Vote Clarifies Uniforms Policy Lawmakers Say Employer Pays If Outfit Specifies Line Of Work

After struggling for years, the Legislature on Wednesday finally passed a measure spelling out under what circumstances an employer must pay for a worker’s uniform.

The measure, sent to Gov. Gary Locke for his expected signature, was part of a flood of legislation approved as the 1998 session heads into its final week.

The Republican Legislature also cranked out a flurry of measures dealing with a favored subject - crime.

Voting unanimously, the House sent the governor Senate Bill 6536. It would put into statute the circumstances under which employers must pay the cost of their workers’ uniforms. Currently, those circumstances are set by regulation as written by the Department of Labor and Industries.

The regulations have led to many disputes between employers and workers over the years.

The bill, worked out over the summer by lobbyists for both sides, would require employers to pay the cost of employee uniforms if they “are of a distinct style and quality that, when worn outside the workplace, clearly identifies the person as an employee of a specific employer.”

The measure specifies that employers would not be required to pay for clothing if it was of a common color or style that could be worn outside the workplace.

The House also sent to the governor for his expected signature SB6139, boosting the penalty for methamphetamine-lab operators and dealers to a Class B felony, up from a Class C felony. It would increase the maximum prison term from five years to 10 years. The bill passed unanimously.

The Senate, meanwhile, approved HB2791, making the manufacture of methamphetamine in or near the residence of a pregnant woman or minor a most serious offense, meaning it is included among those crimes that, when any three are committed, sends the offender to prison for life. The measure, which passed 38-10, was sent back to the House for concurrence on amendments.