Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/29/2000 02:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(RLS) am
"An Act relating to legislative powers and
responsibility with respect to collective bargaining
agreements between the state and a labor or employee
organization representing state employees; and
providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:
Page 1, lines 5- 11:
Delete all material.
Page 1, line 12:
Delete "Sec. 2
Insert "Section 1
Page 2, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
Sec. 2. AS 23.40.250(4) is amended to read:
(4) "Monetary terms of an agreement" means the changes
in the terms and conditions of employment resulting
from an agreement that will require an appropriation
for their imp1ernentation [OR] will result in a change
in state revenues or productive work hours for state
employees;
(C) Address employee compensation leave benefits, or
health insurance benefits, whether or not an
appropriation is required for implementation.
MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained
that the amendment would delete section 1 and add a new
section, which would expand the definition of monetary
terms. Co-Chair Therriault noted that the definition of
monetary terms would be expanded to include items such as
leave cash-ins.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Representative Grussendorf noted that the legislation
contains a 45 day deadline in regards to submissions of
agreements to the legislature. He spoke in support of a 60-
day limit, which would be halfway through the statutory
legislative session limit.
KHRISTOPHER KNAUSS, STAFF, SENATOR PEARCE pointed out that
the original date was April 1. He clarified that the 45-day
deadline was substituted to allow action on rejection.
Co-Chair Therriault explained that under the current statute
the legislature would have to take action by the 60th day.
This assumes that the legislature would have had the
information previously. The 45-day period refers to the time
in which the information is provided to the legislature.
Representative J. Davies spoke in support of the 60 day
deadline. He maintained that 60 days would allow action in
either direction.
Representative Grussendorf MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3:
delete "45" and insert "60" on page 2, line 3.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that the language requiring a
concurrent resolution had been deleted.
Mr. Knauss observed the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that if
the legislature does not specifically fund the monetary
terms of a contract that they do not go into effect.
Representative Grussendorf observed that the Court was
addressing the university and added that the university is
not in the same position as the state because it does not
have the option to raise funds.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Mr. Knauss explained that the university expressed concern
that renegotiated contracts be considered as timely filed if
the original contract submission was timely.
Representative J. Davies questioned the meaning of "unless
otherwise authorized by the legislature." He asked if the
legislature would have to pass a resolution to address a
renegotiated contract. He suggested that language be added
to allow the legislature to consider a renegotiated contract
if it was timely filed.
Co-Chair Therriault stressed that the power of appropriation
is king and if a contract were funded then it would be
authorized. Representative J. Davies felt that the language
"unless otherwise authorized by the legislature" could open
the state to litigation.
Representative Phillips interpreted the language to refer to
previous action by the legislature. Representative J. Davies
argued that the final agreement would not have been
submitted timely. He felt that there needed to be explicit
acknowledgement.
Mr. Tibbles observed that legislative legal counsel did not
feel that a resolution was required to meet the requirement
of authorized by the legislature. He explained that a
temporary act would have to be introduced and passed to
accept something that is passed the deadline.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to delete "unless otherwise
authorized by the legislature" and "final" and change "the"
to "The". The legislation would be amended to read: "The
agreement shall be submitted to the legislature no later
then the 60th day of the legislative session." He concluded
that the amendment would eliminate the need to pass separate
legislation.
CSSB 269(RLS)am was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration during the meeting.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(RLS) am
"An Act relating to legislative powers and
responsibility with respect to collective bargaining
agreements between the state and a labor or employee
organization representing state employees; and
providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the committee changed 45th
day to 60th day. He observed that there is an amendment by
Representative J. Davies pending. The language being amended
addresses a concern by Senator Elton that if a rejected
contract was renegotiated after the deadline that it would
not receive consideration during the calendar year.
Representative J. Davies argued that if the contract was
submitted and then resubmitted that the argument could be
made that it was timely. He added that it would be unlikely
that action by the legislature to approve an appropriation
would be rejected.
TERRY CRAMER, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
AGENCY provided information on the legislation. She observed
that the language does not give guidance about what is
intended to be authorization. She agreed that the court
gives deference to the legislature in matters that are
within their purview. She observed that the legislature
could manifest their authorization by appropriating money
and did not think that the courts would rule that contract
monetary terms that were appropriated by the legislature did
not take effect. She added that the language does not guide
future legislatures in how they are to go about authorizing
monetary terms.
Co-Chair Therriault referred to the use of "final". Ms.
Cramer explained that the current statute requires that the
Department of Administration submit monetary terms within 10
days. The new language changes this to the final agreement.
She was unsure of the meaning of final.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if "ratified" would provide
clarification. Ms. Cramer responded that "ratified" would
work if the intent is to have the contract ratified by the
employees.
Representative J. Davies referred to page 1, line 6. He
observed that the collective bargaining provisions modify
"agreement".
Ms. Cramer observed that statutes require that the monetary
terms of agreements be submitted to the legislature. She
asked for clarification of "final" agreement and questioned
if a final agreement would have to have already been
ratified or is an agreement reached by the union and state
negotiators that was to be submitted to the legislature for
approval of monetary terms and the membership for approval
of the contract as a whole.
Representative J. Davies suggested the use of "tentative".
Ms. Cramer stated that the statutory language does not speak
to the "tentative agreement".
Co-Chair Therriault observed that Senator Parnell expressed
concern over the deletion of "final". Mr. Tibbles clarified
that Senator Parnell felt that the final agreement would
contain the entire package. Co-Chair Therriault observed
that sick leave information was not received because it was
not considered as part of the monetary agreement.
Vice Chair Bunde asked when is an agreement an agreement. He
questioned if it is a new agreement every time there is a
change. Ms. Cramer responded that it would be possible to
argue that every change constitutes a new agreement, but
that it would not be a strong argument. Vice Chair Bunde
clarified that it is not his intent that every change is
considered as a new agreement. He asked if "tentative" would
solve the issue. Ms. Cramer agreed that it would reduce
ambiguity. He noted that a sentence could be added to
specifically address the circumstances: "When an agreement
has been presented to the legislature and the parties
perceive that the legislature disapproves it, and goes back
to the table to renegotiate, if the first submission was
filled in a timely fashion anything later counts as timely
filled."
Representative J. Davies agreed with Ms. Cramer and added
that a sentence could be added that states: "Except that the
legislature may consider a resubmitted agreement if it was
originally submitted timely and has been perceived to be
rejected, renegotiated and resubmitted."
Representative G. Davis suggested that agreements are
amending an initial contract. Ms. Cramer observed that the
Public Employment Act uses "agreement" in place of
"contract".
Representative J. Davies reviewed his conceptual amendment
(see amendment 1-LS1386\KA.7). He observed that "unless
otherwise authorized" is undefined. He clarified that his
amendment would address all the terms: monetary and non-
monetary.
SB 269 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration and amendments.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(RLS) am
"An Act relating to legislative powers and
responsibility with respect to collective bargaining
agreements between the state and a labor or employee
organization representing state employees; and
providing for an effective date."
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1-
LS1386\KA.7:
The complete monetary and nonmonetary terms of a
tentative agreement shall be submitted to the
legislature no later than the 60th day of the
legislative session to receive legislative
consideration during that calendar year. However, if
the department has submitted a tentative agreement in a
timely manner and the parties to the agreement decide
to renegotiate the terms, the renegotiated agreement
shall be considered to have been submitted in a timely
manner. In this subsection, "tentative agreement"
means an agreement that has been reached by the
negotiators for the employer and the bargaining unit
but that has not yet been ratified by the members of
the bargaining unit.
Representative J. Davies argued that the agreement is
tentative until the membership and the legislature have
approved the agreement. He suggested that "or approved by
the legislature" be added at the end of line 10 and line 9
be changed from "has" to "may". Ms. Cramer argued that "or
approved by the legislature" was unnecessary. Co-Chair
Therriault pointed out that "have" should be placed before
"been".
Representative J. Davies MOVED to ADOPT the amendment as
amended to change "has" to "may" and insert "have" before
"been". There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to report HCS CSSB 269 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 269 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a zero
fiscal note by the Department of Administration, published
date 3/6/00.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|