MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND MANAGEMENT
Sixty-seventh Session
June 8, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Labor and Management was called to order by Vice Chairman Bernie Anderson at 3:45 p.m., on Tuesday, June 8, 1993, in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman Absent/Excused
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Vice Chairman
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mr. John C. Bonaventura
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. Peter G. Ernaut
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Erin Kenny
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Don Williams, Legislative Counsel Bureau Research
Frank Krajewski, Senior Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Pam Miller, Government Affairs Director, Nevada
Chapter Associated General Contractors
Donna Lewis, Director, Div. of Enforcement for Industrial
Safety and Health, Dept. of Industrial Relations
Ray Matyas, IATSE 720
Moshe Bialak, IATSE 720
Mel Turner, IATSE 720
Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers' Association
Margi Grein, State Contractors' Board
Elaine McNeill, Associated Builders and Contractors
David Reese, State Contractors' Board
Scott Young, Counsel for State Industrial Insurance System
Following roll call, Vice Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on AB 673.
ASSEMBLY BILL 673 - Requires state contractors' board to suspend license of contractor upon finding that contractor failed to maintain satisfactory record of safety in workplace.
There being no one in attendance to speak in favor of the bill, Pam Miller, the Government Affairs Director for the Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors (AGC), explained the organization's opposition to AB 673. The AGC had a group retrospective rating plan where approximately 65 companies averaged a modification factor of approximately .6 percent. The bill would place the process under the purview of the State Contractors' Board but was applied to only one isolated industry -- the construction industry. If the bill applied to all boards and their safety procedures, etc., it might be more acceptable, she said. Ms. Miller submitted Exhibit C. The perception, she and Mr. Anderson agreed, was the construction industry experienced a larger percentage of injuries, but Ms. Miller indicated the construction industry was paying fully one third of the total SIIS premium dollars for anticipated losses.
Mr. Anderson asked if Ms. Miller saw the language on page 1, lines 6 and 7 as offering a rate reduction. Ms. Miller said some of the provisions included in SB 316 which called for written safety programs, would go far towards solving job- related problems in the construction industry; and the AGC fully supported having written safety programs for all companies. She maintained current OSHA standards adequately covered safety on the job site, particularly in the construction industry; and additionally, the industry provided self-policing to promote safety on the job site.
Referring to the phrase, "must maintain a satisfactory record of safety. . .," Mr. Bonaventura believed the bill should require, "must maintain a satisfactory safety program and record of safety. . .". Ms. Miller agreed. She pointed out the bill did not adequately define exactly what safety was.
Mr. Regan believed the second part of the bill spoke to what the board should have been enforcing in the first part of the bill.
Discussion followed. There was general agreement the language on lines 6 and 7 should precede those of lines 3, 4 and 5, in order to let the board adopt regulations which prescribed requirements relating to a satisfactory record of safety in the workplace.
Ms. Miller indicated the AGC was paying an average of $20 per $100 of payroll and with a modification factor of 1.6 percent, the contractor was already penalized if he had an unsafe job site.
Mr. Ernaut noted there were no provisions written into the bill which provided a right of appeal or due process.
Mr. Carpenter did not believe the Contractor's Board should be placed in the position of evaluating safety practices, as it was out of the Board's area of expertise. Also, he was concerned about the prospect of putting someone out of business. He recognized there was a "no fault" provision, but did not believe a contractor should be put out of work just because a worker had been injured.
Representing the Associated Builders and Contractors, Elaine McNeill also spoke against the bill and echoed Ms. Miller's remarks that the bill singled out construction. Safety should be a concern of everyone in business, not just those in construction, she opined.
Mr. Anderson asked what specific methods the construction industry used to promote safety. In response, Ms. McNeill explained the construction industry was required by OSHA to have a safety program and her association offered safety training to the first line supervisors and to company managers and owners. Also, for the past three years, she indicated, the OSHA Training Institute from Des Plains, Illinois, had presented programs for safety training. She did not believe the bill would do anything to increase the desire or commitment of those in the construction industry to have a safe workplace.
Opposing testimony was also heard from David Reese, attorney for the State Contractors' Board. He not only agreed with previous testimony, but he also said there was already a disciplinary mechanism in place. This allowed the Contractors' Board to discipline licensees who did not comply with federal and state labor and safety laws, i.e., NRS 624.3011(1b). He said conversations with his counterpart in the Department of Industrial Relations, Donna Lewis, indicated agreement and cooperation between both agencies. Mr. Reese declared the state felt comfortable with contacting the Contractors' Board and using the mechanism in place to bring a contractor to compliance.
Mr. Reese agreed with a remark from Mr. Carpenter it was beyond the expertise of the Contractors' Board to police safety compliance by testing, classifying, disciplining and issuing licenses.
Representing the State Contractors' Board, Margi Grein said their investigators had no expertise in the area proposed; thus, it would be difficult to determine what the fiscal impact would be to the Contractors' Board.
Mr. Reese and Mr. Collins discussed the traditional role of the Contractors' Board in criminal prosecutions.
Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers' Association, expressed opposition to the bill and reiterated concerns regarding, 1) lack of due process; 2) lack of specifics; and 3) the bill somewhat duplicated the intent of the modification factor. Single industry legislation was generally poor policy, he concluded.
The Administrator for the Division of Enforcement for Industrial Safety and Health, Donna Lewis, said they had no position on the bill. She went ahead to explain how her Division interacted with the Contractors' Board and the Associated General Contractors.
ASSEMBLY BILL 671 - Makes various changes to provisions governing employers insured by state industrial insurance system and prohibits system from insuring certain employers.
Ray Bacon again came forward to testify in opposition. He concluded most of the issues presented in AB 671 were issues they had attempted to deal with in SB 316. His other objection centered around the apparent implication there was a modification factor system which was not working. If this was true, Mr. Bacon believed they should correct the modification factor instead of creating a new issue. It was unnecessary legislation, from the viewpoint of the Nevada Manufacturers' Association, he stated.
Mr. Collins said one of the attempts to change the modification factor was the deductibles which had been discussed earlier. He believed there should be a way to change the modification factor. Mr. Bacon agreed, but he believed AB 671 was just a piecemeal approach to the problem.
Mr. Bache asked Scott Young, counsel for the State Industrial Insurance System, to comment on the bill.
Mr. Young agreed with some of the comments made by Mr. Bacon in that some items had already been addressed. Subsection 2 of Section 2 was currently embodied in NRS 616.1722(3) and (4) and subsection 3 of subsection 2 was similar to Section 146 of SB 316.
In Mr. Young's opinion, the major problem with the approach taken by AB 671 was the bill indicated someone with a bad experience rating would be allowed to go self-insured without the normal financial protections now in effect. This would, in effect, turn the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) into an unpaid, third-party administrator because the DIR would have to handle the claims and could only collect the actual out-of-pocket expenditures. Currently, when SIIS handled uninsured claims, a 6 percent administrative fee was levied for handling it. Basically, bad employers were relieved of paying an administrative fee. Also, if one of the employers had a very expensive claim, it would simply go out of business and never have to pay. The cost of that claim fell back on the good employers.
Mr. Young thought it was more appropriate to make the employers carry the mandatory insurance, but use the approach of a mandatory retro plan which also forced them to make their contribution into the system and accept their share of the cost. If they were unable to financially do this, then the business should fail and be assumed by someone in the industry capable of administering an appropriate safety program.
Mr. Collins questioned if the bill could be amended to conform to Mr. Young's suggestion to state if a business could not be insured by the system, or could not be self-insured, it would be out of business. This, Mr. Collins agreed, was probably the more appropriate approach, however, AB 671 did not do this. If this was the intent of the bill, the committee should amend AB 671 to accomplish that intent.
Mr. Anderson noted AB 671 was of special interest to Chairman Giunchigliani. Therefore, he stated they would hold the bill until the Chairman was available to discuss it.
ASSEMBLY BILL 466 - Establishes preferred employee program for rehabilitation of injured employees.
Although AB 466 had been placed on the agenda for hearing, Mr. Anderson pointed out there were suggested amendments which had been submitted by Mr. Hettrick at the last meeting. He believed it would be beneficial if the committee reviewed the material before they again discussed the bill.
ASSEMBLY BILL 562 - Prohibits commission on economic development from referring or recommending person for employment with motion picture company.
Ray Matyas, Business Representative for the Stagehands' Union in Las Vegas, submitted Exhibit D, amendments proposed, and Exhibit E, a set of Film Advisory Committee Minutes from a meeting on August 19, 1992. In response to Mr. Anderson's question, Mr. Matyas indicated there had been no agreement reached between the Motion Picture Division and his group.
Moshe Bialak, Special Projects for IATSE 720, said they had tried to work with Bob Hirsch, Division Director of the Motion Picture Division, to come to agreement on the bill; however, there had been no significant progress.
Ordinarily the committee needed to be able to look at amendments which had been agreed upon, Mr. Anderson stressed.
Following some discussion and a short break, Mr. Anderson indicated the two sides of the issue had not been able to reach a consensus on AB 562. Therefore, he said the committee would consider the amendments proposed by both parties. He asked Mr. Bache to chair a subcommittee with Mr. Hettrick and Mr. Collins to work out a compromise. The subcommittee was urged to accomplish this expeditiously after the meeting was adjourned so it could be again considered at the next meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Iris Bellinger
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Labor and Management
Date: June 8, 1993
Page: 1