NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
|
SPONSOR: |
SFC |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
Public Peace, Health, Safety and Welfare/Family
Leave Act |
SB |
880/SFCS |
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Collard |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
See
Narrative |
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
Labor
Department
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
The Senate Finance
Committee substitute for Senate Bill 880 enacts the Family Leave Act, requiring
employers, regardless of size, to allow employees to use either sick leave or
other paid time off for family leave.
Employees can do this either through a collective bargaining agreement or employer
rule. Family Leave Act
circumstances include assisting a child with a health condition or assisting a spouse,
parent, parent-in-law, or grandparent who has a serious health condition or an
emergency condition. The bill prohibits
an employee from taking leave prior to earning it. Finally, the bill prohibits employers from
threatening discharge, demotion, suspension, or disciplinary action for use of
the Family Leave Act.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
There is no
appropriation or significant fiscal impact associated with the bill. The Labor Department notes it is difficult to
identify a fiscal impact because the number of employees requesting leave based
on the Family Leave Act is unknown; however, since employees must use earned
leave, the impact should be no more than if sick leave or annual leave were
used.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
The Labor Department notes the larger issue that the bill
poses is whether and to what extent its provisions are different from the
federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
FMLA mandates allowing medical leave in certain circumstances to care
for a family member who is sick. FMLA
applies to employers of a certain size, includes a certification process that
assures employees are legitimately taking the leave and limits the applicability
to a certain time period. In contrast, bill
mandates when a person is already entitled to leave by a collective bargaining
agreement or employer rule, the person is also entitled to leave for family purposes
as defined in the act. The bill does not
contain a limitation on the size of the employer, a time limit or a
certification provision. However, the bill
does state the leave must be taken pursuant to collective bargaining agreement
or employer rule, leaving the option of adopting a rule requiring the employee
to certify that the leave is legitimate.
Relative
to state government, recent developments in the federal courts suggest that the
FMLA does not apply to state governments.
However, there is a state personnel board rule, 1.7.7.10.D, NMAC, which
authorizes the same type of leave that this bill authorizes. Enacting through legislation what is
otherwise a beneficial rule makes it more permanent and less susceptible to administrative
change in disregard of the legislative will.
The bill’s clear applicability to state government will assure that state
employees will continue to benefit from the state personnel board rule.
KBC/njw:prr