Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/23/1994 09:00 AM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced a work draft for SENATE CS FOR CS FOR
HOUSE BILL NO. 302(JUD), workers compensation for recreational
activities, and warned the committee members it was a controversial
subject since it dealt with the "bunkhouse rule." He explained
there had been worker's compensation wars around the legislature
for years.
SENATOR JACKO asked what the bunkhouse rule was, and SENATOR TAYLOR
suggested it could be answered by someone from REPRESENTATIVE
NAVARRE'S staff or PAT SMUTZ, legislative director for the AFL-CIO.
Number 260
MR. SMUTZ explained the bunkhouse rule was a worker at a remote
work site, under the control of the employer, was covered by
workers compensation 24 hours a day.
SENATOR LITTLE asked what changes the bill would make.
MR. SMUTZ said the committee substitute deletes the House versions
on page 2, lines 12 through 15, and would make a major modification
of the worker's compact. If you were engaged in a recreational
activity at a remote site, you wouldn't be covered by worker's
compensation.
MR. SMUTZ claimed it would be a backward step in the worker's
compensation, and he discussed the traditional means for
negotiating compromises between labor and management, as well as
the Alaska Labor/Management Worker's Compensation Ad Hoc Committee.
At that time, he said labor gave up major concessions in quite a
bit of insurance premium reductions, and it worked out as a major
compromise, a system that seems to work. He claimed at the end of
session, there is always a special interest that wants to modify
the law. He described a number of remote camps, and he didn't see
any one from those camps supporting the change. He was curious as
to the specific interest, but he was not aware of any problems.
Number 313
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. SMUTZ to comment on the proposed committee
substitute which addresses the officials who are on a contractual
basis at a sports event involving softball, and he described a
group of legislators, who would be playing softball in the
afternoon. He thought this was the main thrust of the legislation
from REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE'S position.
MR. SMUTZ said it was called the softball rule, and he described an
example of a large company that went Outside and recruited a ringer
to play on their company team. The ringer, a woman, was hurt and
she was denied worker's compensation. It went to court where it
was decided it was a condition of hire and was covered under
workers compensation. He thought there was a perception problem as
to whether these people are covered by workers compensation.
MR. SMUTZ said he was not too familiar with the umpire part of the
legislation, but thought it involved official who contract as
individuals to be umpires and referees, although they wanted to be
considered as individual contractors - not necessarily employees.
MR. SMUTZ, in answer to a question from SENATOR TAYLOR, said the
AFL-CIO was neutral on the bill.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained in the example given by MR. SMUTZ, the
ringer would not be covered if the committee substitute passed, and
he explained in page 2, line 8 the language that would exclude
activities of a personal nature away from employer provided
facilities. Employer sanctioned activities do not include
recreational activities unless the activity occurs at a remote job
site or on the employment premises.
SENATOR TAYLOR was interrupted by JACK HEESCH, President of the
Alaska Softball Association, who explained the court interpreted
the employer provided rule to include that if you pay the fee to
rent the field, which you do when you pay a fee to enter a league,
some of that money is transferred to the Municipality Parks and
Rec. for rental of the fields. The court interpreted that as being
an employer provided facility as the result of the rental of the
field through the entry of the team into a league.
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified the meaning as even after HB 302 has been
passed, that MR. HEESCH believed if the employer paid for the
rental of field that somehow becomes employment premises.
Number 369
MR. HEESCH said they were eliminating "employer provided" and
specifying "employer premises." SENATOR TAYLOR used a hypothetical
example of Fred Meyers having a softball team, and even if Fred
Meyers buys them their uniforms, pays costs and fee rental of a
field, that is not employment premises? MR. HEESCH said that was
correct. SENATOR TAYLOR said those players would not be covered by
worker's compensation as he interprets the legislation.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained somehow he had modified the remote camp
rule by deleting it, and MR. SMUTZ agreed. There was a argument as
to whether workers playing ball at a remote camp were covered or
those playing ball in a Fred Meyers' parking lot. SENATOR TAYLOR
said the committee substitute would eliminate coverage for those in
the urban setting, but those in a remote setting would still be
covered or any activity - even mountain climbing - over which the
employer has no control. MR. SMUTZ was not sure what the employers
in logging camps could do, but he did know athletic equipment was
provided. He explained the remote circumstances where recreation
is part of the camp life and the necessity of workers compensation
24 hours a day.
Number 413
SENATOR LITTLE clarified that activities provided at a remote site
are part of the benefit package that comes with the job and is a
negotiated part of the contract between the employer and employee.
MR. SMUTZ, in speaking for union sites, described the recreation
activities, and he used the North Slope as an example of using the
activities as an enticement to stay.
SENATOR TAYLOR wanted to know where the line is drawn between the
employer who provides all kinds of equipment and events here in
town, and are not covered, but in logging communities their
employers are basically under a cloud now because they have to be
covered. He clarified most of his communities are remote sites.
This brought a question from SENATOR LITTLE asking how there can be
a remote site with employees involved in recreational activities
fifty miles from camp.
SENATOR TAYLOR said Prince of Wales Island has 2000 miles of road
and the deepest caves ever discovered. He explained it was going
to become a national park, but presently loggers on the Island can
spend off duty time spelunking. If an employee is injured, the
employer is responsible, but SENATOR TAYLOR doesn't think that is
appropriate.
MR. SMUTZ described the difference on the employees on the North
Slope who have to observe a certain amount of control in their
activities. He suggested limitations on where the loggers may
travel might be a negotiable item in a contract.
MR. SMUTZ explained restrictions were difficult, but he didn't
think the committee substitute for HB 302 properly addresses the
problem, and would only create more problems. SENATOR TAYLOR said
the original bill certainly draws a line on every employee living
at this time, and he referred to page 2.
MR. SMUTZ said it would probably be determined in future court
cases, but MR. HEESCH indicated continued support for the bill.
Number 463
SENATOR TAYLOR explained how, in refereeing three games on Sandy
Beach, the referee might be covered on one but not the other two.
MR. HEESCH explained that most of the officials worked for
organizations in such groups as the Juneau Sport's Association,
under contract as independent contractors. He quoted the IRS as
being in agreement, as well as the Department of Labor, but he also
elaborated on the vagaries of insurance rules that has made it
expensive.
Number 495
SENATOR LITTLE said she had a clear understanding of the original
bill, but was not willing to support the committee substitute.
SENATOR TAYLOR called for a vote on SENATOR HALFORD'S move to adopt
the new committee substitute for House Bill No. 302(JUD). The role
was taken with the following results: SENATORS TAYLOR, HALFORD, and
JACKO voted "yea," and SENATOR LITTLE voted "nay." SENATOR TAYLOR
stated the motion carried.
It was decided the bill would go next to Rules.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to pass SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO.
302(JUD) from committee. SENATOR LITTLE objected, and explained
the committee substitute addressed a situation that could be more
properly addressed in individual cases, where there are problems
through agreements between employers and employee at remote work
sites. She thought it would make a sweeping change in all remote
sites, where there aren't problems, and seems highly inappropriate.
She urged the bill not be passed from committee, since she didn't
think it would benefit the State as a whole.
SENATOR TAYLOR called for a vote on SENATOR HALFORD'S move to pass
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 302(JUD). The role was taken
with the following results: SENATORS TAYLOR, HALFORD, and JACKO
voted "yea," and SENATOR LITTLE voted "nay." SENATOR TAYLOR stated
the motion carried.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|