HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 655

BYRepresentatives R. King,  Wang, Cole, Sayan and Unsoeld; by request of Employment Security Department

Extending coverage of unemployment insurance to agricultural employees.

House Committe on Commerce & Labor

Majority Report:     The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (7)

     Signed by Representatives Wang, Chair; Cole, Vice Chair; Fisch, Fisher, R. King, O'Brien and Sayan.

Minority Report:     Do not pass. (3)

     Signed by Representatives Patrick, Sanders and C. Smith.

House Staff:Chris Cordes (786-7117)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE & LABOR FEBRUARY 9, 1987

BACKGROUND:

Workers in agricultural employment are covered for unemployment compensation benefits if the employer: (1) has paid twenty thousand dollars or more in wages for agricultural labor during any quarter in the current or preceding calendar year; (2) or has employed ten or more agricultural workers for some part of a day in each of twenty different calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

Before an employee is eligible for unemployment compensation, the employee must have 680 hours of covered employment in his or her base year (four of the previous five calendar quarters.)  If an agricultural worker is employed by an employer who does not meet the criteria for inclusion in covered employment, all of the hours worked for that employer are not "covered" hours.  Under these circumstances, it would be possible for a worker to be employed full-time in agricultural labor, but be ineligible for unemployment compensation following a layoff from employment.

When statutory changes are made to include new services in coverage, an employee in the previously excluded employment will not become eligible for unemployment compensation until the employee's base year has 680 hours under the new law. This could result in a lengthy delay before the employee would be eligible to receive unemployment compensation.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  The following provisions of unemployment compensation law are repealed: (1)  the provision excluding agricultural employment from covered employment and defining "agricultural labor"; and (2) the provision including within "covered employment" the services performed for an agricultural operator who either pays twenty thousand dollars or more for agricultural labor in a calendar quarter or who employs ten or more agricultural workers during the specified twenty week period.

Beginning with benefit years commencing after January 4, 1988, a worker's base year will include previously uncovered services in agricultural labor during calendar year 1987.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The substitute bill adds a provision allowing a worker's base year to include hours worked in uncovered services in 1977.  A section is also added clarifying that the repeal of the agricultural labor definition is not intended to affect the incorporation by reference of that definition in another title.

Fiscal Note:    Requested February 10, 1987.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:     Graeme Sackrison, Employment Security Department; Ricardo Garcia; Thomas Villanueva, United Farm Workers;  Bill Nicacio; George Finch, Central Campesino;  Becky Smith, Evergreen Legal Services;  Manual Cortez; Pedro Rios; Samuel Martinez, Washington State Migrant Council; Jeff Johnson, Washington State Labor Council; and Hector Gonzalez, Commission on Mexican-American Affairs.

House Committee - Testified Against: Frank DeLong, Washington Horticultural Association;  Bruce Briggs, Washington State Nurserymen's Association;  Bill Roberts, Washington State Farm Bureau; Dan Coyn, Washington Dairy Federation; Stu Trefry, Washington State Grange; Duane Kaiser; and Marlyta Deck, Cattlemen's Association.

House Committee - Testimony For:     Agricultural workers should be covered under unemployment compensation law in the same manner as other workers, including other seasonal workers.  It is not equitable to exclude this major part of the state's workforce from the law's protections.

House Committee - Testimony Against: The state's small agricultural growers are enduring economic hardships.  Adding another tax burden could cripple the small grower.