MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND MANAGEMENT
Sixty-seventh Session
May 18, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Labor and Management was called to order by Chairman Chris Giunchigliani at 3:44 p.m., Thursday, May 18, 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
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mrs. Erin Kenny Excused
Mr. John B. Regan Unexcused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Donald Williams, Principal Research Analyst (LCB)
Mr. Frank Krajewski, Senior Research Analyst (LCB)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Danny Thompson, AFL-CIO
Richard Johnson, Nevada Association of Employers
John Sampaga, Communications Workers of America
Janice Gunderson, Communications Workers of America
David Howard, Greater Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce
Jeff Kiel, Chromalloy Nevada
Judi Jensen, Communications Workers of America
Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Paul Pace, Premier Services Corporation
Robert K. Curtis, Cement Masons and Plasters
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens
Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) John Madole, Nevada Association of General Contractors
Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Terry Graves, Pioneer
Elaine McNeill, Associated Builders and Contractors
Michael Johaneson, Service Employees' Int'nl. Union (SEIU) Martin Bibb, National Federation of Independent Businesses Carol Jackson, Department of Industrial Relations
Lynn Grandlund, GWA, EON, NAIB and ASA
Mel Turner, Stagehands' Union
Charles Ivy, Private Citizen
Raymond Matyas, Local 720
Christine O'Rourke, Spectrum Services
Robert M. Hirsch, Motion Picture Division
Robin Holabird, Motion Picture Division
Erik Joseph, Motion Picture Division
Tim Wilson, Filmmakers Ass'n. of Northern Nevada (FANN)
Sally Lear, FANN
Moshe Bialac, IATSE
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 439 -Requires certain employers to enter into agreements with labor organizations to require employees who are not members of labor organizations to pay fee for costs related to collective bargaining.
Following opening remarks by Chairman Giunchigliani, Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County District 1, spoke in support of AB 439. He read his prepared testimony entered into the record as EXHIBIT C.
Speaking on behalf of Claude "Blackie" Evans, AFL-CIO, Danny Thompson AFL-CIO, read prepared testimony (EXHIBIT D) in support of AB 439 but suggesting a minor amendment.
Chairman Giunchigliani reviewed the suggested amendments to AB 439 and made the following suggestions for amendments: 1) delete "recognizes" and insert "authorizes" on page 2, line 4; 2) delete "shall" and insert "may," on page 2, line 3; and, 3) in the description of the bill to delete "requiring" and insert "authorizing." She asked Mr. Thompson if this was the correct recommendation of the AFL-CIO. He answered in the affirmative. Mr. Collins, as sponsor of the bill, agreed with the amendments.
Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Collins if the exhibit he submitted (EXHIBIT C) from the Legislative Counsel Bureau would affect the right-to-work law in any way, and Mr. Collins replied it would not.
Mr. Hettrick pointed out the workers who would have to pay this fee would not be involved in bargaining and, therefore, were basically without representation. Mr. Thompson explained if a non-union worker came to the union for help, the union was required by federal law to represent him. Mr. Hettrick expressed concern for the non-union worker who paid the service fee but had no representation in a fair share agreement regarding whether he would pay the fee and how much the fee should be. Mr. Thompson responded the regular union member would not be involved in the bargaining process either as this was left up to the union officials. Mr. Collins maintained AB 439 was a fair bill for all workers and was simply a way to ask non-union members to pay their fair share in solving disputes.
Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Thompson if the union would strike if there was no agreement on fair share. Mr. Thompson responded he did not believe the union would strike over this issue.
Mr. Ernaut wondered what recourse a dissatisfied union member had. Mr. Thompson stated a member could always file charges with the National Labor Relations Board, and there was a procedure provided for dropping union membership when contracts were negotiated. Chairman Giunchigliani mentioned each individual contract would indicate the procedure for dropping membership.
It was pointed out by Mr. Collins that federal law would not allow the assessment to go beyond the scope of grievance and arbitration in negotiation cost. The only privilege denied the non-union member was the right to vote in the elections of that local union. Mr. Collins also clarified a worker could withdraw from the union at any time with a certified letter.
A discussion ensued between Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Thompson and Chairman Giunchigliani.
Mr. Hettrick expressed concerns regarding Section 8, page 2, lines 7-8, noting the fee would be an amount agreed upon by the employer and the labor organization, but no guidelines were being set. Mr. Collins argued several states and the federal government maintained guidelines and restrictions, and the labor organizations' books were open to many federal agencies.
Chairman Giunchigliani pointed out Section 6 defined "service fee" as "the sum of money paid by an employee who is not a member of a labor organization recognized by his employer, which represents the employee's proportional share of the cost borne by the organization for collective bargaining." She stated Section 6 defined the service fee mentioned in Section 8.
Hypothetical situations regarding the payment of fees were discussed between Chairman Giunchigliani, Mr. Schneider and Mr. Ernaut.
Representing the Nevada Association of Employers, Richard Johnson told the committee he opposed AB 439. He submitted Exhibit E, a copy of the testimony he read into the record, and Exhibit E-1, an Attorney General's Opinion.
John Sampaga, President and Business Manager of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), Local 9467, and Janice Gunderson, representing CWA Local 9413, came forward in support of AB 439. Mr. Sampaga stated the Communications Workers of America represented 100 percent of the bargaining unit, whether they were members or non-members. He read his testimony into the record and submitted Exhibit F, a copy of his prepared remarks.
Ms. Gunderson also read prepared testimony into the record. (See Exhibit G.)
Opposition to AB 439 was indicated by David Howard, Vice President of Legislative Affairs, Greater Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Howard submitted Exhibit H, a copy of his prepared remarks.
Jeff Kiel, Vice President with Chromalloy Nevada, also came forward in opposition to AB 439, and submitted Exhibit I, a copy of his prepared testimony.
Supporting testimony was heard from Judi Jensen, a member of CWA 9467 in Reno. Ms. Jensen submitted Exhibit J, a copy of her prepared remarks.
Bonnie James, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, voiced opposition to the bill, and indicated the Chamber of Commerce supported Nevada's current right-to-work position.
Mr. Ernaut asked Ms. James if she thought the Chamber of Commerce aided businesses to be more profitable. She responded they tried to do that. She acknowledged to Mr. Ernaut the Chamber of Commerce charged dues.
Paul Pace, Premier Services Corporation in Gabbs, Nevada, indicated from the audience he also opposed AB 439.
Coming forward to testify, Robert Curtis, Business Agent for the Cement Masons and Plasterers, told the committee he fully supported AB 439 and believed there was a significant need for the bill. He believed it was unfair for non-union members to reap the benefits of union services.
There was a show of support and opposition, as follows:
- Lucille Lusk, Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens: Opposition.
- Debbie Cahill, Nevada State Education Association: Support.
- Terry Graves, pioneer: Opposition.
- Mike Johanasen, SEIU: Support.
- John Madole, Associated General Contractors: Opposition.
Mr. Collins noted the Attorney General's Opinion (Exhibit E-1) earlier mentioned by Richard Johnson was written in 1958. Also referring to Mr. Johnson's testimony, Mr. Collins pointed out the a 1974 case with LTR Transit dealt with a situation in which people were being required to pay union dues. This was not only against the law, Mr. Collins stated, it was also not the intent of AB 439.
Mr. Anderson indicated he had received a FAX'd letter from Donald Dinkgrave, Genova Products in Sparks, Nevada, opposing AB 439. The letter was included as Exhibit K.
Representing the Nevada Manufacturer's Association, Ray Bacon drew attention to language of the bill on page 1, lines 10-12, which excluded the "government, governmental agency or political subdivision" from the bill. He maintained this created an uneven playing field. If it was to be "fair share" it should be fair share for both the public and private sector. Thus, he said, they had strong objections to that language. Secondly, he said the bill would hit hardest on the new workers in an organization which could least afford it. Generally, he said they opposed the bill.
Referring to Mr. Bacon's remarks, Mr. Collins indicated there was a separate bill draft addressing the public sector. He also countered the dues were based on a percentage of wages; therefore, the lower paid worker would pay a lower percentage. Mr. Bacon maintained his position and insisted the bills and issues should be combined.
Elaine McNeill, Associated Builders and Contractors, took issue with a remark made by Mr. Collins if people did not like working for a union employer they had the right to leave the union employer and go to a non-union employer. In reality, Ms. McNeill said, there were not that many options when a person was older. She also corrected a perception Mr. Collins appeared to have, by stating the Associated Builders and Contractors had both union and non-union members.
Marty Bibb, National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), said the NFIB had polled its members regarding AB 439 and a two-thirds majority had opposed the bill.
Testimony was closed by the Chairman on AB 439 and opened on AB 563.
ASSEMBLY BILL 563 - Makes various changes relating to industrial insurance.
Carol Jackson, Director of the Department of Industrial Relations, submitted Exhibit L, her prepared testimony, and commented on the problems which had prompted the request for the bill. She indicated AB 563 was not a bill she had requested -- she was only there to relate the position of the Department of
Industrial Relations.
Mr. Anderson asked Ms. Jackson to clarify what would constitute probable cause in the proposed amendment to Section 3 (Exhibit L). He wondered if the DIR would be able to proceed to probable cause without other evidence if there was an accident. Ms. Jackson believed there should be other evidence. If, for instance, a claimant had worked 7 1/2 hours with no mishap and then had an accident, the hearing officer should certainly not jump to the conclusion there were drugs or alcohol involved in the accident.
Mr. Anderson also asked if Ms. Jackson believed there was a sufficient number of agencies with reliable testing procedures in Nevada to enforce the proposed legislation. In response, Ms. Jackson said she was not sure as she was not familiar with all the laboratories performing drug and/or alcohol testing.
Clarifying the genesis of the bill, Chairman Giunchigliani said there were a number of self-insured parties who required a test if a worker was injured, regardless of circumstances.
Mr. Carpenter wondered if the bill would serve to make the testing procedure too difficult. He asked what opinions legal counsel had offered. In reply, Ms. Jackson said she had talked to the DIR legal counsel, Mr. McGlammery, who was of the opinion there had to be some reason for an employer to consider drug testing. Ms. Jackson opined it was unfair to administer a drug test just for the sake of doing the test and without a legitimate reason to believe a test was necessary. Mr. Carpenter suggested the committee should hear more testimony and receive legal opinions before taking any action on the bill.
Discussion followed. Mr. Carpenter said he believed most mining companies required employees to test for drugs or alcohol each time there was a major accident; and this was part of the employment agreement. Additionally, he believed they could request a drug test at any time. He did not necessarily agree with this policy, but suggested the company should be queried as to why they maintained this practice.
Referring to Mr. Carpenter's concerns, Mr. Bonaventura wondered if the bill would serve to stop an employer from random drug and alcohol testing. Ms. Jackson said the bill only pertained to testing after an accident, and only as it affected workers' compensation.
Lynn Grandlund, GWA, EON, NAIB and ASA, suggested the committee should consider the fact that the "Panel 800" set limits for specific drugs at 500 nanograms per milliliter. The Department of Transportation, controlling long-distance truck drivers, had a limit at 1000 nanograms per milliliter. She explained the testing facility provided a controlled panel where specimens were taken. There was no running water and no toilet facilities. She submitted there were many employers throughout the nation who had established drug programs within their organizations. Ms. Grandlund pointed out several of her clients had formed a policy of drug testing wherein the employees were informed and had to sign a statement indicating they were aware of the policy of random drug testing and certain testing at the time of an injury, when they were hired.
The Chairman stated although there was no question of the need for drug testing, the arbitrary nature of what some employers were doing was what the bill attempted to address.
ASSEMBLY BILL 562 - Prohibits commission on economic development from referring or recommending person for employment with motion picture company.
Mel Turner, President of IATSE Local 720 (stagehands), explained soliciting work for non-professionals in the film industry might cause more harm to the state's reputation for film making than the dollars saved by using inexperienced crews. Mr. Turner believed preferential treatment would be given to a select few; and stated the Motion Picture Division was a state funded and state regulated agency which should be above reproach by using every means to secure jobs for all Nevadans. Mr. Turner cited instances when the regular state taxes were not paid by individuals or businesses referred by the Motion Picture Division, and did not believe monies from television and movies should be taken across state lines on the weekends. Ultimately, he said, the Nevada Production Directory listed all the services and people available, but it should not also list the people who worked in the film division office.
Questioning Mr. Turner, Mr. Ernaut asked him to give a few examples of the preferential treatment he was referring to. In response, Mr. Turner described a movie shot in downtown Las Vegas in which one nights' shoot, involving $40,000 to $50,000, was lost because of accidents with inexperienced crew members. These people were being paid $50/day for 12 hours work; and were individuals who had been referred by the Motion Picture Division.
Charlie Ivy, President of Nevada Audio-Visual, said he could not agree with all of Mr. Turner's allegations. He did agree there needed to be some merit and control in the Motion Picture Division and the manner in which they made recommendations of people and/or companies. This should be a very non-partisan, non-preferential and objective list of the services and personnel available. The independent contractors working in Nevada had given the industry cause and concern because they were circumventing vendors such as himself who paid SIIS, payroll taxes, the business activity tax, etc. If the independent contractors obtained all the necessary permits, abided by the regulations and paid the fees, there would be no problem, he said. They had to play by the same rules.
Therefore, Mr. Ivy saw a need for objective legislation which would restrict referrals and allow only recommendations in the form of a list such as that in the Motion Picture Production Directory. Mr. Ivy believed the problem with independent contractors was greater in the motion picture industry than in any other industry. He did not want to see the continued use of independent contractors or individuals who might or might not be qualified.
Chairman Giunchigliani said she was under the impression the practice in Nevada was to maintain an independent list. Mr. Ivy said the Motion Picture Division might maintain such a list, but it varied depending on the required skills. However, the independent contractors were not operating according to the rules and regulations governing the industry.
Referring to the independent list mentioned by Mr. Ivy, Mr. Collins asked if this was the list showing all the commissions and associations. Mr. Ivy said, "Yes." He did not think there should be an independent list handed out by the Division which was selectively composed. Mr. Ivy thought people should be referred to a hiring hall or more central area where there was more equitable access to the employment.
The fundamental issue, Chairman Giunchigliani said, was a governmental department was acting as a hiring hall.
Mr. Ernaut did not believe the bill addressed the subject of the independent contractor or untrained labor. Chairman Giunchigliani agreed, as did Mr. Ivy. However, Mr. Ivy believed it was wrong for a governmental agency to unfairly create a source of competition for him; and the Motion Picture Division should be strictly limited to promoting the Motion Picture Division itself.
Explaining the Motion Picture Directory for Mr. Hettrick, Mr. Ivy said the Motion Picture Division produced a "Nevada Production Directory" in which all businesses were allowed to advertise and list; and this was funded by large advertisements. Any legitimate business in Nevada could list as long as they provided a certain category of service.
Clarifying, Chairman Giunchigliani agreed the directory mentioned by Mr. Ivy was compiled by the Motion Picture Division who then created a separate list of selectively chosen people and companies available. The objection was the pooling of the special list separate from the Motion Picture Directory.
Ray Matyas, Business Representative for the Stagehands Local 720 in Las Vegas, also endeavored to clarify the issue. He said his Local was not opposed to the directory -- it was a good "yellow pages" for vendors in Nevada. However, vendors like Mr. Ivy who provided services as well as labor and equipment, were often shortchanged by Nevada's own Commission on Economic Development when the Motion Picture Division provided lists of labor people who would not work through Mr. Ivy's company. Mr. Matyas maintained it was well known the Motion Picture Division referred talent, as well as behind-the-scenes personnel such as make-up artists and camera technicians, on a regular basis in Northern Nevada and Las Vegas. Ultimately, Mr. Matyas said he would simply like to see the Motion Picture Division promote Nevada businesses rather than contacting friends of the Motion Picture Division who were looking for work.
Mr. Matyas said the new film, "Road Flower," was employing 40 or 50 people, of which only three were from Nevada. Mr. Hettrick asked if the other 37 people working on "Road Flower" had been referred by the Motion Picture Division. Mr. Matyas said he did not think so. He also agreed there was no law saying a firm in California was required to hire Nevadans. Although Mr. Hettrick appreciated Mr. Matyas' comments, he did not think the bill would serve to alleviate the problem.
The Chairman thought different language would perhaps be required. The two issues she believed were being addressed were: 1) to stop governmental entities such as the Motion Picture Division from being a hiring hall; and 2) the use of other state agencies which tracked individuals.
Christine O'Rourke, owner of Spectrum Services, voiced concern regarding the Motion Picture Division's practice of listing and referring people in the directory who had no verifiable talent, real address or phone number and no business license. She said Spectrum Services was one of the largest casting agencies in Nevada, listing between 6,000 and 7,000 actors, models, entertainers, etc. Typically, she said, when she knew a new film was coming into Nevada, she would be able to make a call to the film studio requesting permission to send the company's resume. With increasing frequency, her company was being told, "No thank you, we already have the location manager's position filled and we already have the PA position filled;" and this had come through Bob Hirsch's office, the film director for the State of Nevada. Ms. O'Rourke believed this could lead to fraud, graft or corruption. She also wondered why the directory was not being sent to the various producers along with an informational cover letter. Ms. O'Rourke testified when she had approached one of the producers she had been told personnel was already in place, and reprisals could be taken and future jobs in Nevada jeopardized if the personnel referred by the Motion Picture Division were not used.
Defending their positions, Robert Hirsch, Director of Nevada Motion Picture Division, Robin Holabird, Deputy Director of the Motion Picture Division, and Erik Joseph, Editor of the Nevada Production Directory and Assistant Director of the Motion Picture Division, came forward to refute the allegations made.
Testifying first, Mr. Hirsch said there had never been paid advertising in the Directory -- they were free listings. Answering the allegations made, Mr. Hirsch said:
1. The bill would, in effect, prevent the Motion Picture Division from providing employment opportunities for Nevadans and would send a message encouraging the use of California (Los Angeles) crews instead of hiring equally skilled local people;
2. It was the expectation of any film office to maintain an active list of resumes of specific technical positions. To be denied this expectation would have a negative impact on the Division's relationship with the production industry. He did not believe he had the power to hold such studios as Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount at bay with his awesome influence;
3. He stated adamantly the Motion Picture Division had never made any recommendations for any individual. If a company wanted a certain skill, resumes representing all individuals with that skill were sent without comment.
Robin Holabird, Deputy Director of the Motion Picture Division and Director of the Northern Nevada operations, reiterated testimony offered by Mr. Hirsch. She told the committee the remarks suggesting the companies listed in the directory did not pay the usual taxes and SIIS contributions were not true. For any Nevada resident hired, the companies made all the contributions required by the state. Part of the reason for maintaining the list and production directory was to encourage the production companies to hire locals.
Erik Joseph, Editor of the Nevada Production Directory and Assistant Director of the Motion Picture Division, explained how the directory was put together:
1. Companies and individuals sent them resumes for the directory -- there was no solicitation for resumes involved;
2. There was no paid advertising;
3. There were no inside lists, only directory listings which any qualified person could be placed on;
4. There was only one California phone number -- accompanied by a Nevada phone number -- in the directory;
5. The directory was first a press release to the media throughout the state;
6. A card in the back of the directory instructed people to show their credits and indicated the information would be verified;
7. Three phone calls were made to verify the information, i.e., the address and phone number, before the directory was published;
8. Letters were sent to previous listees to renew their listing. This did not automatically mean the individual or company qualified to be placed on the list;
9. There was a license requirement for a business; and an individual had to be qualified by credits and three references.;
10. Post office box, only, listings were not accepted. They had to be accompanied by addresses which were verified;
11. The Motion Picture Division never referred talent.
Mr. Joseph pointed out Ms. O'Rourke was listed four times in the directory -- more often than some of her competition. Referring to Ms. O'Rourke's allegations regarding her status of location manager, Mr. Joseph said as of the publication of the last directory, he had verified for himself her dues had expired in Local 399. Mr. Joseph went on to describe the very extensive procedure for verification of those listed in the directory.
Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Joseph to explain the differences alluded to between the southern and northern office policies and procedures. Ms. Holabird replied she had an updated sheet which included all the names, phone numbers and references which could be easily FAX'd. The Chairman observed Ms. Holabird was creating a selective list. Ms. Holabird agreed it was a separate list from the directory, but while not everyone on the list was in the directory, they generally were qualified to be in the directory. The Chairman asked for a copy of the list referred to by Ms. Holabird, a copy of the directory and a copy of whatever was produced for Southern Nevada. Ms. Holabird submitted Exhibit M, which was a list of individuals who had done construction work on film sets in Northern Nevada. She explained she had begun producing this list in response to inquiries from production companies.
Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Hirsch if Southern Nevada was involved in a similar type of activity to that in Northern Nevada. Mr. Hirsch replied in Southern Nevada they collected the resumes sent to them and separated them into categories. The Chairman asked Mr. Hirsch to describe the purpose of the directory. He responded this would be best described as an opportunity for Nevada service providers to get the necessary exposure they needed to a production company in Los Angeles or another other part of the country before making their decision to come into the state.
Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Hirsch to provide her with the total numbers of Nevada people and businesses hired in the past five years. Mr. Hirsch stated he agreed with Lt. Governor Wagner's philosophy that the role of the Commission on Economic Development was to promote Nevadans first both in economic development and in employment. Although anything they could do to promote employment was the primary mission and goal of the Motion Picture Division, Mr. Hirsch said they were not in a position to dictate to any production company who or how many Nevadans they should hire. The Chairman maintained the perception or appearance of screening or favoritism not only negated the industry, it produced a negative impression of the state. She said she believed there had been some inconsistencies in the testimony given by Mr. Joseph, Mr. Hirsch and Ms. Holabird.
Referring to Exhibit M, Mr. Collins asked Ms. Holabird to further explain the qualifications of the individuals on the list. Discussion followed.
In response to Mr. Hettrick's question, Ms. Holabird said the list was current within the past three months; and she did not have a directory available to leave for Mr. Hettrick or the committee. Mr. Hettrick indicated agreement with Chairman Giunchigliani's concerns surrounding the perception of favoritism and wrongdoing. He also asked for an updated list of construction people.
Mr. Anderson questioned whether Nevada's policies were consistent with other states in trying to bring film industries into Nevada. Mr. Hirsch replied in the affirmative, adding that according to the Executive Director of the Association of Film Commissions, all 245 film commissions, which included the United States, Canada and foreign countries, observed the practice of receiving resumes and distributing them. Mr. Anderson also asked if Mr. Hirsch had access to the kinds of materials produced in states competitive with Nevada, such as Arizona, Utah, Idaho and Oregon. The president of the film commission was, in fact, the director of the Utah Film Commission, Mr. Hirsch pointed out, and submitted a letter from Leigh von der Esch, attached hereto as Exhibit N. Mr. Hirsch said he did not believe the Motion Picture Division was going beyond what other states were doing in the providing of resumes.
Mr. Bache recommended the bill should be amended to read "effective upon passage."
Representing the Filmmakers' Association of Northern Nevada, Tim Wilson explained he wished to see fairness and employment opportunities provided to Nevadans. He expressed concern with the language on page 1, lines 5 and 6. Mr. Wilson told the committee he had worked in many roles in the film industry and in his capacity as a producer he wished to hire Nevadans when the company was working in Nevada. In order to do this, he would ask for resumes in order to determine an individual's qualifications and experience.
Sally Lear, Filmmakers' Association of Northern Nevada, reiterated Mr. Wilson's testimony, and read her prepared statements into the record, attached hereto as Exhibit O. Mr. Collins reminded Ms. Lear of a statement made during a phone conversation between them that "union people cost too much," and that there was no longer a northern union. Ms. Lear stated she was not in the business of referring people. Since she was a private citizen, she had the right to recommend whomever she chose; nor did she work for the Film Commission.
The Chairman called Mr. Hirsch forward again, and asked whether the list was maintained on a computer. Mr. Hirsch replied the information was stored on a disc which ultimately became a directory. Periodically these were updated and made ready for new listings. The Chairman noted the statutes called for a directory and suggested perhaps they needed to just maintain a list.
Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Turner, Mr. Hirsch and anyone else who was interested to work on the bill to develop some potential amendments within the next two weeks as she preferred to work with the industry to develop agreeable language. Otherwise, she said she would allow the bill to pass as it was.
Representing IATSE, Local 720, Moshe Bialac, took issue with the testimony describing the creation of the lists maintained by the Motion Picture Division; and agreed there was a perception the Motion Picture Division was a "hiring hall." Mr. Bialac said for over 20 years the IATSE had had a contract with its employers. The employers, together with the union, had developed a Taft-Hartley Trust Act for a training trust and this controlled the hiring hall. The training trust, controlled by both the union and the employers, qualified individuals by means of adequate testing. Thereafter, if a job was filled or if resumes or interviews were requested, this was done through a card system -- and with the scrutiny of federal and state law and the union membership. He believed the Motion Picture Division was biased and lacked proper scrutiny in their qualification process.
After again asking interested parties to get together to develop amendments to AB 562, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:44 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Iris Bellinger
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Labor and Management
May 18, 1993
Page: 1