REPORT ON BILLS FAVORABLY REPORTED BY COMMITTEE

TITLE OF BILL:

AN ACT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SHEET METAL WORK BOARD.

SPONSORS OF BILL:

REASONS FOR BILL:

To establish a sheet metal work licensing board in the Department of Consumer Protection and to make various conforming statutory changes.

JFS deleted changes made in the raise bill and added Lines 43-46.

RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:

Edwin R. Rodriguez, Commissioner for Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection (DCP)

DCP cannot support the bill under the present circumstances.

DCP would incur additional administrative costs if a new board were created. If the bill were to be approved with the appropriate fiscal resources, suggested changes would have to be made to subsection 5 of C.G.S. §20-330 to prevent homeowners from having to hire two licensees to perform tasks such as boiler installations. DCP regulations would need to be updated.

An important note, DCP “…has not received complaints in regard to any license holder in the sheet metal trade in many years.” Oral and written testimony.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:

Philip H. Benoit

Supports the bill because as a member of the Heating, Piping, Cooling, and Sheet Metal Work Examining Board, believes “…This make up of the board just does not work. We can only vote on sheet metal issues but the other nine members can vote on all issues.”

Without a new board, Connecticut's consumers could suffer an injustice. He addressed contractors that believe this bill would take away their rights to do sheet metal work by stating “We have no intention of this happening.” He cited a DCP Advisory notice dated 09-17-2004 and Connecticut Occupational Licensing Law, Chapter 393. Secton 20-330 (5). Oral and written testimony.

Anthony DeFrancesco Jr., Boilermakers Iron Ship Builders Blacksmiths Forgers & Helpers

He supports the bill because “The formation of this independent Board, will ultimately correct that short fall and increase the ability to monitor and enforce Sheet Metal Licensing issues.”

His belief was formed after attending several Examining Board meetings “…it is obvious that the Sheet Metal Workers presence on that board is minimal and Sheet Metal Concerns and issues are placed on the back burner, further back logging and hindering the full function of the Board.” Written testimony.

Patrick Duane, Superior Mechanical Systems, Inc.

Supports the establishment of separate licensing board. He seeks a board that “…would address the issues that are relevant to our industry.” Because, “We are not Pipe Fitters or Refrigeration Mechanics and our issues are different…”

He has been a member of the Heating, Piping, Cooling, and Sheet Metal Work Examining Board since the inclusion of Sheet Metal as a licensed trade. At the inception of licensing the Sheet Metal trade there was a request for a separate board but the legislature placed it under the established Heating and Cooling Board by expanding the size of the board to include the participation of Sheet Metal contractors. Oral and written testimony.

Shawn Duckett

Supports the bill. “With rising energy costs and the obvious need for more efficient environmentally friendly HVAC systems, it is time for a separate and distinct Sheet Metal Work Licensing Board.” Written testimony.

Luke J. Ford, Sheet Metal Workers

Supports the establishment of a Sheet Metal Work Board. He provided documentation of information given to the Heating, Piping, Cooling, and Sheet Metal Work Examining Board proceedings conducted from April 2004 until June 2005. Mr. Ford attached exhibits to his testimony showing the final outcome on June 23, 2005.

“This problem became apparent right away to the sheet metal worker because it flew in the face of common trade practices and the licensing language that was passed in 2002…It took 16 months and thousands of dollars in expense, paid for by sheet metal workers, to address a situation that was already recognized as work covered by the sheet metal license. All this was due to the fact that we have craftspeople voting on issues that they have not been trained in.”

He believes the intent and purpose of the DCP “…is to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens…in the most efficient and economical way possible. This was not the case in this matter.” Oral and written testimony.

Thomas Kelm, Sheet Metal Workers

Favors the establishment of an exclusive Sheet Metal Workers Board. By forming this new board the “…State of Connecticut will have a board that fully understands the scope of work, have complete knowledge of how air supply, ventilation, exhaust systems, fire protection and safety all come into play while performing the work of a Sheet Metal Worker.”

He cautioned that allowing other licensed trades to perform work designed specifically for a sheet metal worker will result in increased Workers Compensation claims. “By having a Board that is not fully knowledgeable of the industry the State risks potential lawsuits and litigation that could be very costly to all taxpayers.” Oral and written testimony.

Lori Pelletier, Connecticut AFL-CIO

The 900 Affiliated Local unions in the state support this bill. They believe that Sheet metal work is a separate craft and just like other apprentice trades should have its own board. This concept was unanimously supported by the Connecticut State Building Trades Council.” Written testimony.

David A Roche, Sheet Metal Workers

Is in favor of establishing an exclusive Sheet Metal Workers Board. He cites that sheet metal workers on the Heating, Piping, Cooling, and Sheet Metal Work Examining Board “…are restricted from voting on any issue unless it pertains to sheet metal work directly…the entire board, the majority of which are not sheet metal workers, votes on issues regarding sheet metal work. This reflects a double standard and can make simple industry matters extremely confusing.”

To offset the cost of this new board, Mr. Roche suggested that boilermakers, who have no representation on the current board, join the new Sheet Metal Board.

He argues that a separate Sheet Metal Board would ensure that proper industry decisions are being made, and it would help relieve the backlog currently facing the Heating and Cooling Board. An additional benefit would be that more cases would be heard, more fines handed out, resulting in an increasing income for DCP. Oral and written testimony.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:

Charles Appleby, The Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors of Connecticut (CT-PHCC)

He would like to see the current sheet metal license removed altogether even though he thinks its very important. He feels that a registration certificate or full occupational license should be required to work in someone's home. His problem “is the fact that the 17 Connecticut State vocational schools …none of them have a sheet metal break…None of them have a program established for…SM-1…It should be removed until the State Education Department sets up a sheet metal program for students, not only during the daytime but at the nighttime division also.” He just wants to make sure that the non-union people have a fair shake and the state establish a training program from them. Oral testimony.

Jimmy Audet

Opposed the bill because “Continually, I see a state where working in the trades is continually discouraged by laws and lack of funding…More laws are being created to try and break up their licenses into more separate licenses.”

His plea is “Please don't take away the rights these people have earned, take away part of their livelihood, and add unnecessary rules, regulations, and oversight to an industry that is working fine as it is…as well as reduce taxes the state receives…” Written testimony.

Robert Barrieau, Barrieau Oil Company

Opposses the bill because in his view DCP “…does not need another board but it does need more inspectors.” In the last several years he does not recall sheet metal hearings being held or complaints. “There aren't any complaints!” Written testimony.

Chris Bowman, The Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors of Connecticut (CT-PHCC)

Opposes because he feels that it “…would be unjust to our consumers, to our customers, to require them to bring in another individual, another company, to do subcontracted work to do sheet metal…” Oral testimony.

Matt Bowman, The Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors of Connecticut (CT-PHCC)

Opposes the bill but believe it would be more palatable and a good compromise if you grandfathered people in the license and waived the fee. Oral testimony.

George Bowman, The Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors of Connecticut (CT-PHCC)

He said what he heard in the public hearing seemed to be “…a union versus non-union issue, or residential; versus commercial issue.” He suggested having two separate licenses, one that will handle the commercial, and one that would handle the residential. The licenses could be distinguished by tonnage or sheet metal gauge. This would solve the union versus non-union issue concern. Oral testimony.

Lelah Campo, (CT ABC)

Spoke on behalf of Paul Gray, Senior Vice President of New England Mechanical, in opposition to the bill. They raised a caution about the bill “…There's been a steady march legislatively to make as many esoteric and specialized licenses…Everyone has become so specialized…you're making something much more complex than it really is…”

Regarding the makeup of the board, she believes it is not necessary to change it because “…all of the people on the Plumbing Board can treat sheet metal and all of the components as a whole.” Oral testimony.

James Chard, F.J. Chard and Son, Inc.

Opposes SB178 because it “…would remove all references to sheet metal work currently contained in the scope of work allowed for 'S' and 'D' license holders in the state…We will be legislating inefficiency into our workforce.”

He states “…these types of work are included in the 'S' and 'D' license for the simple reason that we need to be able to perform this work to deliver a finished product to the consumer. To remove Sheet Metal or Piping from these licenses would no longer enable us to directly control all aspects of the systems we are licensed to design and install. For small contractors…This would be devastating.” Written testimony.

Connecticut Heating & Cooling Contractors Association

Strongly opposes SB178 because it “…will have a negative effect on the HVAC trade…”

He asserts that the bill changes the scope of the current “S” and “D” licenses by removal of sheet metal from the definition of “heating and cooling.” “Eliminating sheet metal work from this definition will have a dramatic negative impact on the HVAC contractors in this state.” Written testimony.

Paul Currie, The Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors of Connecticut (CT-PHCC)

See's the bill as detrimental to his day to day operations. He feels that it is very unfair for anyone to propose a removal of part of his S-1 License which comprises a large part of his livelihood. Oral and written testimony.

Eric D'Eramo

Urges the committee to “…oppose this horrible piece of Legislation…and protecting the citizens of this state from being unnecessarily burdened with high costs due to additional service providers.”

He understands the wording of the bill to be “…that holders of heating & cooling D and S Licenses can no longer perform any sheet metal work!...prohibit them from applying their knowledge and skills for the benefit of the consumer.” The Bill's definition of “Sheet metal work” “…means the installation, erection, replacement, repair or alteration of duct work systems.” Oral and written testimony.

Peter Donnelly, The Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors of Connecticut (CT-PHCC)

“CT-PHCC opposes the establishment of a separate sheet metal work board…”and sees the bill prohibiting “…plumbing, heating and cooling license holders from performing sheet metal work even though they are more than qualified to perform such work and have been performing such work for decades.”

A significant cost to consumers would occur because of the need to hire a separate contractor just to do sheet metal work.

He urged the committee to delay licensing requirements until the Technical High Schools can offer the appropriate training and apprentice programs needed to obtain a sheet metal license. Oral and written testimony.

Christine Elovecky, Celco Inc.

Senate Bill 178 breaks the flow of the industry and does not:

Ms. Elovecky asserts that the effect of passing bill will be “…you can continue to design systems, you can continue to fabricate the duct work, you can continue to deliver and start up your equipment, however you cannot connect the two together anymore.” Oral and written testimony.

Maryjane Fay, All Phase Heating and Cooling Contractors, LLC

Opposes the bill out of great concern. “The bill would prevent them from being able to fully do their trade. “Sheet metal work is a large part of the HVAC license…By eliminating us from doing sheet metal will result in a major loss of jobs…This would also result in higher costs to the consumer to have to sub out our jobs we obtain with sheet metal work.” Oral and written testimony.

Paul Gray, New England Mechanical Services, Inc.

Raised Bill No. 178:

Christine Hay, Masters Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc.

Opposes the bill by offering a series of questions:

She added “By removing sheet metal from the S and D licenses you are effectively closing down many of the small companies that are the backbone of this industry.”

Another point was “…not one of our state trade schools offer courses on their curriculum for the sheet metal trade…to get any sheet metal training they must take the standard courses offered for a D license.” Oral and written testimony.

Jeff Leone, Air Temp Mechanical Services,Inc.

Strongly opposes because passage of the bill:

Mr. Leone believes “The unions that primarily do large commercial and industrial type sheet metal work have orchestrated this bill.” Written testimony.

Bob Macca, The Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors of Connecticut (CT-PHCC)

Strongly opposes Senate Bill 178. If the makeup of the board is the problem, then it should be changed. He thinks the grandfather system is patently unfair because its only a quick fix for the next 10 to 15 years. He is in favor of occupational licenses but would like to see SM License requirement be less in apprenticeship hours. Oral testimony.

Greg McCusker, Southern New England Heating and Cooling

This bill “…will cost consumers in the state of Connecticut a great deal of money…also cost jobs and devastate the apprenticeship training program.”

According to Mr. McCusker “Under this bill an HVAC apprentice would have to complete a four year sheet metal program, pass its test then surrender his sheet metal license and sign up for a four year heating and cooling apprenticeship training program and pass its test.

On union jobs passage of the bill would result in “…a separate crew or company would have to put the units on the roof and start and test the systems, not the sheet metal worker.”

He added “…on most union commercial jobs, the ducts are insulated by a non-licensed insulating contractor and the airflows are set up by another non-licensed testing and balance contractor.” Oral and written testimony.

Heather M. McDaniel

Had questions that would be generated by passage of the bill:

The final bill to the consumers would reflect the following:

Written testimony.

James H. Slater

States that “…this bill will not accomplish anything of value to the small heating & air conditioning contractors in Connecticut…”

He opposes the bill for the following reasons:

Written testimony.

David Sullivan

Believes that SB178 “…makes doing business in our State more difficult to conduct.”

The problem that he sees with the bill, is it causes “…the large 'closed' shops that are primarily performing commercial and industrial work are forcing the smaller contractors to operate like 'large business'.” Oral and written testimony.

William S. Valus

“…The majority of the HVAC projects and repairs can be completed by a qualified 'D' or 'S' mechanic. Taking away their ability to work on sheet metal is crippling to the Connecticut Consumers and the Connecticut HVAC Contractors.”

He states that Honest Contractors, Consumers, and the Connecticut Economy will suffer by this bill. He listed supporting reasons in his written testimony. Written testimony.

William Ethier, Home Builders Association of Connecticut (HBA)

HBA of CT is concerned with “...establishing a separate license and work board for sheet metal work could increase the costs and delays to construct or remodel homes…

to avoid these potential delays and increased costs on smaller residential construction jobs…” HBA of CT strongly urged an exemption clarification of the bill in line 519-529. “…for 'persons licensed pursuant to this chapter' applies to all licensees and that all licensees can do the defined sheet metal work in residential construction of six unit or less.” Oral and written testimony.

Joyce Wojtas, Connecticut Construction Industries Association. Inc. (CCIA)

Licensing boards have established jurisdictions and have spent a great deal of time debating jurisdiction which causes many disputes because of overlapping work of the trades. She thinks it would be more beneficial that before the committee establishes any new boards it “…look more closely into establishing some type of administrative hearing procedure for violation of the licensing law rather than putting it into the hands of the boards, who are all in a protective mode…” Oral testimony.

Chris Herb, Independent Connecticut Petroleum Association (ICPA)

Opposes the bill for three reasons:

Written testimony.