Washington Business Fall 2017 | Legislative Review & Vote Record | Page 25

issue area reports | employment & workplace
noncompetition
agreements
EHB 1967
noncompetition agreements
Failed/AWB Neutral
Engrossed House Bill 1967, sponsored Rep.
Derek Stanford, D-Bothell, originally would
have restricted the use of noncompetition
agreements. The initial concerns with the
bill were that it unreasonably prohibits
noncompetition agreements involving
seasonal or temporary employees or for
employees who are terminated “without just
cause or laid off.” Companies’ confidential
information, goodwill, customer
relationships, and other protectable
interests are implicated in any separation
of employment. This language puts these
assets at risk. It further would have limited
non-competes only to executive employees,
undermining the protections needed in sales
workforces, technology, and other industries
that depend on non-competes to ensure
that they remain competitive. This bill was
amended on the House floor. The result of
the amendment was to substantia lly change
the bill. It essentially required employers to
follow common law. Unfortunately, the bill
failed to move out of the Senate. AWB was
neutral on the compromise bill that failed.
SB 5756
noncompetition agreements
Failed/AWB Neutral
Senate Bill 5756, sponsored by Sen. Kirk
Pearson, R-Monroe, would have voided
a noncompetition agreement between
an employer and an employee if the
employee’s compensation, excluding
benefits, is less than $55,000 per year. The
amount is adjusted for inflation. It sought
to provide for actual damages, plus $5,000
and attorneys’ fees and costs if an employer
attempts to enforce a void non-competition
Bill considered as part of
AWB’s voting record
agreement. AWB raised concerns regarding
the complete removal of noncompetition
a g re e m e n t s f o r a s p e c i f i c g ro u p o f
individuals. After further negotiations, a
compromise was proposed to allow for a
rebuttable presumption. The bill ultimately
failed to move.
workers’ compensation
Washington’s compulsory workers’
compensation system remains one of
the most expensive and administratively
complex in the nation. The last major
workers’ compensation reforms were
passed in 2011, yet some of the largest
cost-saving reforms have not produced
the promised savings or increased
efficiencies. The 2011 reforms have failed
to make our state’s system competitive
with other states and workers continue
to have limited options for resolving
their claims. The state Department of
Labor & Industries continues to raise
costs on employers without making
any substantial improvements to the
system. The employer community made
a concerted effort to have legislation
introduced this year to address these
concerns. Unfortunately, the bills failed
to gain support and ultimately failed.
SB 5822
workers’ compensation
system
Failed/AWB Supported
Senate Bill 5822, sponsored by Sen.
Michael Baumgartner, R-Spokane, would
have improved the workers’ compensation
system costs and administration and worker
outcomes by modifying the procedures for
claims to self-insured employers, clarifying
of recovery in third-party legal actions,
clarifying of occupational disease claims,
and lowering age barriers for structured
settlements. This bill was an attempt by
business to obtain substantive reform of
Favorable outcome for
Washington businesses
the workers’ compensation system. The
bill would have met several of AWB’s
Legislative Objectives, but it failed to move
out of the Senate.
SHB 1755
workers’ compensation
settlements
Passed/AWB Supported
Substitute House Bill 1755, sponsored
by Rep. Matt Manweller, R-Ellensburg,
makes it a requirement that parties notify
state fund employers for certain workers’
compensation third-party settlements.
(The companion bill was Substitute Senate
Bill 5670 sponsored by Sen. John Braun,
R-Centralia). AWB supported both bills.
SHB 1723
hanford occupational
disease
Failed/AWB Opposed
Substitute House Bill 1723, sponsored by
Rep. Larry Haler, R-Richland, would have
created a presumption of occupational
disease for certain employees at the U.S.
Department of Energy Hanford site. It
would have created a presumption for
Hanford nuclear site workers that certain
enumerated diseases and conditions are
occupational diseases for the purposes
of industrial insurance coverage. This
raised concerns that this presumption
would apply to anyone who worked on the
facility for as few as eight hours, regardless
of job duties or the location of the work.
This would have created a legal precedent
that could have changed the burden of
proof for all occupational disease claims
increasing the cost of litigation, with no
additional outcome benefit. AWB testified
in opposition to this bill.
Missed Opportunities
special edition 2017 23