Legislature(1995 - 1996)
1996-04-16 Senate Journal
Full Journal pdf1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3307 HB 311 CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 311(JUD) An Act relating to the hours a person may be employed in a mine; and requiring that workers be paid for certain time worked in a mine was read the third time. Senator Duncan moved and asked unanimous consent that the bill be returned to second reading for the purpose of a specific amendment, that being Amendment No. 1. Without objection, the bill was returned to second reading. Senator Duncan offered Amendment No. 1 : Page 1, line 4: Delete "AS 23.10.410" Insert "AS 23.10.410(a)" Page 1, lines 5 - 6: Delete "Sec. 23.10.410. LIMITATION ON PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT IN UNDERGROUND MINES AND REQUIREMENT FOR PAY FOR CERTAIN WORK." 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3308 HB 311 Page 1, line 8: Delete "10" Insert "eight" Page 1, line 9: Delete "10-hour" Insert "eight-hour" Page 2, lines 2 - 17: Delete all material. Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 2. AS23.10.410 is amended by adding new subsections to read: (d) On application from an employer, the commissioner may grant a variance that permits employment in an underground mine or workings for more than eight but not more than 10 hours in a 24-hour period if the commissioner finds that (1) the additional working time is permitted under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement entered into by a bargaining organization that represents workers performing the work covered by the variance; or (2) the extension is in the best interest of resident workers of the state. (e) The department shall issue orders and adopt regulations necessary to carry out this section." Senator Halford rose to a point of order. President Pearce cautioned members to proceed in order. Senator Duncan moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 1. Objections were heard. The question being: Shall Amendment No. 1 be adopted? The roll was taken with the following result: 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3309 HB 311 CSHB 311(JUD) Second Reading Amendment No. 1 YEAS: 8 NAYS: 12 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Hoffman, Lincoln, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Green, Halford, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, R.Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson and so, Amendment No. 1 failed. CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 311(JUD) was automatically in third reading. Senator Duncan moved and asked unanimous consent that the bill be returned to second reading for the purpose of a specific amendment, that being Amendment No. 2. Without objection, the bill was returned to second reading. Senator Duncan offered Amendment No. 2 : Page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 17: Delete all material and insert: "* Section 1. AS23.10.410(a) is repealed and reenacted to read: (a) Except as provided in (d) of this section, a miner may not be employed in an underground mine or workings for more than eight hours in 24 hours, except on a day when a change of shift is made. The eight-hour limitation applies only to work actually performed at the mine face or other place where the work is actually carried on and excludes time for meals, travel to or from the mine site, and travel between the mine portal and the mine face, whether in going on or off shift, or in going to or returning from meals. However, an employer shall pay wages for the time worked from the time the miner enters the mine at the mine portal, whether or not work is performed at the mine face or other place where the work is actually carried on, until the miner leaves the mine. 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3310 HB 311 * Sec. 2. AS23.10.410 is amended by adding new subsections to read: (d) An employer may apply to the commissioner for a variance allowing up to 10 hours of work at the face in an underground mine or workings. Except as provided in (f) of this section, the employer shall give notice of the application for a variance to employees whose work may be affected by the variance and to the bargaining organization representing those employees, if any. If requested by an employee or a bargaining organization representing employees, the department shall hold a public hearing concerning the request for a variance. The department may, on its own motion, determine that a hearing is in the public interest. The department shall notify the applicant and the applicants employees and their bargaining organization, if any, of the time, date, and place of a public hearing scheduled under this subsection. (e) The commissioner shall issue a variance within 90 days after receipt of the application if the commissioner determines, after opportunity for an inspection if appropriate, that the applicant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the working conditions proposed in the request for a variance support a finding that the extension of working hours is in the best interest of the resident workers of the state. If the commissioner fails to act within the 90 days, the request is considered to be granted. (f) If an employer applies for a variance under this section before the employer has hired any workers in the underground mine or workings, the employer shall give public notice of the application for a variance in a newspaper of statewide circulation and in a newspaper of local circulation in the area where the variance will be implemented. This notice is in place of the notice required to be given to employees under (d) of this section. 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3311 HB 311 (g) When an employer files an application for a variance under this section, the employer may also request an interim order granting a temporary variance that permits the employer to implement some or all of the terms of the permanent variance immediately until the decision on the permanent variance. If the department denies the request for an interim order for a temporary variance, the department shall promptly notify the applicant of the decision. An order of denial must contain a statement of the reasons on which the decision is based. If the department grants a request for an interim order for a temporary variance, the department shall promptly notify the applicant of the decision. The employer shall give notice of the order granting the temporary variance to all employees who will be affected by the order. (h) When the commissioner grants a permanent variance, the commissioner shall include in the decision a statement of the reasons for the decision. The department shall publish the statement in a newspaper of statewide circulation and a newspaper of local circulation in the area where the variance will be implemented. If the statement is longer than is suitable for publication in its entirety, the commissioner may publish a summary of the contents of the statement and notify readers of how to request a complete copy of the statement. (i) If the commissioner finds that granting the request for a permanent variance is not in the best interest of resident workers, the commissioner shall deny the request and issue a statement of findings supporting the denial. (j) A permanent variance issued under this section is not subject to revocation unless the commissioner finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the working conditions in place at the time of the application have substantially changed so that the permanent variance is no longer in the best interest of the resident workers of the state. If the commissioner revokes a permanent variance under this subsection, the commissioner shall reinstate the permanent variance within 30 days after the date on which the employer establishes to the commissioners satisfaction that the causes for the revocation set out in the written findings revoking the variance have been resolved. 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3312 HB 311 (k) An applicant whose request for a permanent variance is completely or partially denied or whose permanent variance is revoked under this section may appeal the department's decision to the superior court. (l) The department shall issue orders and adopt regulations as necessary to carry out the purposes of this section." Senator Duncan moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 2. Objections were heard. The question being: Shall Amendment No. 2 be adopted? The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 311(JUD) Second Reading Amendment No. 2 YEAS: 9 NAYS: 11 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Hoffman, Lincoln, Pearce, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Green, Halford, Kelly, Leman, Miller, R.Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson and so, Amendment No. 2 failed. CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 311(JUD) was automatically in third reading. Senator Taylor moved that the bill be returned to second reading for the purpose of a specific amendment, that being Amendment No. 3. Without objection, the bill was returned to second reading. Senator Taylor offered Amendment No. 3 : Page 1, line 2, after "mine": Insert "; and providing for an effective date" Page 1, following line 3: Insert a new bill section to read: 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3313 HB 311 "* Section 1. FINDINGS AND INTENT. The legislature finds that (1) mining is an important industry in this state and has created many jobs and economic opportunities for the state; (2) it is in the state's best interest to encourage mining development, consistent with good management practices to protect the health and safety of workers; (3) providing an extension of allowable working hours for miners could encourage the development of mining that might not otherwise be economically viable; and (4) the development of mining through the provisions of this Act should provide more job opportunities for Alaskans, especially in the area where the mine is located. (b) It is the intent of this Act to encourage the development of mines in the state and to encourage the mining industry to train and hire qualified state residents for these expanded opportunities to the maximum extent possible." Page 1, line 4: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 2" Page 1, line 7: Delete "(d)" Insert "(d) - (f)" Page 2, line 5, following the period: Insert "The department may issue orders and adopt regulations as necessary to carry out the purposes of this section." Page 2, following line 12: Insert new subsections to read: "(e) If an employer intends to employ a miner for more than eight hours in 24 hours under (a) of this section, the employer shall notify the department. (f) The department may reduce the 10-hour limitation on hours of work set in (a) of this section to eight hours if the department finds that (1) a significant violation of state or federal law has occurred at the mine relating to health and safety; 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3314 HB 311 (2) the employer has not abated the hazard causing the violation after receiving notice from the commissioner and an opportunity to cure the problem; and (3) the reduction of the 10-hour limitation on hours of work is necessary to protect the health and safety of the miners. (g) An employer that has abated a hazard that was the cause of a violation described in (f)(1) of this section may notify the department of the abatement. The department shall remove the reduction of hours within 30 days after receiving the notice from the employer if it finds that the hazard has been abated." Reletter the following subsection accordingly. Page 2, following line 17: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 3. This Act takes effect immediately under AS01.10.070(c)." Senator Taylor moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 3. Senator Duncan objected. The question being: Shall Amendment No. 3 be adopted? The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 311(JUD) Second Reading Amendment No. 3 YEAS: 11 NAYS: 9 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Frank, Green, Halford, Kelly, Leman, Miller, R.Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson Nays: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Hoffman, Lincoln, Pearce, Salo, Zharoff and so, Amendment No. 3 was adopted. CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 311(JUD) am S was automatically in third reading. 1996-04-16 Senate Journal Page 3315 HB 311 The question being: Shall CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 311(JUD) am S An Act relating to the hours a person may be employed in a mine; and requiring that workers be paid for certain time worked in a mine; and providing for an effective date pass the Senate? The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 311(JUD) am S Third Reading - Final Passage YEAS: 12 NAYS: 8 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Frank, Green, Halford, Kelly, Leman, Miller, R.Phillips, Rieger, Salo, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson Nays: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Hoffman, Lincoln, Pearce, Zharoff and so, CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 311(JUD) am S passed the Senate. Senator Halford moved the effective date clause. The question being: Shall the effective date clause be adopted? The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 311(JUD) am S Effective Date Vote YEAS: 20 NAYS: 0 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Frank, Green, Halford, Hoffman, Kelly, Leman, Lincoln, Miller, Pearce, R.Phillips, Rieger, Salo, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson, Zharoff and so, the effective date clause was adopted. Senator Pearce gave notice of reconsideration.