MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND MANAGEMENT

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 6, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Labor and Management was called to order by Chairman Chris Giunchigliani at 3:43 p.m., Thursday, May 6, 1993, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman

      Mr. Bernie Anderson, Vice Chairman

      Mr. Douglas A. Bache

      Mr. John C. Bonaventura

      Mr. John Carpenter

      Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.

      Mr. Peter G. Ernaut

      Mr. Lynn Hettrick

      Mrs. Erin Kenny

      Mr. John B. Regan

      Mr. Michael A. Schneider

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Donald Williams, Principal Research Analyst (LCB)

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Blackie Evans, Nevada AFL-CIO; Mr. Arthur Busby, Horseshoe Hotel and Casino; Mr. John Sampaga,       Communications Workers of America; Mr. Mark Parrent,

      Utility Workers of America; Mr. Richard Johnson, Nevada

      Association of Employers; Mr. Robert Ostrovsky, Nevada

      Resort Association; Mr. Jesse Paulk, Associated General

      Contractors; Ms. Marilyn Russell, Binion's Horseshoe

      Hotel; Mr. Mel Turner, Stage Hands Union; Ms. Beth McNeil,

      Communications Workers of America; Mr. Dave Lundy, Matheson

      Fast Freight; Mr. Charlie Cox, United Auto Workers; Mr.              Larry Osborne, Carson City Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Greg

      Baladganian, Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corporation; Mr.      William Shields, Reno Sheet Metal Plumbing & Heating Co.;

      Ms. Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce; Mr. David       Howard, Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Marty Bibb,

      National Federation for Independent Business; Mr. Henry       Cano, United Steel Workers.

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 374 - Prohibits employer from hiring

                        replacement for striking employee.

 

 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani called the committee meeting to order.  Mr. Blackie Evans, Nevada AFL-CIO, opened the meeting by reading prepared testimony (EXHIBIT C) in support of AB 374 introduced by Assemblyman Bob Price. 

 

Mr. Ernaut asked Mr. Evans if there was any provision in AB 374 for no-strike clauses.  Mr. Evans answered this bill would pertain only to legal strikes.  If there was a no-strike clause in a contract and employees did strike, it would be an unlawful strike.

 

Mr. Schneider wondered if teachers struck could they be replaced, and Ms. Giunchigliani answered yes because teachers do not have a strike clause.

 

Mr. Ernaut questioned whether illegal acts performed during a strike were in any way protected by AB 374.  Mr. Evans stated there would be no effect on any illegal acts performed by either the strikers or the employers.

 

Mr. Hettrick staged a hypothetical scenario whereby a non-union employee went on strike with union members.  He asked Mr. Evans what would happen to such an employee.  Mr. Evans stated the non-union employee would also be covered under this bill.

 

Mr. Collins responded to Mr. Hettrick federal law would intervene and protect all members of a bargaining unit or all employees represented by a bargaining unit, whether they were members or not.  He noted employees were protected under federal labor laws currently on the books.  Mr. Hettrick wondered what the purpose of this bill was if employees were protected under federal law.  A discussion between Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Evans and Ms. Giunchigliani ensued with Ms. Giunchigliani advising Mr. Evans of the redundancy of the phrase "belong to a labor organization" in the bill.  Mr. Hettrick expressed his confusion with the terminology and who would or would not be covered under this bill.  He requested clarification of the bill language which he felt was ambiguous.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked to verify if an employee had sick leave accrued and came back from a strike would they go back to their initial standing.  Mr. Evans replied in the affirmative an employee could come back and could not be discriminated against because he went on strike.

 

Mr. Ernaut asked what the differentiation between a legal and an illegal strike was.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated NRS Chapter 614 covered who could strike in the state of Nevada.  There was considerable discussion on legal and illegal strikes and the bill language of labor dispute.  Mr. Arthur Busby, Horseshoe Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, read to the committee the definition as found in NRS 612.395.

 

Mr. John Sampaga, President of Communication Workers of America (CWA) Local 9467/UTW 34, stated any labor group would negotiate in the bargaining agreement any non-members who walked with strikers not be punished.  Mr. Sampaga's written testimony was entered into the minutes as EXHIBIT D.

 

Mr. Mark Parrent of Utility Workers of America (UWUA) Local 246, represented employees located at the Mojave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada.  He spoke in support of Mr. Evans and AB 374.  Mr. Parrent stated workers were required to give their employer 60 days notice in advance of a strike.  He further noted companies that replaced striking workers ended up creating dissension between friends, family members and coworkers.  Hard feelings existed for a long period of time and productivity was disrupted. 

 

Mr. Richard Johnson, of the Nevada Association of Employers, expressed opposition to AB 374.  He read from prepared testimony which was entered as EXHIBIT E.  Mr. Johnson made reference to a case in Minnesota and entered prepared testimony as EXHIBIT F.

He summed up his testimony by suggesting the committee seek additional legal input before proceeding with this bill.

 

Mr. Regan asked Mr. Johnson if it was true a company rehired a striking employee and paid him back wages after a strike.  Mr. Johnson answered that was the penalty if the strike was an unfair labor practice strike.

 

Mr. Johnson verified for Mr. Anderson he represented some employers who had negotiated contracts.  Mr. Anderson wondered if labor groups should encourage their members to leave their jobs if negotiations had reached an impasse.  Mr. Johnson answered no; even permanently replaced workers usually returned to the same or similar positions.  Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out this was a legal issue and when workers strike for benefits, they should be entitled to those benefits and their job when the strike was over.  She also stated this bill generally attempted to create a healing process, allowed employees to come back to work on equal footing and get back to the business of making money for the employer.  Mr. Johnson expressed his view this bill would maximize while Ms. Giunchigliani felt it would minimize the problems associated with returning to work after a strike.

 

Mr. Schneider asked how many people in the state of Nevada had been permanently replaced.  Mr. Johnson replied it very rarely happened; he could not recall the last incident.  Mr. Evans answered permanent replacements were tried at the Frontier Hotel and prevented because the hotel had unfair labor practices.  He further stated in the 1960's and 70's employers never talked about permanently replacing workers.  It became a big issue with the Air Traffic Controller's strike in the early 1980's.  Mr. Evans noted it was used as a threat by employers.  He repeated information Fitzgerald's Hotel permanently replaced all of its workers during the course of strike.  Ms. Giunchigliani mentioned The Four Queens permanently replaced electricians.

 

Mr. Carpenter wanted to know how long workers were out on strike before they were replaced.  Mr. Johnson did not know.

 

Mr. Bache asked if employers selectively permanently replaced workers or replaced all workers.  Mr. Johnson replied replacement was done to the extent possible to affect all employees. Sometimes it was not possible to find qualified people willing to work in a labor dispute as a replacement.

 

Mr. Regan wondered how many strikers from the Frontier Hotel were working someplace else and not walking the picket line.  Mr. Evans did not know.  He pointed out the example of the Greyhound Bus strike in which all workers were permanently replaced.

 

Mr. Robert Ostrovsky of Nevada Resort Association expressed his organization's opinion on the bill.  He noted this should be legislated on the federal level, not state to state.  Mr. Ostrovsky asked the committee to defer on this bill.  He further stated "labor dispute" needed to be clearly defined in this legislation.

 

Mr. Collins indicated to Mr. Ostrovsky other states had closed shops and care was needed when qualifying them.

 

Mr. Jesse Paulk, Associated General Contractors, stated his opposition to AB 374 due to the elimination of any balance between labor and management thus increasing the likelihood of strikes.

 

Ms. Marilyn Russell of Binion's Horseshoe Hotel expressed concerns with AB 374.  She stated her first concern was the way labor dispute was currently defined in the laws and the way it was addressed in the bill.  Ms. Russell was interrupted by a rude comment from the audience in Las Vegas and declared she did not appreciate being talked about in that manner.  Mr. Anderson chastised the audience in Las Vegas stating this committee would not tolerate, at any time, disrespect to any person testifying before the committee.  He reiterated the hearings were public and every person would be treated with absolute respect.  Ms. Giunchigliani repeated Mr. Anderson's statement of not tolerating any disrespect and asked Ms. Russell to proceed.  Ms. Russell requested the law to specifically state "strike" instead of "labor dispute."  Another concern was a non-union member striking.  She requested language clarification dealing with sympathy strikers.  Ms. Russell questioned the worker's loyalty to the company that had given benefits, health and welfare.  Strikers, she noted, were not without income.  Most strikers were supported by strike funds paid by other members of the union.  Ms. Russell wondered where the compromise was when workers who could be replaced effectively closed companies.  She summed up her testimony by stating if employers were disallowed to hire permanent replacement workers, there could be no compromise.  Ms. Giunchigliani rebutted Ms. Russell's statement employees were "given" benefits.  She noted employees earned and negotiated benefits and when things were given to people, there was not an equal partnership.  Ms. Giunchigliani stressed that was what collective bargaining was all about.

 

Mr. Mel Turner, president of the Stage Hands Union, asserted permanent replacement drove a wedge between the community and company and created a bad workplace.  He noted there was still animosity dating back 10 years between those hired as permanent replacements and the selective return of employees.  Mr. Turner emphasized all benefits gained were through contract.  Labor put social security reform, retirement and 40 hour work weeks in --nobody gave these benefits to workers, they were earned by hard work.

 

Ms. Beth McNeil, CWA 9467 and UTW 34, read prepared written testimony and it was entered into the minutes as EXHIBIT G.  She requested the committee to vote in favor of AB 374.

 

Mr. Dave Lundy, Matheson Fast Freight, voiced opposition of AB 374 for himself and his employer.

 

Mr. Charlie Cox, UAW 2162, read prepared written testimony and it was entered into the minutes as EXHIBIT H.  Mr. Cox wound up his testimony by stating his strong support for AB 374 and thanked the committee for listening to an endangered species; i.e., a union representative worker.  Mr. Regan asked Mr. Cox to list some of the foreign countries referenced in his testimony that provide more worker rights than the United States.  Mr. Cox replied Japan, Canada, Germany, France; 95 percent of Europe was union.  He noted the only two industrialized countries in the world that use permanent replacements for strikers were the United States and South Africa.

 

Mr. Larry Osborne, Carson City Chamber of Commerce, strongly opposed AB 374.  He agreed with Mr. Johnson's previous testimony this legislation could encourage labor strikes and work stoppages.  Mr. Osborne stated AB 374 and AB 439 were attempts by labor to gain, through legislation, what they could not gain through persuasive argument or the power of reason.

 

Mr. Greg Baladganian, Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corporation, read prepared written testimony which was entered into the minutes as EXHIBIT I.  His testimony was in strong opposition to AB 374.

 

Mr. Ernaut asked Mr. Baladganian what Chromalloy's largest single expenditure was and Mr. Baladganian answered it was labor, supervisory, and management overhead.

 

Mr. William Shields, Reno Sheet Metal Plumbing & Heating Co., spoke against AB 374.  He felt it seriously affected the long- standing balance between management and labor.  Mr. Shields pointed out in his firm's 40 year history, replacement workers were hired on one occasion only and that was to meet contractual agreements of the firm.  It was not an attempt to "bust" the union. When this dispute was over, all the workers desiring to come back to work were allowed to do so.

 

Ms. Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, expressed their opposition to AB 374.  She noted there were a number of laws to more than take care of most labor problems.  Ms. James further noted most employers were taking good care of their employees.  She also agreed with the detrimental effects of this bill stated by  previous testifiers.

 

Mr. David Howard, Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, made mention of information previously given to the committee on the Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action Plan.  He spoke of his experience in the industrial real estate area.  The number one concern of companies was labor costs.  Ms. Kenny asked Mr. Howard to explain if there was the right to strike but also the threat to permanently replace workers, why the balance was not considered to be in the favor of the employer.  Mr. Howard answered in kind with the question why should balance be either way.  Ms. Kenny then asked if Mr. Howard would favor binding arbitration.  Mr. Howard, while not a labor management expert, said he would have to say yes to binding arbitration if it provided both sides equal opportunity.

 

Ms. Kenny then asked Ms. James if the businesses in Las Vegas, including the casinos, would be interested in binding arbitration.  Ms. James responded there had to be give and take on both sides and felt AB 374 leaned toward labor demands.

 

Ms. Kenny questioned how this bill could crumble the business industry or destroy Nevada's economy if only three or four percent of workers were affected. 

 

Mr. Howard spoke of his experience as a councilman for the city of Reno and the fact the city went to binding arbitration every year for four years with the city firefighters and never won once.  The employer's side, in Mr. Howard's view, was never an equal opportunity for taxpayers and voters of Reno.  In his experience, binding arbitration did not serve a fair and equal balance.

 

Mr. Marty Bibb, National Federation for Independent Business (NFIB), explained his organization was the largest small business organization in the state and the country.  NFIB was opposed to this bill and had polled their members on AB 374.  By a four to one margin, NFIB members strongly opposed banning permanent striker replacement.  Mr. Bibb stated both sides faced risks in a strike situation.  He noted small businesses were labor intensive and if key employees walked off the job and could not be permanently replaced, a small business's ability to survive during the transition period could be significantly impacted.  Also, allowing the business to temporarily replace workers and backfill behind striking employees with management personnel was not a likely opportunity. Mr. Bibb further stated people did not want to take a temporary job.  Further ramifications of a strike could create havoc on a job site with smaller subcontractors.  He noted a small subcontractor might have purchased materials yet could not complete the job due to another subcontractor being struck.  This scenario could put a small business out of business quickly.

 

Mr. Collins asked Mr. Bibb how many of the businesses in NFIB were organized.  Mr. Bibb estimated between five and ten percent were involved with direct contracts.

 

Mr. Schneider wondered about an endless strike.  Was there a time limit for the length of labor disputes and at what point in time would someone become a permanent replacement.  Mr. Bibb  did not know of a norm in regard to time limit.

 

Mr. Bonaventura questioned whether an individual who replaced a striking employee became a permanent employee after a specific time period.  Mr. Bibb could not specifically answer the question because it would depend on how the law was written.

 

Mr. Henry Cano, United Steel Workers, shared a threat situation of last year while negotiating a contract with Chem-Star Inc. in Henderson, Nevada.  The threat made to the employees by management of permanent replacement caused the workers to handle the situation differently.  He noted their union was not strike happy.  Mr. Cano stated the threat of replacement created an uneven and unbalanced situation.  He noted strikers and their representatives needed a balance of power in negotiations.

 

Mr. Bonaventura  pointed out the fact employers could violate statutes, yet pay a $1,000 fine and still hire permanent replacements.  Mr. Evans stressed most employers and labor organizations had a good relationship.  Mr. Evans stated the AFL-CIO was not advocating an increase in the fine.  Mr. Bonaventura wondered if a stronger fine should be enacted.

 

Other prepared written testimony was entered as EXHIBIT J.

 

Vice Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on AB 374.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AB 374   WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:

 

      Strike on Line 5, "Belong to a labor organization"

      Strike on Line 7, "Concerted"

      Strike on Line 11, "Belonged to a labor organization"

      Strike on Line 12, "Concerted"

 

      Add Subsection 5 the definition of labor dispute as     follows:  "Labor dispute is defined as a strike over wages,       hours and other working conditions or terms of employment

      whether they occur during the term of a collective

      bargaining agreement or after its expiration."

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Discussion ensued with Mr. Schneider referring to his earlier statements regarding a time limit on strikes.  He expressed a limit of 36 months after which time striking employees would be permanently replaced.

     

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION

      TO INCLUDE AS WELL THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:

     

      Add Subsection 6 for a time limit of 36 months after the close of labor negotiations to permanently replace striking    workers.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Discussion on the motion proceeded.  Mr. Collins stated opposition to Mr. Schneider's amendment due to the length of some labor disputes and a weakening of AB 374.   Mr. Schneider expressed his worry for the small business owner who could not last for three months with striking employees, let alone three years.  Mr. Carpenter agreed with Mr. Schneider, yet felt a business could not last three years.  Mr. Bonaventura clarified

Mr. Schneider's intention while Ms. Kenny asked Mr. Collins to verify his statement in regard to large or small businesses.  Ms. Kenny asked Mr. Collins the length of time the Frontier strikers had been out; Mr. Collins replied 20 months.

 

A roll call vote was taken on Mr. Schneider's amendment to add Subsection 6 to AB 374.

     

      THE MOTION FAILED.

     

      THE FOLLOWING VOTED AGAINST MR. SCHNEIDER'S AMENDMENT:  MR.   ANDERSON, MR. BACHE, MR. CARPENTER, MR. COLLINS, MS.   KENNY, AND MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI.

      THE FOLLOWING VOTED FOR MR. SCHNEIDER'S AMENDMENT:  MR.

      BONAVENTURA, MR. ERNAUT, MR. HETTRICK, MR. REGAN AND

      MR. SCHNEIDER.

 

 

Mr. Anderson reread the original amendment Ms. Giunchigliani had put forth. 

 

Mr. Regan pointed out with the exclusion of "labor organization" on lines 5 and 11, line 23 on page 1 through line 6 on page 2 were irrelevant and should be eliminated.  Mr. Anderson concurred and deferred to the maker of the motion, Ms. Giunchigliani.  She stated Mr. Williams, Principal Research Analyst (LCB), recommended keeping those lines in the current bill.  Mr. Regan further noted lines 4 through 6 on page 2 should be eliminated.

 

      MR. REGAN MADE THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION AS      FOLLOWS:  REMOVE SUBSECTION 4 IN ITS ENTIRETY INCLUDING

      DELETING  "THROUGH THAT LABOR ORGANIZATION", LINE 8 AND 9, AND DELETING "THROUGH THAT LABOR ORGANIZATION; AND", LINE      13 AND 14.

 

      MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Mr. Hettrick restated his opposition to the bill, specifically in regard to the fiscal note and the defense of this bill in the court system.  Mr. Carpenter expressed his opposition to the bill as not encouraging new business to relocate in Nevada, and labor could cause chaos and break new businesses.  He further noted passage of this bill could create great unrest and would give too much power to labor in an unbalanced arena.  Mr. Bache  stated this legislation would restore the balance between labor and management which had been skewed to the management side.  Mr. Bonaventura reiterated his view AB 374 was good legislation and the fiscal impact would be minimal as the fine would be a misdemeanor.  Mr. Ernaut emphasized this bill would send a message to the rest of the country Nevada had given the last trump card in a labor dispute to labor.  He expounded his concerns, with labor contracts coming up for renegotiation in 1994, labor would shut down businesses.  Mr. Ernaut warned the committee if the Strip went down in 1994, they would rue the day this legislation was passed.  Mr. Hettrick reiterated his position employers would fight this in court.  The state of Nevada would have to defend cases in court which cost money.

Mr. Hettrick summed up his viewpoint by stating this legislation would be detrimental to the economy and would send the wrong message.  Ms. Giunchigliani asserted the intent of the bill was to create a win/win situation in bargaining disputes.  She further noted AB 374 would bring some standard for both parties to sit down and try to work out labor differences before a strike as well as create a healing process for those workers who went back to work after a strike.  Ms. Giunchigliani stated this bill would begin to level the playing field.  Ms. Kenny remarked on her divided feelings on AB 374 as the daughter of union and management parents.  She fully sympathized with the dissenters, Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Ernaut and pointed out her struggle with the bill.  Mr. Anderson requested a vote in favor of closing the debate.  All voted aye.

 

 

      THE MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH THE ADDITIONAL     AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY MR. REGAN PASSED.

     

      MR. HETTRICK, MR. CARPENTER AND MR. ERNAUT VOTED NO.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani rescheduled the hearing on AB 479 due to lack of time.

 

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      JUDY HANNA

      Committee Secretary

 

     

           

 

NOTE FOR THE RECORD:

 

Ms. Giunchigliani has asked for the following exhibit to be included and made part of the record in this set of minutes:

 

1.  Exhibit K - Note made by Ms. Giunchigliani at a later date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Labor and Management

May 6, 1993

Page: 1