Pennsylvania lawmakers are now considering bill that would funnel exposure to asbestos and other hazardous materials and the long-latency illnesses they cause into workers compensation’s exclusive remedy, but union opponents say the bill puts strict parameters in place for those suffering from those illnesses.

H.B. 2207, sponsored by 11 state representatives and introduced April 2, states that workers comp for certain conditions caused by chemical exposure would fall outside of existing state workers compensation law that says illnesses must fall within 300 weeks after the last date of employment in an occupation or industry to which a claimant was exposed to the hazards of disease.

The bill states that “claims filed for any disease for which the time period between exposure to the hazard of disease in the workplace and manifestation of disease is greater than three hundred weeks must be filed within three hundred weeks of the date on which a claimant is diagnosed with the disease or the disease is detectable.” It also states, “it shall be the claimant’s burden to prove that the disease for which compensation is sought has a latency period of more than three hundred weeks.”

The bill has drawn opposition from the Pennsylvania State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, which is made up of more than 115 local unions. Its leader says he objects to time limits on any hazardous materials claims.

“Exposure to asbestos can take 20 years to develop, the latency period is up to 20 years, so 300 weeks isn’t a very sufficient amount of time for people who have been damaged on a construction project or been exposed to asbestos,” said Frank Sirianni, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania-based president of the council.

Mr. Sirianni says that this legislation would not represent the council’s 136,000 working members.

“We have to be concerned with the health and welfare of our members, past, present and future,” said Mr. Sirianni.

The bill arrives five years after a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for former employees to bring common-law claims against companies that exposed them to hazardous materials, exposure that manifested into occupational diseases suffered more than 300 weeks after employment. The court in 2013 found that a previous ruling put an unreasonable cap on diseases with long latency periods, clearing the way for civil compensation, according to court documents in Kathleen Tooey, Executrix of the Estate of John F. Tooey, deceased, and Kathleen Tooey in her own right v. A.K. Steel Corp.

The bill would put legislative muscle on the timeline for developing occupational illnesses such as mesothelioma, which research shows is caused by asbestos long after exposure — and reawakens a longtime argument over chemical-induced occupational illnesses with long latency periods — and would put the claims back into the workers compensation system.

It would also bring more control to occupational illness claims, said Steven Ryan, a Harrisburg-based attorney and workers compensation specialist with Frommer D’Amico Anderson L.L.C., which represents injured workers. He said he suspects that’s why unions oppose the bill.

“This places these people back in, puts them in the funnel, in full control of workers comp insurers and employers,” he said, adding that the move away from tort law could complicate claims for injured workers and their families. “The workers comp system tends to be quicker than typical tort liability … but it comes with its own battle,” he added. “(The bill would have) collateral impact on the claims of the injured worker and what their families can bring.”

The bill’s chief sponsor, Pennsylvania Rep. Eli Evankovich, R-Westmoreland, did not respond to requests for comment. The bill now sits on with House’s Committee on Labor and Industry, which had not placed it on its calendar as of Tuesday.