Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 17
03/10/2008 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB391 | |
| HB350 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 350 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 391 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 391-STATE CONSTRUCT'N PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT 3:07:22 PM CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 391, "An Act relating to project labor agreements." 3:07:44 PM DEREK MILLER, Staff, to Representative Mike Kelly, Alaska State Legislature, summarized Version C of HB 391 for members. He stated that proposed Section 1 would require construction contracts initiated by the state would also require contractors that commit to a project labor agreement (PLA) must include an option for employees to sign a declaration of benefits. This declaration would allow employees the choice of depositing their employer's contribution to the fringe benefit package to the union plan or to the non union plan. Proposed Section 2 of HB 391 would apply the declaration of benefit language as part of the application requirements set out in obtaining an Alaska Gas Inducement Act (AGIA) license. Proposed Section 3 would provide applicability standards for PLAs after the effective date of HB 391. 3:09:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 25-LS1493\C.1, Wayne, 3/10/08, which read: Page 2, following line 9: Insert a new subsection to read: "(c) An employer or labor representative who participates in or administers a fringe benefits program that is available for selection by an employee under (b) of this section shall provide to the employee a written description of the fringe benefits program within seven days after a request by the employee." Reletter the following subsection accordingly. Page 2, line 28, following "agreement;": Insert "an employer or labor representative who administers a fringe benefits program that is available for selection by an employee under this paragraph shall provide the employee with a written description of the fringe benefits program within seven days after a request by the employee;" 3:09:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected for the purposes to read Amendment 1. 3:10:17 PM MR. MILLER offered that Amendment 1 would add a new subsection, proposed AS 36.30.405 that would address concerns raised in the companion bill in the other body about employees making an informed decision prior to submitting their declaration of benefits to the employer. Amendment 1 would require an employer to provide a written description of the fringe benefit package at the request of the employee to ensure full disclosure and allow the employee to make an informed decision. 3:11:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to whether the employee would be able to compare both fringe benefit plans. MR. MILLER answered that is the effect of Amendment 1, which would include requirements for vesting and enable the employee to review the benefits package side by side within 7 days of the request for information. 3:11:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, inquired as to when the employee is required to select the fringe benefit plan. MR. MILLER responded that the employee would receive copies of the fringe benefit plans prior to any contribution. In further response to Representative Gardner, Mr. Miller acknowledged that the employee would have an opportunity to view both fringe benefit plans prior to selecting a plan. 3:12:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH noted that he would like to put on record his gratitude for the opportunity to weigh in on HB 391. He asked for clarification of the fringe benefit process. He related his understanding that the employer offers the fringe benefit plan that generally consists of a health plan and a defined contribution plan. Since the employer holds the plan, the employer has the option to develop the plan, not the employee especially if the employee is not part of a collective bargaining agreement. In those instances, the employee would be considered an "at will" employee and would not have an option to develop his/her own plan. MR. MILLER related his understanding that when a contractor enters into a PLA that the declaration of benefits would allow the employee to select either the benefit package under the PLA or their current employer. 3:15:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH offered that in a project labor agreement the parties would be the State of Alaska and the contractors such as TransCanada PipeLine, LTD. He suggested that the employees would be working for subcontractors who would not "even be sitting at the table". The negotiation takes place at the onset of any construction so none of the subcontractors would be working for contractors at that point, he opined. MR. MILLER professed that he is not an expert and could not answer questions about the project labor agreement process. He related that many subcontractors who bid on projects that require a PLA are non-competitive bids due to the requirement to contribute to the PLA plan, as well as their own retirement fringe benefit plan. He offered to respond at a later time with more information. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that proposed AS 36.30.405 states, "to the extent permitted by law" whereas Amendment 1 refers to "an employer or labor representative who administers a fringe benefits program..." He opined that Amendment 1 refers to the person who administers the fringe benefit. He inquired whether in a PLA do all employees fall under the PLA or can employees be treated differently. REPRESENTATIVE BUCH opined that all workers who work under a [PLA] agreement are subject to that agreement. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO inquired as to whether a welder working for a subcontractor under a PLA would be entitled to the same benefit package as all other employees who work under the PLA. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that the purpose of HB 391 is to assist the non union contractors who cannot competitively bid due to the benefits they are required to give under the project labor agreement. She opined that the only time the employee would make a decision would be after the employer was awarded the contract such that the subcontractor would have prevailed. MR. MILLER clarified that some non union companies must not only contribute to their own plans, but must also contribute to the union trust. Thus, the company contributes to two plans. He surmised that there are two separate issues and he offered to garner more information for the committee. 3:22:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered that Amendment 1 states that an employee of a subcontractor has the choice to select fringe benefit plans on previously negotiated agreements. Contractors would already have determined their fringe benefit plans, he noted. Amendment 1 would allow employees to compare benefits between union and non union fringe benefit packages. MR. MILLER agreed with Representative Neuman's analysis of Amendment 1. 3:24:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to whether HB 391 is supported by unions since she was absent at the initial hearing on HB 391. CHAIR OLSON answered that the lobbyist for the AFL-CIO testified that that it did not oppose HB 391. MR. MILLER, in response to Representative Gardner, answered that written benefits would include not only the benefits but also timelines and cost to the employee. 3:25:18 PM CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 391. [HB 391 was held over. Amendment 1 was left pending]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|