HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1942

BYRepresentatives Sprenkle, Valle, Prentice, Leonard, Rust, Phillips and Wolfe

Establishing the workplace clean air act.

House Committe on Environmental Affairs

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (12)

      Signed by Representatives Rust, Chair; Valle, Vice Chair; D. Sommers, Ranking Republican Member; Brekke, G. Fisher, Fraser, Phillips, Pruitt, Schoon, Sprenkle, Van Luven and Walker.

House Staff:Bonnie Austin (786-7107)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS FEBRUARY 28, 1989

BACKGROUND:

The effects of tobacco smoke on nonsmokers in the workplace has become an issue of increasing concern over the past decade. A 1980 study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine found that after a period of up to 20 years of exposure to sidestream smoke in the workplace, nonsmokers with no pre-existing respiratory problems had developed airway function abnormalities which were comparable to those found in light smokers.  A 1985 study concluded that 5,000 nonsmokers die each year from lung cancer caused by involuntary smoking.  In 1986 the Surgeon General concluded that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers and that the simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space does not eliminate this threat.

In 1985 the legislature, recognizing the increasing evidence that tobacco smoke in closely confined places may create a danger to the health of some individuals, enacted the Washington Clean Indoor Air Act.  This act does prohibit smoking in public places, except in designated areas, but contains an exemption for private enclosed workplaces within a public place.

In 1988 the Washington Supreme Court held that an employee is entitled to sue an employer at common law for injuries resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke in the workplace if the disease is not covered by the Industrial Insurance Act.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  Any employer with four or more employees that operates a workplace in the state shall adopt, implement, and take reasonable steps to enforce and maintain a written smoking policy.  An employer may prohibit smoking in the workplace or make a reasonable accommodation between smoking and nonsmoking employees.  If accommodation cannot be achieved, the preferences of nonsmoking employees will prevail.  Employers are required to announce the policy to all employees and post conspicuous signs in all workplaces.

If an employer prohibits smoking in the workplace except in smoking rooms that are physically enclosed, the employer is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the employer's common law duty to provide a safe workplace has been met.

The following workplaces are exempt from this act:  private homes, workplaces of sole independent contractors, workplaces with separate ventilation systems in enclosed places occupied exclusively by nonsmokers, and taverns, bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, tobacco shops, and hotel guest rooms.

If an employer allows smoking in the workplace, then collective bargaining agreements currently in effect that provide for the resolution of workplace smoking issues are not affected.

It is unlawful for any employer to retaliate or discriminate against any employee who exercises any rights under this act. Any employee aggrieved by a violation of this act may bring an action to recover damages or enjoin further violations.  Prevailing employees are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The original bill required all employers to ban smoking except in enclosed smoking areas physically separate from areas used by nonsmokers.  The substitute bill grants employers a rebuttable presumption in law that their common law duty to provide a safe workplace is met if they do this, but it is not required.  Employers are required to adopt a smoking policy that makes a reasonable accommodation between smokers and nonsmokers.  If a reasonable accommodation cannot be reached, the preferences of nonsmoking employees will prevail.

Exemptions from the act were added, as well as provisions relating to collective bargaining.  The definition of employer was limited to those with four or more employees.

Fiscal Note:      Requested February 20, 1989.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Representative Art Sprenkle; Eldon Ball, Fresh Air for Nonsmokers; Tim Delaney; Mike Ryherd, Washington State Medical Association; Joe Daniels, Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers; Bob Jaffee, Ray Paolella, and Linda Tanz, Tobacco Addiction Coordinating Council; Bob Fox, Fresh Air for Nonsmokers.

House Committee - Testified Against:      K. Collins Sprague, Association of Washington Business; Gary Smith, Independent Business Association; Pat Fullmer, Gilmore Research; Martin Durkan, Phillip Morris Company; Bill Fritz, Tobacco Institute.

House Committee - Testimony For:    It is not economically feasible for employers to allow smoking in the workplace.  It has been estimated that Washington employers lose $700 million per year in lost productivity and $400 million per year in health care costs due to smoking.  Additionally, the courts are allowing nonsmokers to sue their employers for injuries sustained as a result of inhaling sidestream smoke at work.

There are 43 cancer-causing chemicals in sidestream smoke. Filtration systems are not capable of removing these chemicals.

One study has shown that 90 deaths occur in Washington each year from sidestream smoke, and that, on the average, a smoking employee costs an employer $5,000 per year.

A total ban on smoking is easier to implement than negotiated smoking policies.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      Progress is being made in the private sector, so the bill is unnecessary.  A survey of 301 management employees shows that 70 percent have a workplace smoking policy and 5 percent are planning to implement one soon.  Of those with a workplace policy, 56 percent use designated smoking areas and 34 percent ban smoking.

This government intrusion into the private workplace is not necessary.  The threat of liability is enough to make employers take action.  Employers should have the right to make this decision.

This bill does not recognize the role of collective bargaining in negotiating working conditions.