Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/08/1997 02:10 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
MAY 8, 1997
2:10 P.M.
TAPE HFC 97 - 130, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97 - 130, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97 - 131, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97 - 131, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97 - 132, Side 1, #000 - #273.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 2:10 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Grussendorf Representative Kelly
Representative Hanley was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Allen Kemplen; Sheila Peterson, Staff,
Senator Gary Wilken; Bob Cole, Director, Division of
Administrative Services, Department of Corrections; Art
Chance, Counsel, Senate Finance Committee, Labor Issues,
Juneau; Diane Barrans, Executive Director, Alaska Commission
on Postsecondary Education, Department of Education; Jayne
Andreen, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault, Anchorage; John Yarbor, Consultant,
Alaska State Employee Association, Juneau; Don Etheridge,
Representative, Local 71, Juneau; Ed Flanagan, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Labor; Sam Kito, III, Special
Assistant, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities; Jim Sampson, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star
Borough, Fairbanks; Mike McMullen, Personnel Manager,
Division of Personnel, Department of Administration.
SUMMARY
SB 34 An Act giving notice of and approving a
lease-purchase agreement with the City of Soldotna
for a maintenance facility of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
CS SB 34 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note
1
by the Department of Revenue dated 4/25/97 and a
zero fiscal note by the Department of
Administration dated 3/11/97.
SB 151 An Act relating to public employment labor
relations; relating to the protection of the
rights of public employees under the Public
Employment Relations Act; establishing ethical
standards for union representatives of public
employees; and establishing disclosure
requirements for public employee labor
organizations.
SB 151 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 189 An Act relating to eligibility for and default,
collection, and repayment of student loans;
relating to non-renewal of certain occupational
licenses for default on a student loan; and
providing for an effective date.
CS SB 189 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"no recommendation" and with fiscal notes by the
Department of Education dated 4/30/97, the
Department of Labor dated 4/30/97, the Alaska Post
Secondary Commission dated 4/30/97 and zero fiscal
notes by the Department of Labor dated 4/30/97,
the Department of Administration dated 4/30/97 and
the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development dated 4/30/97.
HB 47 An Act relating to authorizing the Department of
Corrections to provide an automated victim
notification and prisoner information system.
HB 47 was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal note by the
House Finance Committee and a zero fiscal note by
the Department of Public Safety.
SB 3 An Act authorizing prosecution and trial in the
district court of municipal curfew violations.
CS SB 3 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by
the Department of Health and Social Services, the
Alaska Court System and the Department of
Administration, and a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Public Safety.
SENATE BILL 189
2
"An Act relating to eligibility for and default,
collection, and repayment of student loans; relating to
non-renewal of certain occupational licenses for
default on a student loan; and providing for an
effective date."
SHEILA PETERSON, STAFF, SENATOR GARY WILKEN, noted that the
current default rate of the student loans issued by the
Alaska Commission of Postsecondary Education is
unacceptable. SB 189 would provide the Commission with the
necessary financial tools to effectively and efficiently
reduce the number of loans which are in default.
The ultimate goal of the legislation would be to create a
financially solvent Alaska student loan program that would
be available to the next generation of Alaskan postsecondary
students. SB 189 will:
1. Improve the credit rating of the Alaska
Student Loan Program;
2. Lower the loan program default rate;
3. Improve the return rate on funds loaned to
borrowers; and
4. Increase the recovery rate on defaulted
loans.
Ms. Peterson continued, the program is experiencing a large
(20%-25%) increase in loan demand. Passage of SB 189 will
be a step in the right direction.
DIANE BARRANS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, stated
that the Commission has endorsed the elements of the bill
which are basically additional collection tools for
defaulted borrowers. She pointed out that there will be a
provision for a 1/2% increase to the interest rate on
student loans. It would not change the rate for the
upcoming year as those promissory notes have already been
granted. In the 1998-1999 academic year interest would
increase to 9%. The determining base for the interest is
the rate paid for outstanding bonds.
Ms. Barrans provided a sectional analysis of the proposed
legislation. The first substantive change would be to
Section #5 which identifies the increase from an
administrative add-on. Section #6 would authorize the
credit assessment on borrowers. In the event that a
borrower is shown to have a bad debt, Section #7 would allow
3
for a credit worthy co-signer to apply for the loan.
Section #8 would allow for the Commissioner to provide an
administrative wage garnishment. Currently, that action can
happen only through a court judgement. She advised that the
Alaska Statutes "hold harmless" a certain portion of an
individuals pay check and that no exception from that law
was being requested.
Representative Kohring questioned if the bill provided a
provision which would grant withholding authority of an
occupational license when in default. Ms. Barrans commented
that the Division currently has that authority. She added
that they do not try to revoke the license during a period
of licensure, but rather, wait until the license comes up
for renewal. If the person in default is in compliance with
some type of pay arrangement, they are then able to renew
their licensure. She pointed out that this was modeled
after similar legislation passed by the Child Support
Enforcement Agency (CSEA).
Representative Martin recommended adding the requirement
that collateral be guaranteed by the parents. Ms. Barrans
explained that would still be an unsecured note. A credit
assessment will be the first step in that direction. She
noted the concern for those families who were not able to
put up collateral and would be unable to fund their child's
education. Ms. Barrans explained that about 60% of the
defaulters live in Alaska and one tool used is garnishment
of the permanent fund.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS SB 189 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS SB 189 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with fiscal notes by the Department of
Education dated 4/30/97, the Department of Labor dated
4/30/97, the Alaska Postsecondary Education dated 4/30/97
and zero fiscal notes by the Department of Labor dated
4/30/97, the Department of Administration dated 4/30/97 and
the Department of Commerce and Economic Development dated
4/30/97.
SENATE BILL 3
"An Act authorizing prosecution and trial in the
district court of municipal curfew violations."
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS SB 3 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
4
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS SB 3 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Department of
Health and Social Services, the Alaska Court System, the
Department of Administration and a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Public Safety.
SENATE BILL 34
"An Act giving notice of and approving a lease-purchase
agreement with the City of Soldotna for a maintenance
facility of the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities."
Representative G. Davis explained that SB 34 would provide
authorization to the State of Alaska to enter into and
finance a lease-purchase agreement for the construction of a
new maintenance facility in Soldotna.
The current facility, resting on a seven acre site, is over
30 years old, located along the Kenai River. That facility
is of concern to the entire community. The new facility
will be constructed on a site which is currently held by the
Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). He pointed out that the KPB
"owes" the State the acreage; thus, there will be no land
acquisition costs to the project. KPB will deed the land to
whatever entity to comply with the bonding requirements.
Representative G. Davis reiterated that there is public
concern regarding the maintenance citing of the facility
along the Kenai River. Heightened public awareness of
habitat protection and water quality for the river has
focused on that station. The proposed project has the
support of the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOTP&F) and seems to be the most viable option.
In the early 1960's, the State conveyed to the Kenai Borough
a parcel of land for Borough ownership. As a part of that
agreement, the Borough then owed land of similar value to
the State. The City of Soldotna has proposed to the State
their interest in the said land and currently is waiting for
the transaction to convey that land.
Representative G. Davis pointed out that the new site would
be conveyed at no cost to the State. Representative J.
Davies questioned the costs of the clean-up involved with
the site being vacated. Representative G. Davis
acknowledged that a $150 thousand dollar contract had been
granted last summer to address those concerns. He added,
there was additional money appropriated in past budget
5
cycles and also in the current fiscal Capital Budget for the
clean-up.
SAM KITO, III, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, spoke in
support of the proposed legislation. He noted that the
Department has been working on the proposal with the
Soldotna delegation for several years. Co-Chair Therriault
asked if the proposal had been submitted for a Capital
appropriation. Mr. Kito replied that there had been
interest to include it for a capital appropriation about
three years ago, although, did not make it through the
process. The City of Soldotna and the State then began
looking at bonding options.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if money existed for the
removal of the existing structure. Mr. Kito commented that
there are funds for demolition of the existing structure as
well as funding for the new proposed structure. He pointed
out that there will be a separate appropriation to address
the clean-up. He hoped it would be sufficient.
Ultimately, the property will be transferred to the City of
Soldotna from the State. Representative G. Davis understood
that Soldotna had no additional municipal selections. The
cost of the new facility is projected to be $4.5 million
dollars.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CS SB 34 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS SB 34 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Revenue dated 4/25/97 and a zero fiscal note
by the Department of Administration dated 3/11/97.
HOUSE BILL 47
"An Act relating to authorizing the Department of
Corrections to provide an automated victim notification
and prisoner information system."
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN KEMPLEN noted that each day, over 600
concerned Alaskans call the State institution seeking
information on inmates. Alaska's prisons and pre-trial
facilities house 2,990 inmates, 49% of whom are considered
violent. Clearly, proper and timely notifications to
victims about the release or escape of their attackers could
improve their sense of safety.
6
A state-of-the-art computer system, called Victim
Information and Notification Everyday (VINE) was developed
to keep crime victims informed of inmate activity. VINE
provides two important services which enhance the vital link
of communication between the justice system and the victim.
1. VINE provides automatic notification calls to
a crime victim when an inmate's status
changes.
2. VINE provides critical inmate information 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, through the
automated telephone system.
Representative Kemplen reiterated that the goal of the
legislation was to meet the need for timely, efficient and
reliable notification to a victim about the offenders
status. The legislation would provide for the use of
innovative technology that will assist the Department of
Corrections staff who are responsible for notifying crime
victims who have moved. The legislation would give the
victims more control.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the $150 thousand dollar
fiscal note was essential. Representative Kemplen stated
that those are one time costs. He recommended moving some
of the general fund expenditures to program receipts.
Program receipts in the out years would be generated from
individuals calling into the system and assessed a fee each
time.
Representative Mulder recommended providing authorization to
establish the request without providing a funding source.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that fiscal action on the
bill could be addressed during Conference Committee.
Discussion followed about possible shifts to the funding
source.
(Tape Change HFC 97-130, Side 2).
JAYNE ANDREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, ANCHORAGE, testified in support
of HB 47. Many states have been looking at how they can
improve notification to victims. In 1994, Alaskans passed
the Victim's Right amendment. Victims now have the
constitutional right to be notified of the status of their
offenders as well as the right to be able to participate in
the process. Combined with the new Domestic Violence Law,
as well as HB 9, will increase the responsibility of the
Department of Corrections to maintain and notify the victim
of the status of their offenders. She explained that the
7
legislation would accomplish two things:
1. Once the change of status is entered into the
computer, the victim will be automatically
notified by telephone of that status change.
2. Victims will be given a pin telephone number
which they will be able to call at anytime
regarding the status of their offender.
ROBERT COLE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, stated that the assumption was
that the Department would use general funding to initiate
the system and for first year operations. He spoke to the
implementation costs and suggested that the fiscal note
could be slightly reduced.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to add $20 thousand dollars
to the program receipt line in anticipation that in the
fourth quarter the system would be out of funds, and then a
fraction of the need would be corrected. There was NO
OBJECTION to the fiscal note change.
Representative Foster MOVED to report HB 47 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 47 was reported out of Committee with "no recommendation"
and with a House Finance Committee fiscal note and a zero
fiscal note by the Department of Public Safety.
SENATE BILL 151
"An Act relating to public employment labor relations;
relating to the protection of the rights of public
employees under the Public Employment Relations Act;
establishing ethical standards for union
representatives of public employees; and establishing
disclosure requirements for public employee labor
organizations."
ART CHANCE, COUNSEL, SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, LABOR
RELATIONS, provided a sectional analysis of the major
changes to the existing work draft for SB 151.
Section #2 would provide that the parties may not negotiate
terms contrary to a statute except if such terms are
specifically made subject to bargaining by the Act.
Section #3 would provide that public employers retain
managerial rights and prerogatives and that limitations on
such rights are to be narrowly construed by arbitrators, the
8
labor relations agency and the courts.
Section #4 incorporated the Alaska Labor Relations Agency
(ALRA) regulations and decisions regarding composition of
bargaining units and would add definitions of supervisory,
confidential and law enforcement employees based on ALRA
decisions. It also would require that peace officers,
including Correctional Officers, must be in separate
bargaining unit from employees who are not peace officers.
The provision would mirror the National Guard Unit language
in federal law.
Representative J. Davies questioned the rational used to
determine that police officers and correctional officers
should be in different bargaining units. Mr. Chance noted
that action resulted from union claims in labor relation
agency hearings.
Section #5 would reflect ALRA's decisions and federal law in
permitting public employers to challenge the composition of
a bargaining unit and to question the majority status of a
union.
Section #6 would require the ALRA to investigate the
propriety of a mutually recognized bargaining unit upon the
petition of an employee in that bargaining unit.
Section #8 would make it an unfair labor practice for a
public employer to contribute financial or other support to
a union mirroring federal law. It would allow a public
employer to confer with its employees over work related
matters without incurring unfair labor practice charges.
Section #8 would also eliminate the current law's
authorization of compulsory union membership while retaining
the authorization for compulsory fees for collective
bargaining services. It would prohibit a union from
involving a secondary employer in a labor dispute,
picketing, boycotting or otherwise interfering with a
private employer as the result of a dispute with a public
employer. It would prohibit a union from charging an
unreasonable service fee related to the cost of
representation and would provide that an employee may bring
such charges to the ALRA. Finally, it would prohibit a
public employee union and public employer from agreeing to
refrain from doing business with another employer.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if Section #8 would be similar to
the system used by the National Education Association (NEA).
Mr. Chance replied that it would require a separate
accounting.
Section #9 would provide that statements by legislators,
9
judges and certain municipal officials may not constitute
unfair labor practices so long as that person is not
specifically responsible for relations with employees.
Section #12 would narrow the scope of employees prohibited
from striking and would, thus, be subject to interest
arbitration.
Section #13 would narrow the scope of employees who can be
enjoined from striking, and thus, subject to interest
arbitration. It would add a class of residential care
employees to reflect changes in Pioneer Home to assisted
living. It would remove post-secondary education employees
from this class to a class three employee, mirroring K-12
teachers and other school employees.
Section #14 would reflect recent court holding that ferry
system employees are class three employees. It would
provide that an employee may lawfully strike only after an
impasse in bargaining.
Section #15 would provide a reliable means of selecting
arbitrators for interest arbitrations and would require that
they have Alaska or Pacific Northwest experience.
Section #16 would prohibit agreements longer than three
years and automatic renewal clauses. It would provide that
employees may resort to binding grievance arbitration only
under the terms of an agreement. Section #16 would prohibit
a labor organization that has failed to file required
financial reports from enforcing an agreement and would
require that the ALRA, rather than the Commissioner of
Administration, promulgate regulations governing residency
base pay differentials in recognition of the fact that the
Public Employee Relations Act (PERA) applies to all public
employers, not just the State.
Section #19 would establish arbitrating selection of
criteria for binding grievance arbitration and would require
Alaska or Pacific Northwest experience.
Section #20-#22 would increase Legislative oversight
authority over collective bargaining by:
* Defining monetary terms and adding terms
which address extensions, modifications and
interest for arbitrator's awards.
* The legislative body of a political
subdivision to review and approve the monetary
terms of an agreement.
10
* Providing that no monetary term is effective
or enforceable until approved by the Legislature
or the legislative body of a political
subdivision.
* Requiring the parties to resume negotiations
in the event of disapproval.
* Requiring the Commissioner of Administration
to report all State agreements, settlements and
arbitrators' awards costing over $10 thousand
dollars to the Legislative Budget and Audit (LBA)
Committee for review.
* Requiring the Commissioner of Administration
to report all agreements, settlements and
arbitrators' awards that substantively modify the
reported terms to the Legislature for approval.
* Empowering the legislative bodies of
political subdivisions to promulgate approval
procedures.
Section #23 would prohibit irrevocable check-off dues for
periods longer than one year and would explicitly provide
that check-off authorization must be voluntary and renewed
annually.
In response to Representative J. Davies' comment, Mr. Chance
noted that an ability to stop the delaying tactic was
available and would remain available under the "refuse to
bargaining charge" in a labor relations agency. The State
could hear those charges quite quickly. Representative J.
Davies pointed out there have been long term negotiations
and which were not heard quickly because of an unfair labor
practice. He asked if during the time of negotiations,
would there be a payment of fees. Mr. Chance replied that
would be determined by the parties.
(Tape Change HFC 97-131, Side 1).
Mr. Chance continued, Section #24 would prohibit check-offs
from service fee payers outside the term of an agreement and
would include the same irrevocability provisions. It would
require affirmative notice on the check-off form that
employees not be required as a condition of employment to be
or become a member of the union or to contribute financial
support to its social, political and fraternal activities.
Section #25 would clarify the definition of "monetary terms"
to include changes from the predecessor agreement or
statutory terms which would require the expenditure of
11
public money and would exempt certain types of employees
from the Act's coverage.
The major additions to the Act are modeled on the Taft-
Hartley and Landrum-Griffin amendments to the National Labor
Relations Act. These are essentially identical to the
requirements imposed on private sector unions bargaining
under that Act.
Section #27 would articulate the rights of union members to
participate democratically in the operation of the union.
It would require that service fee payers be allowed to vote
in contract ratification elections and other elections or
referendums which might effect a fee payer's terms and
conditions of employment. Also, it would require that dues
may only be increased in a democratic, secret ballot
election. The section would prohibit union restrictions on
member's right to sue the union and to participate in other
forms of adjudication. Mr. Chance concluded that Section
of their rights under this Act.
Article #4 would require public employee unions to register
with the Commissioner of Labor and report their structure
and finances. It would require annual financial reports by
public employee unions and disclosure of all expenditures
made for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an
election. It would require that such a report be maintained
in the State and be made available to members. Article #4
would also provide that a labor organization comply with the
reporting requirements by submitting a copy of the decision
or order with the Commissioner.
Article #5 would prohibit certain financial transactions,
including contribution to political campaigns, between
officer, agents and employees of unions and officers and
officials of public employers where the intent is to
influence the exercise to employees of their rights under
the Act.
Section 23.40.410 would exempt attorney-client and certain
deliberative communications from reporting and disclosure.
Section 23.40.420 would make reports a public record.
Section 23.40.430 would make violation of reporting
requirements a Class A misdemeanor.
Article #5 would prohibit certain financial transactions,
including contribution to political campaigns, between
officers, agents and employees of unions and officers and
officials of public employers where the intent is to
12
influence the exercise by employees of their rights under
the Act.
Section 23.40.620 would provide an exemption form reporting
requirements for labor organizations that are subject to the
federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
Section #30 would repeal all pre-PERA bargaining
authorization.
Section #33 would exempt established bargaining units in
political subdivision from the bargaining unit definition
changes in Section #4.
Representative Kelly questioned how the bill was formulated.
Mr. Chance replied that the bill has changed from it's
original form. That type of organization would be exempt
now except for providing a copy of their federal forms which
would be addressed in Section #27 and Section 23.46.20.
Representative Kelly referenced Section #23, and asked how a
trade union currently would address the situation. Mr.
Chance advised that very few trade unions have a service fee
arrangement. They mostly have membership arrangements which
is allowable under the federal law. Representative Kelly
asked if an employee had a member who was not forced to pay
the fee, between contracts, would the service payer be
exposed. Mr. Chance explained that in the process an
employer can not direct-deal with an employee who is in a
bargaining unit and who has a certified representative.
Also, all mandatory terms must be maintained at the status
quo until such time that there is a valid stated impasse.
At impasse, all bets end regarding terms and conditions.
Representative Kelly questioned the State's benefit with
inclusion of that clause. Mr. Chance stated that it would
guarantee that the parties negotiate a contract.
JOHN YARBOR, CONSULTANT, ALASKA STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to SB 151. He pointed out that
the State has had the same reporting requirements since the
late 1970's, and that the proposed legislation intends to
"correct". He questioned the need to rewrite PERA. The
legislation will reduce an employees right both politically
and for bargaining in good faith. He emphasized that the
legislation treads on individuals rights. It will most
certainly restrict correctional officers.
Representative Mulder pointed out that the legislation would
allow a choice in representation. Mr. Yarbor replied that
Section #4 would dictate which employees could work together
in the same bargaining unit. Representative Mulder
respectfully disagreed. He stated that there it is based on
13
logic and that there is a community of interest within the
units that deserve the opportunity to have their own unit
and interest represented.
Representative J. Davies asked if problems have resulted
with having different classification of employees. Mr.
Yarbor commented that he represents a specific community of
interest and that it would not be prudent for the State to
be bargaining with a larger number of units. Having three
units within one union makes for less expense to the State
and for the employee.
In response to Representative Mulder's query, Mr. Yarbor
commented that there are no elections scheduled. The Labor
Relations Board ruled that correctional officers were an
entity of their own and could, therefore, bargain their own
contract. Since that ruling, there has been no election
scheduled by the Labor Relations Board.
Representative Mulder suggested that at times ASEA develops
a split personality. He noted that correctional officers in
his community have expressed frustration with the fact that
they have different needs than clerical workers and would
prefer to have their own voice. He thought the best public
policy decision would be passage of the legislation.
Representative J. Davies countered that the best public
policy would be the one that would allow the most
flexibility, thus providing employees options.
DON ETHERIDGE, REPRESENTATIVE LOCAL 71, JUNEAU, voiced
opposition to the proposed legislation. He added that every
labor organization throughout the State of Alaska opposes
the legislation. He believed that the current system is not
broken and should not be fixed; it is protected by either
the federal government or by established court cases. The
State should not be involved in union operations.
Representative G. Davis pointed out that there have been
several court cases which indicate a need for clarification.
Mr. Etheridge stated that those areas are not the problem.
He noted that the good parts of the legislation have not
been included.
Representative Mulder asked if there were problems existing
in the bill which clarify what a union is and does for the
continued purpose of being protected through PERA. Mr.
Etheridge replied that many portions of the bill are
included in the union by-laws. He noted that the union
council is currently scrutinizing the prepared work draft.
Representative Mulder requested that those findings be
submitted to the Legislature, stressing that it was the
legislative intent to create a good public policy.
14
ED FLANAGAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, noted
that the Department opposes the proposed legislation because
it creates a cumbersome and unneeded new bureaucracy and
will disrupt rather than improve public sector labor
relations in the State of Alaska.
The so-called "modernization" is, in a large part, an
adoption of provisions of two federal laws, the Taft-Hartley
Act of 1947 and the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959, both of
which were extended at the time of PERA's enactment in 1972.
The Department would submit that the legislation understood
the ramification of those provisions in PERA.
Section #1 is a declaration of findings and purpose. The
Legislature finds that legislation is necessary to eliminate
or prevent improper practices on the part of labor
organizations, public employers and their officers or
representatives. He pointed out that in four public
hearings in three committees, the only person to speak in
support of the bill was the paid consultant to the House and
Senate Fiance Committees, and he did not provide evidence or
documentation to support the findings.
Section #2 would add a fifth "item not subject to
bargaining" which would allow political subdivisions under
PERA to limit the scope of collective bargaining by merely
passing an ordinance.
Section #4 is the most problematic section and would allow
individual employees to file grievances outside of the union
process, removing the "filtration" of non-meritorious
complaints which the union provides and would increase the
workload for public employers. It would also explode the
current bargaining unit system by prohibiting inclusion of
peace officers and non-peace officers and strike eligible
and non-strike eligible employees in the same unit which
would result in the State going from nine bargaining units
to twenty-one.
Section #6 would allow a single member of a bargaining unit
or the union representative of which was recognized by
consent to challenge, the appropriateness of the unit and
the majority status of the union.
Section #8 would remove from PERA even the reference to
allowing parties to bargain clauses requiring union
membership as an option or alternative to "service fees".
It also includes a number of irrelevant federal law
prohibitions on secondary boycotts, "hot cargo" clauses, and
recognition or jurisdictional strikes. Section #8 would put
the ALRA rather than the courts in the business of
15
adjudicating service fees for "dissenters" who do not wish
to support the political, social, or fraternal activities of
the union.
(Tape Change HFC 97-131, Side 2).
Mr. Flanagan continued, Section #9 could be construed to
prohibit "subcontracting clauses" in the public sector
agreements, which removes a "mandatory" subject of
bargaining from the table.
Sections #12, #13, and #14 would alter the current "classes"
of employees with regard to strike eligibility. Many
employees in institutions who are currently barred from
striking, such as food service, maintenance and custodial,
administrative and non-licensed medical personnel, would now
have the right to strike.
Section #15 would limit the "interest arbitrator" selection
to members of Federal Mediation Conciliation Service (FMCS),
precluding use of arbitrators who are only affiliated with
American Arbitrators Association (AAA).
Section #16 would prohibit "automatic renewal" of agreements
and would presumably prohibit parties from continuing to
work under the terms of an expired collective bargaining
agreement until a successor agreement is negotiated, a
precess which can take months or even years. This section
would terminate the grievance procedure during an interim
between contracts further promoting disharmonious labor
relations in direct contradiction to the declared purpose of
PERA and the legislation.
Mr. Flanagan explained the difference between Class I, 2,
and 3 employees. He pointed out that the public sector
employees do not have the right to strike in forty-nine
states; PERA allows for alternatives. Class 1 employees are
forbidden from striking with an alternative of binding
arbitration. Class 2 employees have a limited right to
strike and the employer can join the strike if it is in the
public's best interest. Current law provides some
flexibility of who should be able to strike, while this
legislation would eliminate that right.
Section #17 would transfer responsibility for establishing
cost-of-living allowance (COLA) for non-resident employees
from the Commissioner of Administration to ALRA.
Section #19 would prohibit parties from utilizing American
Arbitrator Association (AAA) arbitrators and would make the
arbitrator awards under PERA subject to the Administrative
Procedures Act for the purpose of appeal, thereby,
16
subjecting all awards to court review; current law only
allows for appeal to the court in the event of gross error
or violation of public policy. Increased litigation is not
in the best interest of either employers or employees.
Sections #20-22 expands legislative review and/or approval
to include arbitration awards (both interest and grievance),
contract extensions and modifications. Grievance
arbitration awards interpret and enforce contractual
commitments inherent in negotiated agreements which have
already been approved by the legislature.
Section #24 would end service fee payment by non-members
during any interim between agreements. In addition to
denying funds to a union at the time when collective
bargaining expenditures are likely to be at their highest, a
public employer wishing to break their union could do so by
protracting negotiations over a long period of time.
Section #25 would exclude temporary or non-permanent
employees from the definition of public employee, thereby,
denying them union representation or the benefits of a
collective bargaining provision. The bill drafter has
stated that the relationship of these employees, some of
whom work for the State or political subdivisions for years
before attaining permanent status to the bargaining unit is
"tangential". The Department strongly disagrees.
Section #27 adds new articles to PERA:
Article 3 goes beyond federal law in giving non-member
fee payers a right to vote in contract ratification
elections or dues referendums.
Article 4 would require extensive reporting by labor
organizations to the Commissioner of Labor of detailed
information regarding all aspects of the organization's
operations and finances. This section allows some
exemptions from the reporting requirements of AS
23.40.400 in which may rise issues of equal protection.
Article 6 contains the fore-mentioned exemption from
reporting requirements for unions filing with United
States Department of Labor (USDOL) under LMRDA.
Section #32 would grandfather existing political subdivision
bargaining units from the fragmenting effects. The
viability of this exemption in future proceedings regarding
unit clarification or challenges is unclear, since the
Agency will presumably be obliged to adhere to the revised
statute at that time.
17
Representative J. Davies MOVED that work draft, 0-LS0675\P,
Cramer, 5/08/97, be the version before the Committee. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
JIM SAMPSON, MAYOR, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, FAIRBANKS,
noted that the proposed legislation would cause long term
disruptions in labor/management negotiations. He pointed
out that the North Star Borough has been subject to the laws
of PERA since the legislation was introduced twenty-five
years ago.
Mr. Sampson warned that there has not been enough discussion
with public employers covered by the proposed act. Many
political subdivisions are not informed that this debate is
occurring. Mr. Sampson believed that the legislation would
cause excessive fragmentation in the bargaining units which
will cause serious problems for labor relations. The
legislation stills allows filing of grievances by employees
without going through the bargaining representatives. As an
employer, one does not want to deal with hundreds of
individuals, but rather an exclusive bargaining
representative.
Mr. Sampson respectfully disagreed with some of the findings
in the bill; specifically, the one which eliminates or
prevent proper practices for public employers. The
legislation would limit the labor board's ability to
classify employees under the act.
Representative Mulder pointed out that Section 17 of the
legislation reference to the FMCS. Mr. Sampson explained
that originally, the State of Alaska did not have qualified
and trained arbitrators. That was twenty-five years ago.
At the current time, the State does have the resources
necessary for qualified arbitrations to occur without going
outside to the Pacific Northwest. Alaska has used the
Federal Mediation Conciliation Services (FMCS) list for
years. Better decisions could be made by hiring people in
Alaska who understand the issues locally. He noted that the
American Arbitrator Association (AAA) would be his
preference as they understand our issues. Representative
Mulder noted that the intent of the legislation was how to
select an arbitrator.
Mr. Sampson stated that Section 14 does make reference to
AAA. He reiterated that the problem that the State has had
is that they do not use arbitrators who live in Alaska and
which results in lost arbitrations. Mr. Sampson stressed
that the proposed legislation was a full employment bill for
outside arbitrators.
18
Representative J. Davies questioned the financial impact
that the legislation would have on the municipalities. Mr.
Sampson responded that the smaller unit political
subdivisions would have much more work in retaining counsel
and arguing clarification petitions, often ending in
litigation in Supreme Court.
Representative J. Davies recommended that the Department of
Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) develop a fiscal note
on the proposed legislation. He knew that a number of
municipalities were not aware of discussion on the proposed
legislation and that it would have a significant impact on
them.
Representative Kelly asked if there were any advantages in
the proposed legislation. Mr. Sampson replied "not
particularly".
MIKE MCMULLEN, PERSONNEL MANAGER, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, noted that the Department's
fiscal note had not been passed to the House Finance
Committee from the Senate Body. That fiscal note remains
unchanged in both versions of the bill and needs to be
attached.
He explained that a new bargaining unit would be created.
Forming a bargaining unit results in submitting a petition.
The Public Safety Association filed such a petition during
an open period choosing separate officers as a separate
bargaining unit. The labor relations agency heard that
request and decided that the correctional officers have a
separate community of interest. Until the question of what
a unit is can be resolved, no election date can be
established.
Representative Mulder inquired if those costs were being
paid by the Department. Mr. McMullen explained that there
has been a flood of grievances. Representative Mulder asked
if Commissioner Boyer had developed a cost of living
allowance (COLA) in the past two years. Mr. McMullen noted
that the legislation which passed established the
definition.
Mr. McMullen commented that Amendment #1 would remove the
items from the bill which would cause the Department extra
work and the need for the fiscal note. [Copy on file].
(Tape Change HFC 97-132, Side 1).
In response to Representative Martin's comment regarding
arbitration selection, Mr. McMullen agreed with Mayor
Sampson that Alaska has a core of qualified arbitrators
19
developed over the past twenty-five years. He pointed out
that the State does use Alaska arbitrators. He agreed that
at the present time, the State could exclusively use Alaska
arbitrators. Representative Martin supported that change.
SB 151 (FIN)am was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 P.M.
20
**FIN129PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|