Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/10/2018 01:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB278 | |
| HB279 | |
| HB280 | |
| HB302 | |
| HB323 | |
| HB318 | |
| HB255 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 279 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 280 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 302 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 323 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 255-PLUMBING/ELECTRIC CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS
1:31:56 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 255, "An Act relating to individuals and
employees who must have certificates of fitness to perform
certain plumbing and electrical work; and relating to civil
penalties and violations for not having required certificates of
fitness."
1:32:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HB 255 as prime sponsor. He gave an overview of the bill,
explaining that HB 255 would change the violation for working
without a certificate of fitness from a misdemeanor to a
citation and a fine. He stated the proposed bill would bring
the department practices in line with other business license
standards.
1:33:47 PM
CHAIR KITO moved Amendment 1.
Page 2, lines 14 - 15:
Delete "[, EITHER AN EMPLOYER OR EMPLOYEE,]"
Insert ", other than [EITHER] an [EMPLOYER OR]
employee,"
Page 2, lines 17 - 18:
Delete "BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500]"
Insert "] by a fine of not more than $500"
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained Amendment 1 reserves violations
for employers. He pointed to page 2, line 14, of the statute
and explained that independent contractors would be under the
same sanctions as an employer.
1:35:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked about violations, citations, and
administrative penalties.
1:36:33 PM
DEBORAH KELLY, Director, Labor Standards and Safety Division,
answered questions in the hearing on HB 255. She explained
there was a multitiered process involving options for a citation
or an administrative fine.
CHAIR KITO asked whether the two penalties worked in
conjunction.
MS. KELLY answered in the affirmative. She added the way
penalties work for other licensure, such as contractor
licensing, generally an administrative fine is issued. She
added that with severe violations or for those who refused to
pay, the citation process is used.
1:37:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES shared her concern that the change would
put the employee "between a rock and a hard spot." She
suggested exempting the employee.
1:38:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK mentioned the committee had heard
Representative Knopp state he did not like the certificate of
fitness. He explained that general contractors cannot perform
or expect their employees to do electrical work. He added that
in the electrical industry there was a requirement for
additional licensing for administrators. He said the aim was to
maintain the integrity of the system. He said there should not
be any "gray areas."
1:39:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON spoke to misdemeanors and said that
taking a case to a jury can be hard to do. He asked for
confirmation that the fine would be up to $500 and not imposed
on the employee.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified the fine would be not more than
$500 for the employer, and $125 for the first offence and $250
for each subsequent offence for the employee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON surmised "there is jurisdictional
workplace confusion about who has the authority and training to
do certain work in the field," and asked whether the proposed
bill simply made it easier to cite someone.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that it is the responsibility on
the employee to maintain the certificate of fitness.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether there is a gray area
regarding who does what work on a worksite.
1:42:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered there were different requirements
according to the scope of work, and some licenses only require
1,000 hours of training. He added that HB 255 does not address
those issues.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON spoke to Amendment 1. He offered a
hypothetical situation involving the action of an employee and
asked whether the proposed bill would offer leniency in that
scenario.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered HB 255 was modelled after other
licensing legislation. He said the original draft contained the
same fines for both employee and employer, and the amendment
made the proposed bill "very soft" in comparison to other
license violations with more severe fines.
1:44:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH spoke to Amendment 1. He cited the
language regarding a person other than an employee. He said he
was still uncertain of how the amendment would help that person.
1:45:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the amendment further softens
the penalty on the employee. He added it maintains a person
carrying out the work who is not an employee or an employer
would get the same sanctions for a violation as an employer. He
further added the amendment would ensure there was not an
increase on the fine and contains a cap of $25 thousand for an
employer.
1:46:50 PM
CHAIR KITO asked for clarification of whether it should be
$2,500 or $25 thousand for the employer.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified it was $25 thousand for the
employer and $2,500 for the employee.
SPEAKER EDGMON removed his objection. There being no other
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:47:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether a certification of fitness
was required to drive a truck to backfill a ditch.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered in the affirmative. He added a
certification of fitness was required to install the pipe, to
install wire, to dig the ditch, to backfill the ditch, to set
the poles, and to set the gear. He explained that with too many
contractors working on a system, it is hard to determine who is
responsible when something goes wrong. He reiterated that the
certificate of fitness maintains the integrity of the system.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said she thought it seems "we are putting
our general labors out of work."
1:49:07 PM
CHAIR KITO asked whether the bill would change how the penalties
are assessed or change the responsibilities.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK mentioned Representative Knopp's remarks
that he did not want the penalties and that "if it's not
enforceable, then it's allowed."
1:49:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES restated her question of whether a worker
was required to have a certificate of fitness in order to
"backfill."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered in the affirmative. He deferred to
the department.
1:50:26 PM
WILLIAM HARLAN, Mechanical Inspection Manager, Department of
Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD), answered questions in
the hearing on HB 255. He confirmed that under current policy a
certificate of fitness would be required. He added that the
proposed bill would not affect the requirement.
1:51:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether there is something called
a "utility card" that allows someone without a certificate of
fitness to do that work.
MR. HARLAN asked for the question to be restated.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether a utility card would
enable someone who does not have the certificate of fitness to
do "in-between work."
MR. HARLAN explained that public utilities are exempted
elsewhere in statute so that they can carry out work in a public
easement. He added that subcontractors doing work on a public
utility property would need a certificate of fitness.
1:53:14 PM
MS. KELLY added that there are some other certificates of
fitness, such as a plumber-restricted public utility certificate
of fitness, which allows certain types of plumbing work to be
carried out with fewer hours required than for a full plumber
journeyman.
1:53:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON moved to report HB 255 out of committee
as amended with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB255 Support Letters 2.6.18.pdf |
HL&C 2/10/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 255 |
| HB279 Opposition Letter 1.30.18.pdf |
HL&C 2/10/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 279 |
| HB299 Support Letters 2.1.18.pdf |
HL&C 2/10/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB302 Legislative Audit 1.30.18.pdf |
HL&C 2/10/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 302 |