County supervisors vote 4-1 to pass a 'right to recall' ordinance for hospitality rehiring.

A little over a year ago, when we were first ordered to shelter in place to stop the spread of Covid-19, Monterey County's second-largest industry—hospitality—came to a screeching halt. Unemployment in the county reached record highs in its recorded history. And now, as reopening begins, the industry is working to hire people back to work at hotels and events, and for restaurant jobs. 

The question the Monterey County Board of Supervisors wrestled with on Tuesday, April 20, is who, exactly, should be in which spot in line for those jobs. A right to recall ordinance in broad terms requires that employers first reach out to laid-off workers before filling positions, giving them a chance to get their jobs back. 

The issue was contentious and drew extensive, and at times emotional, comments from members of the public. 

The original ordinance, proposed by Supervisor Luis Alejo, would have applied to several types of businesses in unincorporated Monterey County: hotels with 50 or more rooms, restaurants with 50 or more employees and franchises with 500 or more employees (those 500 could be located anywhere). 

Employers would be required to notify laid-off workers during the Covid-19 pandemic of job openings and give them five days to respond before hiring someone new. That would have bene true not just for the job the worker formerly held, but also a different job they might be trained into. 

As far as enforcement, the mechanism is a worker's ability to sue, and as originally proposed, they could have collected punitive damages, in addition to attorney's fees, in a suit against an employer. 

"What we're asking for, to me is not controversial," Alejo said. 

But the ordinance proved to be anything but. Many members of union groups and hospitality workers spoke in support of the ordinance.

One woman who said she previously worked in hotels spoke in Spanish, saying she was still waiting on a recall: "My coworkers were called back and I wasn’t, and I don’t understand why." 

Another speaker, Gladys Mejia, said she had been laid off after 23 years of working in hospitality at CSU Monterey Bay. She choked back years as she spoke of a year filled with grief—losing her job, and also losing her mother, for whom the family had still not been able to hold a proper funeral. 

"I’m just begging you please, we have had enough," she said. "I’m begging you, please retain our jobs." 

The state passed a right to recall bill, SB 93, was signed into law on April 16. It applies to hotels, but not restaurants, and lasts until the end of 2024. (It also applies to sports arenas and other hospitality venues nonexistent in Monterey County.)

Another difference between the proposed local and state versions is that SB 93 directs employers to recall only employees who already held the position, not former employees who did a different job, but could be trained to fill an opening. 

"Hospitality workers are asking for one thing: the right to get their jobs back," said Hector Azilpueta of Unite Here Local 483, which represents hospitality workers. "SB 93 sets a great baseline, but we can do more."

But voices from hospitality management were equally loud during the meeting on Tuesday, and strongly opposed to various elements of the proposed ordinance. The state law already went far enough, many speakers argued, and a local ordinance was unnecessary. They also spoke about the challenges for the industry as they recover and rehire. 

"Forcing an employer to rehire an employee is not a win-win for the business or the employee," said Moe Ammar, president of the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce. "You want to be recalled because the employer wants to and can afford it." Monterey Peninsula Chamber President Frank Geisler called the proposal "immoral." 

Mark Watson, general manager of Inns By The Sea with five locations, said he found the county ordinance confusing in light of SB 83. "We have hired all our staff back, except those that did not come back or left the area," he added. 

As the Board of Supervisors began to discuss the proposal, it was clear they were nowhere near consensus. Wendy Root Askew joined Alejo in strong support of his proposal. 

"This is about acting on our values," she said. "For a year, we've had people show up [at events to support out-of-work constituents]. We pose for photo ops. This is the policy that puts our values into practice."

But supervisors Mary Adams and John Phillips were staunchly opposed, saying it would be onerous on employers in a variety of ways. Adams in particular was concerned about the punitive damages, and warned of potential "viperous attorneys" taking on cases of laid-off workers. 

Phillips also worried about future scenarios: "It's a very dangerous precedent. What happens next in the next slowdown, if it's the construction industry or the ag industry?" 

Ultimately, the supervisors agreed on a revised version that was watered down to closely resemble SB 83. 

Some key changes from the original proposal: Standalone restaurants and franchises would no longer be included, just hotels and foodservice within hotels (already covered by state law); like state law, employers would not be required to train former employees for new positions, but only to invite them back for their old jobs; and the punitive damages would be eliminated. 

But even removing punitive damages wasn't enough to get consensus. Adams proposed capping attorney's fees at $25,000, earning a firm rebuke from Alejo, who said, "That's ridiculous, we can do better here. Why would our colleagues want a race to the bottom, to weaken what’s weak already? It’s unconscionable."

The revised ordinance passed 4-1, with only Phillips dissenting (due to the lack of a cap on attorney's fees—the language in the ordinance states a plaintiff can collect "reasonable attorney's fees"), and Alejo expressing his disappointment. 

"We’re not showing leadership," he said. “I think we should’ve done better here."

The approved ordinance diverges from SB 83 in only one way: It provides employees the ability to sue employers if they believe they have been passed over for rehiring, but without the ability to seek punitive damages. And by removing restaurants and franchises from the list, it applies to only seven hotel businesses in unincorporated Monterey County, according to County Counsel Les Girard.

The ordinance has to go back for a second reading by the Board of Supervisors, and then will take effect 30 days after that. It will be in effect until Jan. 1, 2022. The state law, SB 83, is in effect until the end of 2024.