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.