Information Item

Date: August 8, 2019

To: Mayor and City Council

From: Anuj Gupta, Deputy City Manager / Director of Policy

Subject: Analysis of hotel housekeeper safety protections, overtime compensation and required training for human trafficking, sexual and domestic violence, and public health and safety

Introduction

Santa Monica has long been at the forefront of both supporting the visitor industry that is a key part of our local economy as well as promoting the wellbeing and rights of the workers in our hotels and restaurants. In October 2017, the advocacy efforts of the #MeToo movement rose to prominence, spurring national conversations around protecting workers from sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. The #MeToo movement has touched almost every industry, bringing increased pressure to policy- making bodies to adopt legislation to protect employees in various sectors from workplace harassment and assault. With over eight million visitors annually, 41 hotels and motels anchor Santa Monica’s robust tourism industry, employing about 2,100 hotel housekeepers. As the national discussion around protecting individuals from sexual assault and harassment in the workplace continues, the City of Santa Monica’s Commission on the Status of Women (COSW) spearheaded efforts to bring a hotel housekeepers’ safety policy on the local level that is in line with policies adopted in other cities such as Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle and Chicago.

Last October, the Santa Monica City Council (Council) unanimously directed City staff to prepare a draft ordinance on hotel worker safety for consideration and adoption. Staff

1 anticipates introducing an ordinance for first reading at the August 27, 2019 meeting. In preparation for the meeting, staff has prepared this information item to frame the key issues as well as preview staff perspectives and frame the community dialogue and feedback since Council directed staff to develop the ordinance. This approach of releasing a Council Information Item in advance of Council presentation helped preview staff perspectives and frame the community dialogue and feedback when Council considered a proposal to change “labor peace” language in City leases in 2018.

Background

On June 13, 2018, representatives of hospitality union UNITE HERE! Local 11 (Local 11) presented to the COSW on the policies and services related to hospitality worker protection, including a set of recommendations and possible action the City of Santa Monica (City) could adopt to support their advocacy efforts. Following the meeting, COSW’s Health and Safety ad hoc committee drafted a letter based on Local 11’s recommendations and submitted the letter to the Council in September 2018 (Attachment A). At the October 23, 2018 City Council meeting, COSW Chair Sylvia Ghazarian presented the Commission’s recommendation to advocate for a policy change designed to protect hotel housekeepers from sexual harassment, abuse and assault and from overly burdensome workloads. Council voted unanimously to direct City staff to draft an ordinance incorporating each of the following four components recommended to the Council:

1. Protection for hotel housekeepers from all forms of sexual violence by providing panic buttons and other measures to enable hotel housekeepers to report misconduct and remove themselves from dangerous situations without fear of retaliation. 2. Provisions to ensure hotel housekeepers are compensated fairly when they are required to perform unreasonable workloads and protections against mandatory overtime. 3. Required training for hotel housekeepers to ensure that these employees have the knowledge and skills to both protect their own rights and safety. 4. Required education and training to identify potential instances of human trafficking, domestic violence, sexual violence and public health and safety.

2

The cities of Long Beach, Oakland, Emeryville, and Seattle have adopted similar ordinances through ballot measures approved by voters. The provisions present various challenges and concerns with implementation and enforcement. Since the City would not be the first city to adopt an ordinance related to hotel workers’ safety and workloads, the City has learned from other cities’ efforts to date.

Stakeholder Engagement

To fully analyze each component of the COSW recommendation and Council direction, City staff engaged with various Santa Monica lodging industry stakeholders including COSW’s ad-hoc committee, Local 11, Santa Monica lodging businesses, Santa Monica Travel and Tourism, Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce and the Hotel Association of Los Angeles.

In meetings with City staff, Local 11 emphasized the urgency to adopt local legislation that complements existing state legislation pertaining to hotel housekeepers’ safety and overtime compensation. Meanwhile, the lodging businesses and associations expressed concerns about duplicating state regulations and the industry’s ability to equitably implement a “humane workload” provision, in particular, a square footage maximum.

City staff have also kept the COSW ad-hoc committee abreast of the policy development on this issue and intends to present its analysis to the full COSW at its August 14, 2019 meeting in advance of presenting the proposed ordinance to the Council. City staff has consulted with multiple cities with similar ordinances during the research process including Long Beach, Seattle, Emeryville and Oakland to learn about their experiences in implementation and enforcement of their respective ordinances.

Discussion

To better understand what Santa Monica lodging businesses are already providing in terms of worker safety and training requirements, workload policies and human trafficking, City staff conducted outreach to the businesses and learned the following.

3

The total number of guest rooms per hotel or motel in Santa Monica ranges from as few as 14 and up to 340 guest rooms. The square footage of guest rooms in the City ranges from 150 to 1,350 square feet, depending on whether the accommodation is a single, double or suite. Both points speak to the potential challenge of implementing a “one- size fits all” policy regarding safety and workload requirements for all lodging businesses. To define the composition of the lodging businesses, the chart below outlines the characteristics of hotel properties and the percentage representation of rooms per type of property within the City:

Type of Property # of Properties % of Rooms Very Small (under 50 rooms) 17 41%

Small (under 100 rooms) 8 20%

Medium (101-300 rooms) 13 32%

Large (over 300 rooms) 3 7% Total 41 100%

Ordinance Components

In response to the COSW’s recommendation and Council direction, staff will be presenting recommendations for a local ordinance to the Council on August 27, 2019 to address the following four areas:

1. Hotel housekeeper safety protections

2. Hotel housekeeper workloads and overtime compensation

3. Hotel housekeeper training on personal rights and safety

4. Hotel housekeeper education and training to identify and prevent instances of human trafficking; domestic violence; sexual violence; and public health and safety

COSW ordinance component #1: Recommendation to protect hotel workers from all forms of sexual violence via panic buttons and other measures.

4

From 2008-2018, the City has identified at least 29 incidents of hotel employees who reported being the victim of sexual battery, other sex offense, aggravated assault, or other assault.

According to Local 11, many housekeepers are women who generally work by themselves in guest rooms and vulnerable to crimes and other threatening behavior, including sexual assault. Requiring hoteliers to provide panic buttons enables hotel housekeepers to protect their safety as well as report or alter threatening conduct or other emergencies. Local 11 is proposing to require all Santa Monica hoteliers to provide an operational panic button to each hotel worker and employ or contract with at least one on-site security guard or other personnel who will be responsible for providing immediate on-scene assistance when a device is activated. A hotel worker may cease work, leave the immediate area and may not be disciplined for their actions under these circumstances. Based on tests with different types of personal safety devices such as noisemakers or safety whistles, Local 11 believes panic buttons are the most effective type of safety device, and that other personal safety devices are not sufficient as they have limited noise projection, prolonging emergency response times.

Santa Monica hoteliers have voiced that hotel staff and guest safety is a top priority and according to the hoteliers, worker safety protocol is generally unique to each hotel based on the property configuration, staffing composition and other factors. Based on information collected by City staff, 100 percent of those lodging businesses who responded will have panic buttons installed and sexual harassment training in place by 2020. In September 2018, the American Hotel & Lodging Association announced the 5- Star Promise – “a pledge to provide hotel employees across the U.S. with employee safety devices and commit to enhanced policies, trainings and resources that together are aimed at enhancing hotel safety, including preventing and responding to sexual harassment and assault” – with major hotels brands. By brand affiliation, 25 percent of Santa Monica hotels are part of the 5-Star Promise. Hoteliers utilize Hospitality Technology Next Generation’s Staff Alert Device Buyer’s Guide to assist with identifying the best electronic safety device that meets the needs and requirements for each unique property.

5

A portion of Santa Monica hoteliers have also invested in staff alert personal safety devices; these devices are discreet personal alarms that utilize technology to provide immediate response and minimize disruption. Though more expensive than panic buttons, hoteliers believe staff alert personal safety devices to be more effective than panic buttons in threatening situations. Given the range of personal safety device options, Santa Monica hoteliers raised concerns about limiting the ordinance language to “panic buttons,” which would also prohibit hoteliers from utilizing other safety technology devices. Aside from panic buttons, Santa Monica hoteliers have procedural precautions to help ensure worker safety such as having hotel housekeepers work in teams, protocol for entry and exit including policies to close the door while cleaning and standards for housekeeping cart positioning. Santa Monica hoteliers are also in the process of creating a communication line for all hotels to report threatening behavior when situations arise.

Other cities that have adopted panic button provisions in their respective ordinances are the cities of Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, and Chicago. Each city’s mandate is different; the chart below illustrates their regulations:

Type of City Covered Employees Lodging Applicability Device All hotel employees assigned to work in a Panic Long Beach guest room or bathroom All button without other employees present All hotel employees assigned to work in a Panic Oakland guest room or bathroom 50 or more guest rooms button without other employees present All hotel employees Panic Seattle providing in-room 50 or more guest rooms button services All hotel employees Panic assigned to work in a button or Chicago guest room or rest room 60 or more guest rooms notification where no other device employees are present

6

While all Santa Monica hoteliers agree that workplace safety is a top priority, the hoteliers have raised concerns about implementing a policy that specifically requires panic buttons as the type of personal safety device. Small hoteliers who have older properties may not have the infrastructure to support the technology needed to operate and maintain panic button technology. Panic button technology is constantly being updated and typically requires Wi-Fi access throughout a property to properly function; older properties or concrete buildings may not have adequate infrastructure or access. As a result, small hotels may incur additional costs for installation, monitoring and maintenance to install panic button technology.

According to the Hotel Association of Los Angeles, the costs of panic buttons vary widely. Estimates for purchasing and installation can run into the six figures depending on the scope of deployment and include varying levels of service and implementation options such as inventory tracking, training, response standards and maintenance. Hotels may also incur additional expenses related to this provision such as adding security personnel to respond to the devices as well as the costs associated with distributing devices to employees beyond their hotel worker staff. Based on the City’s engagement with Santa Monica’s lodging businesses and associations, their concerns would be reduced if given the flexibility to implement a range of personal safety devices. Local 11 has raised doubt as to the effectiveness of other types of personal safety devices and feels strongly that panic buttons are the preferred technological solution.

City staff is assessing the following key factors for their recommendation:

1. Requirements for panic buttons or notification devices in other cities that have adopted similar ordinances

2. Concerns raised by each stakeholder

3. Rising trend of the hotel industry to adopt measures to protect hotel workers, including hotel housekeepers, from sexual harassment and assault

Based on City staff assessment, Council may consider the following options for the proposed hotel worker safety provision:

7

1. Require Santa Monica hotels to require panic buttons for hotel workers

2. Require Santa Monica hotels to require panic buttons or personal safety devices for hotel workers

3. Do not require Santa Monica hotels to require panic buttons (or personal safety devices) for hotel workers

Given the trend in the hotel industry and concerns raised by Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations, City staff is giving consideration to recommending broadened language to address the type of device hoteliers will be required to provide.

COSW ordinance component #2: Recommendation to compensate hotel housekeepers fairly when working beyond the standard 8-hour workday or 40-hour work week and establish protections against mandatory overtime.

Santa Monica requires that hotel employers pay hotel workers in the City a locally established minimum wage. Regulating compensation for overtime and enforcement of the rules governing overtime rests with Federal and State authorities. Local 11 maintains that hotels avoid paying overtime pursuant to those laws by requiring burdensome workloads within the normal eight-hour workday, which undercuts the goal of the local minimum wage laws adopted by Santa Monica and other cities in Los Angeles County. Local minimum wage laws were enacted to raise take-home pay for workers, not to subject them to unsustainable workload responsibilities that interfere with their ability to meet family and personal obligations.

Hotel workers and Local 11 have noted that in certain situations, hotel housekeepers can be assigned room cleaning quotas that create “unreasonable workloads” or require unexpected overtime and assert this has increased since the passage of the minimum wage hikes. They advocate for setting a standard based on square footage to define the limits of a reasonable workload. While this particular standard is not referenced in the COSW recommendation, there are such explicit provisions in the laws adopted by other cities and referenced in Council’s direction to prepare an ordinance.

Local 11 is proposing that the City’s ordinance define “humane workload” by setting a maximum square footage cap for a standard workday that is lower than what other cities

8 have enacted. Specifically, they propose that hotel housekeepers clean no more than 3,500 square feet of floorspace in eight hours unless the employer pays the hotel worker twice the regular rate of pay for all hours worked (ordinances in other cities vary on both the thresholds for square footage and the formula for overtime compensation as discussed below). In instances where hotel housekeepers work less than eight-hours a day or are assigned to clean a total number of rooms (instead of square footage), the maximum square footage amount is reduced or prorated. Local 11 also proposes that overtime consent forms for workdays over 10 hours must be received by hotel employers prior to commencing work. In instances where a hotel housekeeper works less than eight hours a day or a hotel assigns workloads by a total number of rooms, the workload should be prorated.

According to Local 11, hotels that offer luxury experiences require more time to clean, therefore, the square footage maximum being proposed is lower than those in other cities that have adopted similar ordinances. The union asserts that the clientele Santa Monica hotels cater to are mainly families (with children) and adults on vacation, as opposed to individuals traveling for business or a conference. Additionally, Local 11 advocates that a number of Santa Monica hotels are located adjacent to the beach, which inadvertently attracts sand that guests bring into hotels. These factors increase the amount of time needed to clean a room. These combined factors can lead to what Local 11 defines as an “unreasonable workload.”

According to the California Hotel and Lodging Association, the hotel industry manages hotel housekeepers’ workloads through a credit system based on time-motion studies conducted by consultants who monitor the length of time it takes for each cleaning task to be completed. This credit system is the industry standard even in hotels with collective bargaining agreements in place and does not utilize square footage as the mechanism for workload management. Each cleaning task such as a turn down to a full room cleaning is assigned a number of credits and each hotel has a unique credit system due to the differences in hotel room sizes and room type of each hotel. Credits are determined by the intricacy of the room, and total cleaning time is also impacted by the length and purpose of stay. Housekeeping tasks (credits) are assigned daily and

9 equal an eight-hour workday. Moreover, according to the association, hotel housekeepers are eligible for additional compensation should they achieve the assigned number of credits before their shifts ends; in this scenario, hotel housekeepers can clean extra rooms to make additional compensation, up to 25 percent. The credit system distributes work using a methodology based on the hotel property, room cleaning requirements and fluctuating needs of the day. In City staff’s meetings with Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations, no hotel expressed problems with the credit system, and the industry maintained its position that the system distributes workload in a more equitable way than a square footage system. Because, however, each hotel’s specific conditions differ, the credit systems do as well, making a single workload standard based on a credit system potentially arbitrary, and arguably even more difficult to enforce equitably than a square footage requirement.

In the areas of overtime and overtime compensation, Santa Monica hoteliers state that they do not schedule overtime unless necessary, and the State of California regulates overtime pay. All businesses must pay their employees at a rate of 1.5 times the hourly rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight hours (and up to 12 hours) in a single workday. All hours worked in excess of 12 hours constitutes double time, and employers must compensate their employees double their regular rate of pay. According to the Santa Monica lodging businesses, there is no industry standard as to how hoteliers manage overtime assignments but typically overtime is offered to housekeepers based on their seniority with consent given verbally. If hoteliers do not have hotel housekeepers willing to accept overtime assignments, other hotel employees may be asked to clean rooms or uncleaned rooms will not be utilized. According to the California Hotel and Lodging Association, written consent for overtime is a concern due to employee privacy issues.

The cities of Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, and Emeryville have adopted a maximum square footage provision and compensation provision above State requirements in their respective ordinances. Below is a chart indicating the square footage maximums per city and overtime rates. In each of these cities’ ordinances, the overtime compensation rate applies to all hours worked that particular day.

10

Maximum Square Overtime Compensation City Footage Rate

Long Beach 4,000 2x Oakland 4,000 2x Seattle 5,000 1.5x Emeryville 5,000 1.5x

According to the Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations, mandating a square footage maximum is problematic and can cause potential secondary impacts for hoteliers, housekeepers, and the City. Such challenges include strains on operations, unintended consequences related to hotel housekeepers’ employee status and benefits, possible reductions in overall hotel profitability and City tax revenue. The City’s hoteliers verbalized concerns regarding the square footage maximum that are similar to what the cities of Long Beach, Emeryville and Oakland are currently facing. There is ambiguity over defining “cleanable space” and how to factor in hallways, meeting rooms, lobby spaces and other non-guest room areas. for purposes of calculating the maximum cap. The biggest question Santa Monica hoteliers have raised is around implementation and how to interpret how the standards apply since similar ordinances do not specify how to calculate square footage. Based on a report from the Hotel Association of Los Angeles, hotel managers in Long Beach and Oakland report having to spend several more hours per day assigning and reassigning cleaning duties, including switching in supervisors and cleaning assistants to help reduce the numbers of rooms assigned to housekeepers.

According to the lodging industry, implementing a square footage maximum may also result in the loss of full-time employee status for hotel housekeepers. Hoteliers have stated concerns that their housekeepers will reach the square footage maximum in less than eight hours of work and, as such, they will either have to send the housekeepers home, incur overtime costs if staff is available or use alternative staffing approaches. As a result, many hoteliers articulated concern that their full-time housekeepers may become part-time employees and lose their benefits if they are unable to maintain a 40- hour work week with a square footage cap. Furthermore, they contend that if this group

11 of employees is relegated to part-time work, it will be very difficult to find additional housekeepers given the tight labor market and arduous commute to Santa Monica. Hoteliers have stated that they will likely need to employ temporary staffing agencies to augment their labor force. These concerns are further stressed by the inherent lack of consistency at staffing agencies, which requires hoteliers to frequently onboard and retrain new temporary hires. There could be hoteliers who may elect to keep rooms unfilled if they are unable to resolve the staffing issues. Additional concerns expressed include a disruption of morale and threat to employee retention if there is a loss of full- time employment and benefits and a disruption to the long-standing practice of room credit distribution of workload and opportunity of overtime pay. According to Santa Monica lodging businesses and lodging associations, the hotel industry is inherently incentivized to provide housekeepers reasonable workloads to retain employees and ensure room cleanliness. They also maintain that since “unreasonable workloads” can lead to workplace injuries, which can be expensive to address and disrupts the day-to- day flow at hotels, they already face significant financial disincentives for placing those burdens on workers.

The State of California does not define what is considered to be a “unreasonable workload.” However, overtime is regulated by the State’s Department of Industrial Relations; the general overtime regulation states, “a nonexempt employee […] shall not be employed more than eight hours in any workday or more than 40 hours in any workweek unless he or she receives one and one-half times his or her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over eight hours in any workday and over 40 hours in the workweek.” The Santa Monica City Council adopted the Hotel Worker Living Wage ordinance on January 26, 2016, which stipulates that as of July 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, the hourly wage shall match the hourly wage set for Hotel Workers in the City of Los Angeles. For hotel employees, which includes housekeepers, this living wage currently stands at $16.63 an hour.

Many Santa Monica hoteliers state that they already pay their housekeepers above the hotel minimum wage. Conversely, Local 11 contends that their overtime proposal is complementary to State law by protecting hotel housekeepers from instances where

12 their employers may increase the cleaning workload within an 8-hour shift to avoid paying overtime. They maintain that the provision complements the City’s minimum wage law in ensuring that workers are paid fairly and not overworked. Additionally, Local 11 contends that Santa Monica hotels are wealthier in comparison to cities such as Long Beach and Oakland (based on much higher average room rates and revenue), and that hoteliers can thus afford to pay their workers more or hire more employees if they decide to employ a workforce to clean floor space under the proposed 3,500 square feet threshold. Local 11 has further proposed a limited waiver from workload requirements for any hotel employer that demonstrates that compliance with the proposed workload provisions would require it to reduce its workforce by more than twenty percent or curtail its hotel workers’ total hours by more than thirty percent in order to avoid bankruptcy or a shutdown of the employer’s hotel.

Under the City’s Minimum Wage Ordinance, the City includes the following statement on its website: “The State of California, the City and County of Los Angeles, and other jurisdictions also have minimum wage laws. Santa Monica employers must comply with all relevant laws. Where requirements conflict, the employer must follow the law with that is most generous to employees.” However, it should be noted that the hotel worker overtime provision has created a burden on staff capacity for the cities of Oakland and Emeryville. City of Oakland staff have reported the need to develop administrative standards to reduce the ambiguity on how hotels should calculate square footage and work closely with the State to enforce and align both State and local laws to avoid any potential issues of duplication. City of Emeryville staff have also found the fair compensation provision challenging to implement; the city has had to hire a third-party consultant to investigate complaints from hotels about the ambiguity of calculating square footage. Voluntary overtime procedures would also need to be defined. The cities of Long Beach, Seattle, Oakland and Emeryville all define voluntary overtime procedures in their ordinances including measures in place to secure and document employee consent.

City staff is assessing the following key factors for their recommendation:

13

1. Policy implications of using a daily square footage maximum to define “humane workload”

2. Square footage maximums in other cities that have adopted similar ordinances

3. Arguments laid out by each stakeholder as to the equity and efficacy of the respective position in relation to the Council’s direction

4. Impact on City resources and staff capacity to regulate and enforce workload standards and penalties for exceeding them

City staff will analyze the following models for the proposed “humane workload” provision:

1. Adopt a “humane workload” definition that generally mirrors the ordinances of other cities – setting a daily square footage cap of 4,000 or 5,000 square feet of cleaning space per hotel housekeeper and 1.5x or 2x overtime compensation rate for all hours worked when the maximum square footage threshold is exceeded

2. Adopt a “humane workload” definition that requires hotels to implement a daily square footage cap of 3,500 square feet of cleaning space per hotel housekeepers and 2x overtime compensation rate for all hours worked when the maximum square footage threshold is exceeded as advocated by Local 11

3. Adopt a “humane workload” definition that does not utilize square footage for workload management and instead is based on the industry credit system. To date, neither Local 11 nor the lodging industry has proposed a viable method for developing such a model.

4. Do not adopt a “humane workload” provision due to the difficulties inherent in interpreting and enforcing a single square footage standard across varying hotel conditions and situations, as demonstrated in other cities with such provisions.

Since the square footage standard is incorporated into the provisions of the four cities with such legislation, staff will give strong consideration to recommending similar standards and language for Santa Monica’s ordinance.1

COSW ordinance component #3 and #4: Recommendation to require training and education for hotel housekeepers in the following areas: protection of own rights, public

1 Staff notes that lodging businesses and associations have argued that a workload provision based on square footage maximum is preempted by State law, in that worker health and safety is within the sole jurisdiction of Cal/OSHA. Preemption challenges to similar hotel worker legislation in Emeryville and Oakland were found not applicable. A similar case in Long Beach currently remains pending. 14

health and safety; human trafficking; domestic violence; and sexual violence.

The COSW recommended these training provisions because housekeepers should have a basic level of knowledge on key issues affecting their safety and wellbeing, as well as a working knowledge of the policy implications and protections put in place by this ordinance. Training ensures that hotel housekeepers can effectively respond to and be educated in the provisions set forth as result of ordinance adoption. The chart below provides a summary of what areas of training are already mandated by the State.

STATE MANDATED Cal/OSHA: Musculoskeletal Senate Bill 970 Assembly Bill Assembly Bill 1343 Injury Prevention (2018) 1825 (2004) (2018) Program (MIPP) (2018)

Requires annual workplace safety Safety training, specific to housekeeping

Required training Public to protect from Health bloodborne pathogens

Requires 20 minutes of human trafficking Human training/education Trafficking once every two years Requires sexual harassment training Requires sexual for supervisory (2 Sexual and harassment hrs.) and non- Domestic training for supervisory (1 hr.) Violence supervisors every positions for two years employers with over five employees by 1/1/20

15

According to Local 11, housekeepers are uniquely positioned to identify and report potential threats or crimes, including instances of human trafficking, domestic and sexual violence and presence of suspicious materials that may be linked to terrorist activity. Local 11 believes that because the City has an interest in protecting public health of all visitors and ensuring all Santa Monica hotel employees are apprised of their rights, the City should contract with a training organization to design and provide training, deemed a “Public Housekeeping Training Program,” in the following areas: 1. Hotel Worker rights and Hotel Employer responsibilities under this Chapter of the Santa Monica Municipal Code

2. Best practices for identifying insect or vermin infestations

3. Best practices for effective cleaning techniques to prevent the spread of disease

4. Best practices for identifying and reporting suspicious materials that could be used for terrorist activity

5. Best practices for identifying and reporting suspected instances of human trafficking, domestic violence or sexual violence or assault

Local 11’s proposal states that the Public Housekeeping Training Program must include an examination and certification component. There are three primary reasons why Local 11 is advocating for the City to be the administrator (through a contracted organization) of the hotel worker training program instead of the hotels. Local 11 believes there should be a common baseline of knowledge in the key areas listed above among hotel room attendants working within the City, whereas if this responsibility were left with each individual hotel employer, it would result in training that is inconsistent in both content and quality. Additionally, a splintered approach would fail to establish the standardized baseline of knowledge this provision is intended to establish. Second, Local 11 believes there is a conflict of interest due to hoteliers having little incentive to empower their employees to hold them accountable, and workers are not likely to feel comfortable speaking up and participating in a training led by their employers (or their employers' agents) about holding management accountable. Third, the proposed training topics require subject matter experts and hoteliers may not necessarily possess the expertise needed to execute or contract for such trainings. Based on previous experiences, Local 11 maintains that the training provided by hotels to their employees

16 often leaves much to be desired in terms of thoroughness and presentation – and that the specifics in Local 11’s proposed public housekeeping training program are complementary to State mandates.

The Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations have reiterated that workplace safety is a top priority and recognizes that it is regulated by the State of California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). The industry asserts that the proposed training mandates would be duplicative of State requirements. Cal/OSHA’s main responsibility is to protect and improve the health and safety of all California employees, including specific regulations for the hotel industry. Effective July 1, 2018, all hotels are subject to the provisions set forth in the Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Program (MIPP). The mandates include requiring hotels to hold trainings that address the hazards specific to housekeeping, worksite evaluations conducted by Cal/OSHA, procedures for correcting workplace hazards and requires that preventative measures be taken – all training and evaluations are done annually. The MIPP includes specific regulations that require hotels to protect hotel housekeepers from bloodborne pathogens in instances where they may come into contact with items such as contaminated hypodermic syringes in bed sheets or in trash receptacles. The California Hotel & Lodging Association has a MIPP + Training Tool-Kit, which is available at no cost to all hotels in Santa Monica. According to Santa Monica hoteliers, 100 percent of Santa Monica hotels have already implemented policies for housekeeper trainings, workload evaluation and accident analysis. Compliance with Cal/OSHA is performed through regular agency on-site inspections and reviews. Hotels are required to maintain records and provide to Cal/OSHA upon request.

Under Chapter 11.20.380 of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) code, hotels must comply with County health regulations that regulate general sanitation, pest and rodent control and prevention and water quality standards. According to DPH, the agency does not typically administer training for businesses, including motels and hotels. However, if an issue is detected during an on-site inspection, DPH inspectors will often provide on-the-spot training to correct the issue. Businesses are responsible for implementing the work procedures necessary to stay in

17 compliance with County health code – including training.

The State of California has passed multiple bills that address training requirements for human trafficking and sexual assault. Senate Bill 970 (Atkins) requires human trafficking prevention training for all hotels by January 1, 2020. Hotel employers must provide at least 20 minutes of training and education focusing on human trafficking awareness to employees who are likely to interact or come into contact with victims of human trafficking, as defined. Assembly Bill 1825 requires sexual harassment prevention training for supervisors every two years. In 2018, Assembly Bill 1343 amended Assembly Bill 1825 to mandate sexual harassment training for supervisory (two hours) and non-supervisory (one hour) positions for employers with over five employees (including temporary and seasonal) by January 1, 2020. Trainings must be held annually for new employees and once every two years thereafter for existing employees.

According to Santa Monica hoteliers, 100 percent of Santa Monica hotels are currently in compliance with State regulation. In May 2019, Santa Monica Travel and Tourism hosted a human trafficking training for all Santa Monica hotels. Fifty-six percent of Santa Monica hotels have stated that they have implemented policies and procedures that go beyond what the state requires. In City staff’s meetings with Santa Monica hoteliers, the hoteliers have expressed willingness to continue to educate their employees, raise awareness in the hospitality industry and work in partnership with law enforcement to help prevent these serious crimes. Similar to procedures to ensure compliance with Cal/OSHA, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) may perform on- site inspections and reviews and hotels must maintain training records and provide to DFEH upon request.

Of the cities listed with similar ordinances, the City of Seattle is the only city with a limited training obligation; the city mandate requires hotel employers to adopt reasonable practices to protect the safety of employees and information on hazardous chemicals in their work area. It is a best practice of the City not to duplicate State or County legislation when adopting local ordinances. With the implementation of a training

18 provision, City staff will have to establish protocol to ensure code compliance with the mandates set forth in this ordinance. Currently, the City’s Code Enforcement Division is at capacity, and resources are limited in the City’s current budget environment. Based on estimates provided by Local 11, the annual cost of its proposed training would cost the City $58,000; however, the figure assumes the City will provide a space to hold the training and does not consider the labor costs of on-site staff.

City staff is assessing the following key factors for their recommendation:

1. Overlap between the State of California’s mandates for workplace safety training and education and Local 11’s training proposal

2. Impact on City resources and staff capacity to administer and enforce

Based on City staff assessment, Council may consider the following options for the proposed training and education provision:

1. A City-financed and -administered training program or a contracted training program overseen by the City

2. The City develops training standards and regulations in the areas not covered under existing State or County requirements, but allows the lodging businesses to administer the trainings

3. Do not adopt a training requirement as proposed by Local 11, because the subject matters are adequately covered under existing State and County requirements

Given the resources necessary, including costs and staff capacity, and specialization of training areas, City staff is giving consideration to a model that requires the City to determine the required elements of a training but require hotels to contract for and provide the training. City staff is also weighing whether such a model would exempt training areas adequately covered by the State requirements.

Other potential components

Local 11 has proposed ordinance components that are not part of Council direction, nor are they reflected in the COSW letter. These components are 1) supersession by collective bargaining agreement and 2) hotel worker retention (not limited to hotel

19 housekeepers.)

In the area of supersession, Local 11 has proposed a supersession condition be included in the ordinance which would relieve hotels with collective bargaining agreements from the “humane workload” and hotel worker retention provisions, as they state that those conditions would be part of negotiations between the union and hotel management. All other provisions set forth in this ordinance would otherwise apply to all Santa Monica hotels. The position of the lodging associations is that supersession does not pertain to hotel workers’ safety and should not be considered as part of a hotel workers’ safety ordinance.

City staff is assessing the key factors for their recommendation:

1. Terms outlined in the COSW letter and Council direction

2. Common practice of including supersession clauses in municipal level ordinances relating to labor, including the City’s Minimum Wage and Hotel Living Wage ordinances

3. Potential inequities associated with a limited waiver for the workload and retention provisions for hotels with collective bargaining agreements in place

While the COSW letter and Council direction to staff did not reference a supersession condition, City staff is assessing the potential benefits of a supersession clause as such a clause is frequently included in similar legislation in order to promote worker protections while allowing hotels and hotel workers the ability to bargain around them through the collective bargaining process

With respect to hotel worker retention, Local 11 asserts that as changes in corporate ownership or management occur frequently in the hotel industry, the City should take measures to prevent disruptions to the hotel labor market. It has proposed a 90-day retention period for transitional employees upon change of ownership, control, or operation of hotels. However, this provision was not referenced in the COSW letter to Council and is outside of the scope of the Council’s direction to staff. As such, staff does not intend to recommend adoption of a hotel worker retention provision in the ordinance, as it would require additional legal and policy vetting should Council desire to adopt

20 such a policy.

Potential Enforcement Models

It is a best practice for City staff to recommend an ordinance that is meaningfully enforceable. City staff is assessing three potential approaches to enforcing this ordinance based on Local 11’s proposal, Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations concerns and an alternative collaborative model with the Los Angeles County Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. Other than the City of Oakland, which is creating a new department to implement City enforcement, the cities of Long Beach, Seattle and Emeryville have adopted a civil enforcement approach in their respective ordinances.

The preferred method of enforcement according to Local 11 is civil enforcement, where any hotel worker may file a civil lawsuit against a hotel for violating any provision of the ordinance within three years of the violation (i.e., a private right of action). Upon prevailing, the hotel worker shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and back wages. However, Local 11 is not opposed to City enforcement.

The Santa Monica lodging businesses and associations are opposed to a private right of action, with particular concerns over the “humane workload” provisions. A private right of action would potentially allow for third parties (including labor organizations) to utilize private litigation in an attempt to leverage hotels into entering into collective bargaining units, with lawsuits filed either on behalf of the employee or the labor organization on behalf of the employee. The stated challenges of implementing a workload provision may lead to gray areas where minor or technical violations could result in litigation. They are advocating for City enforcement as it would likely result in a collaborative approach towards compliance.

In an effort to explore alternative models of enforcement, City staff approached the Los Angeles County Department of Business and Consumer Affairs (DCBA) about potentially aligning the minimum wage enforcement it already conducts on the City’s behalf with enforcement of a potential hotel workers’ safety ordinance. However, DCBA

21 does not support expanding its enforcement responsibilities due to staffing capacity and a lack of aligned County policy on these issues.

It is anticipated that City enforcement of a hotel workers safety ordinance will require both on-site and administrative procedures to adequately enforce the provisions set forth in this ordinance. The chart below summarizes the type of enforcement approach that would be required for each ordinance component.

Proposed Ordinance Component Enforcement Methodology Hotel workers protection (panic Physical on-site inspections of all Santa buttons or other measures) Monica hotel guest rooms Physical on-site inspections and Hotel worker workloads and overtime administrative audit of hotel records for compensation all hotel housekeepers Hotel worker training on personal Administrative audit of hotel records for rights and safety all hotel housekeepers Administrative audit of hotel records for Hotel worker education and training all hotel housekeepers

The Code Enforcement Division estimates at least two Code Enforcement Officers would be needed to adequately perform the enforcement duties above. Currently, the Code Enforcement Division is at or over capacity, and the City would have to onboard two new full-time Code Enforcement Officers and oversee the implementation of the new standards for hotel workers safety enforcement. The projected full annual cost of two new full-time officers is $370,200. The Code Enforcement Division would conduct an evaluation of the appropriate enforcement staffing levels to ensure enforcement effectiveness, which may further impact annual costs.

City staff is assessing the civil and city enforcement models. City staff acknowledges the potential for private litigation costs can significantly impact the hotel industry, adversely affecting the competitiveness of Santa Monica hotels in an increasingly challenging regional context. While this has not yet emerged as a significant issue in the other cities that have recently enacted their statutes, the experience with other legislation, such as abuse of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the California

22

Environmental Quality Act for motives beyond the intent of those laws, certainly signals the potential for such abuse in the future.

However, given the City’s ongoing budgetary concerns, City staff is giving consideration to recommending a civil enforcement model. If burdensome litigation becomes an issue, the Council may want to develop a set of administrative regulations to further define the “humane workload” provisions to streamline the protection of worker’s wellbeing without unnecessarily imposing unreasonable legal costs on the industry at a future date.

Prepared By: Helen Yu, Management Fellow

Attachments:

A: Commission on the Status of Women letter B: Potential models C: City of Long Beach Ordinance D: City of Oakland Ordinance E: City of Emeryville Ordinance F: City of Seattle Ordinance G: City of Chicago Ordinance

23

Commission on the Status of Women 1685 Main Street PO BOX 2200 Santa Monica, CA 90401

( 1t y of Sa ■ ta Me ■ lea• September 13, 2018

Honorable Ted Winterer Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401

Dear Mayor Winterer and City Councilmembers:

The City of Santa Monica Commission on the Status of Women, by means of this letter, respectfully requests that City Council consider introducing common sense legislation designed to protect hotel room attendants from all forms of sexual violence (harassment, abuse and assault), and overly burdensome workloads, and implementation of education and training with regards to identification of human trafficking. We ask that these workers (the majority of whom are women of color or immigrants) have protections in place to ensure that they can perform their jobs without fear of any form of retaliation.

Within hotels nationwide, hotel workers and, in particular, women who work as housekeepers/room attendants are all too often vulnerable to sexual violence by hotel guests. In addition, they are frequently assigned overly burdensome room cleaning quotas and unexpected overtime, which have a serious impact on their ability to perform their work in a proper and thorough manner. As hotel workers and hotel guests can come into contact with highly contagious and infectious diseases (including rhinovirus germs and Legionnaire's disease), it is critical that rooms and public areas be cleaned, sanitized, and maintained to the highest standards possible.

The Commission feels it is incumbent for the City to adopt legislation that includes the following components to protect workers and hotel guests alike:

• Protection for workers from all forms of sexual violence by providing panic buttons and other measures to enable workers to report misconduct and remove themselves from dangerous situations without fear of retaliation.

• Provisions to ensure workers are compensated fairly when they are required to perform unreasonable workloads and protections against mandatory overtime.

• Required training for hotel housekeepers/room attendants to ensure that workers have the knowledge and skills to both protect their own rig hts and safety, as well as their unique roles to help protect public health and safety.

• Required education and training to identify potential instances of human trafficking, domestic violence, and sexual violence.

In asking City Council to introduce this common sense legislation, it is important to note that similar hotel health and safety laws and initiatives have been implemented in cities such as Seattle, New York, Las Vegas and Chicago. Chicago and Emeryville have also passed laws addressing housekeeper workloads. With the support from UNITE HERE Local 11 and a number of community organizations, similar reforms through ballot measures are being considered in Long Beach and Palos Verdes. Our request is that the City of Santa Monica consider similar action. With these protections in place, Santa Monica will be able to take an important step to further.ensure the everyday safety of women hotel workers and guests in our city.

Siniily, iPf.;;:l Chair City of Santa Monica Commission on the Status of Women Attachment B – Potential Models

Potential Models The cities of Long Beach, Oakland, Emeryville, and Seattle have implemented similar ordinances through ballot measures. The City of Chicago’s ordinance is limited to hotel workers safety protections and was sponsored by an Alderman.

City of Long Beach The City of Long Beach also adopted an ordinance to their Municipal Code requiring all hotels to incorporate hotel worker safety measures including a mandate requiring panic buttons for all hotel housekeepers in October 2018. A month later, Measure WW passed in Long Beach, which sets a maximum workload of 4,000 square feet in an 8-hour workday, requires hoteliers to pay hotel room cleaners at twice their regular rate for overtime work and establishes protections against mandatory overtime for all hotels with over 50 guest rooms.

City of Oakland Similarly, Measure Z, the Oakland Minimum Wage Charter Amendment, passed in November 2018 and requires emergency contact devices, sets a maximum workload of 4,000 square feet in an 8-hour workday, requires hoteliers to pay hotel room cleaners at twice their regular rate for overtime, and imposes new minimum wages and labor protections for employees of hotels with 50 or more guest rooms.

City of Emeryville In 2005, voters in the City of Emeryville approved Measure C. Measure C sets new minimum wage requirements for hotels with 50 or more guest rooms and a maximum workload of 5,000 square feet in an 8-hour workday and mandates hoteliers to pay hotel room cleaners one and a half times their regular pay for overtime.

City of Seattle In November 2016, Seattle voters approved Initiative Measure 124, Hotel Employees

1

Health and Safety Initiative. Measure 124 requires hotels with 60 or more guest rooms to distribute panic buttons to all employees, sets a maximum workload of 5,000 square feet in an 8-hour workday and requires hoteliers to pay hotel room cleaners one and a half times their regular pay for overtime and establishes protections around workplace safety.

City of Chicago On October 11, 2017, the City Council passed the Hotel Workers Sexual Harassment Ordinance requiring Chicago hotels to develop anti-sexual harassment policies and provide employees who work alone in hotel rooms with panic buttons by July 1, 2018.

2

CHAPTER 5.49 - HOTEL WORKING CONDITIONS

5.49.010 - Purpose.

The purpose of this initiative is to protect the safety and improve working conditions of hotel employees in the City. Hotel employees who work by themselves are vulnerable to crimes and other threatening behavior, including sexual assault. This Chapter enables hotel workers to protect their safety by, among other measures, requiring that hotel employers provide workers who clean guest rooms with panic buttons which they may use to report threatening conduct by a hotel guest and other emergencies. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. This Chapter also includes provisions that support hotel employees' ability to report criminal and threatening guest behavior to the proper authorities. Hotel employees who clean guest rooms are also frequently assigned overly burdensome room cleaning quotas and unexpected overtime, which undermines the public interest in ensuring that hotel room cleaners can perform their work in a manner that adequately protects public health and interferes with their ability to meet family and personal obligations. This Chapter includes provisions to assure that workers receive fair compensation when their workload assignments exceed proscribed limits and to prohibit hotel employers from assigning employees overtime work when their shifts exceed 10 hours in a day, except in emergency situations, without obtaining workers' informed consent.

( Measure WW § 1, 2018)

5.49.020 - Definitions.

"Additional-bed rooms" means a room with additional beds such as cots or rollaways. "Checkout" means a room where the guests are ending their stay. "Emergency" means an immediate threat to public safety or of substantial risk of property loss or destruction. "Guest" means registered guests, others occupying guest rooms with registered guests, and visitors invited to guest rooms by a registered guest or other occupant of a guest room. "Guest room" means a room made available by a hotel for transient occupancy, consistent with Long Beach Municipal Code section 18.70.030. "Hotel" means structures as defined by Long Beach Municipal Code section 9.02.080, and containing 50 or more guest rooms, or suites of rooms. "Hotel" also includes any contracted leased, or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the building's purpose, or providing services at the building. "Hotel employee" means any individual: (1) who is employed directly by the hotel employer or by a person who has contracted with the hotel employer to provide services at a hotel in the City of Long Beach; and (2) who was hired to or did work an average 5 hours/week for 4 weeks at one or more hotels. "Hotel employer" means a person who owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel in the City of Long Beach, or a person who owns, controls, and/or operates any contracted, leased, or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the hotel's purpose, or a person, other than a hotel employee, who provides services at the hotel. "Panic button" means an emergency electronic contact device carried by a hotel employee by which the hotel employee may summon immediate on-scene assistance from a security guard or other person employed by the hotel.

"Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, association, joint venture, agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign. "Room cleaner" means a person whose principal duties are to clean and put in order residential guest rooms in a hotel, regardless of who employs the person. "Workday" means a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 a.m. and ending at 11:59 p.m.

( Measure WW § 1, 2018)

5.49.030 - Measures to protect hotel employees from harassment and assault.

A. Panic Buttons. A hotel employer shall provide a panic button to each hotel employee assigned to work in a guest room without other hotel employees present, at no cost to the hotel employee. A hotel employee may use the panic button if the hotel employee reasonably believes there is an ongoing crime, threatening behavior, or other emergency in the hotel employee's presence. The hotel employee may cease work and leave the immediate area of danger to await the arrival of assistance. B. Notice in Guest Rooms. Each hotel employer shall place a sign on the back of each guest room door, written in a font size of no less than 18 points, that includes the heading "The Law Protects Hotel Housekeepers and Hotel Employees From Threatening Behavior," a citation to this Chapter of the Long Beach Municipal Code, and notice of the fact that the hotel is providing panic buttons to its housekeepers, room servers, and other hotel employees assigned to work in guest rooms without other hotel employees present, in compliance with this Chapter. C. Hotel Employees' Rights. A hotel employee who brings to the attention of a hotel employer the occurrence of violence or threatening behavior, including but not limited to, indecent exposure, solicitation, assault, or coercive sexual conduct by a guest shall be afforded the following rights: 1. If the hotel employee reasonably believes that his or her safety is at risk and so requests, the hotel employee shall be reassigned to a different floor, or, if none is available for his or her job classification, a different work area, away from the person who is alleged to have engaged in the violence or threatening behavior, for the entire duration of the person's stay at the hotel; 2. The hotel employer shall immediately allow the affected hotel employee sufficient paid time to contact the police and provide a police statement and to consult with a counselor or advisor of the hotel employee's choosing; the hotel employer will permit, but may never require, the complaining hotel employee to report an incident involving alleged criminal conduct by a guest to the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction; and 3. The hotel employer shall cooperate with any investigation into the incident undertaken by the law enforcement agency and/or any attorney for the complaining hotel employee.

( Measure WW § 1, 2018)

5.49.040 - Humane Workload.

A hotel employer shall not require a room cleaner to clean rooms amounting to more than 4,000 square feet of floorspace, or more than the maximum floor space otherwise specified in this Section, in any one, eight-hour workday unless the hotel employer pays the room cleaner twice his or her regular rate of pay for all hours worked by the room cleaner during the workday. If a room cleaner works fewer than eight hours in a workday, the maximum floor space shall be reduced on a prorated basis. When a room cleaner during a workday is assigned to clean any combination of seven or more checkout rooms or additional-bed rooms, the maximum floorspace to be cleaned shall be reduced by 500 square feet for each such checkout or additional-bed room over six. The limitations contained herein apply to any

combination of spaces, including guest rooms and suites, meeting rooms or hospitality rooms, and apply regardless of the furniture, equipment or amenities in any rooms.

( Measure WW § 1, 2018)

5.49.050 - Voluntary overtime.

A hotel employer shall not suffer or permit a hotel employee to work more than 10 hours in any workday unless the hotel employee consents. Consents must be written and signed by the hotel employee or communicated electronically through an account or number particular to the hotel employee. No consent is valid unless the hotel employer has advised the hotel employee in writing not more than 30 days preceding the consent that the hotel employee may decline to work more than 10 hours in any workday and that the hotel employer will not subject the hotel employee to any adverse action for declining. An assignment in excess of 10 hours in a work day due to an emergency shall not violate this section.

( Measure WW § 1, 2018)

5.49.060 - Preservation of records.

Each hotel employer shall maintain for at least two years for each room cleaner a record of his or her name, pay rates received, and the rooms (or at the hotel employer's option, total amount of square footage) each room cleaner has cleaned on each workday. Each hotel employer shall preserve for at least two years a record of the written consents it received from hotel employees to work more than ten hours during a shift. The hotel employer shall make such records available to employees of the hotel or their representatives for inspection and copying except the hotel employees' names (and any addresses and social security numbers) shall be redacted unless the requester is a hotel employee requesting records concerning herself. Failure of the hotel employer to provide a copy of such records will result in a penalty of at least one hundred dollars ($100.00) per day up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day, the amount to be set by the court.

( Measure WW § 1, 2018)

5.49.070 - No retaliation.

No person shall discharge, reduce in compensation, increase workload, impose fees or charges, change duties or otherwise take adverse action against any hotel employee for opposing any practice proscribed by this article, for participating in proceedings related to this article, for seeking to enforce his or her rights under this article by any lawful means, or for otherwise asserting rights under this article. A person terminating or taking any other adverse action against any hotel employee who has engaged in any of the foregoing activities within one year preceding the termination or other adverse action shall provide to the hotel employee at or before the time of the termination or other adverse action a detailed written statement of the reason or reasons for the termination or other adverse action including all the facts substantiating the reason or reasons and all facts known to the person that contradict the substantiating facts.

( Measure WW § 1, 2018)

5.49.080 - Waiver.

The provisions of this Chapter may not be waived by agreement between an individual hotel employee and a hotel employer. All of the provisions of Sections 5.49.040 and 5.49.050, or any part

thereof, may be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement but only if the waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and unambiguous terms. Unilateral implementation of terms and conditions of employment by either party to a collective bargaining relationship shall not constitute, or be permitted, as a waiver of all or any part of the provisions of this Section.

( Measure WW § 1, 2018)

5.49.090 - Enforcement.

A. A hotel employee or representative of hotel employees claiming violation of this chapter may bring an action in the Superior Court and shall be entitled to all remedies available under the law or in equity appropriate to remedy any such violation, including but not limited to injunctive relief or other equitable relief, including reinstatement, and compensatory damages and other relief provided in this subsection. In addition to any other remedy to which a hotel employee is entitled under this section, a hotel employer that violates Subsection A of Section 5.49.030 shall be liable to each affected hotel employee for statutory damages in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each day on which a violation occurred; a hotel employer that violates Section 5.49.040 shall be liable to each affected hotel employee for statutory damages in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each day on which a violation occurred; and a hotel employer that violates Section 5.49.050 shall be liable to each affected hotel employee for statutory damages in the amount of fifty dollars ($50) for each day on which a violation occurred. In the event of a willful violation of Section 5.49.070, the amount of damages attributable to lost income due to the violation shall be trebled. If a hotel employee is the prevailing party in any legal action taken pursuant to this article, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs as part of the costs recoverable. B. Each hotel employer shall give written notification to each current hotel employee, and to each new hotel employee at time of hire, of his or her rights under this Section. The notification shall be in each language spoken by more than ten (10) hotel employees. C. A hotel employer that contracts with another person, including, without limitation, another hotel employer, a temporary staffing agency, employee leasing agency or professional employer organization, to obtain the services of hotel employees shall share all civil legal responsibility, and civil liability for violations of this Chapter by that person for hotel employees performing work pursuant to the contract. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "person" shall not include: (1) A bona fide nonprofit, community-based organization that provides services to workers; (2) A bona fide labor organization or apprenticeship program or hiring hall operated pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.

( Measure WW § 1, 2018)

5.49.100 - Severability.

If any provision or application of this chapter is declared illegal, invalid or inoperative, in whole or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and portions thereof shall remain in full force or effect. The courts are hereby authorized to reform the provisions of this chapter in order to preserve its maximum permissible effect.

( Measure WW § 1, 2018)

5.49.110 - No Preemption of Higher Standards.

This Chapter does not preempt or prevent the establishment of superior standards or the expansion of coverage by ordinance, resolution, contract, or any other action of the City of Long Beach. This

Chapter shall not be construed to limit a discharged hotel employee's right to bring a common law cause of action for wrongful termination.

( Measure WW § 1, 2018)

5.49.120 - Regulations.

The City shall have authority to adopt rules and regulations consistent with and necessary for the implementation of this Chapter. Such rules and regulations shall have the force and effect of law, and may be relied upon by hotel employers, hotel employees and other parties to determine their rights and responsibilities under this Chapter.

( Measure WW § 1, 2018)

CHAPTER 5.54 - HOTEL WORKER SAFETY PRECAUTIONS

5.54.010 - Purpose.

The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the safety of hotel employees in the City. Hotel employees who work by themselves are vulnerable to crimes and other threatening behavior, including sexual assault. This Chapter enables hotel workers to protect their safety by requiring that hotel employers provide workers who clean guest rooms with panic buttons which they may use to report threatening conduct by a hotel guest and other emergencies. Many instances of sexual assault go unreported to the police. This Chapter also includes provisions that support hotel employees' ability to report criminal and threatening guest behavior to the proper authorities.

( ORD-18-0028 § 1, 2018)

5.54.020 - Definitions.

A. "Emergency" means an immediate threat to public safety or of substantial risk of property loss or destruction. B. "Guest" means registered guests, others occupying guest rooms with registered guests, and visitors invited to guest rooms by a registered guest or other occupant of a guest room. C. "Guest room" means a room made available by a hotel for transient occupancy, consistent with Long Beach Municipal Code section 18.70.030. D. "Hotel" means structures as defined by Long Beach Municipal Code section 9.02.080, or suites of rooms, and includes motels as defined by Long Beach Municipal Code section 21.15.1800. "Hotel" also includes any contracted, leased, or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the building's purpose, or providing services at the building. However, "hotel" shall not include short-term residential rentals (such as AirBnb, VRBO, Homeaway, Flipkey, and others), or bed and breakfast establishments meeting the conditions set forth in Section 21.52.209 of this Code. E. "Hotel employee" means any individual: (1) who is employed directly by the hotel employer or by a person who has contracted with the hotel employer to provide services at a hotel in the City; and (2) who was hired to or did work an average 5 hours/week for 4 weeks at one or more hotels. F. "Hotel employer" means a person who owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel in the City of Long Beach, or a person who owns, controls, and/or operates any contracted, leased, or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the hotel's purpose, or a person, other than an hotel employee, who provides services at the hotel. G. "Panic button" means an emergency electronic contact device carried by a hotel employee by which the hotel employee may summon immediate on-scene assistance from a security guard or other person employed by the hotel. H. "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, association, joint venture, agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign.

( ORD-19-0005 § 1, 2019; ORD-18-0028 § 1, 2018)

5.54.030 - Measures to protect hotel employees from harassment and assault.

A. Panic buttons. A hotel employer shall provide a panic button to each hotel employee assigned to work in a guest room without other employees present, regardless of job classification, at no cost to the hotel employee. It is recognized that because of the varying size and physical layout of each hotel, different devices may be appropriate for different hotels. A hotel employee may use the panic

button if the hotel employee reasonably believes there is an ongoing crime, threatening behavior, or other emergency in the hotel employee's presence. The hotel employee may cease work and leave the immediate area of danger to await the arrival of assistance. B. Hotel employees' rights. 1. The hotel employer must allow guest room doors to be left open during cleaning. Nothing herein shall prevent a hotel employee from voluntarily electing to keep a guest room door closed during cleaning as the hotel employee sees fit. 2. A hotel employee who brings to the attention of a hotel employer the occurrence or violence or threatening behavior, including but not limited to indecent exposure, solicitation, assault, or coercive sexual conduct by a guest shall be afforded the following rights: a. If the hotel employee reasonably believes that his or her safety is at risk and so requests, the hotel employee shall be reassigned to a different work area, away from the person who is alleged to have engaged in the violence or threatening behavior for the duration of any continued occupancy by the person at the hotel; b. The hotel employer shall immediately allow the affected hotel employee sufficient time to contact the police and provide a police statement; and c. The hotel employer shall cooperate with any investigation into the incident undertaken by the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction. d. No person shall discharge, reduce in compensation, increase workload, impose fees or charges, change duties or otherwise take adverse action against any hotel employee for opposing any practice proscribed by this Chapter, for participating in proceedings related to this Chapter, for seeking to enforce his or her rights under this Chapter by any lawful means, or for otherwise asserting rights under this Chapter. A person terminating or taking any other adverse action against any hotel employee who has engaged in any of the foregoing activities within one (1) year preceding the termination or other adverse action shall provide to the hotel employee at or before the time of the termination or other adverse action a detailed written statement of the reason or reasons for the termination or other adverse action including all the facts substantiating the reason or reasons and all facts known to the person that contradict the substantiating facts. e. Each hotel employer shall give written notification to each current hotel employee, and to each new hotel employee at the time of hire, of his or her rights under this Section. The notification shall be in each language spoken by more than ten (10) hotel employees.

( ORD-19-0005 § 2, 2019; ORD-18-0028 § 1, 2018)

5.54.040 - Application to existing hotels.

Any hotel containing fifty (50) or more guest rooms, or suites of rooms, operating under an existing business license on the effective date of this Chapter shall be brought into full compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, not later than six (6) months following the effective date of this Chapter. All other hotels containing less than fifty (50) guest rooms, or suites of rooms, operating under an existing business license on the effective date of this Chapter shall be brought into full compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, not later than twelve (12) months following the effective date of this Chapter.

( ORD-18-0028 § 1, 2018)

5.54.050 - Severability.

If any provision or application of this Chapter is declared illegal, invalid or inoperative, in whole or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and portions thereof shall remain in

full force or effect. The courts are hereby authorized to reform the provisions in this Chapter in order to preserve its maximum permissible effect.

( ORD-18-0028 § 1, 2018)

5.54.060 - Relationship to other ordinances.

These provisions are not intended to abrogate or impair the provisions of any other section of this Code which is not in conflict with the provisions of this Chapter. However, in the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Chapter and the provisions of any other ordinance, the provisions of the Code that establish the more stringent, superior or higher standards shall control.

( ORD-18-0028 § 1, 2018)


  

Ĕ _; \¬ĔCDƒĔ

Ĕ

*Ĕ Ĕ _; ]2Ĕ ±Ĕ F?2Ĕ  FcĔ Â @Ĕ D=Ĕ `YWĔ 8Ĕ  4ÄĔ ^>Ĕ @C3Ĕ 0X¤YĔ º<«´3Ĕ `Z<Ĕ ¶3Ĕ 1­?Ĕ

$Ĕ Bb\  ½·Ĕ ©2Ĕ 1cĔ »<];[²Ĕ !W4[!Ĕ$„$8 SR†=Ĕ

9Ĕ VªĔ/‡/šQ * ˆ¥wĔE®@VÀ ¼3Ĕa^Ĕ³a¯AĔÃDEµXEĔ!>°ÁÅĔ œĔ ¾¿2b4 C!Ĕ :Ĕ

ŸĔ F
Ĕ)Ĕ  ĔĔ'
Ĕ§#NĔĔ¸Ĕ¦
ÕĔ  Ĕ Ĕe "( ¡Ĕ  Ĕ

77Ĕ !
 ĔS‰Ĕ !
 Ĕ$Š$8‹ ™ĔRŒ=Ĕ"Ĕ
ĔA Ĕ1
ĔBM&+ Ĕ
ĔĔ 6
  6 Ĕ 

ĔĔý
 Ĕ-Ĕ ( ¢Ĕ ,6
 6"6  
6 6 6

 
 *Ĕ > sZ
Ĕ
N
tĔ
IĔĔ,
%Ĕ(Ĕ( OĔ" " xĔJ — 

 6 2 .6 -6 
 4 36 #6 !6 & 6 UĔ %

ĔĔ%
Ĕ& Ĕ
Ĕ¨ #rĔĔ¹ Ĕ0
+yĔĔĔô
þ òĔďĔp zĔë#Ć kŽĔ *+6 06 6 '6 6 6 6  $Ĕ Æì̘%ÿĔõ
L
Ĕ ĒĔĊi+6 {ĔÏ  |ĔĔndåHċĔöĀ
gĈ-ĔÉóíÐÊČ
ÍĔl"ĔāĔ )/$6 
  6 16 6 ( %6 6  6 9Ĕ ÷
Ă
ĔÚĔãč6ÛîĔ(Ü#ÖĔlÑĔ
u ĔøMù H}ĔiĔĔú
ă-ï~Ĕh6ĄĔðĔÇñĔ 6 6  6 656 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 6 ×K
Ĕ
ûē
HĔq%Ĕü.Ý
-Ĕ
ćÞË
Ĕ6Ĕ#Ø
ĔÙ"'é•Ĕ 6 Ĕ :Ĕ

 Ĕ !
 ĔĔ !
Ĕ/$›P * P0ĔĔ'
ĔA 5Ĕ1
Ĕ B&+fĔÎĔ&Ĕ  Ĕ g

Ĕ'Ĕ
 Ĕ ĔÓ p £Ĕ Ĕ 0‘ ?
Ĕ
, )

vĔ Q

Ĕ 7’ 4Ĕ"
Ĕ
)
ĔkĔÈ êqĔÔ
ĔjĔ  Ĕ#ĔG

*Ĕ e
Ĕ
Ĕ & Ĕ
 “ĔßĔ
Ĕ  Ĕ,
.
'ĔĔ Ĕ
ærÒ
Ĕ UĔ Ĕ.  )Ĕ

ĔKĔä

,ĔĔo
ĔKĔ "%Ĕ   Ĕ  5Ĕf
 I5Ĕ T/Ĕ  Ĕ
Ĕ#
Ĕ
 N

Ĕ

ĉĔ –Ĕ

9Ĕ ” Ĕ
Ĕ
, )

Ĕ(%ĔG&5Ĕ'Ĕ
Ĕ
 IĔĔĔ TžĔ
)
Ĕ
Ĕj

ĔĔ. ç

ĔĔ

 Ĕd
. L€Ĕ à è ĔGnĔ :Ĕ JmĔâ 
ĔhĔ 

JmĔ
ĐoąĔ-  á OĔ #‚ĔĔ
L+ Ď
Ĕ
đM Ĕ

    
    
   

 0Oè Ʌ"Ʌ Ʌ{O Ʌ  Ʌ"
Ʌ ğ!V1Ʌ|
Ʌv!% ZɅ Ģ¿Ʌ  ± È3Ʌ
Ʌ
Ʌ,F48
Ʌ ! k  "
 Q9 Ʌ Ʌļ) ɅɅ Ʌ 3
Ʌ)œɅÊɅ @Ʌ VɅ Ʌ
ǙO
`œªɅ=Ʌ(!
Ʌ,G„§
Ʌ   Ʌ":Ʌ–& )ģ0ɅɅ Ʌ'zyɅ%@Ʌ 
«Ʌ % Ʌ3 Ʌ=Ʌ“
 !ƛɅ%(DɅ) Ʌ  
Z7ɅɅiQɅBĤĥ
0ɅōɅĽɅȬ*
]
Ʌ_Ʌľ2   ĦɅâQǚɅYɅ(2Ʌ  ùf ȦſƜɅƸvɅ ȶɅ*f
VɅfGR Ʌ"ȷɅɅF:Ǜ ƝɅ JɅȋ
Ʌ4JÀɅ  "² h
Ʌ
Ʌ†G
Ʌ  Ʌ*,A
1)
„  %Ʌ=:Ʌ&z3W
1Ʌ(!ɅA”ȸ

Ʌ OĠ  Ʌ Ʌ ɅŒ&ɅɅF! 
Ʌ 0Ʌ  F_ȭ 'Ʌ ɅG4Ʌ ËA
ÁɅ BúɅ 
 ³ hĿ
Ʌŀ Ʌ2†”Ʌ &Ʌ“– Ȍ
Ʌg   §Ʌ ƞ¤8bŎZ J ɅŏƟȍɅɅ])0ĄɅP1
Ǽ&ƃ
ɅkɅJ
ɅRgɅ2ġlƒɅ
3
¾Ʌ {
Ʌȴ*ɅƂP* '*´Ʌ #3 3 3  3  '3 
 ).3 3
pµ ÉƹɅdž
 ^ɅÌƅɅû[.é}Íħ¬Ʌǜn£mɅ?Ơ * 33 /3  
  -3
 0 !33 ‡LJȁ Ő­ɅƀŠ
Ʌ¥@So®Ʌ‚ƓLj
ɅĖ Ʌ—ɅêÎ Ĩąž¯Ʌ6ÏCĩWɅü£ő;IɅ

3 3 
   %3 3
 3 3  3 Ʌ5ŁǿŒa:Ʌ ЃɅ ýQ
š.ɅëK?ˆɅRĪœ#cɅ ȹɅ>LɅ<Ɣlj+ȺĆćɅ̍ǝɅNJNjŽŸŔơīɅ + ,3 13   3 3 $3 "3  T ȻɅnjHìȎŕl
ɅǍHaíǞŖãĈ7ɅäȼɅ5łŗȂɅÃŃjǎLXǟ°ɅY-ǠɅƺiǽ»îؕ/dřCĬɅŚˆɅǏǻïrþśĭŸɅ %3 &3 3 3  
 

 323 3 3 3 3 3 3 (3 ǡ
+ȏ'ɅMEɅ5ŜɅÄǐǢ¶ɅĝǣɅ.
ĉƄŝCĮɅd!Ʌ ě6Ʌ(Ş.Ʌ˜ɅĊ ɅǤşįńȐIɅP ÿ8ɅcŠ#Ʌ 
   ÅSɅ $
ǥɅ"Ʌ Ñ Ʌ +%YȧɅ, Ƣ·ɅŒǦɅyǃɅM
ȀšȃċɅ#ȄǾŢƣɅ ǧ\Ʌ ($ɅPƤp9Ʌȑ|ţȅɅ  Æ/•Ȓ
¸Ʌ ÂɅǑ4 Ʌ uǨ,?B İɅǩɅL@Ť ıɅ]ȽɅDǪɅ/oȮs™ȆrɅÒȓ\ƻƥɅ IJť‰ȇcɅ  ŠȾɅ~KƆɅƕǒȿ
Ʌ¥ɅŅÓ.Ʌ2‰ijUĴt1ɅŦƦɅÔƧɀɅ3ɅȔ=9ɅĞĵŧ ĶɅȕ¤[ Ũ;.Ʌ  %ũȖņŪƨɅƩ<Ʌ¨¼©ɅɁǫɅǓHuð8'ūķɅŇtɅȗǬƖŬCUeŭƼƪɅƽǭɅȘX™ɅÕĀȯš
Ʌñș‚EƫɅ~SƎƏɅ  ǔ -ȰŮ'
ɅeEɅM€ɅEMɅAǕDɂ
ɅÖ¡ɅǮɅå
w-ǯɅɅe\ƗɅŽėɅ }ČɅdXǰƘů¢Ű‘ƬɅ-—Ʌ  Ț<DZɅTnȱ
Dz#
Ʌ×műɅ&ɅāčØŲ+qɅȵ ų$ 9Ʌ` Ù ‡ țɅDwɅ ĎɅdz#ƾƭɅDŽ›Ʌ
# Ʌ   x‘ǴɅ5>WɅȜ ,ŴƮjȝŵɅ-HɅ ǵɅTĂȲďǶI
ɅŶɅ^+Ȩ7ŷĸɅƇƈɅ$€ɅĘò$ Ʌ   ȩæIN Ȟ?NŸ^ĹɅK>
Ʌ
’‹ɅDž›ɅǷÚȈƯɅ/‹7Ʌ ƐƑɅxÛóƉȉɅƒ4¦ưɅ5ƿɅňĐɅǖ;Ǹa-ƱɅ ʼnÜLɅ  ô_Ʋȟ UăŹõȠɅȡŊ<Ʌ`ȪçžKÝƳȢźÞbŻƴĺɅęßöȣ#¹Ʌ  ;Ʌ Ç÷ŋɅǀbɅsƙǗƊɃđǹɅȊŌà+ɅĻżȳɅ¦ Ž$¡ĒɅ  ¢[ĜƁ6/ȤžƵɅNɅ
Ʌ6ȫ˜ǺƶNɅǁȥēƋɅ
ƚǘƌ’Ʉ
ºɅBqɅǂɅĔáøɅƷgɅ>$ĕƍɅ ½Ʌ !  ! !
 !     ! 
   

č 7âÑƨčEčõP
čö¿Q
č(č&ÀWgč߬č4ÁYčéč·êč²¸÷)čĂ NëčZPÃïč
$Ílč ’&%č

,č U(øÄFĀÎ×čð¹ č#
čč
 č  ³]"´čã6Øč Hćč7Wč*4č[čc+ečº[ č

.č ORä ĈNñmč wč

/č ‘© 5Ùčt=č “»č1\ č1
6č"ÔÕčí3ĉč 8č čå2ò"
čàčù)čLÚGÛ¢ªčIĊč >č č*ċčˆ!'£5ÒčFč!čč 8čHčæ:úMčÅč
čdufč¤ )VÆKă(Ą)č9K č čû č‰*`čá­č

?č CčA
&hččÇč:&2 č2Ð
č
± č č č Z k3č;v: <č"Čč®ü
čÈč č9çą
LčJač č @č `(=č }č

+č Œč ¼%ì
I č
î¯ čýč\½
č°8
µ5ܶčMÉUÝ$«č_ó螦èþ§č bčÿ %č1ač

č !čč¾čÊbččCÞčA
E čč*YčS
'č蔕D–D— ˜čičsnqjč

  '+ + -č # č4
č3 _'č^%€č  + + +
 + )+  *+ .č  
  +( $+
 "+  + oxč 0
č Š]'$ËčRT¡
Xô‚č #%+    + !+ + 
 p/č + + &+ + 
 + >č
 +
+  + +  + + + 
 {č

|č 
ƒč !$SQ#
„č ~č

+č 0J
ā‡č !¥ÏÖT
7#O č č č

.č

ryč BÌ čBÓ
X6č -/č -zč

,?č 09V^†č™š ›čœč ;‹G
<č ŽŸ č ,@č

  # # # 
 #   !"#

5/22/2019 Chapter 5-32 WORKPLACE JUSTICE STANDARDS AT LARGE HOTELS

CHAPTER 32. WORKPLACE JUSTICE STANDARD S AT LARGE HOTELS

Sections:

Article 1 Measure C As Adopted by City of Emeryville Electorate November 8, 2005

5-32.1.1 Minimum Requirements

5-32.1.2 Any City Costs to be Covered by Permit Fees

5-32.1.3 Definitions

5-32.1.4 Enforcement

5-32.1.5 Findings

Article 2 Repealed

Article 1. Measure C As Adopted by City of Emeryville Electorate November 8, 2005

5-32.1.1 Minimum Requirements. No corporation, entity or person may operate a large hotel (as defined in Section 5-32.1.3) without annually obtaining a permit from the City, which shall be granted upon a showing that the following conditions will be followed:

(a) Minimum Wages. Large hotels shall ensure that employees receive compensation of at least the following:

(1) Minimum Compensation. The minimum compensation for each employee shall be at least nine dollars ($9.00) per hour.

(2) Minimum Average Compensation. The average compensation of all employees in the hotel during a calendar year shall be at least eleven dollars ($11.00) per hour.

(3) Credit for Health Benefits. “Compensation” shall be defined herein as wages (or salary) and health benefits. If employer contributions for health benefits are not paid on an hourly basis but the hotel nonetheless wishes a credit for such payments, the hotel shall present data to the City concerning hours worked and health contributions made, and the City Manager or his designee shall estimate the value of such benefits on an hourly basis.

(4) Inflation Adjustments. The above rates shall be upwardly adjusted annually, no later than March 1, in proportion to the increase during the preceding calendar year in the region’s Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. No later than February 1 each year, the City shall distribute a notice reporting the amount of such increase to any person who has filed with the City a request for such notice.

(b) Protection of Employees from Unjust Discharges When a New Employer Takes Over. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Emeryville/html/Emeryville05/Emeryville0532.html 1/5 5/22/2019 Chapter 5-32 WORKPLACE JUSTICE STANDARDS AT LARGE HOTELS (1) If there is a sale of the hotel or other change resulting in a new person or entity taking over as an employer at the hotel (such as subcontracting, subleasing, or replacement of subcontractor, lessee or sublessee), then the new employer shall retain all employees of the prior employer for at least ninety (90) calendar days unless there is reasonable and substantiated cause not to hire or to discharge such employee based on that employee’s performance or conduct. The fact that an employee previously enjoyed certain wages, benefits or working conditions does not provide cause for not employing him or her.

(2) In the event of layoff during the first ninety (90) days of the new employer’s operation, the laid-off employee shall be entitled to reinstatement should any position open up at the hotel within the following twenty-four (24) months which the employee can perform. Upon reinstatement, such employee must be given a trial period of at least ninety (90) days during which he or she can only be discharged for cause as defined in subsection (b)(1) of this section.

(3) A finding of cause for an employee’s discharge made in a grievance procedure established by collective bargaining agreement shall be binding under subsection (b)(1) of this section, and the term “cause” in subsection (b)(1) of this section shall be construed in accordance with judicial and arbitral precedent defining “just cause” for discharge.

(4) The right to retention herein does not include the right to retain supervisory or management responsibilities.

(c) Workload Standards for Room Cleaners. Employees working as room cleaners shall be paid at least time-and-a-half the minimum average compensation set forth above for all time worked in a day if required to clean rooms amounting to more than five thousand (5,000) square feet of floor space in an eight (8) hour workday. For any room cleaner working less than eight (8) full hours per day, this maximum floor space shall be prorated evenly according to the actual number of hours worked. When a room cleaner is assigned in an eight (8) hour workday to clean any combination of seven (7) or more checkout rooms or rooms with additional beds such as cots or rollaways, this maximum floor space shall be reduced by five hundred (500) square feet for each such checkout or additional bedroom over six (6).

(d) Paid Leave for Jury Duty. Each large hotel shall ensure that employees are provided with paid leave for jury duty. The pay during such leave shall be at least the employee’s regular rate of pay as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

(e) Compliance with Enforcement Provisions. Hotel compliance with the enforcement provisions set forth in Section 5-32.1.4 shall also be a condition for a permit.

(Sec. 3 (part), Ord. 08-005, eff. Sep. 18, 2008)

5-32.1.2 Any City Costs to be Covered by Permit Fees. Each large hotel shall pay a permit fee annually to the City reflecting its share of any City costs in enforcing this chapter. This share shall be based on each hotel’s portion of the total number of rooms at the hotels covered by this chapter, or based on such other formula as the City Council determines to be equitable. The Council by resolution shall set the initial permit fee based on the City Manager’s projection of the City’s likely costs, and then shall update such fee annually.

(Sec. 3 (part), Ord. 08-005, eff. Sep. 18, 2008)

5-32.1.3 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply throughout this chapter: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Emeryville/html/Emeryville05/Emeryville0532.html 2/5 5/22/2019 Chapter 5-32 WORKPLACE JUSTICE STANDARDS AT LARGE HOTELS (a) A “large hotel” means any hospitality facility with more than fifty (50) guest rooms. A “hotel” includes not only the facility’s guest rooms and common areas but also any subcontracted or sublet restaurants connected thereto or operated in conjunction therewith.

(b) “Employee” includes not only common law employees of the operator, but also persons regularly engaged on the premises in providing services to hotel guests as a contractor, subcontractor, tenant, subtenant, licensee or sublicensee, or as an employee thereof. Workers who are not common law employees of the operator shall not be deemed regularly engaged on the premises unless they spend more than five hours per week there for more than four weeks. The permittee shall remain ultimately liable for compliance with this article regardless of whether or not it is the common law employer of the employees. “Employee” does not include any managerial or administrative employees receiving more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) per year in wages, salary, bonus, commission or other compensation from the hotel.

(Sec. 3 (part), Ord. 08-005, eff. Sep. 18, 2008)

5-32.1.4 Enforcement. (a) If after notice and hearing the City Council finds a large hotel has violated its permit requirements, the Council shall revoke such permit or attach conditions to the renewal of such permit sufficient to remedy past violations and prevent future violations.

(b) The City, any City resident or organization operating within the City, or any employee of a large hotel believing the hotel has violated any requirements of this chapter shall be entitled to bring an action in superior or municipal court for injunctive relief and to collect damages for all persons injured by the violation, and collect penalties for the City. Each workday during which the hotel is in violation of this chapter shall be deemed a separate violation for which the hotel shall be liable for a penalty of at least one hundred dollars ($100.00) per day and not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day, the amount to be determined by the court. A prevailing plaintiff in such an action shall be entitled to recover from the hotel his expenses in pursuing the action, including reasonable attorney’s fees. The City shall not be liable under this article for any plaintiff’s damages or legal expenses. The remedies set forth herein are not exclusive of any other remedies available at law, and none is a prerequisite for pursuing another remedy.

(c) No person may discharge or otherwise discriminate against any other person for making a complaint, participating in any of its proceedings, using any civil remedies to enforce his or her rights, or otherwise asserting his or her rights under this chapter.

(d) Any waiver by an individual of any provisions of this chapter shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable, except that employees are not barred from entering into a written valid collective bargaining agreement waiving provisions of this chapter if such waiver is set forth in clear and unambiguous terms.

(e) Each large hotel shall maintain for each employee a record of his or her name, pay rate and, if the hotel claims credit for health benefits, the sums paid by the hotel for the employee’s health benefits. By March 31 of each year, the hotel shall submit to the City a copy of such records for the prior year. Failure to provide a copy of such records within ten (10) days of the due date will result in a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per day.

(f) Each large hotel shall give written notification to each current employee, and to each new employee at time of hire, of his or her rights under this chapter. The notification shall be in each language spoken by more than ten (10) employees. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Emeryville/html/Emeryville05/Emeryville0532.html 3/5 5/22/2019 Chapter 5-32 WORKPLACE JUSTICE STANDARDS AT LARGE HOTELS (g) Each large hotel in the City shall permit reasonable access to its workforce inside the hotel to authorized City representatives and any organization assisting employees in the hospitality industry. Such access may be used solely for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this chapter and investigating employee complaints of noncompliance. This access shall include the right of City representatives to inspect and copy payroll records, which information shall be used solely for the purpose of enforcing this article.

(h) If any provision or application of this chapter is declared illegal, invalid or inoperative, in whole or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and portions thereof shall remain in full force or effect. The courts are hereby authorized to reform the provisions of this chapter in order to preserve the maximum permissible effect thereof.

(Sec. 3 (part), Ord. 08-005, eff. Sep. 18, 2008)

5-32.1.5 Findings. The people of the City of Emeryville believe it is proper to regulate employment conditions at large hotels first rather than trying to regulate all employers because they believe that (a) large hotels are better able to afford the proposed conditions than other kinds of employers; (b) many large hotels in the Bay Area are already meeting the employment conditions required by this article, unlike the situation in other industries; (c) large hotels provide jobs similar to the janitorial jobs already protected by a similar State law on worker retention, Labor Code Sections 1060 through 1065; and (d) large hotels are generally less likely to respond to such regulation by closing or reducing employment than other kinds of businesses, which can more readily move jobs offshore or to other locations, as large hotels wish to be here because of our City’s location. Each of these factors alone is sufficient to warrant adoption of this article.

(Sec. 3 (part), Ord. 08-005, eff. Sep. 18, 2008)

Article 2. Limitations During Investigation of Administrative Complaints

Repealed by Sec. 2, Ord. 08-005, eff. Sep. 18, 2008.

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Emeryville/html/Emeryville05/Emeryville0532.html 4/5 5/22/2019 Chapter 5-32 WORKPLACE JUSTICE STANDARDS AT LARGE HOTELS

The Emeryville Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 19-005, passed April 2, 2019.

Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Emeryville Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.

City Website: http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us

City Telephone: (510) 596-4300

Code Publishing Company

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Emeryville/html/Emeryville05/Emeryville0532.html 5/5

Chapter 14.25 - HOTEL EMPLOYEES HEALTH AND SAFETY

14.25.010 - Findings

The people hereby adopt basic safeguards to protect hotel employees from assault and injury on the job, to improve access to affordable healthcare, and to provide a minimum standard of job security for hotel employees. This measure also includes strong enforcement mechanisms to ensure that hotel owners and operators comply with the law. Providing these protections to hotel employees will make Seattle's economy fairer and more resilient. Hotel employees are vital contributors to our community. The hospitality industry is a profitable and important component of our economy that receives substantial taxpayer support, including through the $1.5 billion expansion of the Washington State Convention Center. However, the hospitality industry has not adequately provided for the safety and security of hotel employees. Due to the unique nature of hotel work, hotel employees are subjected to a higher risk of harassment and violence on the job. Unregulated workloads result in injury rates for hotel housekeepers that are higher than those of coalminers. At the same time, hospitality employees have the lowest rate of access to employer-offered health insurance of any industry in the State of Washington and face unaffordable monthly premiums for family healthcare. Frequent property sales, changes in ownership, mergers and acquisitions in the hospitality industry mean that hotel employees face employment disruptions that are wholly beyond their control. As a vast majority of Seattle hotel employees are women, immigrants, and people of color, these hazards and instabilities within the hospitality industry exacerbate existing structural inequities experienced by these groups. It is appropriate and necessary to protect employees in the hotel industry - those who clean the rooms, change the sheets, and dice the vegetables - from assault and injury, unmanageable medical costs, and unnecessary job loss.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

PART 1 - PROTECTING HOTEL EMPLOYEES FROM VIOLENT ASSAULT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT

14.25.020 - Intent

It is the intent of Part 1 of this measure to protect hotel employees from violent assault, including sexual assault, and sexual harassment and to enable employees to speak out when they experience harassment or assault on the job. Hotel employees are often asked to work alone in hotel rooms, which sometimes may be occupied, placing them at risk of violent assault, including sexual assault, and sexual harassment.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

14.25.030 - Providing panic buttons to hotel employees providing in-room services

A hotel employer shall provide a panic button to each hotel employee assigned to work in a guest room without other employees present, at no cost to the employee. An employee may use the panic button if the employee reasonably believes there is an ongoing crime, harassment, or other emergency in the employee's presence. The hotel employee may cease work and leave the immediate area of perceived danger to await the arrival of assistance, and no adverse employment action may be taken against the employee for such action.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

14.25.040 - Protecting hotel employees from violent or harassing hotel guests

A. A hotel employer must record the accusations it receives that a guest has committed an act of violence, including assault, sexual assault, or sexual harassment towards an employee. The hotel employer must determine and record the name of the guest; if the name of the guest cannot be determined, the hotel employer must determine and record as much identifying information about the guest as is reasonably possible. The hotel employer shall compile and maintain a list of all guests so accused. The employer shall retain a guest on the list for at least five years from the date of the most recent accusation against the guest, during which time the employer shall retain all written documents relating to such accusations. B. If an accusation against a guest under subsection 14.25.040.A involves assault, sexual assault, or sexual harassment, and is supported by a statement made under penalty of perjury or other evidence, the employer shall decline to allow the guest to return to the hotel for at least three years after the date of the incident. No employee may be required to provide such statement. C. The hotel employer must notify any hotel employee assigned to work in guest rooms without other employees present, prior to starting their scheduled work, of any guest on the list established by subsection 14.25.040.A who is staying at the hotel, identify the room assigned to the guest, and warn the employees to exercise caution when entering that room during the time the guest is staying in the hotel.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

14.25.050 - Deterring assaults by notifying guests of employee protections

Each hotel shall place a sign on the back of each guest room door, written in a font size of no less than 18 points, that includes the heading "The Law Protects Hotel Housekeepers and Other Employees From Violent Assault and Sexual Harassment," a citation to this Chapter 14.25, and notice of the fact that the hotel is providing panic buttons to its housekeepers, room servers, and other employees assigned to work in guest rooms without other employees present, in compliance with this Chapter 14.25.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

14.25.060 - Protecting employees who report assault or sexual harassment

An employee who brings to the attention of a hotel employer the occurrence of an act of violence, including assault and sexual assault, or sexual harassment by a guest shall be afforded the following rights: A. Upon request, the employee shall be reassigned to a different floor, or, if none is available for the employee's job classification, a different work area away from the guest for the entire duration of the guest's stay at the hotel; B. The hotel employer shall immediately allow the employee sufficient paid time to contact the police and provide a police statement and to consult with a counselor or advisor of the employee's choosing; and C. The hotel employer, with the consent of the employee, shall report an incident involving alleged criminal conduct by a guest to the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction and shall cooperate with any investigation into the incident undertaken by the agency and any attorney for the complaining employee.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

PART 2 - PROTECTING HOTEL EMPLOYEES FROM INJURY

14.25.070 - Intent

It is the intent of this Part 2 to protect hotel employees from on-the-job injury. Hotel employees suffer an unacceptably high rate of on-the-job injuries from heavy lifting, repetitive tasks, and chemical exposure, and are 40 percent more likely to be injured on the job than all other service sector workers. The provisions of this Part 2 will help to protect hotel employees from such injuries.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

14.25.080 - Hotel employers must adopt reasonable practices to protect the safety of hotel employees

Hotel employers must provide and use safety devices, and safeguards and use work practices, methods, processes, and means that are reasonably adequate to make their workplaces safe.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

14.25.090 - Hotel employers must protect their employees from chemical hazards

Hotel employers must: A. Control chemical agents in a manner that they will not present a hazard to employees; B. Protect employees from the hazard of contact with, or exposure to, chemical agents; and C. Provide employees with effective information on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial job assignment. Information must be provided whenever a new physical or health hazard related to chemical exposure is introduced into work areas.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

14.25.100 - Hotel employers must protect hotel housekeepers from injuries

A. Significant injuries to hotel housekeepers result from the repetitive and strenuous tasks that must be performed in each guest room, including lifting requirements that can substantially exceed federal occupational safety standards. Hotel housekeepers face the highest injury rate of all hotel occupations. Risk of injury is increased when hotel housekeepers must clean more than 5,000 square feet of guest rooms in an eight-hour workday, and further increases when housekeepers are required to perform more than ten strenuous guest room cleanings during the day or to clean guest rooms at an unsafe speed. Workplace interventions have been found to significantly reduce injury rates for hotel housekeepers. B. An employee providing housekeeping services at a large hotel shall not be required to clean guest rooms totaling more than 5,000 square feet of floor space in an eight-hour workday. When an employee performs ten or more strenuous room cleanings in an eight-hour workday, the maximum floor space shall be reduced by 500 square feet for the tenth strenuous room cleaning and for each such strenuous room cleaning thereafter. C. For an employee cleaning guest rooms for fewer than eight hours per day, the foregoing maximums and reductions shall be prorated according to the actual number of hours worked cleaning guest rooms. D. If an employee performs cleaning in excess of the square footage allowed by this Section 14.25.100 in a day, the hotel employer shall pay such hotel employee at least time-and-a- half the employee's regular rate of pay for all time worked cleaning guest rooms during that day.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

PART 3 - IMPROVING ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE FOR LOW INCOME HOTEL EMPLOYEES

14.25.110 - Intent

It is the intent of Part 3 to improve access to affordable family medical care for hotel employees. In Washington's economy, hospitality industry employers are the least likely to offer health insurance to employees and their contributions are second to lowest. The average monthly cost to a hotel employee for family medical coverage through an employer-offered plan exceeds $500 per month, forcing nearly half of eligible employees to decline such plans. Access to affordable medical care is critical for hotel employees to care for themselves and their families. Additional compensation reflecting hotel employees' anticipated family medical costs is necessary to improve access to medical care for low income hotel employees.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

14.25.120 - Large hotel employers must provide additional compensation reflective of the cost of medical coverage to low-income hotel employees

A. A large hotel employer shall pay, by no later than the 15th day of each calendar month, each of its low-wage employees who work full time at a large hotel additional wages or salary in an amount equal to the greater of $200, adjusted annually for inflation, or the difference between (1) the monthly premium for the lowest-cost, gold-level policy available on the Washington Health Benefit Exchange and (2) 7.5 percent of the amount by which the employee's compensation for the previous calendar month, not including the additional wage or salary required by this Section 14.25.120, exceeds 100 percent of the federal poverty line. The additional wages or salary required under this Section 14.25.120 are in addition to and will not be considered as wages paid for purposes of determining compliance with the hourly minimum wage and hourly minimum compensation requirements set forth in Sections 14.19.030 through 14.19.050. B. A large hotel employer shall not be required to pay the additional wages or salary required by this Section 14.25.120 with respect to an employee for whom the hotel employer provides health and hospitalization coverage at least equal to a gold-level policy on the Washington Health Benefit Exchange at a premium or contribution cost to the employee of no more than five percent of the employee's gross taxable earnings paid to the employee by the hotel employer or its contractors or subcontractors. C. If a household includes multiple employees covered by this Section 14.25.120, the total of all additional wage or salary payments made pursuant to this Section 14.25.120 to such employees by one or more hotel employers shall not exceed the total cost for coverage of the household under the least-expensive gold policy offered on the Washington Health Benefit Exchange. If one or more employees in the household are employed by more than one hotel employer, the hotel employers may coordinate their payments so that their combined payments do not exceed the foregoing maximum. In the absence of an agreement among hotel employers to so coordinate their payments, the amount of additional wages payable by each hotel employer shall be the amount due to each employee under subsection 14.25.120.A. D. The inflation adjustment required under subsection 14.25.120.A shall be calculated using the year- over-year increase in cost of the lowest cost gold level policy available on the Washington Health Benefit Exchange.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

PART 4 - PREVENTING DISRUPTIONS IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY

14.25.130 - Intent

This Part 4 is intended to reduce disruptions to the Seattle economy that could result from the increasing number of property sales and changes in ownership in the hotel industry and also to protect low-income workers. Even long-term and exemplary employees may find themselves terminated solely because a multinational corporation has decided to sell the hotel at which they work.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

14.25.140 - Worker retention

A. When a hotel undergoes a change in control, the outgoing hotel employer shall, within 15 days after the execution of a transfer document, provide to the incoming hotel employer the name, address, date of hire, and employment occupation classification of each retention hotel worker. B. The incoming hotel employer shall maintain a preferential hiring list of retention hotel workers identified by the outgoing hotel employer, as set forth in subsection 14.25.140.A, and shall be required to hire from that list for a period beginning upon the execution of the transfer document and continuing for six months after the hotel is open to the public under the incoming hotel employer. C. If the incoming hotel employer extends an offer of employment to a retention hotel worker, the offer shall be in writing and remain open for at least ten business days. The incoming hotel employer shall retain written verification of that offer for no fewer than three years from the date the offer was made. The verification shall include the name, address, date of hire, and employment occupation classification of each retention hotel worker. D. An incoming hotel employer shall retain each retention hotel worker hired pursuant to this Section 14.25.140 for no fewer than 90 days following the retention hotel worker's employment commencement date. During this 90-day transition employment period, retention hotel workers shall be employed under the terms and conditions established by the incoming hotel employer, or as required by law. E. If, within the 90-day transition employment period established in subsection 14.25.140.D, the incoming hotel employer determines that it requires fewer hotel employees than were required by the outgoing hotel employer, the incoming hotel employer shall retain retention hotel workers by seniority within each job classification to the extent that comparable job classifications exist. F. During the 90-day transition employment period, the incoming hotel employer shall not discharge without just cause a retention hotel worker retained pursuant to this Section 14.25.140. G. At the end of the 90-day transition employment period, the incoming hotel employer shall provide a written performance evaluation for each hotel worker retained pursuant to this Section 14.25.140. If the retention hotel worker's performance during the 90-day transition employment period is satisfactory, the incoming hotel employer shall consider offering the retention hotel worker continued employment under the terms and conditions established by the incoming hotel employer, or as required by law. The incoming hotel employer shall retain a record of the written performance evaluation for a period of no fewer than three years. H. The outgoing hotel employer shall post written notice of the change in control at the location of the affected hotel within five business days following the execution of the transfer document. Notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place at the hotel so as to be readily viewed by retention hotel workers, other employees, and applicants for employment. Notice shall include, but not be limited to, the name of the outgoing hotel employer and its contact information, the name of the incoming hotel employer and its contact information, and the effective date of the change in control. Notice shall remain posted during any closure of the hotel and for six months after the hotel is open to the public under the incoming hotel employer.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

PART 5 - ENFORCING COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW

14.25.150 - Enforcement

A. Exercise of rights protected; retaliation prohibited 1. It shall be a violation for a hotel employer or any other person to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right protected under this Chapter 14.25. 2. No person may discharge, reduce any part of the compensation of, or otherwise discriminate against an employee, in response to the enactment of this Chapter 14.25, or in response to the employee asserting rights under this Chapter 14.25. Such adverse actions are deemed to harm the public and the employees irreparably, and hence preliminary equitable relief and reinstatement shall be available to the affected employees in addition to all other relief. 3. It shall be a violation for a hotel employer to take any adverse action against any employee because the employee has exercised in good faith the rights protected under this Chapter 14.25. Such rights include but are not limited to the right to assert any rights guaranteed pursuant to this Chapter 14.25; the right to make inquiries about the rights protected under this Chapter 14.25; the right to inform others about an employer's alleged violation of this Chapter 14.25; the right to cooperate with the City in any investigations of alleged violations of this Chapter 14.25; the right to oppose any policy, practice, or act that is unlawful under this Chapter 14.25; the right to file an oral or written complaint with the City or to bring a civil action for an alleged violation of this Chapter 14.25; the right to testify in a proceeding under or related to this Chapter 14.25; the right to refuse to participate in any activity that would result in a violation of city, state, or federal law; and the right to oppose any policy, practice, or act that is unlawful under this Chapter 14.25. 4. It shall be a violation for a hotel employer to (a) communicate to an employee exercising rights under this Chapter 14.25, directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, its willingness or intent to inform a government employee that the employee is not lawfully in the United States; or (b) report or threaten to report suspected citizenship or immigration status of an employee or a family member of the employee to a federal, state, or local agency because the employee has exercised a right under this Chapter 14.25. 5. There shall be a rebuttable presumption of retaliation if a hotel employer takes an adverse action against an employee within 90 days of the employee's exercise of rights protected in this Chapter 14.25. The hotel employer may rebut the presumption with clear and convincing evidence that the action was taken for a permissible purpose and that the employee's exercise of rights protected in this Chapter 14.25 was not a motivating factor in the adverse action. 6. When the presumption in subsection 14.25.150.A.5 does not apply, proof of retaliation under this Chapter 14.25 shall be sufficient upon a showing that a hotel employer has taken an adverse action against an employee and the employee's exercise of rights protected in this Chapter 14.25 was a motivating factor in the adverse action, unless the hotel employer can prove that the action would have been taken in the absence of such protected activity. 7. The protections under subsections 14.25.150.A.2 and 14.25.150.A.3 apply to any employee who mistakenly but in good faith alleges violations of this Chapter 14.25. B. Notice, posting, and records 1. Each hotel employer shall give written notification to each current employee and to each new employee at time of hire of the employee's rights under this Chapter 14.25. The notification shall be in each language spoken by ten or more employees. 2. Each hotel employer shall maintain for three years, for each employee and former employee, by name, a record showing the following information: (a) for each workweek of employment, the employee's regular hourly rate of pay; (b) for each month of full-time employment at a large hotel, the amount of additional wages or salary paid as additional compensation reflective of the cost of medical coverage for low income hotel employees, as required by section 14.25.120; and (c) for each day of employment as a housekeeping employee at a large hotel, the total

square feet of guest room floor space cleaned, the number of strenuous room cleanings performed, the number of hours worked, and the employee's gross pay for that day. The hotel employer must, upon request, make all such employee and former employee records available in full to any requesting employee and to the Office of Labor Standards for inspection and copying. C. Private enforcement action 1. Any person claiming injury from a violation of this Chapter 14.25 shall be entitled to bring an action in King County Superior Court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Chapter 14.25, and shall be entitled to all remedies available at law or in equity appropriate to remedy any violation of this Chapter 14.25, including but not limited to lost compensation and other damages, reinstatement, declaratory or injunctive relief, prejudgment interest, exemplary damages equal to the amount of wages wrongfully withheld or not paid on the established regular pay day when those wages were due, and to collect civil penalties as described in subsection 14.25.150.E. 2. A person who prevails in any action to enforce this Chapter 14.25 shall be awarded costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and expenses. 3. An order issued by the court may include a requirement for a compliance report to be submitted to the court and to the City by the hotel employer. D. Powers and duties of the Office of Civil Rights 1. The Office of Civil Rights may investigate charges alleging violations of this Chapter 14.25 and shall have such powers and duties in the performance of these functions as are necessary and proper in the performance of the same and provided for by law. 2. The Division Director of the Office of Labor Standards within the Office for Civil Rights, or the Division Director's designee, is authorized and directed to promulgate rules consistent with this Chapter 14.25, including rules that protect the identity and privacy rights of employees who have made complaints under this Chapter 14.25. E. Penalties 1. Each workday during which the hotel employer is in violation of this Chapter 14.25 shall be deemed a separate violation for which the hotel employer shall be liable for a penalty, exclusive of any damages which may be recovered by or awarded to any employee, of at least $100 per day per employee, and not more than $1,000 per day per employee, in an amount to be determined by the court. 2. Civil penalties shall be distributed as follows: 50 percent to the Office of Labor Standards; 25 percent to the aggrieved employees, distributed according to each employee's share of injury by the violations; and 25 percent to the person bringing the case. Penalties paid to the Office of Labor Standards shall be used for the enforcement of labor laws and the education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under the laws governing labor standards, to be continuously appropriated to supplement and not supplant existing funding for those purposes.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

PART 6 - DEFINITIONS

14.25.160 - Definitions

For the purposes of this Chapter 14.25: "Change in control" means any sale, assignment, transfer, contribution, or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets used in the operation of a hotel or a discrete portion of the hotel that

continues in operation as a hotel, or a controlling interest (including by consolidation, merger, or reorganization) of the outgoing hotel employer or any person who controls the outgoing hotel employer. "Checkout room" means a guest room assigned to be cleaned by an employee due to the departure of the guest assigned to that room. "Compensation" means wages, salary, sick pay, vacation pay, holiday pay, bonuses, commissions, allowances, and in-kind compensation for work performed. "Employee" and "hotel employee" means any non-managerial, non-supervisory individual employed by a hotel employer who: 1. In any particular workweek perform s at least two hours of work within the geographic boundaries of the City of Seattle for a hotel employer; and 2. Qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any employer under the City of Seattle and/or State of Washington minimum wage laws. "Employee" and "hotel employee" include any individual (1) whose place of employment is at one or more hotels and (2) who is employed directly by the hotel employer or by a person who has contracted with the hotel employer to provide services at the hotel. Supervisory and confidential employees as defined under the National Labor Relations Act are not considered employees under this Chapter 14.25. "Employment commencement date" means the date on which a hotel employee retained by the incoming hotel employer pursuant to this Chapter 14.25 commences work for the incoming hotel employer in exchange for benefits and compensation under the terms and conditions established by the incoming hotel employer or as required by law. "Federal poverty line" means the poverty line for the size of the employee's household for the Seattle area as published in the Annual Update by the Department of Health and Human Services of the Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia in the Federal Register. "Full time" means at least 80 hours in a calendar month. "Hotel" means a hotel or motel, as defined in Section 23.84A.024, containing 60 or more guest rooms or suites of rooms. "Hotel" also includes any contracted, leased, or sublet premises connected to or operated in conjunction with the building's purpose, or providing services at the building. "Hotel employer" means any person, including a corporate officer or executive, who directly or indirectly or through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a temporary service or staffing agency or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any employee and who owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel in Seattle; or a person who employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person employed in conjunction with a hotel employer in furtherance of the hotel's provision of lodging and other related services for the public. "Incoming hotel employer" means the person that owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel subject to a change in control after the change in control. "Large hotel" means a hotel containing 100 or more guest rooms or suites of rooms suitable for providing lodging to members of the public for a fee, regardless of how many of those rooms or suites are occupied or in commercial use at any given time. "Low-wage employee" means an employee whose total compensation from the employer is 400 percent or less of the federal poverty line for the size of the employee's household. "Outgoing hotel employer" means the person that owns, controls, and/or operates a hotel subject to a change in control prior to the change in control. "Panic button" means an emergency contact device carried by an employee by which the employee may summon immediate on-scene assistance from another employee, security guard, or representative of the hotel employer.

"Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, association, joint venture, agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign. "Policy" means an insurance policy available on the Washington Health Benefit Exchange that would provide coverage to the employee and, if the employee has any spouse and dependent children, to the employee's spouse and dependent children in addition to the employee. "Stayover room" means a guest room assigned to be cleaned by an employee where the guest's stay has not yet ended. "Strenuous room cleaning" means the cleaning of (1) a checkout room or (2) a stayover room that includes a cot, rollout bed, pet bed or crib. "Transfer document" means the purchase agreement or other document(s) creating a binding agreement to effect the change in control. "Retention hotel worker" means any employee (1) whose primary place of employment is at a hotel subject to a change in control, (2) who is employed directly by the outgoing hotel employer, or by a person who has contracted with the outgoing hotel employer to provide services at the hotel subject to a change in control, and (3) who has worked for the outgoing hotel employer for at least one month prior to the execution of the transfer document. "Wages or salary" means the gross amount of taxable cash earnings paid to an employee by an employer or the employer's contractors or subcontractors.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

PART 7 - MISCELLANEOUS

14.25.170 - Waiver

A. The provisions of this Chapter 14.25 may not be waived by agreement between an individual employee and a hotel employer. B. Any waiver by a party to a collective bargaining relationship involving a hotel employer of any provisions of Sections 14.25.020 through 14.25.060 and the applicable enforcement mechanisms under Section 14.25.150 shall be deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable. C. Except as provided in Section 14.25.170.B, all of the provisions of this Chapter 14.25, or any part hereof, may be waived in a bona fide written collective bargaining agreement waiving provisions of this Chapter 14.25, if such a waiver is set forth in clear and unambiguous terms. Unilateral implementation of terms and conditions of employment by either party to a collective bargaining relationship shall not constitute, or be permitted, as a waiver of all or any part of the provisions of this Chapter 14.25.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

14.25.180 - Severability and exceptions

A. The provisions of this Chapter 14.25 are declared to be separate and severable. If any provision of this Chapter 14.25, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Chapter 14.25 that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application; and to this end, the provisions or applications of this Chapter 14.25 are severable.

B. The requirements of this Chapter 14.25 shall not apply where and to the extent that state or federal law or regulations preclude their applicability.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

14.25.190 - Short title

This Chapter 14.25 is titled the Seattle Hotel Employees Health and Safety Initiative.

(Initiative 124 , § 1, 2016.)

City of Chicago O2017-3260 Office of the City Clerk Document Tracking Sheet

Meeting Date: 4/19/2017 Sponsor(s): Harris (8) Mitts (37) Foulkes (16) Pawar (47) Laurino (39) Sadlowski Garza (10) Austin (34) Burnett (27) Dowell (3) King (4) Hairston (5) Quinn (13) Type: Ordinance Title: Amendment of Municipal Code Section 4-6-180 by requiring hotel employees assigned to work in guestrooms or restrooms to be equipped with portable emergency contact devices Committee(s) Assignment: Committee on Workforce Development and Audit ORDINANCE

WHEREAS, The City of Chicago is a home rule unit of govemment as defined in Article VI, §6(a) ofthe Illinois Constitution, and, as such, may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its govemment and affairs; and

WHEREAS, Promoting the health, safety and welfare of people who work within the corporate limits of the City is a matter pertaining to the govemment and affairs of the City of Chicago; and

WHEREAS, Chicago's hotels and motels employ thousands of hard-working women and men, all of whom deserve protection against sexual assault and sexual harassment while on the job; and

WHEREAS, A recent survey conducted by UNITE HERE Local I of 487 women employed in 13 Chicagoland hotels and casinos found that women working in the leisure and hospitality industry, many of whom are immigrants or women of color, experience rampant sexual harassment and incidences of sexual assault by male guests. Hotel housekeepers are in a particularly vulnerable position, as they often work alone in guest rooms; and

WHEREAS, 49% of the housekeepers surveyed reported guests who answered the door naked, exposed themselves or flashedthem ; and

WHEREAS, 58% of the female housekeepers surveyed reported being sexually harassed by guests, including being touched, comered, or shown sexual material that they did not want to see. Some of these instances include a guest who masturbated in the housekeeper's presence, a guest who blocked the door to the room with his naked body, and a guest who approached the housekeeper from behind and grabbed her breasts; and

WHEREAS, Only one-third of the women surveyed reported that they told their supervisor or manager when a guest sexually harassed them. Some of the survey respondents indicated that when co-workers reported sexual harassment to their superiors, nothing changed, which discouraged them from reporting similar harassment; and

WHEREAS, These findingshav e been replicated in other surveys. In its September 2016 report filled, "Survey of Downtown Seattle Hotel Housekeepers Reveals Frequent Sexual Harassment and Pain", the Puget Sound Sage found that 53% of surveyed Seattle housekeepers reported incidences of sexual harassment and assault, including being flashedo r exposed to nudity, touched, groped and blocked from leaving the room, and that 51% of these incidents went unreported to supervisors. 95% of surveyed Sealde housekeepers reported that they would feel safer entering occupied guest rooms if they were equipped with a panic button; and WHEREAS, Hotel staff in larger New York City hotels have been equipped with personal panic buttons since 2012; and

WHEREAS, Hotel employers in Chicago shouid safeguard their employees by providing housekeepers who enter hotel rooms alone with panic buttons to summon help in the event of unwanted sexual activity, and by adopting policies and practices that encourage workers to report incidents of sexual assault and harassment so that appropriate steps can be taken to protect employees from additional harm and to hold the perpetrators of these offensive acts accountable for their illegal and unacceptable behavior; and

WHEREAS, The City of Chicago is committed to creating and fostering non-hostile work environments free from the fear of sexual assault and sexual harassment; now, therefore,

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO:

SECTION 1. Section 4-6-180 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by deleting the language stricken through and by inserting the language underscored, as follows:

4-6-180 HoteL

(a) Definitions. As used in this section:

"Anti-sexual harassment policy" means the written policy required under subsection (f)(2) ofthis secfion.

"Employee" means anv natural person who works al a hotel.

"Guest" means any invitee to a hotel, including registered guests, persons occupying guest rooms with registered guests, visitors invited to guest rooms by a registered guest or other occupant of a guest room, persons patronizing food or beverage facilities provided by the hotel, or any other person whose presence at the hotel is permitted by the licensee, but specifically excludes employees.

"Guest room" means any room made available by a hotel for occupancy by guests.

(Omitted text is unaffected by ihis ordinance)

"Panic button" means a portable emergency contact device that an employee can quickly and easily activate to effectively summon to the employee's location prompt assistance by a hotel security officer, manager or other appropriate hotel staff member designated by the licensee.

"Restroom" means any room equipped with toilets. "Sexual harassment" means any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.

(Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance)

(f) Legal duties. Each license engaged in the business of hotel shall a duty to:

(1) equip employees who are assigned lo work in a guest room or rest room, under circumstances where no other employee is present in such room, with a panic button. The employee mav use the panic button to summon help if the employee reasonably believes that an ongoing crime, sexual harassment, sexual assault or other emergency is occurring in the employee's presence. Panic buttons shall be provided by the licensee at no cost to the employee:

{2} develop, maintain and comply with a written anfi-sexual harassment policy to protect employees against sexual assault and sexual harassment by guests. Such policy shall: (al encourage employees ("complaining employee") to immediately report to the licensee instances of alleged sexual assault and sexual harassment by guests ("offending guest"): (b) describe the procedures that the complaining employee and licensee shall follow in such cases: (c) afford the complaining employee the right to cease work and leave the immediate area where danger is perceived until such fime that hotel security personnel or members ofthe PoUce Department arrive to provide assistance: fdl afford the complaining employee the right, during the durafion of the offending guest's stay at the hotel, to be assigned to work on a different floor or at a different station or work area away from the offending guest: (e) provide the complaining emplovee with sufficient paid time to: (i) sign a complaint with the Police Department against the offending guest, and (ii) tesfify as a witness at any legal proceeding that may ensue as a result of such complaint, if the complaining employee is sfill in the licensee's employ at the time such legal proceeding occurs: (f) inform the employee that the Illinois Fluman Rights Act and Chicago Human Rights Ordinance provide additional protections against sexual harassment in the workplace: and (g) inform the employee that subsecfion (gXl") of this section makes it illegal for an employer to retaliate against anv employee who reasonably uses a panic button or exercises any right under this subsection (f)(2') or discloses, reports or testifies about any violadon of this secfion or rules promulgated thereunder. Nothing in this subsection (f)(2) shall be constmed to relieve the licensee from compliance with Section 4-4-306: and

(3) provide all employees with a current copy of the hotel's anti-sexual harassment policy, and post the policy in conspicuous places in areas of the hotel, such as supply rooms or employee lunch rooms, where employees can reasonably be expected lo see it.

(g) Prohibited acts. It shall be unlawful for any licensee engaged in the business of hotel to: (1) discriminate against or take any adverse action against any employee in retaliation for such emplovee: (i) reasonably using a panic button, or (ii) exercising any right under subsecfion (f)(2) ofthis section, or (iii) disclosing, reporting, or tesfifying about any violation of this secfion or mles promulgated thereunder. For purposes of this subsection (g)(1). prohibited adverse acfions include, but are not limiled to. unjustified termination, uniusfified denial of promotion, unjustified negative evaluations, punitive schedule changes, punitive decreases in the desirability of work assignments, and other acts of harassment shown to be linked to any activity set forth in items (i) through (iii). inclusive, ofthis subsection (g)(1).

(fh) Penalty - License revocation - One year wait for new license - Exceptions.

(1) In addition to any other penalty provided by law, any person who violates any requirement of this section or any mle or regulation promulgated tliereunder shall be subject to a fine of not less than $250.00 nor more than $500.00 for each offense. Each day that a violation continues shall consfitute a separate and distinct offense.

(Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance)

SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take full force and effect 90 days after ils passage and publicafion.

Aldennan Michelle Harris, 8"' Ward derman Emma Mitts, 37"' Ward

Alderman Toni FbutKes, 16 ' Ward

Alderman Margaret Laurino, 39 Ward

Alderman Carrie M. Austin, 34"' Ward Alderman Walter Burnett, Jr., 27"^ War5 Alderman Pat Dowell

emian Leslie "A. Hairston, S"' Ward Aldermah Marty Quirfh, 13th Ward City of Chicago SO2017-3260 Office of the City Clerk Document Tracking Sheet

Meeting Date: 4/19/2017 Sponsor(s): Harris (8) Mitts (37) Foulkes (16) Pawar (47) Laurino (39) Sadlowski Garza (10) Austin (34) Burnett (27) Dowell (3) King (4) Hairston (5) Quinn (13) O'Connor (40) Burke (14) Silverstein (50) Beale (9) Smith (43) Valencia (Clerk) Type: Ordinance Title: Amendment of Municipal Code Section 4-6-180 by requiring hotel employees assigned to work in guest rooms or restrooms to be equipped with portable emergency contact devices Committee(s) Assignment: Committee on Workforce Development and Audit SUBSTITUTE

ORDINANCE

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO:

SECTION 1. Section 4-6-180 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by inserting the language underscored, as follows:

4-6-180 Hotel.

(a) Definitions. As used in this section:

"Anti-sexual harassment policv" means the written policy required under subsection (e)(T) of this section.

"EmployeeCs)" means any natural person who works full time or part time at a hotel for or under the direction of the licensee or any subcontractor of the licensee for wages or salary or remuneration of any type under a contract or subcontract of employment, whether express or imphed.

"Guest" means any invitee to a hotel, including registered guests, persons occupying guest rooms with registered guests, visitors invited to guest rooms by a registered guest or other occupant of a guest room, persons patronizing food or beverage facilities provided by the hotel, or any other person whose presence at the hotel is permitted by the licensee. The term "guest" does not include employees.

"Guest room" means any room made available by a hotel for ovemight occupancy by guests.

(Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance)

"Panic button" or "notification device" means a portable emergency contact device that is designed so that an employee can quickly and easily activate such button or device to effectively summon to the employee's location prompt assistance by a hotel security officer, manager or other appropriate hotel staff member designated by the licensee.

"Restroom" means any room equipped with toilets.

"Sexual harassment" means any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. 1 (Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance)

(d) Departmental duties.

(Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance)

(3) Investigations to enforce the provisions of subsection (e) of this section may be conducted, as appropriate, by the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection or Chicago Commission on Human Relations ("CCHR"). Investigations to enforce subsection (f)(3) of this section shall be conducted by CCHR.

(e) Legal duties. Each license engaged in the business of hotel shall a duty to:

(1) equip employees who are assigned to work in a guest room or restroom, under circumstances where no other employee is present in such room, with a panic button or notification device. The employee may use the panic button or notification device to summon help if the employee reasonably believes that an ongoing crime, sexual harassment, sexual assault or other emergency is occuning in the employee's presence. Panic buttons and notification devices shall be provided by the licensee at no cost to the employee;

(2) develop, maintain and comply with a written anti-sexual harassment policy to protect employees against sexual assault and sexual harassment by guests. Such policy shall: (a) encourage employees ("complaining employee") to immediately report to the licensee instances of alleged sexual assault and sexual harassment by guests ("offending guest"); (b) describe the procedures that the complaining employee and licensee shall follow in such cases; (c) instruct the complaining employee to cease work and to leave the immediate area where danger is perceived until hotel security personnel or members of the Police Department arrive to provide assistance; (d) offer temporary work assignments to the complaining employee during the duration of the offending guest's stay at the hotel, which may include assigning the employee to work on a different floor or at a different station or work area away from the offending guest; (e) provide the complaining employee with necessary paid time off to: (i) sign a complaint with the Police Department against the offending guest, and (ii) testify as a witness at any legal proceeding that may ensue as a result of such complaint, if the complaining employee is still in the licensee's employ at the time such legal proceeding occurs; (f) inform the employee that the Illinois Human Rights Act, Chicago Human Rights Ordinance and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provide additional protections against sexual harassment in the workplace; and (g) inform the employee that subsection (f)(3) of this section makes it illegal for an employer to retaliate against any employee who reasonably uses a panic button or notification device, or in good faith avails himself or herself of the requirements set forth in subsection (e)(2)(c); (e)(2)(d), (e)(2)(e) of this subsection, or discloses, reports or testifies about any violation of this section or rules promulgated thereunder. Nothing in this subsection (e)(2) shall be constmed to relieve the licensee from compliance with Section 2 4-4-306; and

(3) provide all employees with a cun'ent copy in English, Spanish and Polish of the hotel's anti-sexual harassment policv, and post such policy in English, Spanish and Polish in conspicuous places in areas of the hotel, such as supply rooms or employee lunch rooms, where employees can reasonably be expected to see it.

(e){jQ Prohibited acts., It shall be unlawful for any licensee engaged in the business of , hotel to:

(Omitted text is utia,ffected by this ordinance)

(3) retaliate against any employee for: (i) reasonably using a panic button or notification device, or (ii) availing himself or herself of the requirements set forth in subsection (e) (2)(c), (e)(2)(d) or (e)(2)(e) of this section, or (iii) disclosing, reporting, or testifying about any violation of this section or any rule promulgated thereunder. Any complaint alleging a violation of this subsection (f)(3) shall be filed by the aggrieved party with the Chicago Commission on Human Relations ("CCHR") no later than 180 days after the occurrence of the alleged violation and in accordance with rules duly promulgated by the Commissioner of CCHR. Two or more adjudged violations of this subsection (f)(3) within any 12-month period may result in license suspension or revocation in accordance with Section 4-4-280. Provided, however, that: (A) the subject matter of any such disciplinary hearing or proceeding under Section 4-4-280 shall be limited to the issue of whether the required number of adjudged violations of this subsection (f) (3) occurred within any 12-month period; (B) the licensee shall not be permitted at such disciplinary hearing or proceeding to challenge the adjudged violations themselves, nor any underlying facts asserted or determined therein; and (C) no fines shall be imposed on the licensee as a result of such displinary hearing or proceeding under Section 4-4-280.

(f) (g) Penalty - License revocation - One year wait for new license - Exceptions.

(1) fa Except as otherwise provided in subsection (f)(3)(C) of this section, and in addition to any other penalty provided by law, any person who violates any requirement of this section or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder shall be subject to a fine of not less than $250.00 nor more than $500.00 for each offense. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.

(Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance)

SECTION 2. Section 2-160-090 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by deleting the language stricken through and by inserting the language underscored, as follows: 2-160-090 Violation - Investigation by commission on human relations - Prosecution.

The Chicago commission on human relations Commission on Human Relations shall receive and investigate complaints of violations of this chapter, except where such duty is modified by intergovernmental agreement^ and complaints of violations of subsection (f)(3) of Section 4-6-180, and shall prepare and provide necessary fonns for such complaints. No person shall refiise or fail to comply with any subpoena, order or decision issued in the course of or as a result of an investigation.

SECTION 3. Section 2-160-100 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by inserting the language underscored, as follows:

2-160-100 Retaliation prohibited.

No person shall retaliate against any individual because that individual in good faith has made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under this chapter or under subsection (f)(3) of Secfion 4-6-180.

SECTION 4. Following its passage and publication, that portion of this Ordinance that creates subsection (e)(1) of Section 4-6-180 shall take fiiU force and effect on July 1, 2018. The remainder of this Ordinance shall take full force and effect 60 days after its passage and publication. CHICAGO CITY COUNCIL CO-SPONSOR ADDITION /CHANGE

Document No.: SO c^OU ' ^^(^0

4-0 U« (A}6p.<>A^hxJt>-tt x^vjM^<>vt c>^vJca.d^ ckj8,\j( o-^) .

Please Add or Change-fKe Co-^ponsofas Shown Below

Alderman Ward

Alderman Ward

Alderman Ward / Alderman Ward

Alderman 3^

Please Remove or Change the Co-sponsor as Shown Below

Alderman Ward

Alderman Ward

Alderman Ward

Alderman Ward

Alderman Ward ro o —J CD — ^ n —1 — —I 1 o cr>

PATRICK J. O'CONNOR, Chairman :x) —1 — Committee on Workforce Development and Audit rn *• CO cn

Final copies to be filed with: • Chairman of Committee to which legislation was referred • City Clerk CHICAGO CITY COUNCIL CO-SPONSOR ADDITION /CHANGE

Document No.:

Subject: Yj^,i /?yw.^orjft^ cuytujc^^v^j Ax3 u>tnie,>c/vc. CKJUL/^^ jftrnArtS bA. lu-^^Xf^^^yj^ 4-D Ue jta-^uLA^pf^ u^6t><>AJFai>^ jyvvJi^^Jifiyv-CL\ twJbo-d

Please Add or Chan re c.o-bponsoras3hQwn

40 Ward

Q ' Ward JjrL!_Ward _y3lLWard

50' Ward

Please Remove or Change the Co-sponsor as Shown Below

Alderman Ward

Alderman Ward

Alderman .Ward

Alderman .Ward

Alderman Ward

o —J o-n :3rj —1 — —1 rn -<<^ PATRICK J. O'CONNOR, Chairman n"; 1 o cr» Committee on Workforce Development and Audit r-O CO — 33. re r-n •« CO cn Final copies to be filed with: • Chairman of Committee to which legislation was referred • City Clerk —•_ CHICAGO CITY COUNCIL CO-SPONSOR ADDITION /CHANGE

Document No.: SO cSOll ' f^3.(o0

Subject: yrXii. pA^.^fyxjttJi cuuujyui/j 4o uxnte-AAA- rMjuiyvt-.j ••" • • - IK ju^^jX^i.^MJ wJ/Sp/

Please Add

Alderma 40 Ward

Alderman .9 Ward

Alderma \ M, ' Ward Alderman 7 j-\5^Ward I Alderman 50 Ward

Please Remove or Change the Co-sponsor as Shown Below

Alderman Ward

Alderman Ward o CD —1-1'' Alderman .War(i<;o X- I Alderman .Wa^i-; cn

Alderman .Wafdf^ o C*5 CJ7

PATRICK J. O'CONNOR, Chairman Committee on Workforce Development and Audit

o —J o~n CD — ~n CD Flnal copies to be filed with: —i— —\ m -<^~^, 1 o • Chairman of Committee to which legislation was referred n 1 LO • City Clerk ^< ••-D- -po—>i rs OTk m O o Chicago City Council Co-Sponsor Form

Document No.: SO2Q17-3260

Subject: Amend Mufi. Code re: Equipping Hotel Employees with Emergency Contact Devices

Adding Co-Sponsor(s)

Please ADD Co-SponsorCs^ Shown Below - (Principal Sponsor's Consent Required)

Alderman Ward) (Signature) o Alderman c;^rd)8 rr-i (Signature) o Alderman (Signature)

Alderman Ward) (Signature)

Alderman Wardrd) \ (Signature)

Date Filed: Principal Sponsor

Chairman, Com}pu+k.fCi>^^dopm0a \-AocUt

Removing Co-Sponsor(s)

Please REMOVE Co-Sponsor(s) Below - (Priricipal Sponsor's Consent NOT Required)

Alderman Ward) (Signature)

Alderman Ward) (Signature)

Date Filed:

Final Copies lo be filed with: • Chairman of Committee to which Legislation was referred • Cily Clerk

Co-Spon.wr Form OCC 9.2016