Public works: payroll records.

Assembly Member Berman’s proposal would restructure how certified payroll records tied to public works are accessed, putting awarding bodies at the center of the process and adding a formal enforcement pathway through the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. The core change is to require the awarding body to obtain payroll records from the relevant contractor if those records are not in the awarding body’s possession, and to make them available to the requester through that intermediary, with a defined compliance window and potential penalties for noncompliance.

Under the amendment, payroll records must document each worker’s name, address, social security number, work classification, straight-time and overtime hours, and the actual per diem wages paid on the public works project, accompanied by a written declaration under penalty of perjury stating that the information is true and that the employer has complied with related wage and recordkeeping requirements. Access to these records would extend to the employee or their authorized representative, to the awarding body and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and to the public via the awarding body or the DLSE. If the records are not already in the awarding body’s possession, the body must retrieve them from the contractor and provide them to the requester, with the requester reimbursing preparation costs if required records were not provided under the prior pathway. Public access would not be at the contractor’s principal office.

The proposal prescribes how records must be formatted and handled: they should be on forms provided by the DLSE (or contain the same information) and may be electronic printouts if they reproduce the required data and are verified as required. Electronic records would not satisfy requests from Taft-Hartley funds or joint labor-management committees. Contractors must file certified copies within a short period after a written request, and the bill establishes privacy rules that generally redact an individual’s name, address, and SSN while keeping the contractor’s identity visible; exceptions allow nonredacted access to certain enforcement bodies, with protections for individuals’ personal information. The awarding body would be required to inform the contractor of the location of records and update that information within five working days of any change. A 10-day compliance window would apply when a contractor receives a written notice to produce the records, with penalties potentially withheld from progress payments if compliance fails, and a contractor not being liable for a subcontractor’s failings. The awarding body must insert contract stipulations to implement the section, and the director would adopt rules consistent with existing public records and information practices laws, including setting reasonable fees for reproductions.

Fiscal and implementation considerations accompany these changes: the measure states that no reimbursement is required for local agencies, even as it acknowledges potential local-program costs associated with expanded duties. A cost-recovery mechanism is included for records requested under the new intermediation pathway, and the director’s rulemaking could influence the timing and manner of implementation. Taken together, the provisions formalize a pathway for public access to payroll data while preserving privacy for individuals and clarifying the roles of employers, awarding bodies, and enforcement agencies. The policy context centers on transparency of payroll information for public projects, balanced by privacy safeguards and a defined enforcement framework. Ambiguities in the bill’s language—such as the scope of what constitutes an “awarding body” and how possession is determined—could influence how these changes play out in practice.