Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/11/1997 02:45 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 11, 1997
2:45 P.M.
TAPE HFC 97-139, Side 1, #000 - end.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 2:45 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Grussendorf
ALSO PRESENT
Art Chance, Staff, Senate Finance Committee; Ed Flanagan, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Labor.
SUMMARY
SB 151 "An Act relating to public employment labor relations;
relating to the protection of the rights of public
employees under the Public Employment Relations Act;
establishing ethical standards for union representatives
of public employees; and establishing disclosure
requirements for public employee labor organizations."
SB 151 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 151
"An Act relating to public employment labor relations;
relating to the protection of the rights of public employees
under the Public Employment Relations Act; establishing
ethical standards for union representatives of public
employees; and establishing disclosure requirements for public
employee labor organizations."
Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt Work Draft #O-LS0675\Q (copy
on file). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
ART CHANCE, STAFF, SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE reviewed section 9. He
clarified that the obligation of the employee to pay a fee is
dictated by contract. He further explained that it is a mandatory
subject of bargaining which survives until impasse. At impasse the
employer is free to implement a lock-out and the union is free to
strike. A check-off refers to dues authorization or a fee
authorization. This is the employee's action to have the employer
take a fee from their check and transmit it to the union. The
earlier version of the legislation would not have allowed a check-
off prior to the effective date of a contract or subsequent to the
expiration of the contract. The work draft states that the check-
off is not irrevocable beyond the expiration of a contract or one
year, whichever occurs first. The employee's obligation to pay
dues is not changed. If the dues are not paid the union can ask
that the employee be dismissed.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that there were concerns regarding
fragmentation. Mr. Chance noted that those sections were removed.
He added that everything in the original version relating to
definitions of groups of employees or bargaining unit composition
have also been removed.
Representative Davis noted that the definition of supervisory
status was deleted. Mr. Chance explained that the Department of
Labor felt that the Alaska Labor Relations Agency should address
the issue.
ED FLANAGAN, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR stated that section 9 is
problematic. He stated that the affect of section 9 is the same.
The earlier version stated that the voluntary authorization to
deduct fees could not commence before the start of the contract or
beyond its expiration. The committee substitute states, in section
8, that the authorization cannot be irrevocable beyond the
expiration of the agreement or one year, whichever occurs first.
He noted that an action by the fee payer would be necessary. He
suggested that many of the fee payers will assert their right to no
longer have a deduction at the expiration of the contract. He
maintained that this could deprive the union of funds at a time
when funds are most needed. He noted that the General Governmental
Union went two years without a contract. He estimated that the
committee substitute will result in more requests for termination.
Mr. Flanagan acknowledged that some concerns by the Department have
been addressed. He noted that the Department of Labor still has
serious concerns regarding the far reaching disclosure
requirements. He asserted that the disclosure requirements exceed
requirements under federal law. He noted that federal law requires
reports of payments in excess of $10 thousand dollars to employees
or officers. The committee substitute requires disclosure of
payments of $500 hundred dollars or more and expands those that are
covered. Any amount spent on political activities would have to be
reported. He maintained that the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC) should handle the reporting of political funding.
Mr. Flanagan noted that municipal concerns have been obviated with
the changes made by the committee substitute.
Mr. Flanagan discussed the fiscal impact of the legislation. He
noted that the Department of Labor's fiscal note was over $200
thousand dollars. He acknowledged that the Alaska Labor Relations
Agency's fiscal note would be reduced by the legislation. He
stressed that there will still be an increase in unfair labor
practice activity. He stated that the Department of Labor,
Commissioner's Office fiscal note will be $98 thousand dollars the
first year and $91 thousand dollars each succeeding year. This
would fund one Accounting Technician II position and a one-quarter
time assistant attorney general for criminal prosecution.
Co-Chair Therriault referred to the Consent Decree. He summarized
that unless there is a mechanism to determine which fees go to
collective bargaining and which goes to other, that a certain fee
cannot be mandated. Mr. Flanagan noted that the accounting method
has to be acceptable to the court. Co-Chair Therriault maintained
that any employee could opt out of paying any fee.
Representative Kelly stated that he is opposed to Alaska being a
right to work state.
Co-Chair Therriault stressed that any employees that raise the same
concern and would be exempt from the payment of fees. He stated
that he supports the right of employees to be represented by a
collective bargaining agreement. He emphasized that employees
should be compelled to pay for the benefit of services they
receive.
Representative Kelly expressed concern with section 9. He
maintained that employees living under a negotiated contract should
pay for the services they receive. He stated that he would not
support legislation that allows employees to benefit from a
negotiated contract without paying for the services.
Mr. Chance asserted that as long as the contract is in effect, the
person who derives a benefit from the contract has an obligation to
pay a fee. He noted that they could revoke the check-off. If they
revoke the check-off the payment of the fee would be between the
employee and the union, not the employee and the State.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that defendants are not entitled to
collect any agency fees from the plaintiffs. Mr. Chance clarified
that the Court concluded that there was not a system in place which
provided the necessary constitutional protection to a service fee
payer. The Court ruled that the union security agreement could not
be enforced.
Co-Chair Therriault concluded that individual employees will have
to pay for the services they receive, as long as the organization
has an accounting system that is adequate to separate the
collective bargaining fee, under federal law.
Representative Davies did not agree that the court decision
resulted in Alaska becoming a right to work state. He noted that
some labor groups may have to change their accounting practices.
He stated that new legislation is not needed to allow labor groups
to change their accounting practices.
Representative Davies noted that the legislation utilizes double
negatives. He noted that nothing prohibits a public employer from
making an agreement. He observed that there is no positive
requirement that fees be paid. He stressed that there would be no
requirement for a service payer to pay the service fee after a year
of negotiations.
Mr. Chance stressed that the obligation to pay a fee should not be
confused with the authority to have a check-off. Representative
Davies maintained that many people will not pay the fee and it will
be impossible to enforce the fee. He noted that it is not feasible
to take people to court over the accumulation of fees.
Mr. Flanagan pointed out that the committee substitute suspends the
grievance procedure, which the fee is calculated to include. He
maintained that the court may not uphold the obligation to pay.
SB 151 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|