AB 1356: Relocations, terminations, and mass layoffs.

Existing law, the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, governs relocations, terminations, and mass layoffs. Existing law prohibits an employer from ordering a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives prescribed written notice of the order to specified entities, including the local workforce investment board and the chief elected official of each city and county government within which the termination, relocation, or mass layoff occurs. Existing law exempts certain types of employment from the act, including seasonal employment where the employees were hired with the understanding that their employment was seasonal and temporary (seasonal employment exemption). Existing law makes an employer who fails to give notice as required liable to each employee entitled to notice who lost their employment for prescribed compensation, calculated for the period of the employers violation, up to a maximum of 60 days, or ¹/₂ the number of days that the employee was employed by the employer, whichever period is smaller. Existing law authorizes the Labor Commissioner to enforce specified provisions of existing law, as prescribed. Existing law defines terms for its purposes, including definitions for the terms employer and employee. Existing law defines mass layoff for purposes of the act to mean a layoff during any 30-day period of 50 or more employees at a covered establishment, and defines covered establishment as an industrial or commercial facility that employs, or has employed within the preceding 12 months, 75 or more persons.

This bill would require the prescribed notice 75 days before the order takes effect, and would make a conforming change to the calculation of employer liability. The bill would modify the requirement for notice to the local workforce investment board and the chief elected official of each city and county government within which the termination, relocation, or mass layoff occurs to apply only to a termination, relocation, or mass layoff that impacts 50 or more employees at a single location. The bill would require a labor contractor to remit to the employee the payment provided to the client employer in the full amount calculated, as specified, for a violation of the notice requirement, and would define a labor contractor for purposes of the act.

This bill would additionally require for the application of the seasonal employment exemption that the season be complete. The bill would also exempt from the act employees who are employed by a labor contractor to fulfill the needs of a temporary project with a defined end date and are laid off because of the completion of the temporary employment contract, as specified.

This bill would include within the term employer a client employer of a labor contractor. The bill would include within the term employee a person employed by a labor contractor and performing labor with the client employer for at least 6 months of the 12 months and for at least 60 hours preceding the date on which notice is required. The bill would revise the definition of covered establishment to instead mean a place of employment that employs, or has employed within the preceding 12 months, 75 or more persons, and would specify that a covered establishment may be a single location or a group of locations, as specified. The bill would revise the definition of mass layoff to also include employees reporting to a covered establishment.

This bill would prohibit an employer from utilizing compliance with the act in connection with a severance agreement and waiver of an employees right to claims. The bill would provide that any general release, waiver of claims, or nondisparagement or nondisclosure agreement that is made a condition of the payment of amounts for which the employer is liable is void as a matter of law and against public policy. The bill would prohibit an employer who is required to give notice from offering an employee a separate agreement that includes a general release, waiver of claims, or nondisparagement or nondisclosure agreement, unless the agreement is offered in exchange for reasonable consideration that is in addition to anything of value to which the individual already is entitled and includes a statement to this effect, as specified. The bill would provide that any agreement in violation of this prohibition is void as a matter of law and against public policy, and would make an employer who violates this provision subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 for each violation.