MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Subcommittee on Commerce and Labor

 

Seventy-First Session

April 2, 2001

 

 

The Subcommittee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 2:06 p.m., on Monday, April 2, 2001.  Chairman John Oceguera presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr.                     John Oceguera, Chairman

Mr.                     David Goldwater

Mr.                     Dennis Nolan

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Mr. John Lee, Assemblyman, District No. 3

Mr. Jerry Claborn, Assemblyman, District No. 19

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst

Dawn Lee, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. David McCune, Laborers’ Union Local #872, Las Vegas

Mr. Jesse Bradley, Business Manager, Electrical Workers Local #357, Las Vegas

Ms. Robin Holabird, Deputy Director, Nevada Film Office, Nevada Commission on Economic Development

Mr. Bill Anderson, Business Manager, Las Vegas Plumbers and Pipefitters United Association Local #525

Mr. Phillip J. Campbell, Plumbers and Pipefitters Joint Apprentice and Journeyman Training Committee

 

Chairman Oceguera dispensed with the roll call, noting that all members of the subcommittee were present.  He commented he would generally be in support of licensure; however, it did not appear from conversations thus far that the parties involved had reached an agreement.  If an agreement could not be reached during the hearing, the legislation would probably go nowhere.  He then opened the hearing on A.B. 355.

 

Assembly Bill 355:  Provides for establishment of minimum standards for education, training and certification of electricians. (BDR 53-714)

 

Chairman Oceguera called for testimony on A.B. 355 and recognized Mr. David McCune, Laborers’ Union Local #872, Las Vegas.

 

Mr. McCune stated he had spoken with his colleague, Mr. [Richard] Skip Daly of Laborers’ Local 169, Reno.  The result of those discussions indicated the laborers and the electricians had not yet been able to reach agreement on A.B. 355.  He did not want to give one trade an advantage over another trade.  The dispute between the two organizations centered on the work performed outside a building as both laborers and electricians wanted to be able to perform the work.  Since an agreement could not be reached, the Laborer’s Unions would oppose A.B. 355 on those grounds.

 

Chairman Oceguera asked if there was a representative from the electricians present and recognized Mr. Jesse Bradley, Business Manager, Electrical Workers Local #357, Las Vegas.

 

Mr. Bradley stated electricians had traditionally done conduit work for the past 100 years.  Now the laborers wanted to perform the conduit work, but the electricians’ work was what ran through the conduit.

 

Chairman Oceguera inquired of Mr. Bradley and Mr. McCune if there was any middle ground.

 

Mr. Bradley did not feel there was middle ground.

 

Mr. McCune felt there was middle ground.  He testified laborers had been laying conduit for some of the general contractors for the past 30 years.  They did not want to give up that work and sacrifice their contracts as a result.  He felt sure that an agreement could be reached, but it had yet to occur.

 

Chairman Oceguera asked if both sides felt that no change in the current statutes was better than small, incremental changes.

 

Mr. McCune stated he was in favor of small, incremental changes as opposed to A.B. 355 not being passed.  He felt change was needed to curb the problem that he felt would occur, but an agreement had not been reached in time for the hearing.  He did not want to see all the work done by both sides to date wasted.

 

Mr. Goldwater asked Mr. McCune to clarify his statement with regard to the problem he felt would occur.

 

Mr. McCune testified his main concern was not to repeat the problem with California’s deregulation in Nevada, with disputes over who did the work.

 

Mr. Goldwater requested Mr. McCune to explain the disputes more thoroughly.  Was there an overriding public policy issue that required action to pass legislation?  What problem could or did exist and what needed to be done to solve it?

 

Mr. McCune deferred the question to Mr. Bradley.

 

Mr. Bradley began by mentioning the fact that A.B. 355 had at first dealt with safety issues, not who did what work.  The work issue came into play when certain parties expressed a desire to be excluded from testing requirements.  Anyone who took the test and passed the test could do the work.  The bill was not about the exclusion of certain parties; it was to ensure that those parties doing the work had passed the test.

 

Chairman Oceguera asked if anyone else present wanted to provide testimony on A.B. 355, at which time Robin Holabird, Deputy Director, Nevada Film Office, Nevada Commission on Economic Development, came forward and was recognized.

 

Ms. Holabird spoke on behalf of the exclusion of people who worked in the film industry.

 

Chairman Oceguera told Ms. Holabird that the amendment she was speaking of was not at issue and was able to be worked out.  The issue seemed to be between the laborers and the electricians.

 

Ms. Holabird thanked Chairman Oceguera.  She then stated she had heard the word exclusion.  As the amendment she referred to was an exclusion, one her office was strongly in favor of, she wanted to make sure it was not an issue.

 

Chairman Oceguera reassured Ms. Holabird the amendment could work, provided all other parties could reach an agreement on A.B. 355.  He then called for further testimony on A.B. 355.  Seeing none, he closed the hearing on A.B. 355 and opened the hearing on A.B. 379.

 

Assembly Bill 379:  Provides for establishment of minimum standards for education, training and certification of plumbers. (BDR 53-1154)

 

Chairman Oceguera recognized Assemblyman Jerry Claborn, District 19, Clark County, Las Vegas.

 

Mr. Claborn began his testimony with a brief summary of A.B. 379.  The bill would provide for the establishment of minimum standards for education, training, and certification of plumbers.  He then deferred to Mr. Bill Anderson, Business Manager, Las Vegas Plumbers and Pipefitters United Association Local #525.

 

Mr. Anderson testified to the fact that there was a letter agreed to by the international organizations of the parties in disagreement with regard to A.B. 379.  If the utilities were excluded from A.B. 379, as suggested in the letter, then he would have no problem. 

 

Mr. Anderson testified that one of the arguments for licensure had been brought forward in a recent hearing before the Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Labor.  On average, each Clark County inspector conducted 29.3 inspections each day.  Of those 29.3 inspections, 22 percent—approximately 6—failed.  When multiplied by the number of inspectors, that would tend to prove the need for licensure and certification.  Even though the numbers represented all inspections, not just plumbing, plumbers were subjected to three different inspections, one for each phase of their work.  He felt that the numbers proved many plumbers did not know what they were doing.

 

Chairman Oceguera commented he fully supported licensure, education, and certification; however, the parties needed to come to agreement before that step could proceed.  He then questioned Mr. Anderson regarding the status of such an agreement.

 

Mr. Anderson stated he could agree with the recommendations made by the international organizations, with the utilities being excluded.

 

Chairman Oceguera next recognized Phillip J. Campbell, representing the Plumbers and Pipefitters Joint Apprentice and Journeyman Training Committee.

 

Mr. Campbell commented that he did not have anything to add to Mr. Anderson’s testimony.  He was available to answer any questions from the committee with regard to the type of program or necessary training and knowledge required.

 

Chairman Oceguera inquired if there were questions for Mr. Campbell from the committee.  Seeing none, he recognized Mr. McCune.

 

Mr. McCune testified he had the same letters Mr. Anderson had.  Unfortunately, much of the work currently performed by laborers was not limited to utility work.  Laborers often performed the first connection of water and sewer lines from a building.  He was not going to support the bill on that basis.  He felt that no trade should have an advantage over any other trade, especially since laborers had done water lines for quite some time with their contractors.

 

Mr. Nolan inquired whether or not who performed which duties was determined during contract negotiations.

 

Mr. McCune replied when a contract went to bid the lowest bid usually won the contract.  He was not aware how that was established on private projects.  The lowest bid was usually awarded the contract on public works and prevailing-wage jobs.  General contractors would obtain bids from all their subcontractors.  While their subcontractors might not have the lowest bid on a portion of the project, it was the total of the bid submitted by the general contractor that was the determining factor in awarding a contract. 

 

Mr. McCune was unaware of how the general contractor established who would do specific tasks on a project.  There were contractors that had signed only with laborers to do much of the underground pipe work, water, and sewer.  Sometimes they contracted with the plumbers to perform the main welding on the pipe only.  Most of the pipe work was laid, set, and created by the laborers and the plumbers only did the welding.

 

Chairman Oceguera recognized Assemblyman John Lee, District 3, Clark County, Las Vegas.

 

Mr. Lee testified that he thought there was an interesting point brought up by the parties involved.  Years ago, a plumber had to obtain a professional license from the Clark County Building Department.  The applicant took a test and had to renew the license every year.  If they did not renew properly, the test had to be retaken.  The proposed legislation would delegate that function to a state regulatory agency.  He felt it was more appropriate for the regulation to be left to the county.  He also believed that Clark County was more prepared to respond with implementation programs for licensure and regulation.  He did not feel the state and all of the other counties were as prepared in that regard.

 

Mr. Lee also commented on portions of the bill that dealt with child support and other issues.  Those issues were new, where one profession would have to be involved, while another would not.

 

Chairman Oceguera stated he thought the child support and other portions of A.B. 379 Mr. Lee referred to were statutory language added every time.  Any licensure required that language.

 

Mr. Lee stated he felt there was merit in A.B. 379, but he felt it should take place at the county level.

 

Chairman Oceguera thanked Mr. Lee for his testimony and recognized Mr. Anderson.

 

Mr. Anderson pointed out A.B. 379 did not stop anyone from performing the plumbing work.  All it did was make sure that those who did perform the work were qualified to do so.

 

Chairman Oceguera inquired of Mr. Anderson if he felt there was any middle ground between his organization and the laborers.

 

Mr. Anderson replied that he offered to agree to what the respective international organizations had agreed to.  He had received no feedback on that matter so far, and did not really know where it stood.

 

Mr. McCune agreed there should be some middle ground.  Something should be passed to make the regulations stricter.  If someone made a mistake, they should be accountable to someone.  He had been talking with Mr. Anderson, and he would have to agree with what the international organizations agreed upon.  They said there would be no bills brought before any government entity to make an unfair advantage for either trade.

 

Mr. Goldwater commented it sounded like the two parties might need to work through a mediator to decide where the division of labor might work best.  Perhaps the Labor Commissioner was better able to assist in that capacity, as opposed to the legislators.  Was that office knowledgeable enough to be able to sit down and help craft a licensure bill that might work?

 

Mr. McCune did not think the Labor Commissioner had a good enough grasp of the work to be able to assist.

 

Mr. Goldwater suggested perhaps some of the building trades would be able to help.

 

Mr. McCune stated that would have to go before the business managers; he was just a field agent.

 

Mr. Goldwater asked Mr. McCune if he knew of anyone qualified to sit down with the two parties and mediate the question.

 

Mr. McCune thought the trades were the ones that needed to sit down with each other.  He had only been a field agent for two years and knew this had been going on for some time.  He did feel there needed to be some uniformity between all the trades.

 

Chairman Oceguera recognized Mr. Campbell.

 

Mr. Campbell thought a bit of clarification was needed on what exactly was being dealt with, which was the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC).  The code was mandated by the state and covered plumbing practices in the state of Nevada.  It covered plumbing from the building sewer, which was the lateral connection off the public sewer, to the building.  The public sewer was not covered.  It also covered the water lines going to the building from the main line to the first valve or backflow prevention device, to inside the building.  Anyone who was in business to do plumbing should be competent in the UPC.  There should be no preferential treatment for anyone with regard to licensure.  This would protect the citizens of the state of Nevada from the harm that could come to them as a result of someone who had performed the work incorrectly. 

 

Mr. Campbell continued, stating work was currently being done incorrectly.  There was testimony to the fact of a 22 percent fail rate.  Approximately one-third of the 29.3 inspections were probably plumbing inspections.

 

Chairman Oceguera inquired as to the bid process.  When someone had a license as a plumbing contractor, and the bid was put out to do the project, did not they hire someone to do the work?

 

Mr. Campbell informed the committee the general contractor made his own decision.  If he was a union plumbing contractor and with the local union, he would probably use union plumbers.  Under the current situation, he could use anyone because no one was checking licenses; there were no requirements.  The only requirement in Clark County was in the administrative code and called for one journeyman on a job.  The decision had been made just recently, in January, to start enforcement of that requirement, which meant there had to be one qualified individual per permit.  The permit could be for an entire tower with crew of a hundred men, or one house with only a one-man crew.

 

Mr. Nolan commented he recalled Mr. Campbell’s initial testimony before the full committee.  He felt Mr. Campbell had ably explained the importance of the trade and the problems involved.  The difficult part was predicting what would happen if A.B. 379 was not passed.  Information had been presented regarding problems already occurring.  There was a current level of inspection that had to be met.  Testimony had been presented that the building inspectors were overloaded.  However, between the lending inspectors and the other inspectors on a project, he was not sure there was actually a need for A.B. 379.

 

Mr. Campbell used the city of Henderson as an example in his response.  Henderson hired combination inspectors.  The inspector would inspect the building, the mechanical, the electrical, the masonry, etc.  He may have to take a test, but he was not a plumber and that was the problem.  Several inspectors had mentioned to him they did not know what should truly be required of plumbers.  Two years ago, there was a training class for inspectors and several from Henderson related afterwards that they had not known about some of basic aspects of plumbing prior to the class.  Mr. Campbell had asked one of the individuals how someone could be hired that may not know what the craft required.  The reply he received was the very best people did not apply for the inspector jobs, as they did not pay well. 

 

Mr. Campbell stated there were qualifications for hairdressers and manicurists.  Currently, there was no regulation for someone who handled human waste and potable water, substances that could kill and have done so in the past.

 

Chairman Oceguera called for any further testimony.

 

Mr. McCune stated the laborers performed their work with the water and sewer mains mostly.  They did not do the hook up in residential construction at all and never had.  The problem was predominantly in the residential area, and there were not enough inspectors to cover it.  He believed there was a widespread problem there, but he did not believe it was with the water and sewer mains themselves.

 

Mr. Claborn commented the testimony was moving into jurisdictional areas.  He apologized for the introduction of jurisdiction before the committee and hoped further testimony would not bring more of the same.

 

Mr. Goldwater assured Mr. Claborn there was no reason to apologize.  Sometimes interest groups became frustrated with the inability to resolve issues, so they came to the legislature where they were promised a fair hearing.

 

Chairman Oceguera closed the hearing on A.B. 379 and stated there appeared to have been no resolution of the issues.  He did not feel the subcommittee could move forward and propose this as a solution to the full committee or the body as a whole.

 

Mr. Nolan asked Chairman Oceguera if he wanted to take a recommendation of no action back to the committee.

 

Chairman Oceguera stated they could do it that way.  He was going to state for the record that, since it appeared no agreement could be reached on A.B. 355 or A.B. 379, the subcommittee’s recommendation would be the two groups go back and work together in another forum.  There was support for licensure in theory and they would like to see it come forward again; however, they did not want to solve the dispute.  The recommendation back to the full committee would be for no action to be taken on A.B. 355 or A.B. 379.  He then adjourned the meeting at 2:39 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Dawn Lee

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman John Oceguera, Chairman

 

 

DATE: