Legislature(1997 - 1998)

04/01/1997 02:20 PM STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- TIME CHANGE --
UPON SENATE ADJOURNMENT
*+ SB 150 PUB. EMPLOYEES: MOVING, COMP TIME & PERS TELECONFERENCED
*+ SB 151 PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT LABOR RELATIONS TELECONFERENCED
HB 65
<PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED BILLS>
txt
        SB 150 PUB. EMPLOYEES: MOVING, COMP TIME & PERS                       
                              and                                              
           SB 151 PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT LABOR RELATIONS                           
                                                                              
 The committee took up SB 150 and SB 151.                                      
                                                                               
  CHAIR GREEN  announced a brief at-ease.  When the meeting came back          
 to order,  CHAIR GREEN  notified committee members that neither the           
 person who was scheduled to explain the bills, nor a representative           
 of the Administration, was present to testify at this time.  She              
 asked Mr. Ludwig if he would like to present his testimony.                   
                                                                               
  BRUCE LUDWIG , Business Manager of the Alaska Public Employees               
 Association, and Secretary-Treasurer of the State AFL-CIO, made the           
 following comments on SB 150.  Even though he does not believe in             
 trying to make a bad piece of legislation better, he is unable to             
 ignore this bill because it will do bad things to good people.  SB
 150 is one of the worst pieces of legislation he has ever seen.               
 There is some room for improvement in the way unions operate, along           
 the lines of auditing or other controls, however SB 150 is designed           
 to hit a gnat with a sledgehammer.  Every section of the bill                 
 contains problems, and some of it makes no sense at all.                      
                                                                               
 Mr. Ludwig said he did not understand why the Legislature would               
 bother with SB 150 since it will only affect the moving expenses of           
 a few employees. The union has language in its contract that allows           
 it to bargain the right for reimbursement of moving expenses for              
 employees under certain circumstances.  To get that right, the                
 union gave up other provisions of the contract during negotiations.           
 SB 150 would prohibit the union from bargaining for moving expenses           
 any time there is a voluntary nature to the transfer.                         
                                                                               
 Mr. Ludwig felt the provision regarding compensatory time to be               
 confusing and circular and is intended to take overtime                       
 compensation away from PERS employees.  Many state employees rely             
 heavily on overtime wages.  University blue collar workers work               
 overtime for two weeks during the winter break and consider those             
 wages as part of their annual wage.  Mr. Ludwig said if Mayor                 
 Mystrom has a problem with overtime for the Anchorage police, he              
 ought to put controls on it, not pass the problem on and affect               
 other people.                                                                 
                                                                               
 Regarding SB 151, Mr. Ludwig said parts of the bill are not                   
 problematic, others are ludicrous.   SB 151 provides that a union             
 that represents police officers cannot represent public employees             
 and a union cannot represent police officers if it represents                 
 public employees.  The definition in the bill includes a                      
 prohibition on representation by a national union.  ASEA is                   
 affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, which covers             
 police officers in some of their bargaining units outside, as well            
 as non-police officers. The only two unions that would fit under              
 the requirements in SB 151 are the Public Safety Employees'                   
 Association, that is made up of peace officers, and the NEA, which            
 has no peace officers. Mr. Ludwig believed the fact that ASEA would           
 be precluded from representing employees is unconstitutional.  The            
 Alaska Supreme Court ruled, in a case in the mid 1970s when the               
 Kenai Borough allowed employees to form a union but not to                    
 affiliate with a bigger union, that the Borough was violating the             
 constitutional right to associate.                                            
                                                                               
 Another part of the bill requires bargaining units to be split out            
 based on class, arbitration classes, and whether the employees are            
 peace officers.  That provision would probably create five or six             
 other bargaining units within the state government, and a lot more            
 within political subdivisions.  For example, ASEA represents the              
 police officers in the City of Fairbanks.  Clerks and dispatchers             
 also belong to that unit.  Several bargaining units would have to             
 be created and the City of Fairbanks would have to spend more                 
 resources bargaining.  Likewise, the City of Petersburg has one               
 bargaining unit for all city employees.  That unit would have to be           
 split into two or three units.  In the past, the City of Petersburg           
 has hired outside management consultants to negotiate at a cost of            
 $80,000 to $100,000 per contract.  Under SB 151 that cost could               
 increase to $300,000.                                                         
                                                                               
 Mr. Ludwig noted Section 6 pertains to what an employer can do to             
 de-certify a union but does not require the employer to provide a             
 showing of interest or to sign a sworn statement.  Under current              
 law, to force an election, the union must collect cards from 30               
 percent of the members.  The employer should be required to provide           
 some proof that the union represents the majority's interests.                
                                                                               
 Section 7 deals with mutual recognition and allows one employee to            
 force an election.  Mr. Ludwig suggested allowing the Labor                   
 Relations Agency to determine whether a question of representation            
 exists before the expense of an election is incurred.                         
                                                                               
 Section 8, as well as other sections, refers to AS 23.40.400, and             
 creates a very burdensome system of financial disclosure.  If SB
 151 passes, ASEA would have to provide receipts for every penny it            
 spends.  He believed that requirement is an infringement upon                 
 employees' right to organize.                                                 
                                                                               
  SENATOR MACKIE  asked Mr. Ludwig which section he was referring to.          
  MR. LUDWIG  thought that requirement started in Section 36.  He              
 explained Section 8 prohibits a union from representing employees             
 unless it fulfills the requirements of AS 23.40.400.   CHAIR GREEN            
 clarified Mr. Ludwig was referring to page 5, line 30.                        
                                                                               
  MR. LUDWIG  questioned Section 9 of SB 151 since it is inappropriate         
 for an employer to take sides or aid and assist a union.  Unions              
 often negotiate a release time for employees.   For instance, in              
 almost all bargaining units, employee representatives are allowed             
 time off to investigate grievances, which is beneficial to both               
 management and employees.  In University negotiations, employees              
 gave up one holiday in exchange for a leave bank for the                      
 investigation time.  He questioned whether those employees will               
 regain the holiday time they traded if SB 151 passes.                         
                                                                               
 Section 10 seems to absolve legislators or city councils of any               
 responsibility for their conduct when it relates to a union.  If an           
 entire city council decided against union representation or a                 
 particular business agent in its town, it should be held                      
 accountable for its actions.  The elected officials provide                   
 guidelines to negotiators and have final approval to reject or                
 accept a contract.                                                            
                                                                               
 Sections 19 and 20 determine who can/cannot strike and the                    
 allowable time periods for strikes.  One group omitted from class             
 1 employees, those who cannot strike, are the youth corrections and           
 parole and probation officers.  Mr. Ludwig believed those                     
 professions should be included as they are an integral part of the            
 criminal justice system.                                                      
                                                                               
 Section 21 will not impact the state workload substantially, but              
 will impact smaller towns because they will need three or four                
 contracts.  Section 28 addresses the arbitration process and                  
 requires any decision by an arbitrator to be public record.  Mr.              
 Ludwig felt any violation of a contract provision can be heard in             
 arbitration, including disciplinary actions.  AS 39, the                      
 confidentiality statute, establishes that certain information                 
 remain confidential.                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 295                                                                    
                                                                               
  SENATOR MACKIE  asked which section Mr. Ludwig was referring to.             
 Mr. Ludwig noted he was referring to Section 29.   SENATOR MACKIE             
 asked Mr. Ludwig if he had the committee substitute.  Mr. Ludwig              
 replied he did not.                                                           
                                                                               
  SENATOR WARD  moved to adopt CSSB 151 (STA).   SENATOR MACKIE  asked         
 if anyone was present to explain the changes made in the committee            
 substitute.   CHAIR GREEN  explained the committee was waiting for            
 the sponsor to arrive, and noted the current witness would be able            
 to testify again on the committee substitute after the sponsor                
 explained the measure.                                                        
  SENATOR DUNCAN  questioned when the committee substitute was                 
 distributed.   CHAIR GREEN  replied it was available that morning.            
                                                                               
  MR. LUDWIG  continued.  Sections 32 and 33 require employees to sign         
 up for a new dues deduction annually.  Currently, all ASEA                    
 contracts in the State have an agency-shop clause.  That clause               
 requires employees to either belong to the union or pay an agency             
 fee to contribute to the cost of administering the contract. This             
 requirement is problematic for ASEA because employees are not                 
 always willing to part with their money.  He believed this                    
 provision to be the crux of the legislation: to create problems for           
 unions.  He suggested this requirement will create problems for               
 more than just unions, because rather than go through several steps           
 to collect dues or an agency fee clause from employees before                 
 terminating them, the union will ask the Division of Personnel to             
 act as its collection agency.                                                 
                                                                               
 Section 34 includes the definition of an employee but specifically            
 excludes temporaries, non-permanents, and part-time employees who             
 work less than 20 hours.  Mr. Ludwig said ASEA has currently filed            
 cards for a University bargaining unit, the adjunct faculty                   
 employees, who may teach only one class per semester.  Section 34             
 would disenfranchise that entire bargaining unit, and another 5,000           
 to 7,000 employees who currently enjoy collective bargaining                  
 rights.  It would also exclude a significant number of people                 
 working in the personnel community who belong to a bargaining unit            
 that is not affiliated with anyone else.                                      
                                                                               
 Mr. Ludwig concluded his testimony by explaining that Section 37              
 and the remainder of the bill deal with reporting requirements.  He           
 said ASEA is required, by its national union, to have an annual               
 audit conducted by a CPA, and to provide a copy to the national               
 union.  Any union member is allowed to review those audits.  He               
 questioned why the Legislature would require ASEA to spend staff              
 time copying receipts that no one will ever look at.  He felt that            
 section to be unnecessary, unreasonable, and unconstitutional.                
                                                                               
 Number 369                                                                    
                                                                               
  JOHN CYR , President of the National Education Association - Alaska          
 (NEA), stated many of NEA's concerns are the same as those                    
 addressed by Mr. Ludwig, so he would focus his remarks on                     
 additional concerns.   He questioned whether Section 2, which                 
 refers to a political subdivision that participates in collective             
 bargaining, would include a school board and whether a school board           
 could abrogate a contract it has negotiated with its employees via            
 a policy decision.  He also questioned whether NEA would have to              
 negotiate with both the school board and the city assembly, if the            
 phrase "political subdivision" refers to the city assembly.  NEA is           
 unclear how that section would be applied and how the process would           
 work.                                                                         
                                                                               
 Regarding Section 6, lines 10-12, Mr. Cyr asked whether current law           
 is being changed and how NEA would establish bargaining units with            
 school districts.  He questioned what the school district would               
 have to show, and whether the employer would have the right to                
 interfere with the union on a continuing basis.                               
                                                                               
 Mr. Cyr asked if one member could call for an election under                  
 Section 7 and whether a petition would have to be submitted to the            
 Labor Relations Board.  He said he could foresee an election being            
 requested after an unpopular contract has been approved.                      
                                                                               
 In regard to Section 9 which provides that service fees can only              
 include reimbursement for collective bargaining activities, Mr. Cyr           
 explained NEA has an annual arbitration during which an arbiter               
 reviews all of NEA's books.  Some of NEA's activities are non-                
 chargeable, for example, membership recruitment, political action,            
 public relations, lobbying and legal fees.  For those who elect not           
 to become members, NEA charges an amount determined by the arbiter            
 which covers the bargaining service, contract enforcement, and                
 grievances for non-members.  He questioned whether NEA would be               
 obligated to represent non-members and to process their grievances.           
                                                                               
 Mr. Cyr said when NEA bargains a contract with a school district,             
 it bargains with the school board.  He questioned how Section 29              
 will impact the current process.                                              
                                                                               
 Mr. Cyr felt Section 32, which requires a yearly membership, will             
 not affect union membership substantially, but will seriously                 
 impact what NEA can accomplish because more time will be required             
 to process annual memberships.  Without that requirement, NEA is              
 able to spend more time focussing on educational issues that impact           
 students.                                                                     
                                                                               
 Section 34 will deny NEA membership to many of its employees,                 
 primarily to those who need NEA's help the most; those at the                 
 bottom of the pay scale.  He did not understand why the Legislature           
 would want to deny the ability to join a union to employees only              
 because they work 18 hours per week.                                          
                                                                               
 Mr. Cyr addressed Article 3, page 21, Section 23.40.300, and stated           
 his belief that the right of membership is the right to vote on the           
 bargaining contract and the policies and provisions of the                    
 association or union itself and should not be extended to non-                
 members.  On page 22, Section 23.40.310, Mr. Cyr noted the                    
 membership dues provision appears to require a full membership vote           
 on dues.  That provision does not pose a problem for the local                
 branches because their memberships are less than 3,000, but the               
 dues structure for NEA-Alaska is set by representatives from each             
 of the local agencies.  For NEA to hold an election of 10,000                 
 members will be expensive and counterproductive.                              
                                                                               
 Mr. Cyr clarified copies of the collective bargaining unit                    
 agreement are already made public, as required in Section 23.40.230           
 on page 23.  He questioned whose responsibility it is to make those           
 agreements available.  Currently, that function is bargained in               
 most units, and is done by either the school district, NEA or                 
 jointly.  NEA believes that function should remain a subject of               
 bargaining.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Mr. Cyr discussed Article 4 which pertains to disclosure.  NEA is             
 a private corporation and provides full disclosure to shareholders            
 and members.  NEA's annual audit report is made available to both.            
 He questioned whether Article 4 will conflict with a private                  
 company's right to privacy among shareholders.  Mr. Cyr believed              
 the requirement in lines 28-31 is already covered under APOC.                 
                                                                               
 Mr. Cyr said the remainder of the bill, beginning with Section                
 23.40.410, is language from the National Labor Relations Act, and             
 is problematic because it would place NEA under certain sections of           
 that Act, but not all.  If NEA is to be included under Landrum-               
 Griffith, it believes it should have all of the rights accorded to            
 any private sector union.  NEA is under PERA as the result of a 20-           
 year struggle to come to some kind of finality in bargaining.                 
 Prior to that time, NEA was under Section 14.  The Legislature and            
 all parties involved compromised by agreeing on PERA.  The                    
 bargained agreements around the State have not hurt school                    
 districts, and have been very reasonable; in all but one instance,            
 they have been arrived at in an amicable fashion.                             
                                                                               
 Number 526                                                                    
                                                                               
    SENATOR WARD  moved to adopt CSSB 151(STA).  There being no                
 objection, the motion carried.                                                
                                                                               
  ART CHANCE,  a consultant to the Senate Finance Committee, prefaced          
 his commentary with a history of the original act as follows.                 
                                                                               
 [THE FOLLOWING TESTIMONY IS VERBATIM]                                         
                                                                               
 "If you look at the litigation and disputes that have occurred                
 under the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA) you will find                
 several statements by Courts where they say it has no legislative             
 history.  It actually has very little, but there is an anecdotal              
 history of the law.  It was introduced in 1972 as a committee                 
 substitute in the Senate Judiciary Committee for a rather                     
 inconsequential bill on imposing some filing requirement on                   
 workers' compensation.  It basically sprung from whole cloth.                 
 There was minimal debate in that committee where the original                 
 exclusion of teachers and non-certificated employees of school                
 districts took place.  There was a session law enacted that said              
 that certain political subdivisions under certain circumstances               
 could opt out and there was virtually no debate.  Research                    
 indicates the law was very similar to a piece of model legislation            
 that was floating around at that time - very similar to the Hawaii            
 law as it existed in the early 70's - very similar to the Rhode               
 Island law that existed in the early 70's; both of which have been            
 extensively modified since that time.                                         
                                                                               
 PERA has only been amended, in any consequential manner, three                
 times since it was enacted 25 years ago.  The piece in Section 210            
 imposed a cost-of-living differential on certain employees.  The              
 piece in Section 215, which came at the behest of the Blue Ribbon             
 Committee of the late 70's, which attempted to resolve some of the            
 issues of legislative oversight of the bargaining process.  It was            
 an attempt which has not been uniformly successful.  There have               
 been minor modifications to incorporate other enactments such as              
 family leave and injured workers, and then, I believe, a 1993                 
 amendment to the Act where teachers were brought under the Act and            
 some additions were made to accommodate their particular                      
 circumstances.  With the exception of Section 200, or 23.40.200,              
 very much like the original Wagner Act which was the first version            
 of the National Labor Relations Act passed in 1935 - Section 200 is           
 about the only portion which is different in - the section of the             
 law is 23.40.200, not a section in the bill - about the only part             
 which is really different from private sector organizing and                  
 collective bargaining rights and duties as it was envisioned in               
 1935.                                                                         
                                                                               
 By contrast, the National Labor Relations Act has been extensively            
 amended, both in 1947 with what are called the Taft-Hartley                   
 amendments, and then in 1959 with what are called the Landrum-                
 Griffin amendments, or the Labor and Management Reporting and                 
 Disclosure Act.  So you have essentially two bills which start kind           
 of in the same place but which have a very different history.  What           
 was sought to be accomplished in this process was to try to bring             
 about the lessons of 25 years of disputes and adjudication under              
 PERA and 60 years of disputes and adjudications under the National            
 Labor Relations Act and try to tailor it to the circumstances of a            
 modern workplace.  As we all know the workplace for the State of              
 Alaska, and its political subdivisions, changed dramatically in 25            
 years and certainly the workplace has changed dramatically in the             
 60 years since the original Wagner Act, from which PERA springs,              
 was originally enacted.                                                       
                                                                               
  SENATOR DUNCAN :  I just want to get those dates straight - so, I            
 guess - I just want to be sure I understood the dates you're                  
 referring to - this has been billed as a modernization of the Labor           
 Employment Relations Act, and the modernization of an Act that was            
 passed in 1972 is being based on an Act that was passed first in              
 1935 and then secondly in 1959.  That's modernization?                        
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE :  I'm trying to respond a bit less argumentatively and           
 my answer to the question - none of the then, fairly modern changes           
 in the National Labor Relations Act, were incorporated in PERA when           
 it was originally passed in 1972 - none of the provisions of the              
 changes in the National Labor Relations Act.  There are significant           
 other modifications based on case law, particularly court                     
 decisions, Labor Relations Agency and National Labor Relations                
 Board, which depending on exactly how one would define as modern,             
 are fairly recent.  I could probably really bore everybody by going           
 through section by section.  I will try to hit only the major                 
 sections.                                                                     
                                                                               
 I don't think the CS, which I haven't had the opportunity to go               
 through and incorporate all of the line changes, changes the                  
 section numbers until we get to the back of the Act, so I will try            
 to keep that straight if you will help me, because I've not been              
 able to change my notes.  And again - I'll highlight pieces and               
 I'll entertain any questions afterwards.                                      
                                                                               
 Section 2 provides that parties may not negotiate terms contrary to           
 a statute except as such terms are specifically made subject to               
 bargaining by the Act.  That's fairly self-explanatory.                       
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-16, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE  continued.                                                       
                                                                               
 ...be bargained the Legislature gives that power.  Some things                
 cannot be unless the Legislature has specifically given that power.           
                                                                               
 Section 3 is just a statement of the retained rights of managerial            
 control and prerogatives by public employers and that is                      
 essentially to require that any diminution or abrogation of those             
 rights by a public employer is to be narrowly construed by                    
 arbitrators, the Labor Relations Agency, or the Courts, analogous             
 to a management's rights clause provision in a contract.                      
                                                                               
 Section 5 incorporates Alaska Labor Relations Agency regulations              
 and decisions regarding composition of bargaining units and adds              
 definitions of supervisory, confidential, and law enforcement                 
 employees based on ALRA decisions.  These are based directly - the            
 definitions of confidential and supervisory are those which already           
 exist in the Labor Relations Agency regulations.  It requires that            
 peace officers, including correctional officers, must be separate             
 [indisc.].  This mirrors the guards units provisions in the federal           
 National Labor Relations Act.                                                 
                                                                               
 Section 6 reflects our decisions in federal law in permitting                 
 public employers to challenge the composition of a bargaining unit            
 and the question of majority status and immunity.  That is already            
 a matter of regulation but it is also a matter of considerable                
 controversy as to how that comes about.  It does not allow - I                
 listened to one person testify - one person at any time to disrupt            
 the unit.  One person could petition the agency in the case of a              
 mutual recognition but only in that circumstance and then the                 
 agency could rule on that petition based upon its regulatory                  
 authorities.                                                                  
                                                                               
 Section 9 makes it an unfair labor practice for a public employer             
 to contribute financial or other support to a union and that's                
 taken almost directly, word for word, from the federal law.  I do             
 not believe that the union business league schemes, which many                
 organizations use, would be in conflict with this because that is             
 just the means whereby the employee contributes to the support of             
 the union with the employer only as an intermediary.  However, a              
 direct contribution by the employer would violate this.  Section 9            
 also allows a public employer to confer with its employees over               
 work-related matters without incurring unfair labor practice                  
 charges.  This is predicated on the National Labor Relations Board            
 decision in the Electromation Corporation case which prohibited               
 such management techniques as quality circles and work teams.                 
 There have been complaints filed under the theory of this case                
 before the Alaska Labor Relations Agency, but none have yet been              
 decided.  There has not been an on-point case directly in this                
 jurisdiction but the domination and interference language of PERA             
 is the same as that under the federal law.  Section 9 also                    
 eliminates the current law's authorization for compulsory                     
 membership, retaining the authorization for compulsory fees for               
 collective bargaining services.  This is based on a long line of              
 Supreme Court cases holding that an employee may not be compelled             
 to contribute to a union's social, political, or fraternal                    
 activities as a condition of employment.  I don't like to make                
 conclusions as to how something might come out above the Court, but           
 certainly - before a Court - but certainly everytime similar                  
 language has been before a Court it has been found                            
 unconstitutional.  This section also prohibits a union from                   
 involving a secondary employer in a labor dispute that's picketing,           
 boycotting, or otherwise interfering with a private employer's                
 result of a dispute with a public employer.  This is based on the             
 federal secondary boycott and hot cargo provision. [INDISC] not               
 reasonably related to the cost of providing representation and                
 provides that an employee may bring such charges to the Labor                 
 Relations Agency.  This is based on court cases, principally Hudson           
 v. Chicago Teachers Union and Beck v. Communications Workers,                 
 holding that fee payers may only be compelled for the cost of                 
 collective bargaining and grievance adjustments.  It prohibits the            
 union and an employer from agreeing to refrain from doing business            
 with another employer and this is also based on federal secondary             
 boycott and hot cargo provisions.                                             
                                                                               
 Section 10 provides that statements by legislators, judges, and               
 certain municipal officials may not constitute an unfair labor                
 practice, so long as that person is not specifically responsible              
 for relations with employees.                                                 
                                                                               
 Section 19 narrows the scope of employees prohibited from striking            
 ...                                                                           
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN GREEN :  In the CS I think part of the language you were            
 looking for was added under 18.                                               
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE :  Okay I'll go back and explain that ...                         
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN GREEN :  Correct me if I'm wrong.                                   
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE:   Yes, that is the added language in Section 18 and I'll         
 explain that.  Labor relations is a fairly arcane body of                     
 knowledge.  There are only certain people who have the experience             
 to be a practitioner in that.  The Administrative Procedure Act               
 specifically requires that a hearing examiner or a hearing officer            
 under the APA must be an attorney.  This empowers the Labor                   
 Relations Agency to seek out people such as panel arbitrators or              
 other labor relations professionals to hear disputes as a hearing             
 officer, rather than solely limit it to attorneys.                            
                                                                               
 Section 20 narrows the scope of employees who can be enjoined from            
 striking.  This is so-called Class 2 and it adds the class of                 
 residential care employees to reflect changes in pioneer home                 
 missions to assisted living.  Previously all of those were                    
 considered Class 1.  That's probably a designation that wouldn't              
 stand scrutiny with the new structure of the Pioneer Homes.  It               
 also removes postsecondary education employees from Class 2 to                
 Class 3, such as K-12 teachers are already placed.                            
                                                                               
  SENATOR MACKIE:   Madam Chair, there was one question earlier from           
 a previous witness that asked about youth correction facilities and           
 other things.  Are those ...                                                  
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE :  They've in the past been considered to be - I think            
 the language in Section 200(a)(1) talks about jail, prison, and               
 other kinds of employees.  They've been considered Class 1                    
 historically under that jail and prison definition.  I'm not going            
 to sit here and guarantee how a court might see that but they have            
 historically been considered, even though the term is not used - we           
 like to say youth correction facility rather than kiddie jail, but            
 most people would recognize kiddie jail.  They have been considered           
 to be jail or prison employees in the past and are Class 1                    
 employees now.  Certain probation officers - if I recall the                  
 question - there was also some concern about probation officers.              
 Institutional probation officers currently are, as jail or prison             
 employees, Class 1, non-institutional, are not now to my knowledge.           
                                                                               
  SENATOR MACKIE :  If I can ask one other question and that is -              
 there were a number of sections that there were questions asked               
 about - did you happen to note those and when you're done going               
 through the CS do you intend to address those questions?                      
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE :  I'll try.                                                      
                                                                               
  SENATOR MACKIE :  Okay then I don't need to - I won't raise them as          
 we go then.                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN GREEN :  I think it would be better if we could just get            
 through the testimony and then come back ...                                  
                                                                               
  SENATOR MACKIE :  If you could eventually address the questions that         
 were raised by previous witnesses then I won't interrupt you                  
 anymore.                                                                      
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE:   I'll try.  Section 21 reflects a recent court holding          
 that ferry system employees are Class 3 employees.  There's been              
 some controversy over that between two and three and it states                
 explicitly that employees may only lawfully strike after an impasse           
 in bargaining.                                                                
                                                                               
 Section 22 provides a reliable means of selecting arbitrators for             
 interest arbitration [INDISC.] if they have specific Alaska or                
 Pacific Northwest experience.  Interest arbitration is arbitration            
 to seek a success or agreement.  It is not the arbitration of a               
 grievance arising under a contract.  But where the parties - in our           
 case employees who cannot strike - where the parties cannot arrive            
 at a voluntary agreement they have a right to go to what's called             
 interest arbitration and the arbitrator sets the terms of the                 
 success or agreement subject to legislative approval.  It just sets           
 out a reliable criteria.  There have been disputes in the past over           
 how you select the arbitrator; it's based on a pretty common                  
 selection process but does require that they have Alaska or Pacific           
 Northwest experience.                                                         
                                                                               
 Section 24 prohibits agreements longer than three years and                   
 automatic renewal clauses.  It provides that employees may resort             
 to a binding grievance arbitration only under the terms of an                 
 agreement.  It prohibits a labor organization that has failed to              
 file required financial reports from enforcing the agreement.  It             
 requires the Labor Relations Agency, rather than the Commissioner             
 of Administration, will promulgate regulations governing residency-           
 based pay differentials in recognition of the fact that the PERA              
 applies to all public employers, not just to the State.                       
                                                                               
 Section 27 establishes arbitrator selection criteria for binding              
 grievance arbitration and requires Alaska-Pacific Northwest                   
 experience.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Sections 29 - 31 increase legislative oversight authority over                
 collective bargaining by doing the following things:  define                  
 monetary terms to include extensions, modifications, and interest             
 arbitrator's awards; it specifically empowers the legislative body            
 of a political subdivision to review and approve the monetary terms           
 of an agreement. And, to try to answer a question earlier - that's            
 predicated on the authority to appropriate - that's what Section              
 215 is - so whatever body of a political subdivision has the                  
 authority to appropriate would have that authority.   It provides             
 that no monetary term is effective or enforceable until approved by           
 the Legislature or the legislative body of a political subdivision.           
 That captures what the courts have already said - a similar case on           
 that having been Local 71 v. State in the mid 80's.   It requires             
 the parties to resume negotiations in the event of legislative                
 disapproval of a contract.  That resumption of negotiations may be            
 just long enough to say we don't have anything else to talk about             
 and we are at impasse.  But at least it requires that the parties             
 get face-to-face and arrive at proper impasse as the rest of the              
 law would require before parties could use whatever means are                 
 available to them, such as implementation or strike.  For the State           
 only it requires the Commissioner of Administration to report all             
 State agreements, settlements, arbitrator's awards costing over               
 $10,000 to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee for review.             
 That is not an approval authority, but only a review.  Requiring              
 the Commissioner of Administration to report all agreements,                  
 settlements and arbitrator's awards that substantively modify the             
 reported terms to the Legislature for approval and it empowers the            
 legislative bodies of political subdivisions to promulgate approval           
 procedures consistent with the Act.                                           
                                                                               
 Section 32 prohibits irrevocable dues check-offs for periods longer           
 than one year and provides explicitly that check-off authorizations           
 must be voluntary and renewed annually.  Section 33 prohibits                 
 check-offs from service fee payers outside the term on an agreement           
 and includes the same irrevocability provisions.  It requires                 
 affirmative notice on the check-off form that employees may not be            
 required, as a condition of employment, to be or become, a member             
 of the union or to contribute financial supports for social,                  
 political, or fraternal activities.  This is based on the Supreme             
 Court's decision in Beck v. Communication Workers.                            
                                                                               
 Section 34 clarifies the definition of monetary terms to include              
 changes from the predecessor agreement or statutory terms which               
 will require the expenditure of public money.  There have been many           
 arguments in several court cases in the past over what constitutes            
 a change or what requires an appropriation and the words in the               
 current law mean.  This tries to be a little more explicit.  It               
 exempts certain types of employees from the Act's coverage                    
 including temporary and non-permanent employees, part-time                    
 employees who work less than 20 hours per week, legislative                   
 employees, employees responsible for certain collective bargaining            
 activities, and certain employees of the legislative bodies of                
 political subdivisions and of the Courts.  It also includes                   
 employer groups in the definition of public employer.                         
                                                                               
 The following things could be considered additions to the Act                 
 whereas everything that's gone before it is a change in some pre-             
 existing portion.  They are all modelled, as some people hinted at            
 earlier, on the Taft-Hartman and Landrum-Griffin amendments to the            
 National Labor Relations Act and as much as they can be,                      
 recognizing the fact that this is a public employer and the                   
 National Labor Relations Act applies to private employers, they               
 mirror as close to exactly as we could.  It is petitioned                     
 differently so most of my comments apply in groups and they go by             
 Article.                                                                      
                                                                               
 Article 2, and I think that starts with Section 37, articulates the           
 rights of union members to participate democratically in the                  
 operation of the union.  That's taken directly from what's called             
 a union member's bill of rights on the federal law.  It requires              
 that service fee payers be allowed to vote in contract ratification           
 elections and other elections or referenda which effect the fee               
 payers terms and conditions of employment.  As was pointed out                
 earlier, currently in most organizations they are not allowed to              
 vote.  This does not give them voting power in any other operation            
 of the union, but only on those things which they can already be              
 compelled to pay for in negotiation of a contract.  They're given             
 the right to vote for the ratification of the contract if they are            
 in a compelled fee situation.  It requires that dues may only be              
 increased in a democratic secret ballot election.  It prohibits               
 union restrictions on a member's right to sue the union or to                 
 participate in other forms of adjudication that's commonly bringing           
 some sort of pressure on an employee for testifying in an                     
 arbitration, or something of that sort.  It prohibits employers               
 from surreptitiously participating in suits against the union.  If            
 the employer's going to do that they have to come out front and be            
 a party.  It prohibits arbitrary discipline of members by the union           
 and provides for due process for discipline of members by the                 
 union.  It requires unions to make available in the State copies of           
 all collective agreements without charge to members and fee payers            
 and makes agreements the public record.  It requires unions to                
 inform members of their rights under the Act.                                 
                                                                               
 Article 4 requires unions to register with the Commissioner of                
 Labor and report their structure and finances.   Currently all are            
 merely state chartered non-profit corporations subject to little or           
 no regulation in this State.  This is virtually identical to the              
 reporting requirements under the federal law, and virtually                   
 identical to the reporting requirements all the private sector                
 unions already have to meet.  Essentially the most significant                
 thing that was done was change the reference from Secretary of                
 Labor to Commissioner of Labor.  It requires annual financial                 
 reports by unions categorized in such a manner as to permit the               
 identification of costs associated with social, political, and                
 fraternal activities.  Some organizations already have fairly                 
 sophisticated fee determination processes.  This would probably               
 have little or no effect on them - some have very little in the way           
 of process for fee determination and this would probably have a               
 fairly significant effect on them.  It requires disclosure of all             
 expenditures made for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an            
 election, ballot proposition, or the passage or defeat of                     
 legislation.  It requires that such report be maintained in the               
 State and made available to members and fee payers at no cost.  It            
 requires union officers, agents and employees, including their                
 spouses, co-habitants, and minor children, to report their income             
 or other financial dealings with any employer with which the                  
 organization has a collective bargaining relationship.  It requires           
 similar reporting of financial dealings by an officer with the                
 union itself.  It requires disclosure by officers, agents and                 
 employees of all payments or exchanges, the intent of which is to             
 influence the outcome of an election and it provides certain                  
 exceptions and this is the other part of the CS, although I'm not             
 sure what section it comes in, to make it clear that those things             
 which are done in the normal course of ordinary business and                  
 ordinary duty of an officer or an employee are not covered by this.           
                                                                               
  CHAIR GREEN :  That area is included on page 45, lines 16-20.                
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE :  Section 23.40.420 and the following language requires          
 similar reporting by officers and elected and appointed officials             
 of public employers and their financial dealings with labor                   
 organizations and employees.  It makes all such reports public                
 record.  It exempts attorney-client and certain deliberative                  
 communications from reporting and disclosure and it makes                     
 violations of the reporting requirements a class A misdemeanor.               
                                                                               
 Article 5 establishes criteria for establishing trusteeship of a              
 labor organization.  This is the sort of thing that probably would            
 never have occurred to anyone back in the early days when virtually           
 all of the public employee organizations in the state were                    
 independent associations.  Now virtually all of them are affiliates           
 or are locals of large organizations where trusteeship could be a             
 reality.  This is also taken from the trusteeship language of the             
 National Labor Relations Act.  It provides processes for removal of           
 union officers for certain misconduct.                                        
                                                                               
 Article 6 establishes criteria for democratic election of union               
 officers.  It prohibits the use of dues money to influence the                
 outcome of a union election.  It establishes standards of fiduciary           
 responsibility of union officers and employees.  It requires                  
 bonding of certain union officers and employees.  It specifically             
 makes embezzlement from a union a crime.  It prohibits felons and             
 certain misdemeanants from holding union office or acting in a                
 labor relations capacity for a public employer.                               
                                                                               
 At Article 9, it prohibits certain financial transactions,                    
 including contributions to political campaigns between officers,              
 agents, and employees of unions and officers and officials of                 
 public employers, where the intent is to influence the exercise of            
 employees of their rights under the Act, or to influence the                  
 outcome of an adjudication or negotiation.  It requires that any              
 employee benefit trust be a joint employer/union trust.  I don't              
 know much about the situation at the local level, but currently all           
 state trust arrangements have no state involvement although the               
 state contributes considerable sums of money.  Section 51 repeals             
 all the pre-PERA bargaining authorization at the State level, and             
 prior to 1972 ferry employees had the right to bargain under some             
 vestigal legislation at 23.40.020, 030, and 040, I believe, and               
 that is repealed.  There was a court case - 1978 - IBU v. Haffling            
 - that said they bargained under PERA - they do so that is surplus            
 language.  I can take a look at may some of the notes.                        
                                                                               
 I think we addressed the youth corrections issue.  On the                     
 arbitration as a public record, I don't believe that's inconsistent           
 with the provisions of 39.25.080.  Certainly if it were a                     
 disciplinary arbitration, and I don't know what - I know that many            
 political subdivisions have some kind of confidentiality provisions           
 but I'm not familiar with them.  I am familiar with the State's,              
 which is 39.25.080 and the general way in which arbitrations are              
 made public at the State level is by blinding the name of the                 
 employee.  I don't know that this language is inconsistent with               
 39.25.080 though the blinding may still be required as a general              
 matter.  The other way that they are made public is the employer or           
 the union releases them to the paper but that's only if the                   
 arbitrator found in their favor.                                              
                                                                               
 With regard to temporary, non-permanent employees, where those                
 employees are employed as the act envisions - that is for work                
 which is not the ongoing work of an agency - and certainly I                  
 wouldn't sit here and say that every non-permanent employee of the            
 State - I don't know about other public employers - is really                 
 employed as that Act envisions - but if the employees are employed            
 as the Act envisions - that is not to do the ongoing work of an               
 agency, they have a very tangential relationship with the employer            
 and with the union.  Even in those situations where, speaking again           
 only to the State, the employer has voluntarily recognized the                
 union as their representative, the union has only fairly minimal              
 representation duties for those employees.  For example, non-                 
 permanent employees do not have access to the grievance procedure             
 except on perhaps certain issues under the State agreements now.              
 Low hours, part-time employees must only apply to less than 20 hour           
 per week employees, likewise have a fairly tangential relationship            
 with the employer.  With regard to people whose primary function is           
 the collective bargaining or labor relations function, the Labor              
 Relations Agency found a direct conflict in certain kinds of that             
 work with being in bargaining.  I know from my own experience that            
 the conflicts are almost untenable to be a member of a bargaining             
 unit as well as representing the public employer and dealing not              
 only with your own bargaining unit, but with others.   Someone will           
 probably point out eventually that I'm the one that caused that at            
 one point in time, but there are good reasons.  I think that's all            
 of the exclusions other than from fairly obvious ones for                     
 particular kinds of public officials.                                         
                                                                               
 There was a question - I think it was a question - about what was             
 meant by political subdivision and I think, as I took notes on that           
 question, that was really addressing who had the approval authority           
 and I think I answered that but I'll go back over.  Section 215,              
 where those changes are, addresses appropriation authority so to              
 the extent that there is an appropriation authority, the                      
 legislative body of a political subdivision has that limited                  
 approval authority.                                                           
                                                                               
 I think the other question that I wrote down that I haven't already           
 covered - well perhaps I did cover it but - on the who can vote               
 pieces in union elections.  This only gives a fee payer a right to            
 vote in a contract ratification or the ratification of a                      
 modification to the contract which affects their wages, hours and             
 terms and conditions.  If the union wants to let fee payers vote in           
 officers' elections, that's a private matter and up to them.                  
                                                                               
 [END OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF MR. CHANCE'S TESTIMONY.]                       
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN GREEN  announced teleconference participants from                   
 Anchorage, Mat-Su, and Fairbanks, were on-line.                               
                                                                               
 Number 332                                                                    
                                                                               
  SENATOR DUNCAN  asked Mr. Chance, if Section 5 mirrors the National          
 Labor Relations Act and Section 9 is word for word from federal               
 law, whether that federal law was last amended in 1959.   MR. CHANCE          
 replied that is correct, the last major amendment was in 1959.                
                                                                               
  SENATOR DUNCAN  asked why the Legislature would want to go back with         
 a state law that was passed in 1972 and mirror language that was              
 passed on a national level in 1959 and think that we are taking a             
 step forward.                                                                 
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE  replied those particular provisions of the National              
 Labor Relations Act were not incorporated in 1972 for unknown                 
 reasons but there is a tremendous body of adjudication under the              
 National Labor Relations Act up to today.  He believed today's                
 decisions do serve to modernize the Act.                                      
                                                                               
 Number 299                                                                    
                                                                               
  SENATOR DUNCAN  asked Mr. Chance if he could provide the dates of            
 the court decisions.                                                          
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE  answered the Seminole Case on union dues issues is               
 probably Hudson v. Chicago Teachers' Union which occurred in the              
 late 1970's.  The most recent big case on dues issues at the                  
 federal level is Beck v. Communications Workers which is a 1988               
 case which resulted in a 1991 Executive Order which has been                  
 rescinded by President Clinton.   As to why the holdings of the               
 Supreme Court have not been incorporated in the conduct of public             
 employee unions and employers, he could not speculate.                        
                                                                               
  SENATOR DUNCAN  asked Mr. Chance to provide him with a list of the           
 court cases he referred to in his testimony.  He noted SB 151 is a            
 major piece of legislation and he assumed the committee would have            
 time to have additional hearings on it.  He asked whether Section             
 37 is directly from federal law.                                              
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE  said he tried to avoid using the words "word for word"           
 because one can't directly interpret it, however it is pretty close           
 to the federal bill of rights for union members from 1959.                    
                                                                               
  SENATOR DUNCAN  repeated his comment that the Legislature would be           
 modernizing its labor laws based on a federal law from 1959.                  
                                                                               
 Number 276                                                                    
                                                                               
  DON VALESCO , business manager of Public Employees Local 71,                 
 testified via teleconference in opposition to SB 151 and made the             
 following comments.  He takes tremendous offense at SB 151 because            
 Section 1 says that the Legislature finds that there have been                
 instances of disregard for the rights of individual employees and             
 failure to serve high standards of responsibility and ethical                 
 conduct.  Furthermore, it says "these instances require legislation           
 to provide protection for the rights and interests of employees and           
 the public generally as those rights and interests relate to the              
 activities of labor organizations, public employers, and their                
 officers and representatives."  He said the Legislature will have             
 to hold hearings to determine where there has been disregard for              
 individual rights and failures to observe high standards and                  
 ethical conduct and he did not believe any instances one could find           
 warrant the majority of the changes made in the bill.  He doubted             
 they could find three such instances.  Regarding Mr. Chance's                 
 comment that there is a tremendous body of adjudication on the                
 National Labor Relations Agency, including ongoing cases, he                  
 believed the Legislature would be involving the State in the body             
 of adjudication if it passes this legislation.  He said he was                
 puzzled as to why SB 151 was introduced if the goal is to get                 
 government out of people's lives because this bill will create a              
 greater need for more bureaucracy and cost.  He hoped the committee           
 will provide adequate time for public review of SB 151 and noted              
 had he had time to review its 51 pages, he alone could testify on             
 it for two hours.  He questioned how many union members have come             
 forward to testify in support of this bill and he believed unless             
 there are dozens of them, there is not need for this legislation.             
                                                                               
 Number 208                                                                    
                                                                               
  JOHN WINTERS , a Juneau resident representing himself and other              
 seasonal forestry technicians who provide wildland fire protection,           
 expressed several concerns.  SB 150 would remove overtime from the            
 retirement calculations for an employee's highest three years.                
 Alaska's wildland fire fighting workforce is made up of seasonal              
 employees and the overall quality of the profession is dependent on           
 experienced workers who can work as a team.  Because of budget                
 cutbacks over the years, what were 10 month positions are now 7 or            
 8 month positions and a larger portion of seasonal workers' annual            
 income is from overtime wages.  More important, fires do not occur            
 according to a schedule, therefore overtime work is necessary.  The           
 possible long term effect is that if the retirement becomes less              
 and less over the years, a loss of experienced fire fighters may              
 occur.  In addition, in Alaska, more residential and recreational             
 development is taking place in the outlying reaches of communities            
 and wildfires are occurring in that wildland/urban interface.                 
 Those fires will have more serious potential impacts and will                 
 require the workforce to have local knowledge and experience.  Mr.            
 Winters said overtime wages are often reimbursed by entities other            
 than the State of Alaska therefore no savings to the State of                 
 Alaska will result from passage of SB 150.                                    
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE  responded SB 150 specifically excludes overtime pay from         
 the calculation for retirement benefits however that change would             
 be prospective only and would depend on the tier an employee is in.           
                                                                               
  SENATOR MACKIE  remarked it does not effect current employees but            
 will only apply to new employees, but noted Mr. Winters' concern              
 was that overtime wages comprise a substantial part of                        
 firefighters' income and loss of those wages in the retirement                
 calculation will have a substantial impact.  In addition, Mr.                 
 Winters asked how the state would save money since the actual                 
 amount of money they earn, including overtime, is less than or                
 equal to what a full-time employee would earn.                                
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE  repeated it is his understanding this provision is               
 prospective only and it will reduce the amount of compensation an             
 employer will have to pay to match benefits therefore a cost                  
 savings will result.  Regarding the issue of the amount fire                  
 fighters are paid, there are many ways to define a work week that             
 are not predicated on the standard 37.5 hour work week.  There are            
 ways to structure the compensation that would make more of their              
 income straight wages as opposed to overtime.  Those structures are           
 governed by the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act which has its own            
 particular body of rules for police and fire employees that                   
 recognize the nature of emergency work.                                       
                                                                               
 Number  047                                                                   
                                                                               
 SENATOR DUNCAN    felt the committee should get a legal opinion on            
 that question.  He felt Mr. Chance was correct in assuming that               
 provision could not be retroactive, but he expressed concern that             
 it could impact the future compensation of current employees.                 
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE  replied he does not know, as a question of law, how that         
 provision can be applied, but he understood it to be prospective              
 only.                                                                         
                                                                               
  SENATOR DUNCAN  asked whether he meant it would apply prospectively          
 to new employees only.                                                        
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE  said it is his understanding that changes to eligibility         
 under PERS can only be applied in the future.                                 
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-17, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
                                                                               
  ED FLANAGAN , Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Labor,                
 testified in opposition to SB 151 as it flies in the face of both             
 the Administration's and Legislature's goal of creating a leaner,             
 meaner, more efficient government.  SB 151 overlards the existing             
 system that works for public sector labor relations in the State,             
 with a wholesale adoption of largely irrelevant federal law.  In              
 1972 the revisions and improvements upon the Wagner Act were made             
 for good reason.  The Taft-Hartley of 1947 and Landrum-Griffin of             
 1959 were extant, and had been for 25 and 15 years at the time of             
 PERA, and were purposely excluded.                                            
                                                                               
 Mr. Flanagan felt one of the most ludicrous examples of an                    
 inappropriate appropriation of federal law is the peace officer               
 parallel that Mr. Chance mentioned, with the prohibition in federal           
 labor law that security guards, namely the Pinkertons, the goons              
 that beat up the union people on strikes, could not be in the same            
 unit as the workers.  To equate a peace officer with a security               
 guard, in the context of a public sector employer, really doesn't             
 make sense unless the intent was the effect.  The bill says that              
 any labor organization that is directly or indirectly affiliated              
 with a labor organization that represents peace officers, which by            
 definition in the bill includes correctional officers, cannot                 
 represent non-peace officer employees.  This would effectively                
 prevent three of the larger bargaining representatives, APEA, which           
 is affiliated nationally with AFT, Local 71, which is affiliated              
 with the Laborers International, and ASEA which is affiliated with            
 ASME, from representing peace officers in the State of Alaska.                
 That is one example of a myriad of defects in the bill; there are             
 50 pages and in the Department's internal review every reader found           
 a different question, none of which have been addressed.  Mr.                 
 Flanagan presented some of those questions as follows.                        
                                                                               
 The findings included in Section 1 mimic the federal law.  Those              
 findings were placed in federal law after extensive hearings, some            
 televised. Certain unions had been thrown out of the AFL-CIO for              
 not cleaning up corrupt practices and the federal government had to           
 intervene.  There was a long and copious public record to back up             
 those findings.  There is no evidence of the kinds of crimes or               
 violations of ethical standards in Alaska that are alluded to in SB
 151.  Any effort to find evidence would create a lean record.  The            
 Department would be aware of any violations through existing                  
 activities of the agency.  The findings section of SB 151 is a big            
 sledgehammer looking for a nail that may not exist.                           
                                                                               
 If the findings cannot be substantiated, the basis of the bill is             
 questionable.  In response to Mr. Chance's comment that it is                 
 straightforward that the parties may not negotiate terms contrary             
 to terms of statutes or ordinances unless the subject matter of the           
 statute or ordinance is made subject to bargaining, Mr. Flanagan              
 said that section is not at all clear; specific examples of why               
 many of these provisions are necessary would be very helpful to the           
 people that will have to administer this law should it pass.  The             
 Department could not think of problems or illegal clauses that                
 might have motivated the provision and illegal clauses in contracts           
 cannot be enforced anyway.  A contract for public, or any,                    
 employees cannot violate state or federal law.                                
                                                                               
 Section 3 reserves managerial rights prerogatives and functions               
 which are already reserved to the public employer under AS                    
 23.40.250.  Individual employees may present their own grievances.            
 This would greatly increase the workload of the Alaska Labor                  
 Relations Agency and, with other provisions of the bill, the                  
 Commissioner's Office.  The Alaska Labor Relations Agency is one of           
 the most productive agencies in state government, and is comprised            
 of 4 people who are the PERA equivalent of the National Labor                 
 Relations Board.  They have a high workload already.  SB 151 would            
 make it and the Commissioner's Office the enforcement arm of the              
 U.S. Department of Labor, getting right into a union's business and           
 removal of officers.  Currently they are a neutral body that                  
 investigates unfair labor practice charges and then they are                  
 adjudicated by a board.  To allow individual employees to bring               
 grievances without the filter of a union will increase the workload           
 of agencies and field-level management.  In a collective bargaining           
 environment the union serves the purpose of explaining to members             
 whether a contractual violation occurred.                                     
                                                                               
 With regard to the prohibition on merging employees, many small               
 city employers have 16-17 employees under PERA.  One of the major             
 differences between PERA and the national act is where the national           
 act says, a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining,           
 PERA says, the largest possible unit appropriate for purposes of              
 collective bargaining.  It is an express purpose of the Act to                
 avoid fragmenting of units for purposes of efficiency and the                 
 convenience of the public employer so they do not have to negotiate           
 every month with a different unit.  By separating employees who can           
 strike from those who cannot, enactment of SB 151 will double six             
 or eight existing bargaining units.                                           
                                                                               
 Union members would be allowed to challenge the consent of a union            
 and could also challenge the appropriateness of the unit which is             
 currently determined by the agency in a hearing, based on case law            
 and the provisions of the Act regarding the largest appropriate               
 unit.  SB 151 sets up elections for unit determination, which could           
 result in units that are entirely incongruent to the statutory                
 provisos.  The annual renewal of the dues or service fee deduction            
 authorization will create mayhem for the unions and public                    
 employers.  He did not know what that provision is supposed to fix.           
 There are ample provisions for this, and other provisions, under              
 law; the Hudson and Beck decisions are law.  The union members have           
 recourse through them without involving the Labor Relations Agency            
 and more than the current examination of them under a ULP.  To                
 actually require the agency to get into those procedures for                  
 setting them up is uncalled for.                                              
                                                                               
 Many of the provisions - the secondary boycott, the hot cargo                 
 agreement - have no relation to public employment.  Those are                 
 private sector items or occurrences.  He asked if anyone could                
 explain where those situations have had relevance under PERA in the           
 last 25 years.  Many employees within the Pioneers Homes, API, and            
 the Corrections Institutions that are currently prohibited from               
 striking would be given the limited Class 2 right to strike under             
 SB 151.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Mr. Flanagan emphasized the Department of Labor's major concern, as           
 an agency, is the increased workload SB 151 will create and he                
 apologized for not providing the fiscal note prior to the meeting.            
 He said there are probably 25 unions that represent employees under           
 PERA.  This might go down to one building trades union in Fairbanks           
 that has one member in a joint crafts agreement at the City of                
 Fairbanks.  The Department of Labor does not want to be the NLRB,             
 the U.S. Department of Labor, or APOC.  SB 151 takes reporting                
 disclosure down to the steward level.  In a unit the size of the              
 GGU, there are hundreds of stewards.  He again questioned what                
 abuse is occurring in the current system that SB 151 will fix.  He            
 noted virtually all of the unions that represent state employees              
 are affiliated with national unions right now.  Those national                
 unions have election protest devices and internal controls and                
 procedures.  An employee can exhaust their internal procedures,               
 then go to their national union and possibly to the U.S. Department           
 of Labor if an election issue is involved.                                    
                                                                               
 Mr. Flanagan again emphasized the Department of Labor's concern               
 with the increased workload SB 151 will impose.  He stated the                
 funding required by SB 151 will be the least productive, least                
 important public dollars spent in the Department of Labor's budget.           
 He stated he would provide the committee with a more detailed                 
 written response to the bill.                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 270                                                                    
                                                                               
  CHAIR GREEN  responded she was able to surmise Mr. Flanagan's                
 position on the bill and extended an invitation to all participants           
 to submit written testimony.                                                  
                                                                               
  SENATOR MACKIE  asked Mr. Flanagan to provide to the committee a             
 sectional analysis, with examples of the effects, if possible.                
                                                                               
  MR. FLANAGAN  responded the Department is working on one and will            
 provide it.  He made an additional comment on the bill.  Half-time            
 employees cannot be members of unions under SB 151 and Mr. Chance             
 referred to that relationship as tangential.  He clarified those              
 employees are half-time and often job share.  The Department of               
 Labor believes in an inclusive, rather than exclusive, policy when            
 it comes to allowing people the right to organize for purposes of             
 collective bargaining.                                                        
                                                                               
  SENATOR MACKIE  asked if that provision would disqualify two                 
 teachers who job share for maternity reasons from belonging to NEA            
 or any union.                                                                 
                                                                               
  MR. FLANAGAN  replied it would depend on how their work week is              
 defined.  SB 151 sets a minimum of 20 hours for the right to belong           
 to a union.                                                                   
                                                                               
  JOHN GAGUINE , Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,                
 responded to former questions about the overtime/retirement                   
 calculation provision.  The Department of Law believes that                   
 provision would be prospective and only apply to new hires.                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR MACKIE  asked if a current employee has a new high three             
 year calculation for the purpose of retirement several years from             
 now will still be eligible because of their current employment.               
  MR. GAGUINE  replied that is correct and would apply to anyone who           
 is employed now and is a member of PERS.                                      
                                                                               
  SENATOR MACKIE  asked for the definition of a person who is not a            
 member of the system now.   MR. GAGUINE  answered the employee would          
 have to be considered permanent.  It would apply to permanent part-           
 time employees but not to temporaries.                                        
                                                                               
  SENATOR MACKIE  asked if a permanent seasonal worker would fall in           
 that category.   MR. GAGUINE  said that is correct.                           
                                                                               
  SENATOR DUNCAN  said his concern is that even though the retirement          
 system is not being changed for current permanent seasonal                    
 employees, the way their high-three years is being computed is                
 being changed.  He confirmed with Mr. Gaguine that even though                
 overtime cannot be used in the calculation for new employees,                 
 current employees will be able to do so.   MR. GAGUINE  stated no             
 matter whether an employee has been doing so in the past, employees           
 who were hired before the effective date of the bill will be able             
 to use overtime in retirement calculations.                                   
                                                                               
 Number 350                                                                    
                                                                               
  MANO FREY , President of the Alaska AFL-CIO, testified via                   
 teleconference from Anchorage and made the following comments.  He            
 finds many sections of SB 151 problematic and believes a bill of              
 this size and breadth requires additional hearings.  The following            
 sections are of the most concern.                                             
 Language on page 4 states:  A labor organization may not be                   
 certified as the representative of employees who are not peace                
 officers if the organization (3) is affiliated directly or                    
 indirectly with a labor organization that represents or has members           
 or fee payers who are peace officers.  The AFL-CIO is an umbrella             
 organization that every other labor organization in the state                 
 belongs to, except the Public Safety Employees Association and NEA.           
 That language means that no other labor organization in the state             
 could represent any state employee because AFL-CIO affiliation                
 would preclude them from doing so.                                            
                                                                               
 A second concern is the fiscal impact of SB 151.  The state will              
 have to duplicate what nearly every organization already has to               
 comply with under federal law.  The Departments of Labor and                  
 Justice have oversight of union elections.                                    
                                                                               
 Mr. Frey referred to the following provision on page 35 that                  
 states:                                                                       
                                                                               
 "Every bona fide candidate has the right, once within the 30 days             
 before an election of a labor organization in which the candidate             
 is standing for election or a labor organization in which the                 
 candidate is standing for election, to inspect and copy a list                
 containing the names and last known addresses of all members of the           
 labor organization who are subject to a collective bargaining                 
 agreement requirement membership in the organization or payment of            
 a service fee."                                                               
                                                                               
 He stated that provision goes above and beyond what is currently in           
 federal law.  He insisted he would not allow the copying of his               
 membership list.  The Alaska AFL-CIO holds elections every three              
 years.   The League of Women Voters supervised the last election              
 process and the Department of Labor has supervised the process and            
 helped the AFL-CIO to ensure the elections were fairly conducted.             
 At no time would he ever allow a candidate running for office in              
 the local union to copy a membership list.  The candidate does have           
 the right to communicate with the members but an impartial group is           
 set up to handle those mailings.  He does not believe he is the               
 only union leader in the state who would violate this provision of            
 the law, if enacted.                                                          
                                                                               
 A greater concern with that same section (23.40.600) is that                  
 federal law provides supervision and instruction on how to conduct            
 an election.  He asked why the state would want to intercede in               
 that process.  The section also limits the term of office to three            
 years which also flies in the face of federal law.  Some offices              
 allow four years under federal law, and some five years.  The State           
 is trying to restructure the whole system of how locals, nationals,           
 and international unions conduct their internal process.  He                  
 questioned why the State would want to stick their nose in                    
 something that is already highly regulated and create another layer           
 in the process.                                                               
 Mr. Frey concluded by saying he hoped the committee is not in a               
 rush to pass the bill out as he would review the bill by section              
 and explain the myriad of problems the bill will create at a later            
 time.                                                                         
                                                                               
 Number 443                                                                    
                                                                               
  KELLY BROWN  testified from Fairbanks on behalf of the Alaska State          
 Employees Association Local 52 which represents approximately 8,000           
 members who comprise the general government unit.  Local 52 finds             
 the tenor of SB 151 untenable.  She asked that facts be provided to           
 justify the rationale for imposing changes to the existing Public             
 Employee Relations Act as stated in Section 1.  As President of               
 Local 52, she believes she would have heard comments from her                 
 membership if they felt her standards were lacking in                         
 responsibility and ethics.                                                    
                                                                               
 Regarding the provision about peace officers, Ms. Brown thought the           
 intent was to adopt the Plant Guard rule from the NLRA which                  
 prohibits unions from representing guards.  That rule is a remnant            
 of a bygone era in the private sector.  She questioned how often              
 labor disputes become violent in the 1990's?  That provision is               
 inapplicable because peace officers would not be involved in                  
 restoring the peace in the event of a violent strike.                         
                                                                               
 Section 23.40.100 (2) (B) and (C) allows for employers to file de-            
 certification petitions.  Local 52 believes this could be                     
 disruptive to the labor-management relationship that they are                 
 currently striving to reach, and encourages union busting.                    
                                                                               
 Section 23.40.110 (D) and (F) provides employees with immunity to             
 conduct union avoidance campaigns.  It allows public officials                
 leeway to make threatening and coercive anti-union statements.                
 These statements are appropriate if this official is not directly             
 involved or is the employer's bargaining representative.  However,            
 the fact that an individual who makes such a statement is a                   
 responsible management official is more significant than whether              
 the individual is the employer's bargaining representative.                   
 Threatening statements from elected officials clearly influence and           
 coerce employees in the exercising of their rights.                           
                                                                               
 Section 23.40.200 limits the selection of an arbitrator to those              
 appearing on the FMCS list.  Local 52 feels this could be                     
 problematic for both parties.  In many cases, both parties may                
 mutually agree on an arbitrator with whom they are familiar if both           
 parties benefit.  Although there is no basis for disallowing                  
 selections from the Triple A list, all Triple A list arbitrators              
 are eligible for the FMCS list but the opposite is not true.  The             
 Triple A list is more exclusive.  The parties should have the                 
 discretion to mutually agree to the method of appointing an                   
 arbitrator.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Section 23.40.215 prohibits an agreement from going into effect for           
 at least 30 days after it is negotiated and until it is approved by           
 the Legislature.  To the extent the time limits are put into the              
 bill, the law should also place a deadline to submit the grievance            
 to the Legislature, and a deadline for the Legislature to act on              
 that agreement.                                                               
                                                                               
 Ms. Brown said any action on this bill should include continued               
 debate.  She reminded committee members ASEA is a democracy and               
 officials can be voted out of office if the membership so chooses.            
 Members have the right to vote on, and create, their by-laws and              
 bill of rights.  SB 151 would restrict those rights.                          
                                                                               
  GARY MCGEORGE  testified via teleconference from Mat-Su.  He has             
 been involved in firefighting since 1976 and has been a seasonal              
 firefighter for the last nine seasons with the State of Alaska.               
 With the overtime conversion, he has just barely accumulated five             
 years toward retirement.  If he retired at this time, he would                
 receive about $300 per month.  He is funded for four months per               
 season; two years ago, his position was funded for six months.                
 Currently, under FSLA standards, he can convert 320 hours of                  
 overtime to compensatory time, which equals 64 days.  Combined with           
 the four month work season, he earns a little more than six months            
 of PERS credit per year.  Not being able to convert overtime for              
 the purpose of applying it to the high three year retirement                  
 calculation will effectively gut his retirement - from one-third to           
 75 percent.  His current salary, about $15 per hour, totals $12,000           
 per year.  Without overtime he will not have a retirement nor an              
 adequate income to pay basic expenses in the Mat-Su Valley where              
 his family lives and spends its money.  He asked committee members            
 to leave firefighters' retirement alone, as they earn little enough           
 and are the best bargain in the state for fire fighting.                      
                                                                               
 Number 538                                                                    
                                                                               
  CHUCK O'CONNELL , AFSCME, testified from Anchorage and stated he             
 agrees with Mr. George's comments.  SB 150 tries to address a                 
 situation of perceived abuse in the PERS and TERS retirement                  
 systems.  Everyone is aware of the stories about rural                        
 superintendents and University professors with exorbitant                     
 retirements who worked for very few years to earn it.  SB 150 will            
 hurt the little person, the front line worker, the people who earn            
 $12,000 per year.  If the target is to curb excessive overtime, he            
 suggested the Legislature consider a fair and equitable limit to              
 the amount of income that can apply toward retirement credit.                 
                                                                               
 Second, Mr. O'Connell said he finds SB 151 redundant and burdensome           
 for both labor and management.  The Legislature will find itself in           
 a constitutional crisis with the Executive Branch if it considers             
 this legislation.  SB 151 is an effort to bring NLRA cases,                   
 precedents, and language into statute because the NLRA does not               
 apply to state employees: it mixes oil and water.  PERA will be 25            
 years old on July 1 and has worked well.  There have been no                  
 prolonged bitter labor disputes under PERA and there is no need to            
 fix it.  SB 151 would exacerbate the relationship between employees           
 and employers in the State and would allow employees to present               
 grievances of their own, regardless of merit.  He suggested there             
 are disgruntled employees who raise frivolous issues.  The unions             
 almost consistently do not advance these harassment kinds of issues           
 to the employer.  If employers have to respond to every grievance,            
 they would be inundated with frivolous issues which will create a             
 tremendous fiscal impact.   SB 151 represents an incredible                   
 increase in government regulation and a significant unfunded                  
 mandate on employers.                                                         
                                                                               
 At present, employees cannot use state equipment.  Section                    
 23.40.110 would change that.  Subsection (b) pertains to something            
 already covered by the United States Supreme Court.  At present, an           
 employee can be a fee payer.  Fee payers are advised of funds spent           
 annually on things that do not directly benefit them and can                  
 request a rebate.  All unions in the State presently comply with              
 that federal requirement; the proposed changes in this section are            
 absolutely unnecessary.                                                       
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-17, SIDE B                                                            
                                                                               
 Mr. O'Connell felt the annual enrollment requirement for union                
 membership would create a paperwork nightmare.  Personnel cutbacks            
 in all 15 departments have left a lean staff.  AFSCME's membership            
 spans over 186,000 miles.  To conduct an election, AFSCME must use            
 a mail ballot.  That method is not provided for in Section                    
 23.40.250.  This new requirement would significantly disenfranchise           
 hundreds of members during an election.                                       
                                                                               
 Section 23.40.300 allows nonmembers to participate in union                   
 decision making regarding collective bargaining.  AFSCME's                    
 international affiliate's research department could find no other             
 public or private sector U. S. labor relations law that allows                
 nonmembers the right to vote in union decision-making.  He                    
 suspected this provision originated with the Virginia National                
 Right to Work group and should not be in statute.                             
                                                                               
 Regarding Mr. Frey's comment on copying membership rosters for                
 candidates, Mr. O'Connell said AFSCME has corrections officers,               
 youth counselors, probation officers, and many other people who are           
 terrified that their home addresses will be made public.  AFSCME              
 finds itself in court up to 12 times per year trying to protect its           
 corrections officers members from frivolous lawsuits by inmates               
 seeking to find out their home addresses and family members' names            
 to harass them.  This provision would do incredible harm.                     
                                                                               
  CRAIG PEARSON , Vice President of the Public Safety Employees                
 Association (PSEA), testified.  PSEA represents State Troopers,               
 forest service officers, airport safety officers and the Juneau               
 Police Department.  The provision regarding the reimbursement of              
 moving expenses in SB 150 would not be conducive to good employer-            
 employee relationships.  PSEA's collective bargaining agreement               
 currently provides for reimbursement of some moving costs for its             
 members, many of whom are transferred to rural areas for three to             
 five years.   Many State Troopers work a lot of overtime hours                
 because a shortage of positions exists as a result of budget cuts             
 during the last 15 years.  Those who work overtime, because their             
 agencies are understaffed, will be penalized.  PSEA remains                   
 adamantly opposed to SB 150.                                                  
                                                                               
 Regarding SB 151,  Mr. Pearson said none of PSEA's members have               
 complained of wrongdoing.  PSEA sees no need to revamp PERA at this           
 time since it is not broken.                                                  
                                                                               
  KATHY DIETRICK , a business agent with the Alaska State Employees            
 Association Local 52, testified via teleconference.  Regarding SB
 150, she stated if the goal is to reduce overtime, more employees             
 need to be hired which will require more funding.  She is opposed             
 to SB 151 in its entirety.  It is unnecessary, unwarranted, and               
 represents excessive bureaucratic regulation and interference.  It            
 is an outright attack on organized labor and working people.  SB
 151 is being spun as a bill of rights for public employees but in             
 reality it creates a bureaucratic nightmare unprecedented in labor            
 relations.  To pretend this bill is there to protect employees from           
 disreputable union leaders and officers is an affront to the                  
 intelligence of working people.  At the least, it is an unfunded              
 mandate of rules and regulations no entity will have time to                  
 enforce.  At worst it is a government intrusion on working people's           
 rights to organize, and a clear abuse of power.  Ms. Dietrick said            
 she would expect something like this from the coal mine owners of             
 yester-year but not from the Alaska Legislature in the 1990's and             
 she also resented Mr. Chance's description of ASEA's relationship             
 with its members as tangential.   If the intent of unions was to be           
 legalistic, they would be in court, not in arbitration.  She                  
 questioned Mr. Chance's motive for this bill and asked the                    
 committee to vote against it.                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 529                                                                    
                                                                               
  RICK DUPUIS  made the following comments via teleconference from             
 Fairbanks.  He is a Forester 1 with the State of Alaska Division of           
 Forestry and has been involved in the forestry program since 1977.            
 In the 1990's there have been about 40 fatalities nationwide in the           
 firefighting environment.  The firefighters being killed in the               
 line of duty are not overpaid employees; they are the equivalent of           
 Alaska's range 7 - 11 employees.  When the State was organizing its           
 fire organization in the 1980s, it determined it would be cheaper             
 to cut the work staff and have existing employees work overtime.              
 Firefighters work from four to five months per year; at that rate             
 it would take about 65 fire seasons to get a full retirement from             
 the State.  Firefighters deserve a pension.  They work 14 to 18               
 hours per day all summer.  Regarding the previous discussion about            
 the retirement calculation in SB 150 being prospective, Mr. Dupuis            
 felt there is no reason to treat future employees differently than            
 the current firefighting workforce.  He said he is very opposed to            
 SB 150.                                                                       
                                                                               
  HARRIET LAWLOR , an ASEA Local 52 business agent, and former                 
 President of the Anchorage Central Labor Council and Vice President           
 of the Alaska State AFL-CIO, testified via teleconference and made            
 the following remarks in opposition to SB 151.  SB 151 is a gross             
 violation of the heart of labor.  The language that has been                  
 brought forward in SB 151 has a significantly different meaning               
 than it does in the NLRA.  It is a specific attack on employees and           
 their rights for mutual aid and protection.  SB 151 allows the                
 employer, the State of Alaska, to determine the organizations its             
 employees can connect with.                                                   
                                                                               
 The provision that allows employees to file their own grievances is           
 in direct conflict with the Personnel Board's latest ruling that              
 prohibits employees represented by a union from coming directly               
 before the board.  When employees are denied the right to grievance           
 protection and to gather together for mutual aid and protection in            
 a group of their own choosing, those cases will be brought to court           
 and courts routinely grant punitive damages in those cases.  The              
 Personnel Board's latest ruling was because it cannot afford to               
 hear grievances directly from employees.  Previous legislatures               
 have gutted their funding and it can no longer afford an attorney.            
                                                                               
 The enforcement aspects of SB 151, which will fall to the                     
 Department of Labor, will require more funding which is contrary to           
 what this Legislature is trying to do.  In addition, the                      
 supervisory language in SB 151 is significantly different than that           
 in the NLRA.  The NLRA does not even represent supervisors.   The             
 type of employee considered to be a supervisor, described in the              
 bill, would triple the supervisory unit size and include one out of           
 every three or four employees.  This, too, is contrary to a                   
 legislative effort to provide more front line services and less               
 bureaucracy.  She asked the committee to reject SB 151 completely.            
                                                                               
 Number 441                                                                    
                                                                               
  MIKE GAULT , a DOTPF employee since 1977, and an ASEA member,                
 testified from Anchorage on SB 150.   During his first eight years            
 with DOTPF, he was a seasonal employee employed six to eight                  
 months.  During many of those seasons, he did not earn what                   
 equivalent full-time employees earned even with overtime pay. To              
 remove overtime wages from retirement calculations would seriously            
 disadvantage seasonal employees.  Regarding moving expenses, many             
 DOTPF employees are promoted to different jobs around the State.              
 Limiting employee mobility will be unfair to both the employee and            
 employer.                                                                     
                                                                               
  BEN SIEFERT , a Forestry Technician with the Division of Forestry in         
 the Copper River area, testified against SB 150.  This bill impacts           
 the little guy who relies on overtime to make it through the year.            
 He questioned the difference between an employee who works 9 to 5             
 during 12 months of the year, and seasonal employees who may work             
 from 5:00 a.m. to midnight for four or five months during the year.           
 He added overtime work is not a luxury, it is required.                       
                                                                               
 Number 373                                                                    
                                                                               
  DICK ISETT , an Employment Security Specialist with the Department           
 of Labor, and member of ASEA Local 52, testified on behalf of                 
 himself.  His finds the following provisions of SB 151 to be the              
 most meddlesome:                                                              
 Arbitrators awards must be submitted to the Legislature;                     
 public employers will be able to write statutes to opt out of                
 PERA;                                                                         
  the requirement to annually reauthorize dues withholding;                    
 deletion of part-time employees;                                             
 non-member voting;                                                           
 financial reporting that makes no sense; and                                 
 facilitates employers' ability to file de-certification                      
 petitions.                                                                    
                                                                               
 SB 151 destabilizes the collective bargaining process and weakens             
 the unions' role in that process.  It facilitates an intrusion into           
 the administrative area of government by the Legislature and                  
 abridges very important contractual rights of employees, including            
 the right to effective representation and the collective bargaining           
 process.  The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes property rights of                
 public employees in their jobs and acknowledges that these rights             
 are created by states and should not be revoked without due                   
 process, which is not the same as the legislative process.  The               
 legislative process would reduce very important rights of                     
 employees.  The Alaska Supreme Court has specifically held broad              
 policy issues apart from the collective bargaining process in that            
 it has not made it a mandatory subject that if the employer does              
 not want to negotiate over matters such as classification and pay,            
 there is no negotiation.  SB 151 does not fix any of the problems             
 with collective bargaining, it merely weakens the process.                    
                                                                               
  ANN HAYES , representing IBEW, said more than one-third of IBEW's            
 5,000 members will be impacted by SB 151.  IBEW represents police             
 officers, health care workers, and electrical craft workers who               
 work in municipally-owned utilities.  IBEW has not had time to                
 determine how SB 151 will put IBEW in conflict with the terms of              
 its bargaining agreements.  IBEW will be providing a sectional                
 analysis on SB 151 to the committee from the perspective of the               
 bill's statewide impacts on its members.                                      
                                                                               
 Number 302                                                                    
                                                                               
  MIKE MCMULLEN,  Director of the Division of Personnel, said he can           
 describe what the bill does, but does not know what problem SB 150            
 fixes.                                                                        
                                                                               
 Section 2 will require an employee who is transferred to repay full           
 costs, including interest, if the employee moves again within five            
 years.  The employee could quit to avoid an obligation or not move            
 again as an employee.  There are cases where the State has entered            
 into agreements to pay moving costs for employees who are                     
 transferred regularly because of departmental needs.  SB 150 would            
 have a considerable impact on fulfilling those agreements.  The               
 other new section pertains to compensatory time as a means of                 
 overtime pay and prohibits the state from paying it unless there is           
 a written agreement, including whether there is bargaining unit               
 representative.  Currently the State is subject to the Fair Labor             
 Standards Act.  It requires agreement in advance of the work being            
 performed by the employer and employee and whether there will be a            
 representative.  SB 151 will additionally require a written                   
 agreement.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Section 3 creates a Tier 4 retirement program.  It will not affect            
 TERS.  The Division of Retirement will provide a statement on the             
 impact of that section.                                                       
                                                                               
  MR. CHANCE  responded to testimony about SB 151 setting a precedent          
 by allowing non-members to vote and explained current law allows              
 non-members to vote in strike-ballot elections.  The notion that              
 fee payer non-members can vote to ratify that contract follows on             
 the same logic.  No extraordinary precedent will be set.                      
                                                                               
  SENATOR WARD  moved CSSB 151(STA) and its accompanying fiscal notes          
 out of committee with individual recommendations.                             
                                                                               
 SENATOR DUNCAN  objected and said the only fiscal note that has been          
 submitted by the Department of Law.   CHAIR GREEN  stated she was             
 sure the Department of Labor will have its fiscal note ready before           
 the bill is referred to the Finance Committee for a hearing.                  
  SENATOR DUNCAN  said the Uniform Rules require that fiscal notes be          
 available before the bill is moved from the first committee of                
 referral.  That would include fiscal notes from each department               
 impacted by the legislation.                                                  
                                                                               
  SENATOR WARD  believed the bill was properly noticed, and he added           
 one department was able to submit a fiscal note in the proper                 
 amount of time.  He said he was satisfied that the Department of              
 Labor did a yeoman's job and he was ready to pass it on.   SENATOR            
 DUNCAN  responded the fiscal note prepared by the Department of Law           
 was prepared for SB 151, not the committee substitute.  Also, other           
 departments have testified this is a massive piece of legislation             
 and they are still in the process of reviewing it.  Many problems             
 were presented during testimony, and he has not had time to digest            
 that testimony, as well as the committee substitute, and to be able           
 to propose amendments to the bill.  Second, he repeated his concern           
 about the Uniform Rules.  He thought it was wrong to imply that any           
 agency was dragging their feet on providing fiscal notes; they                
 simply were unable to digest the bill in that period of time.                 
                                                                               
 The committee took a brief at ease.                                           
                                                                               
 Number 104                                                                    
                                                                               
  CHAIR GREEN  announced the bill would be held over until Thursday,           
 and she extended the request to all departments to submit fiscal              
 notes by that time.  If departmental fiscal notes are not                     
 submitted, the committee will construct fiscal notes.                         
                                                                               
      SENATOR WARD  repeated his question about whether the bill was           
 properly noticed.   SENATOR MILLER  responded it was properly                 
 noticed.   SENATOR WARD  asked who was at fault for not providing the         
 fiscal notes.   SENATOR MILLER  said he believed it was the                   
 departments' responsibility, however because CSSB 151 is an                   
 important piece of legislation, the committee would grant Senator             
 Duncan's request.                                                             
                                                                               
  SENATOR WARD  noted SB 150 has no committee substitute and has no            
 accompanying fiscal notes.  He asked whether  CHAIR GREEN  noticed            
 the bill properly.   CHAIR GREEN  replied the bill was noticed                
 properly and there is a fiscal note in committee packets.                     
                                                                               
  SENATOR WARD  moved SB 150 out of committee with individual                  
 recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.   SENATOR DUNCAN               
 objected for the purpose of asking Mr. McMullen whether the                   
 Department of Public Safety, the department that submitted the                
 fiscal note, is the only department that will be impacted by SB
 150.     MR. MCMULLEN  replied every department has the potential to b        
 impacted by the moving provision.  He repeated the Division of                
 Retirement will be submitting a separate analysis on the impact to            
 the retirement system.                                                        
                                                                               
  SENATOR DUNCAN  asked whether   the Division of Retirement has               
 concerns about the fiscal impact of SB 150.   MR. MCMULLEN  answered          
 he still does not have a clear picture of the problem Section 2 is            
 trying to address.   He said the Division can discuss the impacts             
 but cannot say whether they will be beneficial without knowing what           
 problems exist.  Section 3 creates Tier 4 retirement and will have            
 an impact on people hired after the effective date by not including           
 overtime in their retirement calculations.                                    
                                                                               
 Number 140                                                                    
                                                                               
  SENATOR DUNCAN  remarked SB 150 looks like a simple bill but it              
 could have a substantial impact.  Since SB 150 was introduced one             
 week ago, he asked that it be held with SB 151 to get a clear                 
 analysis of the impacts of both pieces of legislation before it               
 leaves the State Affairs Committee.                                           
                                                                               
  SENATOR WARD  responded SB 150 does not have a committee substitute          
 and was noticed properly.  He called for the question.   SENATOR              
 DUNCAN  repeated the Uniform Rules   requires that the fiscal notes be        
 addressed before the bill moves on, and SB 150 has only one fiscal            
 note.  The committee has the right to draw its own fiscal notes,              
 but has not done so.   SENATOR WARD  stated the Uniform Rules will            
 not be violated if all 15 departments do not submit fiscal notes,             
 which is what Senator Duncan is suggesting.   SENATOR DUNCAN                  
 clarified he was referring to fiscal notes from the departments               
 that will be affected.   SENATOR WARD  said it is not up to the               
 committee to drag fiscal notes out of the departments.                        
                                                                               
 A roll call vote was taken.  The motion to move SB 150 from                   
 committee carried with Senators Ward, Green and Miller voting in              
 favor, and Senator Duncan voting against.                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIR GREEN  announced the committee will hear SB 151 on Thursday,           
 in addition to the committee's scheduled calendar.  She adjourned             
 the meeting at 5:23 p.m.                                                      

Document Name Date/Time Subjects