Employment: garment manufacturing.
Summary
Existing law makes garment manufacturers liable for guaranteeing payment of wages to employees of their contractors. This bill would expand the definition of garment manufacturing to include dyeing, altering a garment's design, and affixing a label to a garment. The bill would prohibit any employee engaged in the performance of garment manufacturing to be paid by the piece or unit, or by the piece rate, except as specified. The bill would impose a statutory penalty of $200 against a garment manufacturer or contractor, payable to the employee, for each pay period in which the employee is paid by the piece rate. This bill would define "brand guarantor" for purposes of these provisions as a person contracting for the performance of garment manufacturing, as specified, regardless of whether the person with whom they contract performs manufacturing operations or hires a contractor or subcontractor to perform manufacturing operations. This bill would specify that a garment manufacturer or brand guarantor who contracts with another person for the performance of garment manufacturing operations shares joint and several liability with any manufacturer and contractor for the full amount of unpaid wages, any other compensation, damages, and penalties to any and all employees who performed manufacturing operations for any violation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and civil penalties, as specified. This bill would create a rebuttable presumption in a claim filed with the Labor Commissioner to recover unpaid wages, if an employee has provided the Labor Commissioner with labels or other information that the commissioner finds credible relating to the identity of any brand guarantor or garment manufacturer that the brand guarantor or garment manufacturer is liable with the contractor for any amounts found to be due to the employee. The bill would also give the Labor Commissioner authority to enforce these provisions by issuing a stop order or a citation. Existing law requires every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing to keep certain records for three years, including, among other things, contract worksheets indicating the price per unit agreed to between the contractor and manufacturer. This bill would also require every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing and brand guarantors to keep all contracts, invoices, purchase orders, work orders, style or cut sheets, and any other documentation pursuant to which garment manufacturing work was, or is being, performed for 4 years. Existing law requires the commissioner to deposit $75 of each garment manufacturer's registration fee into a separate account to be disbursed by the commissioner only to persons determined by the commissioner to have been damaged by the failure to pay wages and benefits by a garment manufacturer, contractor, or subcontractor. Existing law requires the commissioner to promulgate all regulations and rules necessary to carry out the provisions of this part. The commissioner, upon good cause, may impose, in their discretion, the terms of penalties, the revocation of registrations, and the confiscation or disposal of goods in accordance with those rules and regulations. This bill would name the separate account into which a portion of a garment manufacturer's registration fee is deposited the Garment Manufacturers Special Account. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to determine which claims for payment from the Garment Manufacturer's Special Account are accepted, and the amount of money, if any, that is to be disbursed from the account on an accepted claim.
Bill status
passed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2020
Committee Review
Aug 2020
Senate Passage
Jun 2020
Assembly Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 21, 2020
Last action Aug 25, 2020
Floor votes · Senate Jun 25, 2020
How they voted
24–10
Passed · 4 other
Total votes 38
Jun 25, 2020
D
Democratic28
85% Yea
R
Republican10
100% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
22
Key actions
6
Committee
7
Amendments
1
Aug 24, 2020
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
lower
Aug 20, 2020
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.) (August 20).
lower
Jul 30, 2020
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (July 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 29, 2020
Committee
Referred to Com. on L. & E.
lower
Jun 25, 2020
Upper · Passed
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 25. Noes 11. Page 3840.) Ordered to the Assembly.
upper
Jun 18, 2020
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 3772.) (June 18).
upper
May 18, 2020
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (May 14).
upper
May 11, 2020
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R.
upper
Mar 12, 2020
Committee
Referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Feb 21, 2020
Introduced
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 3 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
María Elena Durazo
DDemocratic
Co
Ash Kalra
DDemocratic
Co
Reggie Jones-Sawyer
DDemocratic
Co
Wendy Carrillo
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 1399
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 1399. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline