MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND MANAGEMENT Sixty-eighth Session April 20, 1995 The Committee on Labor and Management was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Thursday, April 20, 1995, Chairman Dennis Nolan presiding in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer, Chairman Mr. Dennis Nolan, Chairman Mr. David Goldwater, Vice Chairman Mr. Lynn Hettrick, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernie Anderson Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. John C. Carpenter Mr. Pete Ernaut Mr. Mark Manendo Mr. Brian Sandoval STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Vance A. Hughey, Senior Research Analyst Mr. Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas Dirks, General Manager, SIIS Mr. Ross Whitacre, Assistant Chief of Benefits, State of Nevada Mr. Eric Cooper, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Chairman Nolan began the meeting by apologizing to any of those attending the meeting for the purpose of hearing A.B. 260. He stated the committee would not be taking any action or hearing this bill today. He stated the first order of business before the committee would be A.C.R. 20. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 20 - Urges state industrial insurance system to establish program for education of certain employers and employees concerning operation of system and their rights and responsibilities as participants in system. Assemblyman David Goldwater, Assembly District No. 10, began his brief presentation. Upon researching different agencies in Las Vegas in need of improvement, he found an area at the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) which he felt was worthy of legislation. SIIS is a complex system and the procedures an injured worker or an employer needs to follow or at least be aware of when filing a claim or having a claim against them are numerous. Most times their introduction into this system is "baptism by fire". Mr. Goldwater expressed his belief offering an orientation program for both injured workers and employers could help simplify the maze of administrative bureaucracy they must go through. This is in the form of a resolution because he did not feel a legislative mandate was necessary. A.C.R. 20 simply urges SIIS to develop an orientation program making new participants' first interface with this state agency more understandable. Chairman Nolan inquired, referring to line 8 of the resolution, would it be beneficial to be more specific being "recently" is quite subjective. Assemblyman Goldwater explained his intent is not to be too specific. He is willing to accept the committee's suggestions in regards to appropriate language being he is completely amenable to amendments. Assemblyman Krenzer expressed her support for A.C.R. 20 but wondered if a similar program does not already exist. She pointed out the resolution does not state "orientation" anywhere but instead "a program of education for employers and employees." She believes this refers more to educational materials, handouts or discussions, not a formal orientation. Mr. Goldwater replied that is correct being he wanted to allow the department flexibility. He explained the department in Las Vegas does have a film that people can view and so there are tools being used but again when he spoke to people in the agency this was something they expressed an interest in, either to implement or enhance. Assemblyman Anderson stated he was under the impression this was already being done. He questioned is the state not required to provide an injured worker with their rights, responsibilities and opportunities. In addition, he stated employers are required to post a large sign at places of employment indicating what rights the injured worker has in the event of an accident at work. Assemblyman Goldwater referred to Mr. Douglas Dirks, General Manager of SIIS, to address Mr. Anderson's question. Mr. Dirks explained when a claim is registered with them and it is subsequently either accepted or denied, in the case of a denial all of the appeal rights and the rights of the injured worker are given as part of the denial. If the claim is accepted, included in that notification are the things required of the worker to keep the claim open. This would include the C-3's, C-4's, C-36's, C-37's and all the other things to maintain an active claim. On the employer's side when an account is open they are given the information as to how the system operates generally. They also are conducting through their marketing and policy services department seminars around the state on loss control and work place safety and there is a segment for new accounts. This is an introduction as to how workers' compensation with SIIS functions. Mr. Goldwater interjected Mr. Dirks touched upon the area he feels needs to be clarified and this is they give the participant what they need to know but they do not lay it out in layman's terms. Assemblyman Hettrick reiterated Mr. Anderson's concerns in regards to what they do currently. He asked for clarification as to the intent because he does not want to duplicate everything SIIS is already doing. He pointed out the number of people who file claims is in the thousands and it could be very expensive. He does not want to see a fiscal note attached being it would be hard to pass through the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means if SIIS already has this type of program. Mr. Hettrick stated let them continue to do what they are doing but with a one or two page, simple explanation of legal rights. He also suggested changing the language to "concerning the general operation of the system" being they are not interested in how the system works. They are not interested in the insurance system and how it functions but they are interested in how they go about accessing their needs within the system. Agreeing with Mr. Nolan, the last suggestion Mr. Hettrick had was to replace "recently" with "all those employers who are newly insured by the system". People who have been in the system for even a few months have a fairly clear idea of the procedures they need to follow. He summarized the intent is good and it would be beneficial for all if it was written in layman's terms. Mr. Goldwater stated this is why it is in the form of a resolution. It is to urge SIIS to do something in layman's terms. He did not intend to be duplicative but to simplify. Chairman Nolan thanked Assemblyman Goldwater and Mr. Dirks. Seeing no further questions nor people wishing to testify he closed the hearing on A.C.R. 20. Due to a prior engagement Mr. Goldwater would be leaving the meeting and therefore Mr. Nolan explained the committee would begin the work session. The first order of business would be A.B. 322. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MADE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A.B. 322. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Nolan next opened the hearing on S.B. 51, calling on Mr. Ross Whitacre to come forward. SENATE BILL NO. 51 - Revises eligibility requirements for receipt of unemployment compensation. Mr. Whitacre, Assistant Chief of Benefits with the Employment Security Division of the Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation, testified. See (Exhibit C). He explained this was introduced as a piece of conformity legislation as a result of congressional action that was taken to amend the Social Security Act back in 1993. The amendment established a system called "profiling" and the intent of the Congressional legislation at that time was to ask states to come up with a system that would identify unemployment insurance claimants who were most likely to exhaust their benefits and to provide a method by which they could receive training. This amendment to chapter 612 of the Nevada Revised Statutes does this. After identification of these claimants, it refers them to re-employment services such as job search assistance, job search workshops and training. He stated all of these things are available under current state and federal law. This law also specifies the requirement of supplying follow up information to justify your actions. He pointed out in the federal legislation as well as the legislation before the committee today it is mandated these individuals participate in the program if they are so identified unless "The unemployed person has completed his participation in those services; or There is a justifiable cause for the person's failure to participate in these services." See line 22, page 2 of S.B. 51. Two examples of justifiable cause why a person might not participate is if they belong to the union and they only get their work through the union or if they are on a temporary layoff with a definite call back date. It is the intent of this program to identify these people up front after they receive their first week of unemployment, to use a statistical method to rank them and then call those who are most likely to exhaust their benefits in for job training. Returning them back to the labor force as soon as possible would reduce the expenditure of trust fund dollars which saves employers money. Ms. Krenzer questioned if he is currently doing this. Mr. Whitacre answered no and explained this is part of the profiling system. They are currently in the process of putting a program together to do it but they have until October of 1995, according to the federal government, to get the program up and running. Ms. Krenzer further inquired if he is going to place people in job training and re- employment programs there will be costs and therefore would a fiscal note be necessary. Mr. Whitacre replied the federal government gave him $190,000 up- front to get the program implemented. Subsequent to that, in regards to the training they will use existing programs such as JTPA programs and their own CEP program. The claimants would be dispersed to these existing programs. Ms. Krenzer stated she was familiar with both these programs and thought this was excellent. Mr. Anderson questioned if the $190,000 covered the costs of the program for two years to which Mr. Whitacre responded no, it is strictly to cover start up costs. This would include getting the program written and training for the existing staff. There would be no additional staff involved. Assemblyman Carpenter inquired what qualifications were necessary to participate in this program and what level of training would they try to accomplish. Mr. Whitacre explained anyone who is an unemployment insurance claimant could potentially qualify. In regards to training, he stated this is difficult to answer. It would depend on what training is available, what they are interested in and of course, that the training they would provide would have a labor market need. Mr. Carpenter further inquired how long a person could receive unemployment. Mr. Whitacre responded 26 weeks is the maximum a person can receive benefits. The average time a person stays on the program is around 13 weeks. Chairman Nolan saw no further questions for Mr. Whitacre. He called Mr. Eric Cooper to come forward. Mr. Cooper, representing the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, stated he supports S.B. 51. The Chamber General Business Task Force met, reviewed the bill and they are in favor of any action which would provide meaningful incentive for people to become employable and employed. Mr. Nolan asked if there were any others wishing to testify for or against S.B. 51. Being there were none he stated he would be willing to accept a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 51. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Nolan closed the hearing on S.B. 51. After a brief recess, he stated he would accept a motion on A.C.R. 20 but first asked if there were any suggested amendments or questions from any members of the committee. Ms. Krenzer referring to Mr. Nolan's comment on the language "recently been insured" on line 15, stated she sees no other way to phrase it being Mr. Goldwater's intent has more to do with expressing a desire than telling them how to do it. Therefore, he would like to make a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER MOVED DO ADOPT ON A.C.R. 20. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Hettrick interjected, before a vote is taken he would like clarification of the language. He reiterated he prefers "newly insured" rather than "recently" and in regards to "education of employers" he feels this overstates the intent. While this is a resolution, generally, when you urge an agency over whom you control the budget, they tend to do these things and spend money. He would like to change this language so it would say something about "provide information" or "non- technical information" so they do not make this a program greater than it needs to be. Ms. Krenzer stated she would amend her motion to "amend and do adopt" if the language was changed to say "newly insured" and with help from Mr. Hettrick something like "a program to inform". A discussion began concerning acceptable language. Mr. Hettrick and Ms. Krenzer decided "a program to inform employers who are newly insured by the system and employees who have filed claims with the system concerning the general operation of the system and their rights and responsibilities" would be fair and covers the concerns they had. Chairman Nolan reminded the committee of the earlier motion made by Ms. Krenzer and explained this would apply to the new language just discussed. ASSEMBLYMAN KRENZER MOVED AMEND AND DO ADOPT ON A.C.R. 20. ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Nolan then pointed out two more quick orders of business before the committee. The amendments to A.B. 56 and A.B. 58 were distributed to all of the members. After having a chance to review them, Mr. Carpenter wanted clarification on the amendment for A.B. 58. See (Exhibit D). He stated his concern about the elimination of the opportunity for judicial review. This is an option that should be available if an individual is unhappy with the results of the hearing, in fact it is our right. Chairman Nolan referred to Assemblyman Sandoval who explained it is his recollection this was removed because it was an anomaly in Nevada law. The rest of the administrative proceedings for other actions are consistent with this amendment. Mr. Fred Welden reiterating Mr. Sandoval's statements, said this amendment would make this consistent with other reviews of administrative decisions which can apply to judicial review, but it is strictly on the record that was made before the hearings officer not the trial de novo which would allow new information into the discussion. He stressed the difference is whether new information would be allowed or whether the record would be reviewed from the hearings officer. Mr. Carpenter stated he would like to see more testimony on this issue because he believes the original language was in there for a reason. An individual should be able to take their case to court with a judge. Mr. Sandoval pointed out Mr. Goldwater had voiced this same concern during the subcommittee. The response was given that the respect for due process was still preserved. This was a procedural step to go straight to court which was an anomaly within the Nevada statutes. The other statutes are consistent with what this amendment does now. Assemblyman Bache remarked those in the Committee on Government Affairs have heard this same issue regarding the Administrative Procedure Act this morning as it applied to a different bill. Clarifying, he explained it means the hearing before the labor commissioner is going to be one of record and it must follow the Administrative Procedure Act. Everything brought up in that hearing can be reviewed in district court but you cannot bring new issues before the district judge if it was not in the original hearing. Mr. Bache stated he does not see a problem with it. Ms. Krenzer stated she would like confirmation from Mr. Sandoval that the amendment does indeed do what the committee intended it to do. Mr. Sandoval noted a memorandum was asked for from the attorney general's office on this issue and he would provide a copy for Mr. Carpenter. It should alleviate his concerns. Assemblyman Ernaut asked if the committee would hold A.B. 58 for a day before bringing it to the front desk so that Mr. Carpenter's concerns might be clarified. Mr. Nolan replied it would not be a problem. Being as there was no further business before the committee, Chairman Nolan adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Jennifer Carnahan, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Saundra Krenzer, Chairman Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, Chairman Assembly Committee on Labor and Management April 20, 1995 Page