AUGUSTA – A legislative policy committee issued a split decision Tuesday on a so-called “employer intimidation” bill after one of the Democratic lead co-sponsors of the measure made a motion to defeat the proposal.

With two members absent, the Legislature’s Labor Committee issued a 7-4, bipartisan vote in favor of an ought-not-to-pass motion made by the committee’s co-chairman Rep. Bill Smith, D-Van Buren.

When she introduced LD 1924, “An Act to Protect Workers from Political or Religious Intimidation,” Maine Senate President Beth Edmonds, D-Freeport, claimed Maine employers were increasingly using the workplace as a forum to express their political views to employees.

Edmonds acknowledged she had no idea whether employers had fired or disciplined employees for disagreeing with them over political issues, but remained concerned over the “increasing politicization of the workplace.” The bill would prohibit an employer from firing an employee who refuses to listen or to agree with the employer’s views but leaves the employee with the option of supporting an employer’s political or religious views if the employee chooses to do so.

“This bill is needed because employers in Maine are increasingly taking more aggressive actions designed to control the behavior of their employees outside of work hours,” Edmonds told the committee during a public hearing last month. “For example, employers are stuffing pay envelopes with a variety of information, from anti-union pamphlets to information on elected officials’ voting records to evangelical messages that reflect an employer’s personal beliefs. Employers have a free speech right to disseminate each of these messages, but employees should be equally free to agree or disagree with the views expressed by their employers.”

It was the inclusion of union conversation under the bill’s definition of a “political matter” that rankled many. As originally presented in the bill, an employer could not take adverse action against an employee on the basis of religion, party affiliation, support or opposition to a political candidate, public policy issue, political organization, community organization, social organization or labor organization.

An amended version of the bill stripped off the religious references since remedies for discrimination on that basis are already provided for under provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act. The amended measure also eliminated community and social organizations from the list and stipulated that employers could still ban political speech in the workplace during working hours.

Neither Edmonds, Smith nor Maine AFL-CIO President Eddie Gorham could be reached for comment following Tuesday’s vote to explain why some of the bill’s former supporters changed their minds. At least one member of the Labor Committee was perplexed by the development as he cast his vote in opposition to the ought-not-to-pass motion.

“[I’m voting] ‘No’ and I’ll keep my remarks to myself,” said Rep. Herbert Clark, D-Millinocket.

The Labor Committee, which has had its share of party-line votes, saw Democrats Smith and Rep. Timothy Driscoll, of Westbrook, join Republicans to oppose the bill. Peter Gore of the Maine Chamber of Commerce said the measure was “a solution in search of a problem,” adding that bipartisan disapproval reflected inherent problems with the legislation.

“When you try to restrict someone’s right to free speech, it can be perceived as troubling by many legislators,” he said.

Sen. Ethan Strimling, D-Portland, said he was “disappointed” that the amended version of the bill did not receive majority support.

“It’s a good bill that protects Maine workers,” he said. “I was proud of my vote and I’m looking forward to a floor fight.”