Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/07/1997 03:26 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 207 - EMPLOYER DRUG TESTING PROGRAM CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next item of business was House Bill No. 207, "An Act relating to employer drug and alcohol testing programs." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 4:08 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 4:15 p.m. He said HB 207 had been heard previously and testimony was by invitation. However, no one wished to testify. He closed public testimony. Number 2150 JEFFREY LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, came forward to testify on behalf of the sponsor. He referred to a letter received from the Teamsters Local 959 dated April 7, 1997, which more clearly specifies some concerns they voiced last week. He reviewed these concerns for the committee. MR. LOGAN noted that in regards to the Teamsters' number one concern, the sponsor opposes it. The term "reasonable suspicion" only appears three times in state statute without a definition; only one time in case law, in a state court of appeals case, does it appear with some definition. The sponsor desires to replace this term. They asked the Teamsters for terminology from some of their current agreements that would fit into .620(b) to achieve the purpose they seek. The Teamsters' legal staff hasn't had time to do this yet but hope to do so by the time this legislation makes its way to the House Judiciary Committee. Number 2224 MR. LOGAN continued that in relation to item two, in the committee substitute, they could simply make a reference to federal standards in the testing. He felt this would achieve this objective. He felt the Teamsters' concern was that there is nothing in writing that the levels of the five main drugs should or should not be. If Alaska simply adopts federal standards, he felt this would take care of potential headaches. Number 2259 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that in looking over proposed amendments, almost every one has a legal implication. He suggested since the next committee of referral was the House Judiciary Committee, that the amendments be considered then. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed with this assessment, but he thought Section 23.10.670 dealing with collective bargaining could be considered by the House Labor and Commerce Committee since it is so concise. He asked Mr. Logan to explain what this section does. Number 2322 MR. LOGAN stated that this language was inserted because in other states, labor representatives have requested this type of language. If their collective bargaining does come under the umbrella of this legislation, then they should have the right to do this. Organized labor would prefer this section be removed, and the sponsor has no problem with that. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated that he was always reluctant to have amendments handed to them and absorb the related testimony. He felt they should move the bill with the attached correspondence so that the House Judiciary Committee could consider it. Number 2378 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked whether Representative Green had any problem with addressing these amendments in the House Judiciary Committee. MR. LOGAN responded that Representative Green has no problem addressing them, but adopting them there raises a few issues. Number 2390 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that the only question he had related to .670 and the fact that there have been issues raised on other bills regarding rights of employees within collective bargaining units being of a different standard. He felt this establishes a potential situation like this again. If they pulled this out, they could possibly "head this off at the pass" before this issue ever arises, such as, "Well, these guys can do it because they're in a collective bargaining agreement, but these guys can't because they're not." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that his reading of Section .670 is that it would in effect negate any pre-bargained-for agreement by giving full benefits of this legislation to the employer, notwithstanding whatever the bargaining agreement said. He took exception to what Mr. Logan said earlier about this language not affecting existing collective bargaining agreements. Number 2449 MR. LOGAN responded that he didn't say it wouldn't have an impact. The point of this language is to allow for workers under a collective bargaining agreement, if they chose to adopt provisions outside of the umbrella of the bill, to do so. TAPE 97-35, SIDE B Number 0012 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that what this section could potentially do, under existing agreements where the testing methods are not as tightly written as Representative Green's bill, is cause problems since the lesser standard would be applied. REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that if it was determined to be a lesser standard with a collective bargaining agreement, someone would still get the benefits, which means they avoid liability of being sued. His conversations with organized labor representatives indicate they would rather delete this and be on the same ground as everyone else, on a level playing field. They didn't necessarily want any special benefits. Number 0070 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he appreciated this, but if they pass this law, the level playing field is the law then. He suggested that they remove the word "not" from the section. He noted that if the collective bargaining agreement was consistent with policies provided for in statute, the employer could have the immunity. Therefore, the collective bargaining agreement would have to be consistent with the law in order to acquire immunity. He noted that this was better than taking it out altogether. MR. LOGAN stated that this assessment was correct. This would be a good compromise. Number 0094 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA noted that this option would dictate what goes into a collective bargaining agreement. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded that this would have to be bargained for. If an employer wants to bargain for immunity, then he has to be consistent with the law. The unions would have to agree to this in the bargain. Number 0107 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA added that by pulling it out, they have the testing program and they would be immune no matter what the collective bargaining unit says, because the law will supersede any collective bargaining unit. However, by taking the word "not" out, it seems like a mandate to be there. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that this was precisely why he suggested the committee not attempt to amend this legislation since this issue has legal implications. Number 0150 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA offered that the committee ought to do their own work and said he didn't know what kind of deals have been made on this legislation. He said he was not big about moving it on to the next committee where the sponsor of this legislation is the chairman. He'd rather the House Labor and Commerce Committee spend the time and effort to make sure it's a good bill. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said no deals have been made. Number 0186 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed that on this particular labor issue, it belongs in the purview of this committee. As to the other amendments, he agrees with Representative Hudson. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that the last clause of this section should be cut out, after the phrase, "even if the policy is not consistent with AS 23.10.600 - 23.10.699." Drug testing must be at this point in time up to standards with .670. Number 0234 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he would prefer to go with, on page 7, line 5, deleting the words "even" and "not". REPRESENTATIVE RYAN reiterated that the sponsor included this language with the idea that they would protect the unions. The unions said they don't want it, and the sponsor said he doesn't care. Representative Ryan asked why they were addressing this language issue. He wondered why they just didn't delete it. Number 0253 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thought this option would encourage both the unions and employers to bargain, based on this law, and they could even adopt it by reference in their contract, which would be a very noncontroversial method of handling this situation. It gives both sides an argument that there is an existing state law and in order for an employer to have immunity, they must go through these other procedures, provided in the law, to protect the employee. Leaving this section alone is not fair either. It would have a negative impact on the worker or negate the collective bargaining process. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested moving an amendment on page 7, line 5, to delete the words "even" and "not." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt that amendment. Number 0302 REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS objected. He believes they should remove the whole Section 23.10.670. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested a roll call vote. Representatives Cowdery, Hudson and Rokeberg voted yes. Representatives Brice, Kubina, Ryan and Sanders voted no. Amendment 1 failed. Number 0378 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS made a motion to remove Section 23.10.670 in its entirety. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of discussion. Number 0388 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY also objected and noted that these changes had legal ramifications. The information from the Teamsters came to the committee late, and he felt this issue should be debated in the House Judiciary Committee. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG removed his objection. Number 0411 MR. LOGAN commented that they are committed to working with employer and employee groups, which both agree to a drug-free work place. He clarified that while they don't have a problem with removing this section, they haven't had a chance to look at this issue. They want to research the ramifications of taking this section out. He stated, "I want make sure the committee understands that if we do have an opportunity, which I'm sure we will, to look at it more in-depth in the next couple of days and it reappears in a Judiciary version, I hope the committee understands that we're not trying to go around anyone's back." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY removed his objection. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG advised that as the objection was removed, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0465 REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion and asked unanimous consent to move HB 207, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA objected for question purposes. He asked whether the chairman believes all remaining labor issues involved with this legislation should be under the purview of the House Judiciary Committee, along with the statement the sponsor's representative has made. Number 0492 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said absolutely. He commented that he is a member of the House Judiciary Committee. He promised the House Labor and Commerce Committee and the bill sponsor that there would be a full review of the Teamsters' letter, as well as issues relating to subjects that letter addresses. He also said he would work further on the section in question to accomplish everything the House Labor and Commerce Committee has attempted. Number 0526 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA withdrew his objection. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG, hearing no further objection, stated that CSHB 207(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|