The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has followed the lead of the Los Angeles City Council by passing COVID-19 right of recall and worker retention ordinances that are similar to the City of Los Angeles COVID-19 recall and retention ordinances passed on April 29, 2020. The county right of recall ordinance requires certain janitorial, maintenance, security service and hospitality employers, when rehiring, to offer jobs based on seniority to certain workers laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both ordinances are intended to assist workers in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County who work in sectors which have been especially hard hit by the coronavirus crisis.
The Right of Recall ordinance covers hotels and residential buildings located in Los Angeles County that are designated for public lodging with at least 50 guest rooms or gross receipts exceeding $5 million in the past year. Restaurants situated on hotel properties are included in the ordinance.
Commercial property employers in Los Angeles County such as offices, shopping centers or factories with at least 25 janitorial, maintenance and/or security workers are covered by the ordinance, but only with respect to janitorial, maintenance and security workers.
The ordinance applies to all persons who were laid off after March 4, 2020 as a result of a lack of business, reduction in workforce or other economic, non-disciplinary reasons, who worked within the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles for at least two hours in a particular week and who had at least six months’ of prior service. Thus, unlike the city recall ordinance, there is no exception for managerial and supervisory employees. The ordinance imposes a rebuttable presumption that all terminations occurring on or after March 4, 2020, are due to non-disciplinary reasons.
Covered workers are to be rehired in the following order: (i) workers who held the same or similar position with the employer at that site at the time of the worker’s most recent separation from active employment with the employer, and (ii) workers that are or who can be qualified with the same training given to a new worker hired for that position. If more than one worker is entitled to preference, seniority would be used to establish priority. The rehire offer must be in writing and workers must be given at least five business days in which to accept or decline the offer. A written offer must be sent to the last known address, email address and text message number.
Any collective bargaining agreement with clear and unambiguous recall language supersedes the provisions of the ordinance.
A covered employer’s failure to follow the provisions of the ordinance will expose the employer to damages or the sum of $1,000, whichever is greater, punitive damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. However, a laid off worker seeking to bring such a claim must first provide written notice to the employer along with a 15-day opportunity to cure the alleged failure. No criminal penalties will apply for violations of the ordinance.
The Right of Retention ordinance covers the same businesses that are the subject of the recall ordinance, and the same collective bargaining agreement exceptions apply. The ordinance covers workers with at least six months of prior service that were employed by these businesses as of March 1, 2020, before the signing of a document creating a binding agreement for the transfer of the business. Workers who are managerial, supervisory, or confidential employees or who are hired through a temporary staffing agency are not covered by the ordinance. A “confidential employee” is defined by Government Code section 3513 as any employee who is required to develop or present management positions with respect to employer-employee relations or whose duties normally require access to confidential information contributing significantly to the development of management positions.
In substance, the worker retention ordinance requires that covered employees be hired by any successor business owner or operator following a change in control of the business. The employees to be hired must be given written offers of employment which are to be held open for a minimum of five business days.
Once the worker is hired by the successor employer or operator, the worker must be retained for a period of 90 days following the start of employment. At the end of the 90-day period, the employer must perform a written performance evaluation of each worker and must consider providing offers of continued employment to those who receive satisfactory evaluations. These records must be maintained for a minimum of three years.
If the successor employer determines that fewer employees are needed than were employed by the prior owner following a change in control, it must provide offers to covered employees based on seniority.
Written notice of the change in control must be posted in a conspicuous place within five days of the transfer and must remain posted for six months after the business opens to the public. The notice must include contact information for both the successor and predecessor business employers, and the effective date of the business transfer.
As with the right of recall ordinance, any collective bargaining agreement with clear and unambiguous recall language supersedes the provisions of the ordinance.
Failure to comply with the ordinance exposes the prior or new employer to damages including front and back pay, the value of lost benefits and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; employers can only recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs if it is proven that the action was frivolous. As with the recall ordinance, a worker seeking to bring such a claim must first provide written notice to the employer, and the employer will have a 15-day opportunity to cure the alleged failure.
The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Joanne Warriner.
This blog is presented under protest by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. It is essentially the random thoughts and opinions of someone who lives in the trenches of the war that often is employment law–he/she may well be a little shell-shocked. So if you are thinking “woohoo, I just landed some free legal advice that will fix all my problems!”, think again. This is commentary, people, a sketchy overview of some current legal issue with a dose of humor, but commentary nonetheless; as if Dennis Miller were a lawyer…and still mildly amusing. No legal advice here; you would have to pay real US currency for that (unless you are my mom, and even then there are limits). But feel free to contact us with your questions and comments—who knows, we might even answer you. And if you want to spread this stuff around, feel free to do so, but please keep it in its present form (‘cause you can’t mess with this kind of poetry). Big news: Copyright 2020. All rights reserved; yep, all of them.
If you have any questions about this article, contact the writer directly, assuming he or she was brave enough to attach their name to it. If you have any questions regarding this blog or your life in general, contact Kelly O. Scott, Esq., commander in chief of this blog and Head Honcho (official legal title) of ECJ’s Employment Law Department.
- Partner
Kelly Scott is a partner and head of the firm’s Employment Law Department.
Mr. Scott is also a member of the Litigation Department and has practiced law since 1987. His areas of practice include representation of employers in all ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- 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
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
- LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- 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