November 26, 2020

Volume X, Number 331

Advertisement

November 25, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 24, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 23, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

California’s New AB 1512 Revises Security Officer Rest Period Rules

On September 30, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1512, which amends California Labor Code Section 226.7 by authorizing employers to require certain unionized private security officers “to remain on the premises during rest periods and to remain on call, and carry and monitor a communication device, during rest periods.” Although AB 1512 became effective immediately upon the governor’s signature, it applies only to cases filed on or after January 1, 2021. The statute remains in effect until January 1, 2027.

The amended statute applies only if the following conditions are satisfied:

  • The employer and employee must both be registered under California’s Private Security Services Act.

  • “The employee is covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement.”

  • “The valid collective bargaining agreement expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of employees.” The agreement also must “expressly provide[] for rest periods for those employees, final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning application of its rest period provisions, premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked, and a regular hourly rate of pay of not less than one dollar more than the state minimum wage rate.”

Employers that meet the above conditions may require security officers to remain on-site and on-call, and to monitor their communication devices during rest periods. If a security officer’s statutory 10-minute rest period is interrupted, the employer must allow the security officer to “restart a rest period anew as soon as practicable.” For purposes of the statute, “interrupted” is defined as “any time a security officer is called upon to return to performing the active duties of the security officer’s post prior to completing the rest period.”

Under the amended statute, “[i]f on any workday a security officer is not permitted to take an uninterrupted rest period of at least 10 minutes for every four hours worked or major fraction thereof, then the security officer [must] be paid one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular base hourly rate of compensation.”

The amended statute specifically states that it abrogates the Supreme Court of California’s decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., 2 Cal. 5th 257 (2016), to the extent that amended Labor Code Section 226.7 and the court decision conflict. In Augustus, the court ruled that certain on call rest periods did not comply with California law. AB 1512 abrogates Augustus only for the security services industry.

© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 293
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Jazmyne Jefferson Employment Attorney Ogletree Deakins Law Firm
Associate

Jazmyne is an associate in the San Francisco office of Ogletree Deakins.  She has represented both private and public employers on a wide range of employment law claims including discrimination, harassment, reasonable accommodation, wage and hour violations, and wrongful termination. She has successfully represented employers in state court actions and various administrative agencies including the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) and the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).  Jazmyne also provides advice and counsel to employers on ways to effectively...

415-442-4810
Charles Thompson, Ogletree Deakins Law Firm, Employment Law Attorney
Shareholder

Charles L. Thompson IV counsels and defends employers in wrongful termination, discrimination, and other employment-related matters.  These areas include trade secrets and unfair competition, California and federal leaves of absence, ADA compliance, and wage and hour compliance.

Charles also represents employers in traditional labor law matters. He advises and represents employers in collective bargaining. He also represents employers in matters before the National Labor Relations Board, including in unfair labor practice and representation...

415-536-3430
Advertisement
Advertisement