Existing law, the Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, governs local emergency medical service systems and plans and establishes the Emergency Medical Services Authority, which is responsible for the coordination and integration of all state activities concerning emergency medical services. Existing law provides that emergency medical personnel have specified due process rights when they are subject to suspension or termination for disciplinary cause or reason, as defined.

Existing law prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period mandated by an applicable statute, or an applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Existing orders of the commission applicable to ambulance drivers and attendants and to medical technicians require that unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 30 -minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an on-duty meal period and counted as time worked. Those orders authorize an on-duty meal period only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when the parties, by written agreement, agree to an on-the-job paid meal period.

This bill would require an employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest periods. This periods, including specifying grounds for interruption of a rest period and compensation for an interrupted rest period. The bill also would require the employer to provide these employees with prescribed meal periods. periods, including specifying grounds for interruption of a meal period and compensation for an interrupted meal period. The bill would authorize an employer to require during rest and meal periods that employees monitor pagers, radios, station alert boxes, intercoms, cellular telephones, or other communication methods to provide for the public health and welfare.

Existing law establishes the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board within the Department of Industrial Relations, and authorizes the board to adopt, amend, or repeal occupational safety and health standards and orders. Existing law, the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, requires the standards board to adopt standards developed by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health that require specified licensed hospitals to adopt a workplace violence prevention plan to protect health care workers and other facility personnel from aggressive and violent behavior, but prohibits this provision from being interpreted to preclude the standards board from adopting standards that require other employers to adopt plans to protect employees from workplace violence, including workplace violence prevention plans that include elements or requirements additional to, or broader in scope than, those described in the provision.

This bill would require an EMS provider, as defined, to send the information contained in the violent incident log it is required to maintain under a specified regulation to the Emergency Medical Services Authority. The bill would require the authority, on or before January 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, to post a report on its Internet Web site containing this information. The bill would prohibit these provisions from altering or amending the existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements of EMS providers imposed by the specified regulation.

The bill would exempt certain public employers from these provisions.

Existing law, the Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, governs local emergency medical service systems and plans and establishes the Emergency Medical Services Authority, which is responsible for the coordination and integration of all state activities concerning emergency medical services. Existing law provides that emergency medical personnel have specified due process rights when they are subject to suspension or termination for disciplinary cause or reason, as defined.

Existing law prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period mandated by an applicable statute, or an applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

This bill would require an employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest periods. This bill also would require the employer to provide these employees with prescribed meal periods.

Existing law establishes the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board within the Department of Industrial Relations, and authorizes the board to adopt, amend, or repeal occupational safety and health standards and orders. Existing law, the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, requires the standards board to adopt standards developed by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health that require specified licensed hospitals to adopt a workplace violence prevention plan to protect health care workers and other facility personnel from aggressive and violent behavior, but prohibits this provision from being interpreted to preclude the standards board from adopting standards that require other employers to adopt plans to protect employees from workplace violence, including workplace violence prevention plans that include elements or requirements additional to, or broader in scope than, those described in the provision.

This bill would require an EMS provider, as defined, to send the information contained in the violent incident log it is required to maintain under a specified regulation to the Emergency Medical Services Authority. The bill would require the authority, on or before January 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, to post a report on its Internet Web site containing this information. The bill would prohibit these provisions from altering or amending the existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements of EMS providers imposed by the specified regulation.

The bill would exempt certain public employers from these provisions.

Existing law, the Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, governs local emergency medical service systems and plans and establishes the Emergency Medical Services Authority, which is responsible for the coordination and integration of all state activities concerning emergency medical services. Existing law provides that emergency medical personnel have specified due process rights when they are subject to suspension or termination for disciplinary cause or reason, as defined.

Existing law prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period mandated by an applicable statute, or an applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

This bill would require an employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest periods. This bill also would require the employer to provide these employees with prescribed meal periods.

This bill would require an EMS provider, as defined, to send the information contained in the violent incident log it is required to maintain under a specified regulation to the Emergency Medical Services Authority. The bill would require the authority, on or before January 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, to post a report on its Internet Web site containing specified information regarding violent incidents involving EMS providers in the performance of their duties. this information. The bill would prohibit these provisions from altering or amending the existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements of EMS providers imposed by the specified regulation.

The bill would exempt certain public employers from these provisions.

Existing law, the Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, governs local emergency medical service systems and plans and establishes the Emergency Medical Services Authority, which is responsible for the coordination and integration of all state activities concerning emergency medical services. Existing law provides that emergency medical personnel have specified due process rights when they are subject to suspension or termination for disciplinary cause or reason, as defined.

Existing law prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period mandated by an applicable statute, or an applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

This bill would require an employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest periods. This bill also would require the employer to provide these employees with prescribed meal periods.

The bill would require the standards board, no later than July 1, 2019, to adopt standards developed by the division that require any employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical service system or plan to adopt a workplace violence prevention plan as a part of the employers injury and illness prevention plan to protect system workers from aggressive and violent behavior. The bill would require the standards to include prescribed elements. The bill would require the division and the authority, by on or before January 1, 2020, 2019, and annually thereafter, to post a report on their respective its Internet Web sites site containing specified information regarding violent incidents at hospitals. involving EMS providers in the performance of their duties.

The bill would exempt certain public employers from these provisions.

Existing law, the Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, governs local emergency medical service systems and plans and establishes the Emergency Medical Services Authority, which is responsible for the coordination and integration of all state activities concerning emergency medical services. Existing law provides that emergency medical personnel have specified due process rights when they are subject to suspension or termination for disciplinary cause or reason, as defined.

Existing law prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period mandated by an applicable statute, or an applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

Under existing law, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board within the Department of Industrial Relations promulgates occupational safety and health standards for the state. Under existing law, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health is required to enforce all occupational safety and health standards, as specified. A violation of these standards and regulations under specific circumstances is a crime.

This bill would require an employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest periods. This bill also would require the employer to provide these employees with prescribed meal periods.

The bill would require the standards board, no later than July 1, 2019, to adopt standards developed by the division that require any employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical service system or plan to adopt a workplace violence prevention plan as a part of the employers injury and illness prevention plan to protect system workers from aggressive and violent behavior. The bill would require the standards to include prescribed elements. The bill would require the division and the authority, by January 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, to post a report on their respective Internet Web sites containing specified information regarding violent incidents at hospitals.

The bill would exempt certain public employers from these provisions.

Because this bill would expand the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

Existing law, the Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, governs local emergency medical service systems and plans and establishes the Emergency Medical Services Authority, which is responsible for the coordination and integration of all state activities concerning emergency medical services. Existing law provides that emergency medical personnel have specified due process rights when they are subject to suspension or termination for disciplinary cause or reason, as defined.

This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to the rights and working conditions of emergency medical services workers. require an employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan to authorize and permit its employees to take prescribed rest periods.

Existing law, the Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, governs local emergency medical service systems and establishes the Emergency Medical Services Authority, which is responsible for the coordination and integration of all state activities concerning emergency medical services. Existing law provides that emergency medical personnel have specified due process rights when they are subject to suspension or termination for disciplinary cause or reason, as defined.

The California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 has the purpose of assuring safe and healthful working conditions for all California workers by authorizing the enforcement of effective standards, assisting and encouraging employers to maintain safe and healthful working conditions, and by providing for research, information, education, training, and enforcement in the field of occupational safety and health.

This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to the rights and working conditions of emergency medical services workers.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

AB 263 (Rodriguez) - Emergency medical services workers: rights and working conditions

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 263 would codify specific meal period and rest period provisions for emergency medical services employees.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) would incur costs of $358,000 in 2017-18, $255,000 in 2018-19, and $125,000 annually thereafter to administer its provisions of the bill (special fund). These costs include software development, hiring additional staff, and maintenance required to comply with the bill’s proposed reporting requirement.
• The Department of Industrial Relations would incur minor and absorbable costs.

Background:

Current law generally requires (with specified exemptions) that all employees be provided a meal break of 30 minutes before the start of the 5th hour of work, unless (1) the work period is no more than six hours, and (2) both the employer and the employee choose to waive the meal period by mutual consent. If the work period is more than ten hours, a second meal period of 30 minutes must also be provided to an employee. This second meal period can be waived by the mutual consent, but only if (1) the work period is no more than 12 hours, and (2) the first meal period was not waived. If an employer fails to provide a rest or meal period as required by an Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order, the employer must give the employee one hour of premium wages at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that a rest or meal period was not provided.

Additionally, under current law, an employer and employee may agree to an “on duty” meal period if both the employer and employee have signed a written agreement, as specified.

Proposed Law:

This bill would, among other things, do the following:

• Require an employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest periods and provide meal periods.
• Require that during the authorized rest or provided meal period, an employer must relieve an employee of all duties and relinquish control over how the employee spends his or her time, and shall not require that employee remain on call, except that an employer may require employees to monitor pagers, radios, station alert boxes, intercoms, cellular telephones, or other communication methods during rest or recovery periods, to provide for the public health and welfare.
• Provide that an employer may interrupt a rest or meal period, and require an employee to terminate a rest or meal period and resume work if either of the following occur:
  • The employer receives an emergency call in response to which the operators of the emergency vehicle in which the employee works would sound a siren and make visible the vehicle’s emergency lights.
  • An unforeseeable, natural, or man-made disaster.
• State that if a rest or meal period is interrupted pursuant to the listed exceptions, the employer shall (1) pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday during which the rest or meal period is interrupted, and (2) provide an equivalent rest or meal period as soon as practicable thereafter during the employee’s shift.
• Provide that this previous subsection shall apply regardless of whether the employee and employer have entered into a written agreement regarding an “on duty” meal period described in Wage Order 9 of the IWC.
• Require EMSA, by January 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, in a manner that protects patient and employee confidentiality, to post a report containing the information it received in the previous calendar year.
• Define “EMS provider” for purposes of this section as, an employer that provides prehospital emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan as defined.
• Exempt air ambulances from the requirements of the bill, providing that they can instead require on-duty meal and rest periods, as governed by federal law, with the requirement that the air ambulance employer must provide another meal and/or rest period when the first meal and/or rest period is interrupted.

Staff Comments:

In 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled on Augustus et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc., that “on-call” rest breaks are not considered breaks for the employees. The court determined that “being ‘on call’ compels employees to remain at the ready and capable of being summoned to action” and constitutes the definition of work in, “carrying a device or otherwise making arrangements so the employer can reach the employee during a break, responding when the employer seeks contact with the employee, and performing other work if the employer so requests.” As noted in the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations analysis of the bill, there is a lack of clarity with respect to how this bill would fit into the meal and rest structure created by Augustus and other court cases.

As noted above, both the bill’s meal period and rest period provisions require that the employee be paid an hour of premium pay if the meal period was interrupted. In the case of emergency services employees, where the potential interruptions may occur on a regular basis, this could create a scenario where a worker eventually receives his or her meal or rest period, but the employer is liable for multiple one hour premium pay payments due to the interruptions, despite the fact that the employee was not actually denied a meal or rest period.

Also as noted previously, EMSA would incur annual costs in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars to administer its provisions of the bill. EMSA would need increased budget authority for the EMS Personnel Fund, and would likely impact paramedic licensure and EMT certification fees.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Senator Steven Bradford, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: AB 263 Hearing Date: June 28, 2017

Subject: Emergency medical services workers: rights and working conditions

KEY ISSUE

Should the Legislature codify specific meal period and rest period provisions for emergency medical services employees?

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Requires, with certain exemptions, that all employees be provided a meal break of 30 minutes before the start of the 5th hour of work, unless the work period is no more than six hours and both the employer and the employee choose to waive the meal period by mutual consent. (Labor Code §512)
2. Requires that if the work period is more than ten hours, a second meal period of 30 minutes must also be provided to an employee. This second meal period can be waived by the mutual consent of the employer and employee, but only if the work period is no more than 12 hours, and the first meal period was not waived. (Labor Code §512)
3. Provides that, if an employer fails to provide a rest or meal period as required by an Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order, the employer must give the employee one hour of premium wages at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that a rest or meal period was not provided. (Labor Code §226.7)
4. Provides that an employer and employee may agree to an “on duty” meal period if both the employer and employee have signed a written agreement, as specified.
   (IWC Wage Order 9)

This bill:

1. Requires an employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest periods and provide meal periods.
2. Requires that during the authorized rest or provided meal period, an employer must relieve an employee of all duties and relinquish control over how the employee spends his or her time, and shall not require that employee remain on call, except that an employer may require employees to monitor pagers, radios, station alert boxes, intercoms, cellular telephones, or other communication methods during rest or recovery periods, to provide for the public health and welfare.
3. Provides that an employer may interrupt a rest or meal period, and require an employee to terminate a rest or meal period and resume work if either of the following occur:
4. The employer receives an emergency call in response to which the operators of the emergency vehicle in which the employee works would sound a siren and make visible the vehicle’s emergency lights.
5. An unforeseeable, natural, or man-made disaster.
6. States that if a rest or meal period is interrupted pursuant to the listed exceptions, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday during which the rest or meal period is interrupted, and shall provide an equivalent rest or meal period as soon as practicable thereafter during the employee’s shift.
7. Provides that this previous subsection shall apply regardless of whether the employee and employer have entered into a written agreement regarding an “on duty” meal period described in Wage Order 9 of the Industrial Welfare Commission.
8. Requires the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMS Authority), by January 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, in a manner that protects patient and employee confidentiality, shall post a report containing the information it received in the previous calendar year.
9. Defines “EMS provider” for purposes of this section as, an employer that provides prehospital emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan as defined.
10. Exempts air ambulances from the requirements of the bill, providing that they can instead require on-duty meal and rest periods, as governed by federal law, with the requirement that the air ambulance employer must provide another meal and/or rest period when the first meal and/or rest period is interrupted.

COMMENTS

1. Recent Case Law on Meal and Rest Periods:

The legislative history of meal and rest periods is a deep and significant chapter in the history of California labor law. While a brief legislative analysis does not permit for a full discussion of these points, two court cases are illustrative of the state of existing law and how AB 263 may fit in that larger structure.

Brinker and Meal Periods

In Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012)), the California Supreme Court found that the language in Labor Code 512, which says that an employer must “provide” a meal period to an employee, requires that an employer must make a meal period available to his or her employee, but does not require an employer to ensure that a meal period is taken. That is entirely up to the employee. This court case brought to a close many years of litigation on meal periods, as some worker advocates had argued that an employer had an affirmative obligation to make an employee take a meal period, similar to how an employer must provide an employee the minimum wage, even if the employee was willing to be paid less.

Augustus and Rest Periods

In Augustus v. ABM Security Services (2016), relying in part on the Brinker decision, the California Supreme Court found that an “on duty” rest period was NOT allowed. ABM Security Services had argued that an employee does not need to be relieved of all duty, and therefore their security officers could carry radios and be “on call” or “on duty” during their rest periods. The Supreme Court had argued that this was not the case, meaning that the employer had an affirmative responsibility to relieve their worker of any and all responsibilities during their 10 minute rest break. As this is new case law, it’s not entirely clear what the full import of this decision is, how many industries it directly impacts, or to what degree an employer is responsible to relieve the employee from all work.

2. Brinker, Augustus, and AB 263:

So, how does AB 263 fit in the larger meal and rest period structure created by Brinker and Augustus? Unfortunately, this isn’t entirely clear. The reason for this lack of clarity will be discussed below.

In the case of meal periods, AB 263 echoes the “provide” language found in existing law, which would seem to suggest that an employer only needs to make a meal period available to comply with the law, albeit with increased recordkeeping. The inclusion of language on an employee being relieved of all responsibilities is already in keeping with Brinker and existing law. However, the removal of the “on duty” meal period provision would appear to require that all meal periods are off-duty, but apparently still at the discretion of the employee.

In short, did the author intend to echo the Brinker case? Or was the author trying to create an affirmative responsibility on the employer for ensuring that a meal period was taken? If so, how would the employer do that?

The impact of AB 263 is further complicated by the inclusion of the communications device language: what constitutes the public health and welfare? Would listening to non-emergency radio chatter constitute an interruption of a meal period? If so, how could an employee listen to the radio for an emergency that threatens public health? If not, should that be specified?

In the case of rest periods, the impact is also unclear. If we assume that the Augustus decision applies to emergency services employees, then the biggest change with AB 263 is that it may allow “on duty” rest periods for emergency services employees. This is because, echoing the meal period provisions, the language expressly allows for the monitoring of electronic communication methods AT THE SAME TIME as being relieved of all duty. This would appear to exclude emergency services employees from the applicability of Augustus.

One final note: both the meal period and rest period provisions of AB 263 are further complicated by the fact that it requires that the employee be paid an hour of premium pay if the meal period was interrupted. In the case of emergency services employees, where the potential interruptions may be constant, this could create a situation of a worker eventually receives his or her meal or rest period, but the employer is liable for multiple one hour premium pay payments due to the interruptions, despite the fact that the employee was not actually denied a meal or rest period.

In short, the Committee may wish to encourage the author to clarify his intent with the bill and its impacts on emergency services employees, as well as potential liabilities faced by EMS providers.

3. Proponent Arguments:

The International Association of EMT’s and Paramedics supports this measure and states, “We believe California should treat its Emergency Medical Service (EMS) workforce fairly. Our laws should reflect the appropriate workplace protections afforded to other workers throughout California. This bill recognizes that for too long EMS workers have been subjected to a lack of meal and rest breaks, exposure to workplace violence, and little access to mental health services. This bill is a commonsense measure that will promote workplace morale and safety not only for EMS workers, but the public as well.”

United EMS Workers write in support of this measure, “most paramedics and EMTs in the private sector work 12 to 24 hour shifts, often going without adequate meal or rest breaks. High stress levels in these high pressure environments lead to unsafe conditions, compromising medical care and safety of personnel, patients and the public. As a result, EMS personnel have very high rates of on-the-job injuries, psychological and medical problems, shortened careers and burnout. Fatigue is a particular concern, not only due to its impact on patient medical care, but because EMTs and paramedics operate large vehicles under highly demanding conditions. To address these significant concerns, this bill will require contracted private sector EMS employers to provide adequate rest and meal breaks to service providers, thereby reducing some of the chronic stresses that have been shown to lead to the poor mental health conditions of EMS professionals.”

4. Opponent Arguments:

American Medical Response (AMR) opposes AB 263, stating: “AB 263…prevents private EMS operators from interrupting meal periods or rest breaks unless the interruption will require the use of lights and sirens, commonly referred to as Code 3 calls. What the proposed policy fails to appreciate is that emergency calls are frequently designated as Code 2, non-lights and sirens, because the risk of injury or death from an accident during a Code 3 response outweighs the immediacy of the emergency presented.

Despite the absence of lights and sirens, Code 2 calls are still considered an emergent medical condition with an established response time, and include responses for sexual assault, difficulty breathing, falls and broken bones. Even if an ambulance was stationed across the street from a Code 2 call location, under AB 263 the crew could not be dispatched to respond if they were on a meal period or rest break.

…

The standard practice of EMS has always been that the closest ambulance to an emergency responds because patient care takes precedent to rest breaks or meal periods. The fact is, meal period and rest break interruptions will always occur; they cannot be prevented in an EMS system. That said, we believe that employees should be compensated if a break or meal period is interrupted and not rescheduled.

Our meal periods are paid on call breaks, and only 6% of our workforce misses a meal period during their shift. When this occurs they not only receive their paid lunch break compensation but also an additional hour of pay for not having their lunch break rescheduled. Employees that have rest breaks that are interrupted and not rescheduled are also issued an hour of additional compensation, but this impacts less than 1% of our workforce because 40% to 60% of our crews shift time can be spent inactive.”

SUPPORT

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (Co-Sponsor)

United EMS Workers AFSCME Local 4911 (Co-Sponsor)

California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

California Professional Firefighters

California State Firefighters Association

International Association of EMT’s and Paramedics Local R-12/187

United Steel Workers, District 12

OPPOSITION

Alpha One

American Ambulance

American Legion Ambulance Service

American Medical Response

Butte County EMS

California Ambulance Association

Desert Ambulance Service

Emergency Medical Services Administrators’ Association

Escalon Community Ambulance

First Responder Emergency Medical Services

Gold Coast Ambulance

Hall Ambulance Service

McCormick Ambulance

Medic Ambulance

Mercy Medical Transportation

Patterson District Ambulance

Sierra Ambulance Service

Sonoma Life Support

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 263

Author:(Rodriguez)

As Amended Ver:May 3, 2017

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Mandates new requirements related to meal and rest periods of certain emergency medical services (EMS) employees and requires the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA), to post an annual report on its website regarding violent incidents involving EMS providers as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires an employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest and meal periods.
2. Provides that during the authorized rest or meal period, an employer shall relieve an employee of all duties and relinquish control over how the employee spends his or her time, except that an employer may require employees to monitor pagers, radios, station alert boxes, intercoms, cellular telephones or other communication methods during rest or recovery periods, to provide for the public health and welfare.
3. Provides that an employer may interrupt a rest or meal period, and require an employee to terminate a rest or meal period and resume work if either of the following occur:
   1. The employer receives an emergency call in response to which the operators of the emergency vehicle in which the employee works would sound a siren and make visible the vehicle's emergency lights.
   2. An unforeseeable, natural, or man-made disaster.
4. States that if a rest or meal period is interrupted pursuant to the listed exceptions, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay (premium pay) at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday during which the rest or meal period is interrupted, and shall provide an equivalent rest or meal period as soon as practicable thereafter during the employee's shift.
5. Provides that this previous subsection shall apply regardless of whether the employee and employer have entered into a written agreement regarding an "on duty" meal period described in the relevant Industrial Welfare Commission wage order.
6. Requires an employer to keep accurate time records showing when an employee begins and ends each meal period regardless of whether the period is interrupted, and the records shall be available for inspection by the employee upon reasonable request.
7. Requires an employer to include as part of the itemized statement the employer is required to furnish pursuant to the Labor Code Section 226, subdivision (a) the total hours or pay owed to the employee on account of an interrupted meal or rest period as well as the total hours or pay owed to the employee on account of a meal or rest period missed for any other reason.
8. Provides that public employees are exempted from all provisions of this bill as specified.
9. Requires EMSA to annually post a report on its Internet Web site regarding violent incidents involving EMS providers as specified, in a manner that protects patient and employee confidentiality.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, moderate costs for EMSA of approximately $300,000 in 2017-18 and $245,000 in 2018-19. These costs include additional staff required to comply with the proposed reporting requirement. Minor and absorbable costs for the Department of Labor Standards and Enforcement (DLSE) and the Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH).

COMMENTS: See the most recent policy committee analysis, for existing law and background on Augustus et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc. and Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court.

Arguments in Support

United EMS Workers write in support, "This bill codifies the application of the California Supreme Court's recent decision Augustus vs. ABM, which determined private sector employees are entitled to take uninterrupted rest and meal breaks. It conforms the Labor Code to the IWC Wage Order dealing with meal periods, specifically entitling private sector EMS/EMT workers to meal periods of 30 mins for every five hours worked. Although an employee may be promised "premium pay" by the employer for missing and/or not being provided a rest period or having to respond to an emergency call, the process to actually receive compensation for the interrupted rest or meal period can be overly cumbersome and difficult to navigate. Often there is no reasonable tracking process to ensure the employers are providing the necessary payment. This bill will ensure an appropriate payroll tracking processes is in place when meal breaks are unavailable."

Arguments in Opposition

The American Medical Response (AMR) writes in opposition, "Recent amendments to AB 263 are insufficient. Under AB 263, employees would still be allowed to move out of position up to 15 minutes away from their post locations because employers could not dictate where and how an employee takes a meal or break period. Thus, when a 911 call comes in and a crew is interrupted, what should be a 6-minute response time could be as long as 30 minutes because employees can drive or walk away from their post locations or station houses. The cost to AMR would be over $55 million a year. This would make the majority of our operations in the state financially unsustainable and force us to terminate many of our contracts. Because we cannot control where and how an employee takes their meal or break period, AMR cannot risk patient safety and would have to essentially hire an entire backfill workforce to cover the system to ensure patient care was not put at risk."

Analysis Prepared by: Taylor Jackson / L. & E. / 916-319-2091 FN: 0000833

Date of Hearing: May 10, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 263

Author:(Rodriguez) – As Amended Ver:May 3, 2017

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill imposes new requirements related to the meal and rest periods of certain emergency medical services (EMS) employees and requires the EMS Authority (EMSA) to post an annual report on its website regarding violent incidents involving EMS providers. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires an EMS provider to allow its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest and meal periods. During these rest and meal periods, the employer must relieve the employee of all duties and relinquish control over how the employee spends his or her time.
2. States that the authorized rest and meal time may be interrupted under specified circumstances. If there is an interruption, then the employer must pay an employee one additional hour of pay and must provide an equivalent rest or meal period as soon as practicable during the employee’s shift.
3. Requires EMSA by January 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, in a manner that protects patient and employee confidentiality, to post a report containing specified information regarding violent incidents involving EMS providers.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Moderate costs for EMSA of approximately $300,000 in 2017-18 and $245,000 in 2018-19. These costs include additional staff required to comply with the proposed reporting requirement.
2. Minor and absorbable costs for the Department of Labor Standards and Enforcement (DLSE) and the Department of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH).

COMMENTS:

1. Background. A 2016 study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center highlights the growing size of the private sector EMS workforce and many challenges these workers face. EMS work can be dangerous and stressful, and EMTs and paramedics suffer disproportionately from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Moreover, wages for private-sector EMS workers are low given their training and work environment: According to the UC Berkeley Labor Center, their median hourly wage was $16.59 in 2014.

Moreover, this workforce is large and growing. In 2015, 80% of California’s 16,700 emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and paramedics worked for private EMS providers, and overall EMS employment grew by 16% between 2007 and 2013. Further growth is expected given the growth in California’s elderly population.

1. Augustus et al v. ABM Security Services. In 2016, the California Supreme Court rules on Augustus et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc., in that, “on-call” rest breaks are not truly breaks for the employees. The court determined that the action of, “being ‘on call’ compels employees to remain at the ready and capable of being summoned to action” and constitutes the definition of work in, “carrying a device or otherwise making arrangements so the employer can reach the employee during a break, responding when the employer seeks contact with the employee, and performing other work if the employer so requests.”
2. Violent Incident Log. AB 263 requires EMS providers to send to the EMS Authority the information collected pursuant to specified regulations. Under those regulations, health care employers must maintain a “violent incident log,” which is recorded information about violent incidents, post-incident responses, and workplace violence injury investigations.
3. Purpose. According to the author, AB 263 will reduce worker fatigue and stress among EMS employees. Supporters of the bill note that EMS workers have been subjected to a lack of meal and rest breaks and exposure to workplace violence, and that this bill will help improve morale and safety.

Analysis Prepared by: Luke Reidenbach / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 19, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

Tony Thurmond, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 263 (

Author:Rodriguez) – As Amended Ver:March 22, 2017

SUBJECT: Emergency medical services workers: rights and working conditions

SUMMARY: Requires an employer that provides emergency medical services, to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest and meal periods, and requires the EMS Authority to post an annual report on its website regarding violent incidents involving EMS providers and containing information as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires an employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest and meal periods.
2. Provides that during the authorized rest or meal period, an employer shall relieve an employee of all duties and relinquish control over how the employee spends his or her time, and shall not require that employee remain on call.
3. Provides that an employer may interrupt a rest or meal period, and require an employee to terminate a rest or meal period and resume work if either of the following occur:
   1. The employer receives an emergency call in response to which the operators of the emergency vehicle in which the employee works would sound a siren and make visible the vehicle’s emergency lights.
   2. An unforeseeable, natural, or man-made disaster.
4. States that if a rest or meal period is interrupted pursuant to the listed exceptions, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay (premium pay) at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday during which the rest or meal period is interrupted, and shall provide an equivalent rest or meal period as soon as practicable thereafter during the employee’s shift.
5. Provides that this previous subsection shall apply regardless of whether the employee and employer have entered into a written agreement regarding an “on duty” meal period described in Wage Order 9 of the Industrial Welfare Commission (8 Cal. Code Regs. 11090).
6. Requires an employer to keep accurate time records showing when an employee begins and ends each meal period regardless of whether the period is interrupted, and the records shall be available for inspection by the employee upon reasonable request.
7. Requires an employer to include as part of the itemized statement the employer is required to furnish pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 226, the total hours or pay owed to the employee on account of an interrupted meal period as well as the total hours or pay owed to the employee on account of a meal period missed for any other reason.
8. Provides that certain public employees are exempted from all provisions of this bill.
9. Requires the standards to include, but not be limited to prescribed elements.
10. Requires the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMS Authority), by January 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, in a manner that protects patient and employee confidentiality, shall post a report on their respective Internet Web sites containing specified information regarding violent incidents involving EMS providers.
11. Provides that in the performance of their duties, that the EMS Authority must include at a minimum, certain components including the number of employees injured, the types of injuries sustained and whether security or law enforcement was contacted and how security or law enforcement assisted an employee.
12. Defines “EMS provider” for purposes of this section as, an employer that provides prehospital emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan as defined.
13. Defines other various terms for the purposes of this section.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period mandated by an applicable statute, or an applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
2. Provides that an employer may not employ someone for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the non-exempt employee with a 30-minute unpaid off-duty meal break.
3. Provides that an employer must authorize a non-exempt employee to take a 10 minute paid rest break for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof.
4. Requires that if an employer fails to provide an employee a rest or meal period as specified, the employer shall pay the employee one hour of pay (premium pay) at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday during which the meal or rest break is not provided.
5. Provides that employers may be required to pay up to two hours of premium pay for each day that two separate violations occur.
6. Provides that premium pay is a wage, not a penalty, and must be included in the employee’s next paycheck.
7. Requires that an employer provide a second meal break of no fewer than 30 minutes for all workdays, with some exceptions, on which an employee works more than 10 hours.
8. Requires that a rest or recovery period mandated pursuant to state law be counted as hours worked, for which there shall be no deduction from wages.
9. Establishes the Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, governs local emergency medical service systems and plans and establishes the Emergency Medical Services Authority, which is responsible for the coordination and integration of all state activities concerning emergency medical services. Provides that emergency medical personnel have specified due process rights when they are subject to suspension or termination for disciplinary cause or reason, as defined.
10. Establishes the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board within the Department of Industrial Relations, which promulgates occupational safety and health standards for the state. The Division of Occupational Safety and Health is required to enforce all occupational safety and health standards, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: The author argues that, emergency medical workers in the private sector do not receive uninterrupted rest breaks. Breaks, when taken are “on call” meaning that employees must be attentive to radios and be ready to respond to calls immediately. This leads to worker fatigue and stress among other health and safety concerns.

In addition, the author states that EMS employees do not have protocols for addressing violent or aggressive patients or passengers. The mortality rate on the job for EMS workers is only slightly less than that of police officers (12.7 per 100,000 EMS workers and 14.2 per 100,000 police officers)^[1]. EMS employees are neither armed nor trained to address violent situations.

Background on Augustus v. ABM

In 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled on Augustus et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc., in that, “on-call” rest breaks are not truly breaks for the employees.

ABM Security Services, Inc. (ABM) employs security guards in California. ABM required its security guards to take rest breaks with pagers or radios, and remain “on call” in case they were needed at their post immediately, and could not finish their breaks. Workers sued ABM claiming they had failed to provide guards with ten-minute rest periods as required by California law. The plaintiffs’ were granted the motion for summary judgment by a trial court in LA and the class was awarded $90 million in penalties, fees and wages. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion, concluding that ABM’s policy was to provide guards with rest periods subject to employer control and the obligation to perform certain work-related duties. The court reasoned that a rest period subject to such control was indistinguishable from the rest of a workday; in other words, an on-duty or on-call break is not a break at all.

The California 2^nd District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and held that being on call, is still a break. When ABM appealed the judgment, the appeal court reversed, noting that neither the Labor Code nor the Wage Orders require that employees be relieved of all duties during rest periods. Their opinion was that the requirement that employees be “relieved of all duty” applies only to meal periods. They also opinioned that, the statutory language provides that employees cannot be required to “work” during rest periods, and merely requiring an employee to be on call, does not constitute requiring the employee to work.

The California Supreme Court, however, agreed with the trial court, and reversed the appeal court’s decision. The California Supreme Court opinioned that:

“What we conclude is that state law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods. During required rest periods, employers must relieve their employees of all duties and relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time. (See Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal. 4^th 1004, 1038-1039 (Brinker))… Because state law requires employers to provide their employees with rest periods that are free from duties or employer control, we reverse the Court of Appeal.”

“The rest period, in short, must be a period of rest.” The Court declared that only a completely “duty-free” rest period fulfills the Legislature's intent of promoting employee welfare and safety and that “on duty” rest periods are prohibited under the wage orders and Labor Code §226.7. “We liberally construe the Labor Code and wage orders to favor the protection of employees. (E.g., Brinker, at pp. 1026-1027; Murphy, at p.1103 [“statutes governing conditions of employment are to be construed broadly”].)”

The court determined that the action of, “being ‘on call’ compels employees to remain at the ready and capable of being summoned to action” and constitutes the definition of work in, “carrying a device or otherwise making arrangements so the employer can reach the employee during a break, responding when the employer seeks contact with the employee, and performing other work if the employer so requests.” The court found that an employee on a rest break who must be “at the ready, tethered by time and policy to particular locations or communications devices,” is not duty free regardless of if or how much they were interrupted. The California Supreme Court claimed that its holding did not preclude employers from “reasonably rescheduling” rest periods when needed. The court also suggested that some employers could seek an exemption from the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) from duty-free rest period requirements as provided in the Wage Orders.

Background on Brinker v. Superior Court

In Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court the California Supreme Court set specific guidelines relating to meal breaks. The court opinioned that an employer’s obligation is to “provide” the meal break, but not “ensure” that the employee does no work. An off-duty meal period for a non-exempt employee can only be unpaid if the employer meets the following conditions:

1. Relieves its employees of all duty
2. Relinquishes control over their activities
3. Permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted, 30-minute break.
4. Does not impede or discourage them from doing so.

The duty to provide a meal break is an affirmative duty of the employer. The employer must relinquish control over the employee’s time, with some exceptions, during this break, which includes but is not limited to allowing the employee to leave the premise.

Brinker also set forth the timing for meal periods. The first meal break must be provided “no later than the end of the employee’s fifth hour of work.” The second meal break must be provided “no later than the end of an employee’s 10^th hour of work.”

Arguments in Support

The International Association of EMT’s and Paramedics supports this measure and states, “We believe California should treat its Emergency Medical Service (EMS) workforce fairly. Our laws should reflect the appropriate workplace protections afforded to other workers throughout California. This bill recognizes that for too long EMS workers have been subjected to a lack of meal and rest breaks, exposure to workplace violence, and little access to mental health services. This bill is a commonsense measure that will promote workplace morale and safety not only for EMS workers, but the public as well.”

United EMS Workers write in support of this measure, “most paramedics and EMTs in the private sector work 12 to 24 hour shifts, often going without adequate meal or rest breaks. High stress levels in these high pressure environments lead to unsafe conditions, compromising medical care and safety of personnel, patients and the public. As a result, EMS personnel have very high rates of on-the-job injuries, psychological and medical problems, shortened careers and burnout. Fatigue is a particular concern, not only due to its impact on patient medical care, but because EMTs and paramedics operate large vehicles under highly demanding conditions. To address these significant concerns, this bill will require contracted private sector EMS employers to provide adequate rest and meal breaks to service providers, thereby reducing some of the chronic stresses that have been shown to lead to the poor mental health conditions of EMS professionals. This bill codifies the application of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Augustus vs. ABM, which determined that private sector employees are entitled to take uninterrupted rest and meal breaks. Secondarily, it conforms the Labor Code to the IWC Wage Order dealing with meal periods, specifically entitling private sector EMS/EMT workers to meal periods of 30 mins for every five hours worked. Although an employee may be promised “premium pay” by the employer for missing and/or not being provided a rest period or having to respond to an emergency call, the process to actually receive compensation for the interrupted rest or meal period can be overly cumbersome and difficult to navigate. Often there is no reasonable tracking process to ensure the employers are providing the necessary payment. This bill will ensure an appropriate payroll tracking processes is in place when meal breaks are unavailable.”

Arguments in Opposition

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses United, argue against this bill stating, " CNA appreciates the chair’s efforts to bring the parties together to address our concerns that the landmark workplace violence protections created by SB 1299 (Padilla, Chapter 842, Statutes of 2014) not be undermined. The most recent amendments unfortunately do not address these concerns…. AB 263’s new EMSA reporting requirements are added to the Labor Code which is problematic for a number of reasons. First, all of SB 1299’s protections are contained in the Labor Code and allowing a new entity, EMSA (which derives its authority from the Health and Safety Code), to interpret and promulgate regulations could create another standard dealing with incidents of workplace violence already covered by SB 1299. Second, any new requirements imposed on EMSA should be added to the Health and Safety Code, which contains EMSA’s authorizing and related provisions. Even the Department of Industrial Relations has indicated that AB 263’s new provisions need to be moved to the Health and Safety Code in order to ensure proper enforcement and avoid triggering another regulatory process on the issue.

In order to address these concerns, CNA has suggested the following amendments:

1. Delete Section 3 of the bill
2. Add new Health and Safety Code section 1797.123 to:
   1. Require EMS providers to send the information contained in their violent incident logs under 8 CCR 3342(d) to the Emergency Medical Services Authority and require EMSA to annually post a report online that contains this information.
   2. Specify that, for purposes of this section, “EMS provider” means an employer that provides prehospital emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, but shall not include the state or any political subdivision thereof, including any city, county, or special district, in its capacity as the direct employer of an EMS employee.
   3. Provide that “Nothing in this section is intended to alter or amend existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements by EMS providers under 8 CCR 3342.”

A variety of ambulance companies and associations are opposed to this measure. The American Ambulance Association writes in opposition that, “We believe this bill as written, poses an unintended and serious threat to public safety. Specifically, this bill states that an employee cannot be on call during a break or meal period. Thus, once a break or meal period is initiated, an employee cannot be required to passively carry an alerting device such as a pager, cell phone or portable radio… Our duty to our community means compliance with this bill will be nearly impossible.”

The Medic Ambulance Service argues in opposition to this measure that, “This bill attempts to change terms of current employer labor agreements and references a Wage Order that does not currently apply to our workforce. These terms were negotiated and compensations determined based on break and meal period agreements. However, this bill as currently written would greatly impact our ability to operate EMS systems in our response areas and would place patient care at risk. This bill states that an employee cannot be on call during a break or meal period. Thus, once a break or meal period is initiated, an employee cannot be required to monitor radio traffic, carry a pager or portable communications device. An employer can also not restrict an employee to remain close to their ambulance, 911-dispatch center or station house. This bill allows an employee operating in the EMS system to walk away as far as a mile without the ability of the employer to communicate with them. This means that even if a medical emergency or multi-casualty event occurred close to an employee currently on a break, an employer cannot interrupt them to respond to that event…. Medic is also concerned that this bill is limited to only private EMS employers. We would welcome expanding the scope of this bill to include all emergency employees, as the issues seeking to be addressed by the author are not restricted to private ambulance providers. In fact, break and meal interruptions are not specific to EMS or the health care industry.”

Previous Related Legislation

SB 1299 (Padilla), Chapter 842, Statutes of 2014 was similar to the workplace violence prevention provisions in this bill. SB 1299 required the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards Board (OSHA), no later than July 1, 2016, to adopt standards that require specified hospitals to adopt a workplace violence prevention plan as part of their injury and illness prevention plan to protect health care workers and other facility personnel from aggressive and violent behavior.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (sponsor)

California Labor Federation

California State Firefighters' Association

International Association of EMT’s and Paramedics, Local R-12/187

SEIU California

United EMS Workers Local 4911 AFSCME AFL-CIO (sponsor)

United Steel Workers, District 12

Opposition

American Ambulance

American Legion Post 108 Ambulance Service

American Medical Response

Butte County EMS, LLC

California Ambulance Association

California Association of Air Medical Services

California Nurses Association/National Nurses United

Desert Ambulance Service, Inc.

Hall Ambulance Service Incorporated

McCormick Ambulance

Medic Ambulance Service

Sierra Ambulance Service, Inc.

Analysis Prepared by: Taylor Jackson / L. & E. / 916-319-2091

1. Jacobs and Waheed “Emergency Medical Services in California: Wages, Working Conditions and Industry Profile” (p. 12) ↑

Date of Hearing: March 29, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

Tony Thurmond, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 263 (

Author:Rodriguez) – As Amended Ver:March 22, 2017

SUBJECT: Emergency medical services workers: rights and working conditions

SUMMARY: Requires an employer that provides emergency medical services, to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest and meal periods, and requires these employers to adopt a workplace violence prevention plan. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires an employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest and meal periods.
2. Provides that during the authorized rest or meal period, an employer shall relieve an employee of all duties and relinquish control over how the employee spends his or her time, and shall not require that employee remain on call.
3. Provides that an employer may interrupt a rest or meal period, and require an employee to terminate a rest or meal period and resume work if either of the following occur:
   1. The employer receives an emergency call in response to which the operators of the emergency vehicle in which the employee works would sound a siren and make visible the vehicle’s emergency lights.
   2. An unforeseeable, natural, or man-made disaster.
4. States that if a rest or meal period is interrupted pursuant to the listed exceptions, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay (premium pay) at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday during which the rest or meal period is interrupted, and shall provide an equivalent rest or meal period as soon as practicable thereafter during the employee’s shift.
5. Provides that this previous subsection shall apply regardless of whether the employee and employer have entered into a written agreement regarding an “on duty” meal period described in Wage Order 4 of the Industrial Welfare Commission (8 Cal. Code Regs. 11040).
6. Requires an employer to keep accurate time records showing when an employee begins and ends each meal period regardless of whether the period is interrupted, and the records shall be available for inspection by the employee upon reasonable request.
7. Requires an employer to include as part of the itemized statement the employer is required to furnish pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 226, the total hours or pay owed to the employee on account of an interrupted meal period as well as the total hours or pay owed to the employee on account of a meal period missed for any other reason.
8. Provides that certain public employees are exempted from all provisions of this bill.
9. Requires the standards to include, but not be limited to prescribed elements.
10. Requires the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMS Authority), by January 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, in a manner that protects patient and employee confidentiality, shall post a report on their respective Internet Web sites containing specified information regarding violent incidents involving EMS providers.
11. Provides that in the performance of their duties, that the EMS Authority must include at a minimum, certain components including the number of employees injured, the types of injuries sustained and whether security or law enforcement was contacted and how security or law enforcement assisted an employee.
12. Defines “EMS provider” for purposes of this section as, an employer that provides prehospital emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan as defined.
13. Defines other various terms for the purposes of this section.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period mandated by an applicable statute, or an applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
2. Provides that an employer may not employ someone for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the non-exempt employee with a 30-minute unpaid off-duty meal break.
3. Provides that an employer must authorize a non-exempt employee to take a 10 minute paid rest break for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof.
4. Requires that if an employer fails to provide an employee a rest or meal period as specified, the employer shall pay the employee one hour of pay (premium pay) at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday during which the meal or rest break is not provided.
5. Provides that employers may be required to pay up to two hours of premium pay for each day that two separate violations occur.
6. Provides that premium pay is a wage, not a penalty, and must be included in the employee’s next paycheck.
7. Requires that an employer provide a second meal break of no fewer than 30 minutes for all workdays, with some exceptions, on which an employee works more than 10 hours.
8. Establishes the Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, governs local emergency medical service systems and plans and establishes the Emergency Medical Services Authority, which is responsible for the coordination and integration of all state activities concerning emergency medical services. Provides that emergency medical personnel have specified due process rights when they are subject to suspension or termination for disciplinary cause or reason, as defined.
9. Establishes the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board within the Department of Industrial Relations, which promulgates occupational safety and health standards for the state. The Division of Occupational Safety and Health is required to enforce all occupational safety and health standards, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: The author argues that, emergency medical workers in the private sector do not receive uninterrupted rest breaks. Breaks, when taken are “on call” meaning that employees must be attentive to radios and be ready to respond to calls immediately. This leads to worker fatigue and stress among other health and safety concerns.

In addition, the author states that EMS employees do not have protocols for addressing violent or aggressive patients or passengers. The mortality rate on the job for EMS workers is only slightly less than that of police officers (12.7 per 100,000 EMS workers and 14.2 per 100,000 police officers)^[1]. EMS employees are neither armed nor trained to address violent situations.

Background on Augustus v. ABM

In 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled on Augustus et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc., in that, “on-call” rest breaks are not truly breaks for the employees.

ABM Security Services, Inc. (ABM) employs security guards in California. ABM required its security guards to take rest breaks with pagers or radios, and remain “on call” in case they were needed at their post immediately, and could not finish their breaks. Workers sued ABM claiming they had failed to provide guards with ten-minute rest periods as required by California law. The plaintiffs’ were granted the motion for summary judgment by a trial court in LA and the class was awarded $90 million in penalties, fees and wages. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion, concluding that ABM’s policy was to provide guards with rest periods subject to employer control and the obligation to perform certain work-related duties. The court reasoned that a rest period subject to such control was indistinguishable from the rest of a workday; in other words, an on-duty or on-call break is not a break at all.

The California 2^nd District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and held that being on call, is still a break. When ABM appealed the judgment, the appeal court reversed, noting that neither the Labor Code nor the Wage Orders require that employees be relieved of all duties during rest periods. Their opinion was that the requirement that employees be “relieved of all duty” applies only to meal periods. They also opinioned that, the statutory language provides that employees cannot be required to “work” during rest periods, and merely requiring an employee to be on call, does not constitute requiring the employee to work.

The California Supreme Court, however, agreed with the trial court, and reversed the appeal court’s decision. The California Supreme Court opinioned that:

“What we conclude is that state law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods. During required rest periods, employers must relieve their employees of all duties and relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time. (See Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal. 4^th 1004, 1038-1039 (Brinker))… Because state law requires employers to provide their employees with rest periods that are free from duties or employer control, we reverse the Court of Appeal.”

“The rest period, in short, must be a period of rest.” The Court declared that only a completely “duty-free” rest period fulfills the Legislature's intent of promoting employee welfare and safety and that “on duty” rest periods are prohibited under Wage Order 4, subdivision 12(A) and Labor Code §226.7. “We liberally construe the Labor Code and wage orders to favor the protection of employees. (E.g., Brinker, at pp. 1026-1027; Murphy, at p.1103 [“statutes governing conditions of employment are to be construed broadly”].)”

The court determined that the action of, “being ‘on call’ compels employees to remain at the ready and capable of being summoned to action” and constitutes the definition of work in, “carrying a device or otherwise making arrangements so the employer can reach the employee during a break, responding when the employer seeks contact with the employee, and performing other work if the employer so requests.” The court found that an employee on a rest break who must be “at the ready, tethered by time and policy to particular locations or communications devices,” is not “duty free” regardless of if or how much they were interrupted. The California Supreme Court claimed that its holding did not preclude employers from “reasonably rescheduling” rest periods when needed. The court also suggested that some employers could seek an exemption from the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) from duty-free rest period requirements as provided in the Wage Orders.

Background on Brinker v. Superior Court

In Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court the California Supreme Court set specific guidelines relating to meal breaks. The court opinioned that an employer’s obligation is to “provide” the meal break, but not “ensure” that the employee does no work. An off-duty meal period for a non-exempt employee can only be unpaid if the employer meets the following conditions:

1. Relieves its employees of all duty
2. Relinquishes control over their activities
3. Permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted, 30-minute break.
4. Does not impede or discourage them from doing so.

The duty to provide a meal break is an affirmative duty of the employer. The employer must relinquish control over the employee’s time, with some exceptions, during this break, which includes but is not limited to allowing the employee to leave the premise.

Brinker also set forth the timing for meal periods. The first meal break must be provided “no later than the end of the employee’s fifth hour of work.” The second meal break must be provided “no later than the end of an employee’s 10^th hour of work.”

Arguments in Support

The International Association of EMT’s and Paramedics supports this measure and states, “We believe California should treat its Emergency Medical Service (EMS) workforce fairly. Our laws should reflect the appropriate workplace protections afforded to other workers throughout California. This bill recognizes that for too long EMS workers have been subjected to a lack of meal and rest breaks, exposure to workplace violence, and little access to mental health services. This bill is a commonsense measure that will promote workplace morale and safety not only for EMS workers, but the public as well.”

United EMS Workers write in support of this measure, “most paramedics and EMTs in the private sector work 12 to 24 hour shifts, often going without adequate meal or rest breaks. High stress levels in these high pressure environments lead to unsafe conditions, compromising medical care and safety of personnel, patients and the public. As a result, EMS personnel have very high rates of on-the-job injuries, psychological and medical problems, shortened careers and burnout. Fatigue is a particular concern, not only due to its impact on patient medical care, but because EMTs and paramedics operate large vehicles under highly demanding conditions. To address these significant concerns, this bill will require contracted private sector EMS employers to provide adequate rest and meal breaks to service providers, thereby reducing some of the chronic stresses that have been shown to lead to the poor mental health conditions of EMS professionals. This bill codifies the application of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Augustus vs. ABM, which determined that private sector employees are entitled to take uninterrupted rest and meal breaks. Secondarily, it conforms the Labor Code to the IWC Wage Order No. 4 dealing with meal periods, specifically entitling private sector EMS/EMT workers to meal periods of 30 mins for every five hours worked. Although an employee may be promised “premium pay” by the employer for missing and/or not being provided a rest period or having to respond to an emergency call, the process to actually receive compensation for the interrupted rest or meal period can be overly cumbersome and difficult to navigate. Often there is no reasonable tracking process to ensure the employers are providing the necessary payment. This bill will ensure an appropriate payroll tracking processes is in place when meal breaks are unavailable.”

Arguments in Opposition

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses United, argue against this bill stating, "Tt is our understanding that the author desires to create an online reporting requirement for the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) to report on violent incidents committed against EMS providers which occur before the provider arrives at the hospital with the patient. As currently written, however, this bill is not limited to the pre-hospital setting. SB 1299 (Padilla) from 2014 and its implementing regulations already require hospitals to report violent incidents which occur at the hospital. This bill undermines these important protections because it is not limited to incidents occurring in the pre-hospital setting, as we understand the author intends.

This bills new EMSA reporting requirements are added to the Labor Code which is problematic for two reasons. First all of SB 1299's protections are contained in the Labor Code and allowing a new entity, EMSA (which derives its authority from the Health and Safety Code) to interpret and promulgate regulations could potentially create another standard dealing with incidents of workplace violence already covered by SB 1299. Second, any new requirements imposed on EMSA should be added to the Health and Safety Code, which contains EMSA's authorizing provisions."

A variety of ambulance companies and associations are opposed to this measure. The American Ambulance Association writes in opposition that, “We believe this bill as written, poses an unintended and serious threat to public safety. Specifically, this bill states that an employee cannot be on call during a break or meal period. Thus, once a break or meal period is initiated, an employee cannot be required to passively carry an alerting device such as a pager, cell phone or portable radio… Our duty to our community means compliance with this bill will be nearly impossible.”

The Medic Ambulance Service argues in opposition to this measure that, “This bill attempts to change terms of current employer labor agreements and references a Wage Order that does not currently apply to our workforce. These terms were negotiated and compensations determined based on break and meal period agreements. However, this bill as currently written would greatly impact our ability to operate EMS systems in our response areas and would place patient care at risk. This bill states that an employee cannot be on call during a break or meal period. Thus, once a break or meal period is initiated, an employee cannot be required to monitor radio traffic, carry a pager or portable communications device. An employer can also not restrict an employee to remain close to their ambulance, 911-dispatch center or station house. This bill allows an employee operating in the EMS system to walk away as far as a mile without the ability of the employer to communicate with them. This means that even if a medical emergency or multi-casualty event occurred close to an employee currently on a break, an employer cannot interrupt them to respond to that event…. Medic is also concerned that this bill is limited to only private EMS employers. We would welcome expanding the scope of this bill to include all emergency employees, as the issues seeking to be addressed by the author are not restricted to private ambulance providers. In fact, break and meal interruptions are not specific to EMS or the health care industry.”

Previous Related Legislation

SB 1299 (Padilla), Chapter 842, Statutes of 2014 was similar to the workplace violence prevention provisions in this bill. SB 1299 required the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards Board (OSHA), no later than July 1, 2016, to adopt standards that require specified hospitals to adopt a workplace violence prevention plan as part of their injury and illness prevention plan to protect health care workers and other facility personnel from aggressive and violent behavior.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (sponsor)

California Labor Federation

California State Firefighters' Association

International Association of EMT’s and Paramedics, Local R-12/187

United EMS Workers Local 4911 AFSCME AFL-CIO (sponsor)

United Steel Workers, District 12

Opposition

American Ambulance

American Legion Post 108 Ambulance Service

American Medical Response

Butte County EMS, LLC

California Ambulance Association

California Association of Air Medical Services

California Nurses Association/National Nurses United

Desert Ambulance Service, Inc.

Hall Ambulance Service Incorporated

McCormick Ambulance

Medic Ambulance Service

Sierra Ambulance Service, Inc.

Analysis Prepared by: Taylor Jackson / L. & E. / 916-319-2091

1. Jacobs and Waheed “Emergency Medical Services in California: Wages, Working Conditions and Industry Profile” (p. 12) ↑

Date of Hearing: March 15, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

Tony Thurmond, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 263 (

Author:Rodriguez) – As Amended Ver:March 8, 2017

SUBJECT: Emergency medical services workers: rights and working conditions

SUMMARY: Requires an employer that provides emergency medical services, to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest and meal periods, and requires these employers to adopt a workplace violence prevention plan. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires an employer that provides emergency medical services as part of an emergency medical services system or plan to authorize and permit its employees engaged in prehospital emergency services to take prescribed rest and meal periods.
2. Provides that during the authorized rest or meal period, an employer shall relieve an employee of all duties and relinquish control over how the employee spends his or her time, and shall not require that employee remain on call.
3. Provides that an employer may interrupt a rest or meal period, and require an employee to terminate a rest or meal period and resume work if either of the following occur:
   1. The employer receives an emergency call in response to which the operators of the emergency vehicle in which the employee works would sound a siren and make visible the vehicle’s emergency lights.
   2. An unforeseeable, natural, or man-made disaster.
4. States that if a rest or meal period is interrupted pursuant to the listed exceptions, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay (premium pay) at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday during which the rest or meal period is interrupted, and shall provide an equivalent rest or meal period as soon as practicable thereafter during the employee’s shift.
5. Provides that this previous subsection shall apply regardless of whether the employee and employer have entered into a written agreement regarding an “on duty” meal period described in Wage Order 4 of the Industrial Welfare Commission (8 Cal. Code Regs. 11040).
6. Requires an employer to keep accurate time records showing when an employee begins and ends each meal period regardless of whether the period is interrupted, and the records shall be available for inspection by the employee upon reasonable request.
7. Requires an employer to include as part of the itemized statement the employer is required to furnish pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 226, the total hours or pay owed to the employee on account of an interrupted meal period as well as the total hours or pay owed to the employee on account of a meal period missed for any other reason.
8. Provides that certain public employees are exempted from this bill.
9. Requires the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board), no later than July 1, 2019, to adopt standards developed by the division that require any employer that provides emergency medical services as part of emergency medical service system or plan, to adopt a workplace violence prevention plan as a part of the employer’s injury and illness prevention plan to protect system workers from aggressive and violent behavior.
10. Requires the standards to include, but not be limited to prescribed elements.
11. Requires the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, by January 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, in a manner that protects patient and employee confidentiality, shall post a report on their respective Internet Web sites containing specified information regarding violent incidents involving EMS providers.
12. Provides that this section does not limit the authority of the board to adopt standards to protect employees from workplace violence. Provides that nothing in this section shall be interpreted to preclude the standards board from adopting standards that require other employers, including, but not limited to, employers exempted from this section, to adopt plans to protect employees from workplace violence. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to preclude the standards board from adopting standards that require an employer subject to this section, or any other employer, to adopt a workplace violence prevention plan that includes elements or requirements additional to, or broader in scope than, those described in this section.
13. Defines various terms for the purposes of this section.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period mandated by an applicable statute, or an applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
2. Provides that an employer may not employ someone for a work period of more than five hours per day without providing the non-exempt employee with a 30-minute unpaid off-duty meal break.
3. Provides that an employer must authorize a non-exempt employee to take a 10 minute paid rest break for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof.
4. Requires that if an employer fails to provide an employee a rest or meal period as specified, the employer shall pay the employee one hour of pay (premium pay) at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday during which the meal or rest break is not provided.
5. Provides that employers may be required to pay up to two hours of premium pay for each day that two separate violations occur.
6. Provides that premium pay is a wage, not a penalty, and must be included in the employee’s next paycheck.
7. Requires that an employer provide a second meal break of no fewer than 30 minutes for all workdays, with some exceptions, on which an employee works more than 10 hours.
8. Establishes the Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, governs local emergency medical service systems and plans and establishes the Emergency Medical Services Authority, which is responsible for the coordination and integration of all state activities concerning emergency medical services. Provides that emergency medical personnel have specified due process rights when they are subject to suspension or termination for disciplinary cause or reason, as defined.
9. Establishes the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board within the Department of Industrial Relations, which promulgates occupational safety and health standards for the state. The Division of Occupational Safety and Health is required to enforce all occupational safety and health standards, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: The author argues that, emergency medical workers in the private sector do not receive uninterrupted rest breaks. Breaks, when taken are “on call” meaning that employees must be attentive to radios and be ready to respond to calls immediately. This leads to worker fatigue and stress among other health and safety concerns.

In addition, the author states that EMS employees do not have protocols for addressing violent or aggressive patients or passengers. The mortality rate on the job for EMS workers is only slightly less than that of police officers (12.7 per 100,000 EMS workers and 14.2 per 100,000 police officers)^[1]. EMS employees are neither armed nor trained to address violent situations.

Background on Augustus v. ABM

In 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled on Augustus et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc., in that, “on-call” rest breaks are not truly breaks for the employees.

ABM Security Services, Inc. (ABM) employs security guards in California. ABM required its security guards to take rest breaks with pagers or radios, and remain “on call” in case they were needed at their post immediately, and could not finish their breaks. Workers sued ABM claiming they had failed to provide guards with 10-minute rest periods as required by California law. The plaintiffs’ were granted the motion for summary judgment by a trial court in LA and the class was awarded $90 million in penalties, fees and wages. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion, concluding that ABM’s policy was to provide guards with rest periods subject to employer control and the obligation to perform certain work-related duties. The court reasoned that a rest period subject to such control was indistinguishable from the rest of a workday; in other words, an on-duty or on-call break is not a break at all.

The California 2^nd District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and held that being on call, is still a break. When ABM appealed the judgment, the appeal court reversed, noting that neither the Labor Code nor the Wage Orders require that employees be relieved of all duties during rest periods. Their opinion was that the requirement that employees be “relieved of all duty” applies only to meal periods. They also opinioned that, the statutory language provides that employees cannot be required to “work” during rest periods, and merely requiring an employee to be on call, does not constitute requiring the employee to work.

The California Supreme Court, however, agreed with the trial court, and reversed the appeal court’s decision. The California Supreme Court opinioned that:

“What we conclude is that state law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods. During required rest periods, employers must relieve their employees of all duties and relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time. (See Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal. 4^th 1004, 1038-1039 (Brinker))… Because state law requires employers to provide their employees with rest periods that are free from duties or employer control, we reverse the Court of Appeal.”

“The rest period, in short, must be a period of rest.” The Court declared that only a completely “duty-free” rest period fulfills the Legislature's intent of promoting employee welfare and safety and that “on duty” rest periods are prohibited under Wage Order 4, subdivision 12(A) and Labor Code §226.7. “We liberally construe the Labor Code and wage orders to favor the protection of employees. (E.g., Brinker, at pp. 1026-1027; Murphy, at p.1103 [“statutes governing conditions of employment are to be construed broadly”].)”

The court determined that the action of, “being ‘on call’ compels employees to remain at the ready and capable of being summoned to action” and constitutes the definition of work in, “carrying a device or otherwise making arrangements so the employer can reach the employee during a break, responding when the employer seeks contact with the employee, and performing other work if the employer so requests.” The court found that an employee on a rest break who must be “at the ready, tethered by time and policy to particular locations or communications devices,” is not “duty free” regardless of if or how much they were interrupted. The California Supreme Court claimed that its holding did not preclude employers from “reasonably rescheduling” rest periods when needed. The court also suggested that some employers could seek an exemption from the DLSE from duty-free rest period requirements as provided in the Wage Orders.

Background on Brinker v. Superior Court

In Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court the California Supreme Court set specific guidelines relating to meal breaks. The court opinioned that an employer’s obligation is to “provide” the meal break, but not “ensure” that the employee does no work. An off-duty meal period for a non-exempt employee can only be unpaid if the employer meets the following conditions:

1. Relieves its employees of all duty
2. Relinquishes control over their activities
3. Permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted, 30-minute break.
4. Does not impede or discourage them from doing so.

The duty to provide a meal break is an affirmative duty of the employer. The employer must relinquish control over the employee’s time, with some exceptions, during this break, which includes but is not limited to allowing the employee to leave the premise.

Brinker also set forth the timing for meal periods. The first meal break must be provided “no later than the end of the employee’s fifth hour of work.” The second meal break must be provided “no later than the end of an employee’s 10^th hour of work.”

Arguments in Support

The International Association of EMT’s and Paramedics supports this measure and states, “We believe California should treat its Emergency Medical Service (EMS) workforce fairly. Our laws should reflect the appropriate workplace protections afforded to other workers throughout California. This bill recognizes that for too long EMS workers have been subjected to a lack of meal and rest breaks, exposure to workplace violence, and little access to mental health services. This bill is a commonsense measure that will promote workplace morale and safety not only for EMS workers, but the public as well.”

United EMS Workers write in support of this measure, “Most paramedics and EMTs in the private sector work 12 to 24 hour shifts, often going without adequate meal or rest breaks. High stress levels in these high pressure environments lead to unsafe conditions, compromising medical care and safety of personnel, patients and the public. As a result, EMS personnel have very high rates of on-the-job injuries, psychological and medical problems, shortened careers and burnout. Fatigue is a particular concern, not only due to its impact on patient medical care, but because EMTs and paramedics operate large vehicles under highly demanding conditions. To address these significant concerns, this bill will require contracted private sector EMS employers to provide adequate rest and meal breaks to service providers, thereby reducing some of the chronic stresses that have been shown to lead to the poor mental health conditions of EMS professionals. This bill codifies the application of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Augustus vs. ABM, which determined that private sector employees are entitled to take uninterrupted rest and meal breaks. Secondarily, it conforms the Labor Code to the IWC Wage Order No. 4 dealing with meal periods, specifically entitling private sector EMS/EMT workers to meal periods of 30 mins for every 5 hours worked. Although an employee may be promised “premium pay” by the employer for missing and/or not being provided a rest period or having to respond to an emergency call, the process to actually receive compensation for the interrupted rest or meal period can be overly cumbersome and difficult to navigate. Often there is no reasonable tracking process to ensure the employers are providing the necessary payment. This bill will ensure an appropriate payroll tracking processes is in place when meal breaks are unavailable.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

A variety of ambulance companies and associations are opposed to this measure. The American Ambulance Association writes in opposition that, “We believe this bill as written, poses an unintended and serious threat to public safety. Specifically, this bill states that an employee cannot be on call during a break or meal period. Thus, once a break or meal period is initiated, an employee cannot be required to passively carry an alerting device such as a pager, cell phone or portable radio… Our duty to our community means compliance with this bill will be nearly impossible.”

The Medic Ambulance Service argues in opposition to this measure that, “This bill attempts to change terms of current employer labor agreements and references a Wage Order that does not currently apply to our workforce. These terms were negotiated and compensations determined based on break and meal period agreements. However, this bill as currently written would greatly impact our ability to operate EMS systems in our response areas and would place patient care at risk. This bill states that an employee cannot be on call during a break or meal period. Thus, once a break or meal period is initiated, an employee cannot be required to monitor radio traffic, carry a pager or portable communications device. An employer can also not restrict an employee to remain close to their ambulance, 911-dispatch center or station house. This bill allows an employee operating in the EMS system to walk away as far as a mile without the ability of the employer to communicate with them. This means that even if a medical emergency or multi-casualty event occurred close to an employee currently on a break, an employer cannot interrupt them to respond to that event…. Medic is also concerned that this bill is limited to only private EMS employers. We would welcome expanding the scope of this bill to include all emergency employees, as the issues seeking to be addressed by the author are not restricted to private ambulance providers. In fact, break and meal interruptions are not specific to EMS or the health care industry.”

Previous Related Legislation

SB 1299 (Padilla), Chapter 842, Statutes of 2014 was similar to the workplace violence prevention provisions in this bill. SB 1299 required the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards Board (OSHA), no later than July 1, 2016, to adopt standards that require specified hospitals to adopt a workplace violence prevention plan as part of their injury and illness prevention plan to protect health care workers and other facility personnel from aggressive and violent behavior.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (sponsor)

California Labor Federation

International Association of EMT’s and Paramedics, Local R-12/187

United EMS Workers Local 4911 AFSCME AFL-CIO (sponsor)

United Steel Workers, District 12

Opposition

American Ambulance

American Legion Post 108 Ambulance Service

American Medical Response

Butte County EMS, LLC

California Ambulance Association

California Association of Air Medical Services

Desert Ambulance Service, Inc.

Hall Ambulance Service Incorporated

McCormick Ambulance

Medic Ambulance Service

Sierra Ambulance Service, Inc.

Analysis Prepared by: Taylor Jackson / L. & E. / 916-319-2091

1. Jacobs and Waheed “Emergency Medical Services in California: Wages, Working Conditions and Industry Profile” (p. 12) ↑