Senate Commerce Committee advances limited exemption for minor‑league baseball players and tightens PEO workers‑comp reporting

The Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday advanced changes to Senate Bill 655 that would create a narrow exemption for minor‑league baseball players covered by a collective bargaining agreement from certain New Hampshire wage‑recordkeeping requirements, and adopt reporting and notification duties for employee‑leasing (PEO) companies.

Senator Tim Lang, who introduced the non‑germane amendment on behalf of Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association, told the committee the change is limited to players subject to the new collective bargaining agreement and is designed to address practical problems tracking hours. "We have people here from Major League Baseball and the ... unions to support the bill," Lang said, asking members to support the exemption so "we can go watch some baseball down in Manchester." (Sen. Tim Lang.)

The measure drew technical testimony from the Department of Labor, which described the issue as legally nuanced because federal labor law can preempt state claims in contexts governed by collective bargaining agreements. The department's general counsel said the amendment would "exempt out essentially those records for a very specific class of individuals which are minor league baseball players" under the state's minimum‑wage recordkeeping statute (RSA 279), and urged the committee to specify what counts as a "minor league" team to aid enforcement.

Major League Baseball's senior vice president and chief employment counsel, Steve Gonzalez, told the panel the parties negotiated a first‑ever CBA for minor‑league players and that the compensation package — housing, club‑provided meals, health benefits and a 2026 in‑season Double‑A minimum of $1,040 per week — along with players' year‑round development work, makes hourly timekeeping impractical. "Treating players as hourly workers creates a conundrum of determining what hours should even be counted," Gonzalez said, arguing the change lets clubs avoid restricting players' training or clubhouse access in ways that would hinder development.

Industry and labor witnesses also weighed in. Justin Warell of Insperity described committee drafting changes that removed conflicting licensing language, clarified RSA 277‑B9 to allow the PEO or the client company to be assigned responsibility for workers‑compensation coverage by contract, and established reporting and employee‑notification rules. Warell said the bill now requires an Insperity‑type firm to notify the Department of Labor within 30 days of a client's election to provide coverage and again at licensure, and to supply five data points: the client company name, insurer name, policy effective date, expiration date and policy number. He said the changes also make clear that client companies remain subject to penalties under RSA 281‑A if they fail to keep required coverage.

Glenn Brackett, representing AFL‑CIO interests, expressed support for the agreement between MLB and the players and for the committee's work to address the problem raised during the pandemic. Deputy Commissioner Danielle Albert told senators the department is neutral on the bill and believes it can regulate the revised language; she said moving the client‑election language into RSA 277‑B9 resolved prior tension with licensure language and that the department could pursue rulemaking to specify the content and form of employee notices. "We do believe we understand the intended purpose and that we are able to regulate as intended," Albert said.

Committee members asked several clarifying questions: how to define the scope of "minor league" (the Fisher Cats were repeatedly cited as a local Double‑A example), whether independent or semi‑pro teams would be covered (witnesses said only players subject to a CBA would be eligible), whether the employee notice is sufficiently specific for injured workers to know which co‑employer holds the policy (the deputy commissioner said it notifies the injured worker which co‑employer is responsible but that rulemaking could prescribe additional content), and a mechanical issue about section numbering between competing amendments.

After debate, the committee adopted a committee amendment to the non‑germane amendment, voted "ought to pass" on both the 1065 series and the germane committee amendment (1082S), and then voted in favor of Senate Bill 655 on a voice vote. The transcript records voice votes of "I" and no roll‑call tallies. The committee then went into executive session and adjourned.

The bill's next procedural step is committee reporting with the adopted amendments; the transcript does not record a floor date. The Department of Labor urged clearer statutory definitions and said it could pursue rulemaking to standardize employee notices and reporting forms should the bill pass.