HOUSE BILL REPORT

 

 

                                    HB 2432

 

 

BYRepresentatives Heavey, Beck, Hargrove, Ebersole, Kremen, Vekich, Cole, Grant, Jacobsen, Sprenkle, Rust, Scott, Wang, Crane, R. Fisher, Rector, Wineberry, Jones, Dellwo, Basich, R. King and Spanel

 

 

Revising provisions for unemployment compensation during labor disputes.

 

 

House Committe on Commerce & Labor Committee

 

Majority Report:  Do pass.  (6)

      Signed by Representatives Vekich, Chair; Cole, Vice Chair; Jones, R. King, O'Brien and Prentice.

 

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (4)

      Signed by Representatives Smith, Ranking Republican Member; Forner, Walker and Wolfe.

 

      House Staff:Chris Cordes (786-7117)

 

 

                       AS PASSED HOUSE FEBRUARY 8, 1990

 

BACKGROUND:

 

Since 1988, locked out employees have not been disqualified from unemployment compensation benefits unless the lockout occurs in a multi-employer bargaining unit after one of the employers in the bargaining unit has been struck by its employees.

 

SUMMARY:

 

The language is deleted that disqualifies employees in a multi- employer bargaining unit from unemployment compensation benefits when the employees have been locked out following a strike against one of the employers in the bargaining unit.

 

The new coverage of locked out employees in multi-employer bargaining units is applied retroactively beginning May 1, 1989.  However, when employees receive benefits under the retroactive coverage, the employer's experience rating account will not be charged for the benefits.

 

Fiscal Note:      Available.

 

Effective Date:The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately.

 

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Representative Heavey, Prime Sponsor; Eric Smith, Sharon McCann, Martha Schmidt, Linda Bernik, Steven Conway, Tony Abeyta, and Marshall Bump, United Food and Commercial Workers; Larry Kenney, Washington State Labor Council; Dan Bickford, King County Labor Council; and Tony Lee, Association of Churches.

 

House Committee - Testified Against:      Clif Finch, Association of Washington Business; Earl Bell, Associated General Contractors; Mike Matson, Associated Grocers; Mike Newman, Washington Employers, Inc.; Jan Gee, Washington Retail Association; Richard King, Allied Employers; Dan Hargreaves; Bob Stewart; Stace Rudd, Pacific Coca-Cola Company; Doug Marshall, Darigold; Val Storrs, Bartell Drugs; and Linda Matson, National Federal of Independent Business.

 

House Committee - Testimony For:    The current law creates two classes of locked out workers by distinguishing between those who are part of multi-employer bargaining and those who are not.  But in both cases, the locked out worker is involuntarily unemployed.  The purpose of the unemployment insurance law is to compensate workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own.  The law also gives the employer an unfair advantage in collective bargaining, since the employer can make an offer at the table that is substantially less than previously offered and force the employees to resort to a strike.  The current law provides disincentives for good faith bargaining and involves the state in the collective bargaining arena.

 

House Committee - Testimony Against:      The current law was the result of a joint select committee's deliberations after an interim study.  Both labor and management participated in the advisory committee and the proposal adopted by the Legislature was a compromise for both sides.  The underlying principle of the proposal was that whoever initiates the work stoppage, whether employer or employees, would not benefit under the unemployment insurance law.  The current law is administratively efficient and treats both sides the same.  It is not good policy to change the law because of one labor dispute.  The defensive lockout is a recognized, legitimate response to a whipsaw strike initiated by employees in a multi-employer bargaining unit. Workers participate in multi-employer bargaining on a voluntary basis and know the consequences of initiating a strike. If the law is changed, it may result in fewer multi-employer bargaining units, which may be harmful to workers, employers, and labor relations in general.