MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND MANAGEMENT
Sixty-seventh Session
June 25, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Labor and Management was called to order by Chairman Chris Giunchigliani on June 25, 1993 at 3:45 p.m., 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. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Vice Chairman
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mr. John C. Bonaventura
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:
Mr. John Carpenter, excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Donald O. Williams, Principal Research Analyst
Frank Krajewski, Senior Research Analyst
Mr. Brian Davie, Senior Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association
Mr. Ray Badger, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Mr. John Madole, Nevada Chapter Associated General
Contractors
Mr. David Reese, Esq., State Contractors Board
Ms. Margi Grein, State Contractors Board
Mr. Jack Jeffrey, Southern Nevada Building and Construction
Trades Council
Mr. Anderson opened the hearing on SB-510.
SENATE BILL 510 -Establishes preferred employee program for rehabilitation of injured employees.
Mr. Brian Davie, Senior Research Analyst, testified. Mr. Davie stated he was testifying on behalf of Senator O'Connell and submitted prepared testimony (Exhibit C). He explained SB-510 was designed to help the injured employee get back to work and provided incentives for the employers to encourage the early return to work.
Mr. Anderson questioned the cost of the three-year program. Mr. Davie responded it depended on the level of wages. Mr. Davie explained the three-year program was designed as a voluntary program. The employees were not mandated under SB-510 to participate in this program. Therefore, there was no way of knowing how many employees would participate. One of the provisions in SB-510 provided for the funding to begin starting July 1, 1993 and the actual program would begin January 1, 1994. It was set up this way to accumulate funds into the program for the first six months, which would then be available when the employees began using the program in January 1, 1994. Mr. Davie noted there was a provision in SB-510 which required a report to be made to the legislature in January 1995 on the results of the first year's implementation of the program.
Mr. Davie noted there was some discussion in subcommittee meeting with Jan Needham regarding the on-the-job training program provisions in SB-316. There was a conflict amendment on SB-510 just before it passed the Senate to conform it to some of the vocational rehabilitation provisions in SB-316. He noted SB-510 had to be compared to SB-316 to see if there were any other conflicts.
Chairman Giunchigliani noticed some conflicts with the 50 percent wage subsidization.
Mr. Bache queried if the issue in Section 3, subsection 2 of the one cent per hour charge to employees was a violation of the constitution pertaining to the personal income tax section. Mr. Davie noted this issue was not raised.
The Chair questioned how employees who did not work hourly would be charged. Mr. Davie responded SB-510 originally proposed a daily assessment, but it was changed to hourly to accommodate part-time employees fairly.
The Chair noted salaried and lump sum employees also had to be accommodated.
Mr. Ray Bacon, Nevada Manufacturers Association, testified. He noted the issue of lump sum payments had never come up. He noted salaried employees were usually expected to work a certain amount of hours depending on the company, and they would be charged accordingly.
Mr. Ray Badger, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, testified. He called attention to Section 9 of SB-510 and noted this issue made the program much more than a voluntary program. Mr. Davie responded Section 9 was primarily created to prevent someone from entering the program and then backing out. Section 9 was protection to the system if an employee committed to the program and was offered employment which met his criteria and then decided to back out.
The Chair noted there should be a fiscal note to allow for the impact on state government. Mr. Davie noted it would come out of the present budget.
Mr. John Madole, Nevada Chapter Associated General Contractors, testified in support of SB-510.
The Chair queried if the Associated General Contractors provided health care for its employees. Mr. Madole responded affirmatively.
Chairman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on SB-510.
ASSEMBLY BILL 777 - Requires separate categories of master and journeyman in certain trades.
Mr. Tom Collins, Assembly District 1, testified. Mr. Collins called attention to Section 2, subsection 1, Section 3 and Section 4 and noted these were the most important areas of AB-777. He then presented photographs which the committee reviewed. One showed a fellow from Oregon working in Southern Nevada and another showed a high voltage splice on a cable which was installed by an out-of-state contractor.
Mr. Collins called attention to (Exhibit D) a letter from one of his constituents. He noted state law required electrical work to be conducted by a licensed electrical contractor and each contractor be represented within the firm with a qualified master electrician. Also each job be staffed with qualified and certified journeyman or when apprentices were on the job, they should be directly supervised by a journeyman. Mr. Collins explained these laws were not being enforced since they were not clearly stated in the Nevada Revised Statutes.
In 1985 the Nevada Legislature changed the manner in which workers were being qualified to work in the construction industry. Mr. Collins noted prior to 1985 the State Contractors Board was responsible to test electricians in accordance with NRS 624.240.
Mr. Collins asked the committee to clarify state regulations which were not actively being enforced and amend AB-777 to address some of the things accomplished in AB-205. This would help stabilize the work force in Nevada. There would be less substandard work being done because the work would be done by qualified employees who had passed the test.
The Chair mentioned she received a call from someone who was concerned about finding certified people in the rural areas. Mr. Collins noted a grandfather clause could be added to the statute for anyone who passed his journeyman's test.
Chairman Giunchigliani questioned if a license was presently required for the different types of construction. Mr. Collins noted it was a policy to have a license, not a regulation. He also noted Nevada had approximately 32 different crafts which required licensing versus most states which had approximately 50-80.
The Chair questioned if electricians and plumbers were presently on the list. Mr. Collins replied no they were not.
Mr. Regan questioned why the electricians and plumbers were the only ones being addressed. Mr. Collins noted his main concern was electrical and mechanical work which was handled by electricians and plumbers.
Mr. Hettrick pointed out in Section 2, subsection 2, lines 8-10, it sounded like the master or journeyman was liable for the building being safe and for the public's safety which could be a problem. Mr. Hettrick also questioned how the lists of qualified contractors would be established. Mr. Collins noted the contractors board already had lists established which they could add to.
Mr. Hettrick further questioned Section 4, subsection 2, "the board shall suspend for not less than 6 months the license of a contractor who employs . . . ." Mr. Collins noted the contractor had a right to appeal through the normal channels. Mr. Hettrick added the language should be clarified to read "general contractor" or "subcontractor."
The Chair asked Mr. Collins if there was language to differentiate between a master and a journeyman. She noted Section 2, subsection 2 did not in fact differentiate between the two.
Mr. Collins stated employees who worked for a utility at times would get calls from a customer and find wires which had burned out. The customer did not call the original contractor who had originally installed the wires, but called the utility. Therefore the contractor or the building department would know nothing of these problems which they might have created. He noted there was a lack of proper tracking and sometimes the utility company would be blamed for these problems.
Mr. Collins emphasized the intent of AB-777 was to improve the safety in Nevada with a better quality of workmanship. It was not meant to burden any specific department.
Mr. David Reese, Esq., State Contractors Board, testified in opposition to AB-777. He noted the State Contractors Board did not have the budget or the personnel to handle the trade certification and licensing matters for all electricians and plumbers in Nevada. The legislature for many years had prohibited the State Contractors Board from establishing classifications in such a manner as to determine or limit craft jurisdictions which was set forth in NRS 624.215, Section 5. Mr. Reese noted the contractor definition statute, NRS 624.020 had been in place for many years and had specifically excluded licensing employees or others with wages as sole compensation. The board traditionally did not license or certify employees.
Mr. Reese noted the duties mandated by AB-777 would stretch the board so thin it would not be able to regulate the 11,000 plus licenses which it presently handled. The board was comprised of a fair balance of different types of contractors. The board did not have the concentration in either the electrical or plumbing field or the expertise to be able to do the task mandated by AB-777.
Mr. Reese explained in Oregon they had an electrical board. The board was comprised of 13 members. Two were journeyman electricians, two were electrical contractors, one represented the power and light industry, two represented the industrial plants regularly employing licensed electricians, one member from the electrical equipment manufacturing industry, one local building official, one local government official, one member of the public, one electrical equipment supplier and one fire underwriter. All the expenses of the board were paid for by the building code account.
Chairman Giunchigliani asked if the State Contractors Board had ever certified any of the trades. Mr. Reese responded the board did not certify or license any of the trades. He noted the argument had always been for the board to stay out of trade certification. He noted the board solely licensed contractors or builders.
The Chair questioned if there was a more appropriate area than the State Contractors Board to do the licensing. Mr. Reese replied the Building Department might be more appropriate since they already handled all the job-site inspections and building permits.
Mr. Schneider noted the problems with shoddy workmanship should be caught by the building inspectors. If the building inspectors were doing their jobs correctly there would not be so many problems. If a job was not being done properly it should be red-tagged.
Mr. Reese noted if there had been a building code violation and a contractor had not lived up to the standard of workmanship, a complaint would be made to the State Contractors Board against the contractor. If a building code was violated, the State Contractors Board could then discipline the license.
Ms. Margi Grein, State Contractors Board, testified. Ms. Grein noted they had a list of contractors who were disciplined, C-2 contractors were electrical. She noted the numbers were very low. In 1991-92, out of 3,500 complaints there were only 20 complaints filed against electrical contractors; ten were for workmanship and 10 were for money owed. Year-to-date for 1993, the board had 2,700 complaints and only 11 involved electrical contractors.
Mr. Collins reiterated many of the complaints were going directly to the utility company and not back to the original contractor and noted this could be why the number of complaints was so low.
Mr. Jack Jeffrey, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, testified in support of AB-777. He noted each local jurisdiction had their licensing requirements and from time to time they enforced them. He stated he felt there was a need to license and certify journeyman electricians and plumbers especially. If a building was not wired properly it could cause fire damage as well as electrical shock, and if the plumbing was not done properly and was tied into the local portable water system, a real mess could occur. Mr. Jeffrey stated he was not sure the State Contractors Board was the agency to handle the licensing, but he felt there was a need for this type of legislation. He stated he would work with Mr. Collins on any necessary amendments.
Chairman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on AB-777.
ASSEMBLY BILL 479 - Limits circumstances under which certain benefits for injured employees are exclusive remedy for subcontractors, independent contractors, their employees and employees of principal contractors.
No action to be taken at this time.
ASSEMBLY BILL 700 - Prohibits certain employers from requesting applicants to submit to testing for presence of drug or alcohol and limits circumstances under which employees may be requested to submit to such testing.
ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB-700.
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 7 VOTES.
ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, BONAVENTURA, CARPENTER AND KENNY WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
ASSEMBLY BILL 671 - Makes various changes to provisions governing employers insured by state industrial insurance system and prohibits system from insuring certain employers.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE AB-671.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH 7 VOTES.
ASSEMBLYMEN BACHE, BONAVENTURA, CARPENTER AND KENNY WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE.
Chairman Giunchigliani mentioned she was still waiting for the amendments on AB-662. She also noted after speaking with Senator Townsend regarding AB-287 it was decided not to increase the tangible net worth to $5,000,000 from $2,500,000 for the self-insured. The percentage would be raised instead. She noted AB-563 amendments were being worked on.
The Chair noted AB-772 could be taken up during floor session. Mr. Collins noted everyone seemed to agree with the amendments to AB-772.
After some discussion on AB-772, it was decided the amendments should be reviewed again.
Mr. Bacon commented a governmental permit could imply a gaming license and noted AB-772 still required some clean-up.
The Chair also noted the State Contractor Board had faxed amendments to AB-772 (Exhibit E).
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m..
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JEANNE PEYTON
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Labor and Management
June 25, 1993
Page: 1