Omnibus employment measure amended, advanced

A bill intended to provide state-level notification requirements for Nebraska businesses experiencing mass layoffs or closures was amended to include several other proposals before advancing from general file March 23.

Under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, businesses with 100 or more employees are required to submit notice when they experience a shutdown affecting 50 or more employees at a single site during any 30-day period. They also must submit notice if at least 33% of the total active workforce — or 500 or more employees, whichever number is lower — will permanently lose employment.

LB921, as introduced by Sumner Sen. Teresa Ibach, would adopt a state-level WARN act. As introduced, the bill would require businesses that experience a mass layoff event or closure affecting 25 or more full-time employees for a period exceeding six months to notify employees and the Nebraska Department of Labor at least 60 days in advance of such event.

As introduced, the act would apply to businesses with at least 25 full-time employees. Businesses that do not provide adequate notice would be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100 for each day of the violation.

Ibach said hundreds of former employees of the Tyson Foods plant in Lexington contacted her after the plant’s closing, asking that Nebraska adopt a state-level WARN act. Doing so would ensure that state and local officials can mount a more proactive response to a layoff event or closure, she said, and divert resources to communities in need.

“Being laid off can be one of the most stressful things that happens to an employee and their family and LB921 can help mitigate that stress by providing advance notice of the mass layoff regardless [of whether] the federal threshold has been met,” Ibach said.

She offered an amendment, adopted 37-0, that would mirror the federal standard and apply the bill only to businesses with at least 100 full-time employees. She said LB921 as introduced would have been too “heavy-handed” an approach to regulating Nebraska businesses.

The bill also would make changes to the Non-English-Speaking Workers Protection Act, which requires businesses to provide an interpreter and referral agent if 10% of their staff speaks the same non-English language. Referral agents would be required to develop and maintain a list of community services and assist employees in attempting to obtain those services.

A Business and Labor Committee amendment would lower the non-English speaking employee threshold to 5%. It also would require businesses to provide WARN notice to affected employees and NDOL at least 90 days in advance of a qualifying mass layoff event or closure.

Debate focused on the inclusion in the committee amendment of the amended provisions of LB544, sponsored by Norfolk Sen. Robert Dover. Those provisions would require individuals receiving unemployment benefits to respond to an interview request or a job offer for suitable employment within one week.

The proposal also stipulates that an individual receiving unemployment benefits who fails to appear for a previously scheduled interview without notifying the prospective employer within seven days of the need to cancel or reschedule would lose benefits for one week.

The commissioner of labor would determine if the criteria have been met to deny unemployment benefits under the measure’s provisions.

Dover said filling vacancies can be a challenge for business owners and that he brought the proposal to address an issue that he has experienced firsthand — being “ghosted” by an applicant who fails to show up for a job interview.

He said the provisions would encourage accountability and provide an incentive for Nebraskans collecting unemployment benefits to follow up on applications instead of meeting the minimum requirement of applying for work but not actually pursuing employment.

Other states, including Arkansas, Kansas, Montana and Tennessee, have similar policies, he said.

“The purpose is to simply add an accountability component, so if someone is receiving benefits, and they’re offered a job, they need to show up for the interview,” Dover said.

Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha opposed those provisions and offered a successful motion to divide the question and consider them separately from the rest of the committee amendment.

Cavanaugh said there are many reasons that someone who is receiving unemployment benefits might not be able to attend a job interview, such as transportation or child care issues, or having their phone disconnected due to being unable to pay the bill.

“I think people’s lives that are on unemployment are much more complex than maybe people in the [Legislature] understand,” Cavanaugh said. “People who are on unemployment are on unemployment oftentimes because they are struggling to have work, and punishing them for not being able to show up feels like we are perpetuating making poverty a full-time job.”

Omaha Sen. Kathleen Kauth, Business and Labor Committee chairperson, supported the portion of the divided amendment containing provisions from Dover’s LB544, which she called a “good business” bill.

“[It] simply states when people are on unemployment and they get a job interview, they actually have to show up. I think it’s not unreasonable to expect people to show up for the job interviews rather than ghosting,” Kauth said.

Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln opposed the measure, calling it “mean-spirited” to penalize individuals who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Workers do not qualify for unemployment benefits if they quit or were fired for misconduct from their previous job, she said, and already can have their benefits withheld for refusing offers of suitable employment.

The committee amendment containing the provisions of Dover’s LB544 were adopted 34-6.

The second portion of the divided amendment, adopted 37-0, contained provisions of two additional bills heard by the committee this session.

The amended provisions of LB308, sponsored by Ibach, would require NDOL to create and maintain a registry for health care staffing agencies operating in Nebraska. Each agency would be required to pay a $1,500 fee to register each physical location annually and ensure employee compliance with licensing, certification, registration and other qualifications required to provide direct services in a health care facility.

Ibach said the measure is necessary to ensure transparency and accountability for staffing agencies that are increasingly relied upon to staff nursing homes and assisted living facilities in rural Nebraska due to a persistent shortage of health care workers.

“Unfortunately, there are reports of temporary staff lacking legally required credentials, background checks and necessary certifications,” Ibach said, “putting residents, staff and facilities at risk.”

She offered an amendment, adopted 41-0, to delay implementation of the provisions until July 1, 2027, to allow the department time to absorb the cost of creating and maintaining the registry through use of the Contractor and Professional Employer Organization Registration Cash Fund rather than state general funds.

The committee amendment also includes the amended provisions of LB1170, sponsored by Sen. Dave Wordekemper of Fremont. Those provisions would allow a county to file more than one state claim for a single correctional institution incident if the threshold amount is met for each claim or prosecution has resolved.

The proposal also would expand the definition of what constitutes a qualifying death for purposes of the In the Line of Duty Compensation Act to include:
• injuries or illnesses occurring within 24 hours after a nonroutine stressful or strenuous activity in the line of duty;
• within five years of diagnosis of exposure-related cancer for individuals exposed to toxins in the line of duty; and
• cumulative traumatic events while on duty that led to a mental health diagnosis or for which there is evidence that the public safety officer attempted to receive help after exposure.

The presumption of these factors could be rebutted if competent medical evidence establishes the death was unrelated to line-of-duty risk factors or if exposure was not a substantial factor in the individual’s death.

Following adoption of both components of the divided committee amendment, lawmakers advanced LB921 to select file on a vote of 33-3.