Consider Directing Staff to Create a Proposed Ordinance Relative to a Transitional Retention Period upon Change of Ownership, Control or Operation of Grocery Stores. (Councilmember Oddie)
Council Referrals is considered directing staff to create a proposed ordinance relative to a transitional retention period upon change of ownership, control or operation of a grocery. And I'm going to hand this off to member ODIASE. It's his referral. Thank you, Madam Mayor. As the as the referral says, requests of the city council direct the appropriate, I guess it should now say city manager because I wrote this before I was schooled on the proper way to write a referral to return and to draft to return to the City Council proposed ordinance relative to a transitional retention period upon change of ownership, control or operation of grocery stores. And I attached as a reference the grocery worker retention ordinance that the City of Los Angeles adopted. So just to kind of go over the highlights of of what the ordinance does, you know, new owners of large grocery stores are required to hire previous employees, excluding managers for at least 90 days after the store re-opens, the previous owner prepares a list of non managerial employees with at least six months employment and the new owner is to hire from that list during the 90 day transition period. The new owners to only discharge the hired employees for cause during the transition period. The new owner is to pay a written evaluation of each employees performance at the end of the transition period, and the new owner is to consider offering continued employment if the employee's performance is satisfactory. This ordinance is to protect the workers that work at grocery stores. As City of Los Angeles passes in 2005, it went through considerable amount of litigation until the California Supreme Court in Cal Owners Association versus City of L.A. 52 Cal fourth 177, now upheld the city's rights to temporarily preserve the status quo during transition of of grocery store ownership. And, you know, here in Alameda, you know, we do have one store, you know, that I think is in imminent risk of of possible closure. And that's the Lucky's over on the West End with the new Safeway now. This bill is being considered. You know, it may be considered at the state level, but, you know, my fear is that, you know, any state legislation would not be implemented in time to protect the workers over at Lucky's. And, you know, we wouldn't be going on a limb doing the only city that does this. San Francisco has this Santa monica gardenia. Other cities have other similar ordinances protecting other classes of workers. San Jose Airport, Oakland hospitality workers, Emeryville Hotel workers, Berkeley Marina workers. And then the state actually has a janitorial worker retention law in the labor code. You know, the mayor today, you know, referred to Cesar Chavez. We heard from the the recycling workers. You know, it's kind of apropos of that. I didn't know they were going to do that presentation. But, you know, that we also, you know, look out in Alameda for, you know, our grocery workers. So I'm hoping this is something we could we could consider. I think there's a first reading and then, you know, if my colleagues like it, then it'll go to a second reading. But I I'll close after after public comment if there's any public comment. You do have one speaker. But before we do, we have clarifying questions as Mr. Otis presented this or we. Then I'm going to go ahead and call our speaker, my Canterbury. And thank you for being so patient. While you were moving at breakneck speed earlier, my Canterbury Alameda resident president of the Planning Board and representative for the Lucky Workers down at Marina Village. I was going through some papers because I was interviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle about the takeover of Safeway by Cerberus. So I went back and I was looking at my files. And in 2006, when Cerberus bought the old Albertson's from Boise, they bought the stores in Northern California prior to Save Mart, taking those stores over, rebranding them as Lucky's. It closed. They announced the closure of 46 stores in one day. It was not a good day for grocery workers then and things have not gotten much better in the industry since then. There's an awful lot of consolidation. You don't know who's going to be your boss from day to day. It's very unsettling for families. Just like families and recycling, there's real workers and real families behind those jobs. Same thing in the grocery industry. So Councilman Otis referral is a modest proposal. It adopts what L.A. and Santa monica and Gardena already have and retains the jobs in the grocery stores when a new owner comes in for 90 days, doesn't require the employer to keep everybody. It's a very, very modest proposal. As far as the Lucky's is concerned specifically, I would hope that that company would step up their game, remodel that store and compete with Safeway in asking those guys for the last seven years to do that. I haven't done so. I'm not sure they're going to until we really face a crisis with that membership. So your assistance on this would be greatly appreciated and it would really help out Alameda residents and workers. Thank you. Q. Member Ashcraft. Thank you. I thank Councilmember Ody for bringing this before us. What I wrote in my notes is that I certainly don't object to the principle that grocery workers or any workers, for that matter, should not lose jobs, their jobs, when a change in ownership occurs. But rather than just considering adopting Ella's ordinance outside and outside outright, I would I could support asking our city attorney's office to analyze and then advise on the implications for Alameda. And that's the sort of direction I could support, because although it's been described as a modest proposal, I would say that it is pretty detailed and I'm so, I'm sure appropriately so, coming from the city of Los Angeles, having gone all the way up to the state Supreme Court. I know there's a back story to these clauses, and they are perhaps, as Councilmember Ody indicated, based on state law, some provisions already in the Labor code. But I think that I would like to know and again, it to me it reads like a collective bargaining agreement and there is nothing wrong with a collective bargaining agreement. It's just that the collective aspect of it is missing here because we're just handed this document. So I, I, again, I support the principle that workers should not lose their jobs just because a new change of ownership comes in. On the other hand, I would want an analyst to analysis to look at are there other comparable methods that could be used to protect workers rights, severance packages, or some other sort of guarantee? Because the when you get down into the enforcement section one 81.05, this is very detailed about hiring and reinstatement rights and front or back pay for each day during which violations continues before our city enacts. That is an ordinance. I just want to hear from our city attorney's office what the implications are. I think, in fairness, we should probably hear from the business community as well. I would hope that we have good, reputable businesses who also want to see working families be able to support themselves and their family members. So and also, I would just note that I think there is some redundancy. I think a couple of sections got listed twice at the bottom portion of this. This ordinance anyway. Those are. Those are the the concerns that I have. But I'm I'm generally supportive, again, with the principle. Thank you. Thank you. Any member decide. Sir, thank you very much. Madam Mayor, I think this is a very interesting item, which I think I certainly would love to support. It's not the type of thing that we generally deal with on city council, but I think you really have to look at the issue. And then if you if you take the time to realize, to think about it, this is an issue that we actually deal with. It is within the purview of city council, particularly even when we frame it as a grocery store related issue in terms of law and in terms of of court cases. Certainly, there is a special place that grocery stores play have when it comes to the land use, especially, particularly with regard to grocery stores that are that anchor certain shopping centers and that are foot traffic generating. There's a lot of. Law. Built around that and there's a lot of case of court cases built around that. And so this is a right area for cities, for city councils to get engaged in on in terms of going beyond land and grocery stores and land use implications. You know, basically what I'm getting at is, you know, when Walmart opens up, there's a lot of discussion regarding, you know, how it might impact existing grocery stores. And so based upon those discussions, there's a lot of court cases with regard to to how those impacts are treated now. But what Councilmember Odie is bringing up has to do with labor relations. And insofar as the city of Los Angeles, this ordinance has been vetted by court cases up to the Supreme Court, California Supreme Court. I believe that, you know, to the extent that that that it's framed similar to what LA's ordinance is, it seems to be , you know, certainly reasonable that that that city council should should be supportive of something that that seems to be accepted. And when it comes to, you know, helping out working families, we don't normally get engaged in. These operational levels. But I but I don't see why not. I think the earlier discussion that raised by the residents, by the workers at ECI certainly raises issues that maybe this city council we we might contemplate, you know, going outside of our of our of of of our what we usually do. I mean, it shouldn't be just left to the cities of Berkeley or city of Oakland or San Francisco or Santa monica to deal with living, wage type of issues, worker rights or, you know, I think middle of the road, medium sized cities like Alameda have something to say about these kinds of issues. But back on to the point that Councilmember Ody has raised. I look forward to this discussion. I guess I don't want to repeat what people have said. I think it's important for us, particularly because we live in a very expensive part of the country to protect. Workers from bakeries of large corporation. Moves. And I think the grocery businesses we're going to see something firsthand in Alameda, as it was pointed out with the lucky at Marina Village. I'm the only of. Additions that I would have to this referral is to include the city attorney in the in the direction to. Craft the, uh, the draft ordinance for discussion. And I look forward to when we have that discussion. So thank you. And my comments go to I I'd like to know specifically which other cities have what ordinances. If it's Santa monica, Gardena and Los Angeles, which was hear and see the differences between those ordinances, when I looked up the California State Supreme Court, which was California Grocers Grocers Association versus the city of Los Angeles. It's my understanding that that turned on providing safe food to the community and that you had trained employees who were able to do their job. And the concern was that we had to continue to provide safe food. And I appreciate the comments that were here. When you the attachment from Los Angeles, it specifically provides that the city has an interest in ensuring the welfare of the residents of these communities through the maintenance of health and safety standards in grocery establishments that experienced grocery workers with knowledge of proper sanitation procedures, health regulations and understanding of the clientele and communities they serve are instrumental in furthering that interest and that transition and retention period upon change of ownership, control or operation of grocery stores ensures the stabilization of the workforce, which results in preservation of health and safety standards. So my understanding of this case was that the intent was truly to protect the health and safety of the community, as we are all dependent upon grocery stores for food and that, and then we are dependent upon that. This court held experienced employees to provide that food to the community. So I personally and I was in some there were some mention of other cities that have other ordinances, and I'm not familiar with those. But so if this is framed as a health and safety issue, then I would think that all of us would be in support of that. Not to speak for anyone else. And that is what different differentiates it from other types of businesses. I would also like to know and agreement with member Ashcraft. I'd like to know now this speaks to 15,000 square feet that it pertains to businesses, grocery stores that are at least 15,000 square feet. And I'm not sure which I'd like to know and the staff report what stores it would actually apply to specifically in Alameda. And in that case, the Los Angeles case, as far as I know, is the one that was tested and went to the California Supreme Court. So I. It's important to me that we try to honor what was already tested so that we don't find ourself in litigation because this was this did go through litigation. So but the other city but Los Angeles did the other cities that were referenced, I don't know if they modeled after Los Angeles, but that and if they are, my guess would be they have not gone up to the Supreme Court. So. But I would like to see the differences in those if it's available. But as it applies to and then I would agree with the speaker. Lucky is in Marina Village. I personally do shop there, as do I think many people in the area. And given now that we have safe way to protect this store, I would agree that lot of lucky could consider remodeling the store, visiting the store to keep the store going. Ideally, I think that the we know we now have two safe ways to add a different store, a large grocery store I would support and I would encourage Lucky to come and visit our store and we'd be happy to walk around and show you our concerns, express your concerns because it is a viable business in our community. And then in regards to staff's time, I think it's fair to say we have given this stuff many new items to be looking at. And what is the priority of this? If there's a way and I and I don't know. You know, I don't know how much time this is going to take, but I know you have a lot on your plate and we have priorities. For instance, the budget development traffic. There's been quite a few referrals lately. I appreciate that. I'll confer with the city attorney, but I believe we can bring this is the first meeting of February. We should be able to bring something back in April for this. And that will be plenty of time for us to do the necessary research and still make the agenda. Appreciate I appreciate the consideration of the council that there are a number of items that are on our plate. And with the the budget beginning to loom large for us on staff and it's a two year budget, so it doesn't happen all the time. It is a limited staff. So I think I think, you know, certainly, April, we can bring this back. And my bet, my recollection is in regards to the budget process, that it will be a lengthy process. So I appreciate staff being agreed agreeable to taking this on. Do we have a motion? I'd like to move. Council member Otis referral. Um, with the specification to direct the city manager and the city attorney to work together to draft this ordinance, including delivering a report that talks about the impacts that specifies the impact of stores in alameda. That would. Fall under such an ordinance that analyzes the differences between ordinances that are out there and Los Angeles being the test case and to be in consideration for what may be specific to Alameda. Second, that motion. And. At this point it was you refer over you like to make any other comments. You know, when I when I was an attorney, you know, and the judge was ruling in your favor, you kind of shut up and didn't say anything. So I think I'm going to heed to that. But I will say in my closing, you know, was that one of the goals it would accomplish was ensure standards of service , compliance with health and safety standards that they remain in place when stores change hands. And, you know, I think important here is this law would apply equally to unionized and non-unionized work workplaces. So if a Trader Joe's closed and they met the threshold of the size, you know, then somebody else who bought that store would also now they wouldn't be forced to collectively bargain. You know, but the employees that work there and I think that was kind of the key on which the the case turned, because I believe that the the Grocers Association was was making the argument that it was force collective bargaining and that was the critical thing that kept the ordinance alive . So I want to thank my colleagues for supporting this. Any other comments? And so just for clarification, and I think we've crafted something that I can support. We are going to have both the city attorney and the city manager do an analysis of this as it would apply to Alameda. I would assume that that happens on all ordinances. No. Oh yeah. Turning. Yeah, it does. Although on as it does I mean different items. But it was classified in the motion. So it's good answers. Yes. Call the question. All those in. Favor. I oppose the abstentions. Motion carries unanimously. And thank you, everybody, for bringing this to us. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Our next item is Council Communications. Council members may address any matter not on the agenda, including reporting on conferences, meetings member Ashcroft.