Effective January 1, 2024, California’s Assembly Bill 647 will expand recall rights for grocery workers when there is a change of control in a grocery establishment. Prior to AB 647, existing law required an incumbent grocery employer to provide, within 15 days of execution of a transfer document, a list of eligible grocery workers. Successor grocery employers were then required to maintain a preferential hiring list of these eligible grocery workers and hire from that list for 90 days. This law did not apply to grocery stores that had ceased operations for 6 months or more before the sale or transfer.
AB 647 modifies the prior law to define “grocery establishment” as “a retail store in this state that is over 15,000 square feet in size and that sells primarily household foodstuffs for offsite consumption, including the sale of fresh produce, meats, poultry, fish, deli products, dairy products, canned foods, dry foods, beverages, baked foods, or prepared foods. Other household supplies or other products shall be secondary to the primary purpose of food sales. A distribution center owned and operated by a grocery establishment and used primarily to distribute goods to or from its owned stores shall be considered a grocery establishment, regardless of its square footage.” In addition, the definition of grocery establishment now specifically excludes a retail store that has ceased operations for 12 months or more.
AB 647 also serves to incorporate a role for collective bargaining union representatives by requiring an incumbent grocery employer to also provide the list of eligible grocery workers to any collective bargaining representatives. The successor grocery employer may obtain the list of eligible grocery workers from a collective bargaining representative if the incumbent grocery employer does not provide the information within 15 days.
AB 647 prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an employee for seeking to enforce their rights. The bill also creates a private right of action—it authorizes an employee or employee representative to bring an action in superior court. Courts may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the employee or employee representative who prevails in an enforcement action.
The bill also authorizes the Labor Commissioner to enforce the provisions and would establish remedies in that regard. The bill would make an employer, agent of any employer, or other person who violates or causes to be violated the provisions, subject to civil penalties and liquidated damages.
As with several other laws passed during the 2023-2024 legislative cycle, this bill regulates a specific industry and reflects a strong union influence.
This publication is published by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. The publication is intended to present an overview of current legal trends; no article should be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters. Articles may be reprinted with permission and acknowledgment. ECJ is a registered service mark of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. All rights reserved.
- Partner
Pooja S. Nair is a business litigator and problem solver with a focus on the food and beverage sector. She advises food and beverage clients, including restaurant groups, mid-market food brands, and food manufacturers on a ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- SB 1340 Allows Enforcement Of Local Employment Discrimination Laws | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014