SENATOR TAYLOR introduced a work draft for SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 302(JUD), workers compensation for recreational activities, and warned the committee members it was a controversial subject since it dealt with the "bunkhouse rule." He explained there had been worker's compensation wars around the legislature for years. SENATOR JACKO asked what the bunkhouse rule was, and SENATOR TAYLOR suggested it could be answered by someone from REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE'S staff or PAT SMUTZ, legislative director for the AFL-CIO. Number 260 MR. SMUTZ explained the bunkhouse rule was a worker at a remote work site, under the control of the employer, was covered by workers compensation 24 hours a day. SENATOR LITTLE asked what changes the bill would make. MR. SMUTZ said the committee substitute deletes the House versions on page 2, lines 12 through 15, and would make a major modification of the worker's compact. If you were engaged in a recreational activity at a remote site, you wouldn't be covered by worker's compensation. MR. SMUTZ claimed it would be a backward step in the worker's compensation, and he discussed the traditional means for negotiating compromises between labor and management, as well as the Alaska Labor/Management Worker's Compensation Ad Hoc Committee. At that time, he said labor gave up major concessions in quite a bit of insurance premium reductions, and it worked out as a major compromise, a system that seems to work. He claimed at the end of session, there is always a special interest that wants to modify the law. He described a number of remote camps, and he didn't see any one from those camps supporting the change. He was curious as to the specific interest, but he was not aware of any problems. Number 313 SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. SMUTZ to comment on the proposed committee substitute which addresses the officials who are on a contractual basis at a sports event involving softball, and he described a group of legislators, who would be playing softball in the afternoon. He thought this was the main thrust of the legislation from REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE'S position. MR. SMUTZ said it was called the softball rule, and he described an example of a large company that went Outside and recruited a ringer to play on their company team. The ringer, a woman, was hurt and she was denied worker's compensation. It went to court where it was decided it was a condition of hire and was covered under workers compensation. He thought there was a perception problem as to whether these people are covered by workers compensation. MR. SMUTZ said he was not too familiar with the umpire part of the legislation, but thought it involved official who contract as individuals to be umpires and referees, although they wanted to be considered as individual contractors - not necessarily employees. MR. SMUTZ, in answer to a question from SENATOR TAYLOR, said the AFL-CIO was neutral on the bill. SENATOR TAYLOR explained in the example given by MR. SMUTZ, the ringer would not be covered if the committee substitute passed, and he explained in page 2, line 8 the language that would exclude activities of a personal nature away from employer provided facilities. Employer sanctioned activities do not include recreational activities unless the activity occurs at a remote job site or on the employment premises. SENATOR TAYLOR was interrupted by JACK HEESCH, President of the Alaska Softball Association, who explained the court interpreted the employer provided rule to include that if you pay the fee to rent the field, which you do when you pay a fee to enter a league, some of that money is transferred to the Municipality Parks and Rec. for rental of the fields. The court interpreted that as being an employer provided facility as the result of the rental of the field through the entry of the team into a league. SENATOR TAYLOR clarified the meaning as even after HB 302 has been passed, that MR. HEESCH believed if the employer paid for the rental of field that somehow becomes employment premises. Number 369 MR. HEESCH said they were eliminating "employer provided" and specifying "employer premises." SENATOR TAYLOR used a hypothetical example of Fred Meyers having a softball team, and even if Fred Meyers buys them their uniforms, pays costs and fee rental of a field, that is not employment premises? MR. HEESCH said that was correct. SENATOR TAYLOR said those players would not be covered by worker's compensation as he interprets the legislation. SENATOR TAYLOR explained somehow he had modified the remote camp rule by deleting it, and MR. SMUTZ agreed. There was a argument as to whether workers playing ball at a remote camp were covered or those playing ball in a Fred Meyers' parking lot. SENATOR TAYLOR said the committee substitute would eliminate coverage for those in the urban setting, but those in a remote setting would still be covered or any activity - even mountain climbing - over which the employer has no control. MR. SMUTZ was not sure what the employers in logging camps could do, but he did know athletic equipment was provided. He explained the remote circumstances where recreation is part of the camp life and the necessity of workers compensation 24 hours a day. Number 413 SENATOR LITTLE clarified that activities provided at a remote site are part of the benefit package that comes with the job and is a negotiated part of the contract between the employer and employee. MR. SMUTZ, in speaking for union sites, described the recreation activities, and he used the North Slope as an example of using the activities as an enticement to stay. SENATOR TAYLOR wanted to know where the line is drawn between the employer who provides all kinds of equipment and events here in town, and are not covered, but in logging communities their employers are basically under a cloud now because they have to be covered. He clarified most of his communities are remote sites. This brought a question from SENATOR LITTLE asking how there can be a remote site with employees involved in recreational activities fifty miles from camp. SENATOR TAYLOR said Prince of Wales Island has 2000 miles of road and the deepest caves ever discovered. He explained it was going to become a national park, but presently loggers on the Island can spend off duty time spelunking. If an employee is injured, the employer is responsible, but SENATOR TAYLOR doesn't think that is appropriate. MR. SMUTZ described the difference on the employees on the North Slope who have to observe a certain amount of control in their activities. He suggested limitations on where the loggers may travel might be a negotiable item in a contract. MR. SMUTZ explained restrictions were difficult, but he didn't think the committee substitute for HB 302 properly addresses the problem, and would only create more problems. SENATOR TAYLOR said the original bill certainly draws a line on every employee living at this time, and he referred to page 2. MR. SMUTZ said it would probably be determined in future court cases, but MR. HEESCH indicated continued support for the bill. Number 463 SENATOR TAYLOR explained how, in refereeing three games on Sandy Beach, the referee might be covered on one but not the other two. MR. HEESCH explained that most of the officials worked for organizations in such groups as the Juneau Sport's Association, under contract as independent contractors. He quoted the IRS as being in agreement, as well as the Department of Labor, but he also elaborated on the vagaries of insurance rules that has made it expensive. Number 495 SENATOR LITTLE said she had a clear understanding of the original bill, but was not willing to support the committee substitute. SENATOR TAYLOR called for a vote on SENATOR HALFORD'S move to adopt the new committee substitute for House Bill No. 302(JUD). The role was taken with the following results: SENATORS TAYLOR, HALFORD, and JACKO voted "yea," and SENATOR LITTLE voted "nay." SENATOR TAYLOR stated the motion carried. It was decided the bill would go next to Rules. SENATOR HALFORD moved to pass SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 302(JUD) from committee. SENATOR LITTLE objected, and explained the committee substitute addressed a situation that could be more properly addressed in individual cases, where there are problems through agreements between employers and employee at remote work sites. She thought it would make a sweeping change in all remote sites, where there aren't problems, and seems highly inappropriate. She urged the bill not be passed from committee, since she didn't think it would benefit the State as a whole. SENATOR TAYLOR called for a vote on SENATOR HALFORD'S move to pass SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 302(JUD). The role was taken with the following results: SENATORS TAYLOR, HALFORD, and JACKO voted "yea," and SENATOR LITTLE voted "nay." SENATOR TAYLOR stated the motion carried.