to be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit of agricultural employees through either a labor peace election conducted by mail ballot, or a non-labor peace election, on petition and conducted as prescribed. Under existing law, the applicable procedure is dependent on whether an employer enrolls and agrees to a labor peace election for labor organization representation campaigns. Under existing law, a non-labor peace election requires a petition to be submitted to the board, as specified, including proof of majority support through authorization cards, petitions, or other appropriate proof of majority support of the currently employed employees and subject to investigation and certification by the board. Existing law requires, for both alternative procedures, that an employer respond to the board with regard to a petition, including providing a specified list of employees to the board, which the board is required to provide to the applicable labor organization. Existing law establishes a schedule for agricultural employers to indicate to the board whether they agree to a labor peace compact. Existing law prohibits a labor peace compact from prohibiting an employer from communicating truthful statements to employees regarding workplace policies or benefits, as specified. Existing law requires the board to develop an online web-based labor peace election process that will allow employers to indicate their labor peace choice online, and that will allow labor organizations to see whether a specific agricultural employer has agreed to a labor peace election campaign. Existing law repeals the above-described provisions on January 1, 2028. This bill would establish, until January 1, 2028, a single alternative process that is, in most respects, the same as the non-labor peace election process of existing law, but it would instead be referred to as a Majority Support Petition. The bill would limit the authorization to file a Majority Support Petition to labor organizations that have a specified bargaining agreement covering agricultural employees in place as of the effective date of its provisions. Under the bill, a certification through Majority Support Petition would be a valid election for purposes of limiting board authority to direct elections, as specified. The bill would cap at 75 the number of Majority Support Petitions that result in the certification of a labor organization that are authorized to be conducted under its provisions before January 1, 2028. The bill would require an employer to respond to the board with regard to a Majority Support Petition, including by providing a specified list of employees to the board. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the board to provide this information immediately to the applicable labor organization. This bill, until January 1, 2028, would also make various conforming changes to account for the Majority Support Petition process, including authorizing the board to certify labor organizations in this connection, establishing that representatives designated by the submission of authorization cards are exclusive agricultural employee representatives, and prohibiting the board from conducting reviews of a majority support petition for a specified period. This bill would require the board, in specified situations, to order proceedings to determine the specific amount of a monetary remedy, and if the monetary remedy is continuing to accrue, the amount accrued as of the date of the board's order. The bill would specify when the board's order becomes final in these situations. The bill would make conforming amendments in this regard in connection with the processing of final board orders. This bill would require an employer who petitions for a writ of review of a final board order, as specified, or who otherwise appeals, petitions, or seeks to overturn or stay or modify any order of the board in which the board has ordered the payment of a monetary remedy to first post a bond with the board in the amount of the entire economic value of the order, as a condition of proceeding. The bill would prescribe the characteristics of the bond and a procedure in connection with its application. The bill would prescribe analogous bond requirements with respect to an employer who seeks review of a final order of the board pursuant to ordering into effect the terms of a mediator's report. The bill would require a mediator's report, in specified instances, to include a statement of the economic value of the collective bargaining agreement as determined by stipulation of the parties or by the mediator. This bill would state that its provisions are severable. 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. This bill would appropriate $10,000 for the 2022–23 fiscal year from the General Fund to the board to implement the provisions related to agricultural labor relations in the bill. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Re-referred to Com. on BUDGET pursuant to Assembly Rule 97.

  2. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  3. Ordered to second reading.

  4. Withdrawn from committee.

  5. Assembly Rule 96 suspended. (Ayes 61. Noes 16. Page 1392.)

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

  7. Referred to Com. on BUDGET.

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

  9. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 29. Noes 8. Page 489.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. Ordered to second reading.

  12. Withdrawn from committee. (Ayes 28. Noes 8. Page 357.)

  13. Referred to Com. on B. & F.R.

  14. From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 18.

  15. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 7 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review

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

3rd Reading SB113 B. & F.R.

Passed 29 Yea · 8 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10100
Democratic 18103
Republican 1600
Total 29803
% of votes cast 73%20%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Newman — Yea
Min — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Not Voting
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Not Voting
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Not Voting
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Nay
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

labor agriculture
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 113 do?
Existing law, the Alatorre-Zenovich-Dunlap-Berman Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975, grants agricultural employees the right to form and join labor organizations and engage in collective bargaining with respect to wages, terms of employment, and other employment conditions, and authorizes employees to elect exclusive bargaining representatives for these purposes. Existing law creates the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and prescribes its composition, duties, and powers. Existing law authorizes the board to hold hearings and conduct investigations and requires that certain procedures be the exclusive method of redressing unfair labor practices. Existing law requires the board to certify the results of an election conducted by secret ballot of employees in a collective bargaining unit to designate a collective bargaining representative, unless the board determines there are sufficient grounds to refuse to do so. Under existing law, any person who willfully resists, prevents, or interferes with a member of the board or its agents or agencies in the performance of their duties is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law refers to the election by secret ballot process as a polling place election. Existing law establishes alternative procedures to the polling place election process to allow a labor organization to be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit of agricultural employees through either a labor peace election conducted by mail ballot, or a non-labor peace election, on petition and conducted as prescribed. Under existing law, the applicable procedure is dependent on whether an employer enrolls and agrees to a labor peace election for labor organization representation campaigns. Under existing law, a non-labor peace election requires a petition to be submitted to the board, as specified, including proof of majority support through authorization cards, petitions, or other appropriate proof of majority support of the currently employed employees and subject to investigation and certification by the board. Existing law requires, for both alternative procedures, that an employer respond to the board with regard to a petition, including providing a specified list of employees to the board, which the board is required to provide to the applicable labor organization. Existing law establishes a schedule for agricultural employers to indicate to the board whether they agree to a labor peace compact. Existing law prohibits a labor peace compact from prohibiting an employer from communicating truthful statements to employees regarding workplace policies or benefits, as specified. Existing law requires the board to develop an online web-based labor peace election process that will allow employers to indicate their labor peace choice online, and that will allow labor organizations to see whether a specific agricultural employer has agreed to a labor peace election campaign. Existing law repeals the above-described provisions on January 1, 2028. This bill would establish, until January 1, 2028, a single alternative process that is, in most respects, the same as the non-labor peace election process of existing law, but it would instead be referred to as a Majority Support Petition. The bill would limit the authorization to file a Majority Support Petition to labor organizations that have a specified bargaining agreement covering agricultural employees in place as of the effective date of its provisions. Under the bill, a certification through Majority Support Petition would be a valid election for purposes of limiting board authority to direct elections, as specified. The bill would cap at 75 the number of Majority Support Petitions that result in the certification of a labor organization that are authorized to be conducted under its provisions before January 1, 2028. The bill would require an employer to respond to the board with regard to a Majority Support Petition, including by providing a specified list of employees to the board. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the board to provide this information immediately to the applicable labor organization. This bill, until January 1, 2028, would also make various conforming changes to account for the Majority Support Petition process, including authorizing the board to certify labor organizations in this connection, establishing that representatives designated by the submission of authorization cards are exclusive agricultural employee representatives, and prohibiting the board from conducting reviews of a majority support petition for a specified period. This bill would require the board, in specified situations, to order proceedings to determine the specific amount of a monetary remedy, and if the monetary remedy is continuing to accrue, the amount accrued as of the date of the board's order. The bill would specify when the board's order becomes final in these situations. The bill would make conforming amendments in this regard in connection with the processing of final board orders. This bill would require an employer who petitions for a writ of review of a final board order, as specified, or who otherwise appeals, petitions, or seeks to overturn or stay or modify any order of the board in which the board has ordered the payment of a monetary remedy to first post a bond with the board in the amount of the entire economic value of the order, as a condition of proceeding. The bill would prescribe the characteristics of the bond and a procedure in connection with its application. The bill would prescribe analogous bond requirements with respect to an employer who seeks review of a final order of the board pursuant to ordering into effect the terms of a mediator's report. The bill would require a mediator's report, in specified instances, to include a statement of the economic value of the collective bargaining agreement as determined by stipulation of the parties or by the mediator. This bill would state that its provisions are severable. 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. This bill would appropriate $10,000 for the 2022–23 fiscal year from the General Fund to the board to implement the provisions related to agricultural labor relations in the bill. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
Who sponsors SB 113?
SB 113 is sponsored by Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review.
What is the current status of SB 113?
This bill died with 2023-2024 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 113?
Track SB 113 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 113

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 113

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →