Senate Bill 1049 (Dills – 1987)
Chapter 591, Statutes of 1987
Some bill research does not include the Governor's file because at the time we researched the bill, the sitting Governor had not released his chaptered bill file. If the Governor's file is not included with this particular research, please contact our office (1-800-666-1917 or email@example.com) and we will be happy to provide this file at no charge if it is available.
Senate Bill 1049 was introduced by Senator Ralph C. Dills of Gardena on March 4, 1987. (See Exhibit A, #1a) A single-section bill, affecting only Labor Code section 2855, the measure was sponsored by the Recording Industry Association of America and was opposed by the California Federation of Labor, AFL‑CIO, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, and the Screen Actors Guild. (See Exhibit A, #7)
Senate Bill 1049 was heard before the Senate Committee on Industrial Relations and the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment. (See Exhibit A, #2, #3, and #7) There was one amendment proposed for this bill. (See Exhibit A, #1b and #2) After passage in the Senate and Assembly, the bill was then approved by Governor George Deukmejian and was chaptered by the Secretary of State as Chapter 591 of the Statutes of 1987. (See Exhibit A, #1c and #2)
The Office of Assembly Floor Analyses Third Reading analysis, as the bill was amended on August 18, 1987, described the bill as follows:
This bill provides, for the “phonorecord industry,” that:
1) The seven-year rule does not apply unless the employee gives notice by registered mail stating the date from which the employee “will no longer render service under the contract.”
2) Notwithstanding the seven-year rule, parties “shall have the right to recover damages for each phonorecord [not produced]” under the contract in a suit brought within 45 days of the date stated in the notice described above.
3) Any party may sue for breach of contract within the current statute of limitations.
The bill suggests that, insofar as the recording industry is concerned, the bill is to have retroactive effect.
(See Exhibit A, #11, page 1)