You asked (1) if there is a penalty for a sheet metal contractor who fails to register an employee who works as an apprentice and which agency enforces the penalty and (2) if there is an alternative method to qualify for a journeyperson license if an employer failed to register an employee as an apprentice.

SUMMARY

The law establishes civil and criminal penalties for both a contractor who hires someone without a required credential, such as an apprentice permit, to work in a trade requiring a license and for an individual who works in such a trade without a credential. PA 07-188 increases the criminal penalties beginning on October 1, 2007.

An individual who worked for a sheet metal contractor who did not register the employee as an apprentice may qualify to take the licensure examination. The individual needs to apply to the Heating, Piping, and Cooling Work Board.

REGISTRATION

The law prohibits anyone from willfully employing or supplying for employment a person who does not have the required credential (CGS § 20-341, as amended by PA 07-188). A sheet metal contractor who employs someone to perform sheet metal work without registering him as an apprentice is apparently violating this law. The law defines “sheet metal work” as the installation, erection, replacement, repair, or alteration of duct work-systems, both ferrous and non-ferrous, and includes warm and cool air, ventilation, exhaust, and hood exhaust systems.

The law also prohibits anyone from working in a trade requiring a license unless they hold a license or an apprentice permit. The penalty for both violations was just increased during the 2007 legislative session. The enhanced penalties take effect on October 1, 2007.

Criminal Penalties

The law requires the occupational licensing boards to refer matters for criminal prosecution if, after a hearing, it appears the law has been violated. The 2007 act also requires the commissioner of the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) to refer matters for criminal prosecution if, after hearing, it appears that the licensing law was violated. It prohibits criminal charges from being instituted by the commissioner unless the consumer protection commissioner or his agent has reviewed the work activity and specifically determined, in writing, that (1) the activity must be done by a licensed individual and (2) the issue is not a bona fide dispute between people engaged in a trade or craft, whether or not they hold a license.

The 2007 act also increases the criminal penalty for violating the licensing law. Under current law, the penalty is a fine of $ 200 per violation for, among other things:

1. working without a license or apprentice permit or

2. willfully employing, or supplying for employment, someone who does not have a license or apprentice permit.

The 2007 act (1) eliminates the penalty for violating “any other provision” of the occupational licensing law and (2) narrows two of the grounds by making someone who works without a license or apprentice permit or after the expiration of a license or permit subject to criminal penalties only for willful violations. In addition, it increases the penalty by eliminating the $ 200 fine and instead making violators guilty of a class B misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to six months imprisonment, a fine of up to $ 1,000, or both. The act provides that this criminal penalty is in addition to any other administrative penalties that may be imposed by the DCP commissioner or the licensing boards.

Administrative Penalties

The law authorizes the licensing boards to impose civil fines on the same grounds that a criminal fine may be imposed. The fines are (1) up to $ 1,000 for a first offense, (2) up to $ 1,500 for a second violation, and (3) up to $ 3,000 for subsequent violations occurring less than three years after the previous violation. The law provides that improperly registered apprentices may not be penalized for a first offense. The bill gives the DCP commissioner the same power to impose the fines. It requires him, as the law requires the licensing boards, to send to a municipality half the amount of a civil penalty imposed on a licensee as a result of a violation initially reported by a municipality.

The act makes it an unfair trade practice to violate any of the occupational licensing laws. Under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), businesses may not engage in unfair and deceptive acts or practices. CUTPA allows the DCP commissioner to issue regulations defining what constitutes an unfair trade practice, investigate complaints, issue cease and desist orders, order restitution in cases involving less than $ 5,000, enter into consent agreements, ask the attorney general to seek injunctive relief, and accept voluntary statements of compliance. CUTPA also allows individuals to sue. Courts may issue restraining orders; award actual and punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys fees; and impose civil penalties of up to $ 5,000 for willful violations and $ 25,000 for violation of a restraining order.

PATHS TO LICENSURE

Someone who has been working as a sheet metal apprentice, but whose employer has failed to register him as an apprentice, can request a hearing before the Heating, Piping and Cooling Work Board to ask the board to recognize his experience. At the hearing, the applicant has the opportunity to show that his experience qualifies him to take the licensing examination for a journeyperson. If the board determines that the applicant has “equivalent experience and training,” it may allow him to take the licensure examination (Regs. Conn. State Agencies, § 20-332-5(v)).

Under the traditional path to licensure, an individual must meet education requirements to qualify as an apprentice. Apprentices must continue to take classes and accumulate a certain number of hours working in the trade to qualify to take an examination. An applicant who passes the licensing examination becomes a journeyperson.

DD: ts