COLUMBIA--After a year of tweaking in the state Senate, the controversial employment-at-will bill could head back to the House of Representatives this week.

Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, said Thursday that wrinkles in the bill, which would strengthen an employers' right to fire employees without the threat of lawsuits, have been worked out and it might pass the Senate sometime midweek.

If so, the bill could face a vote of concurrence or nonconcurrence in the House as early as Thursday.

"This will make things fair to the employers and the employees," McConnell said. "And it makes it clear enough that you don't need to go down to the corner lawyer to see what is and what isn't a contract."

House Speaker David Wilkins, R-Greenville, said House members are ready to have their bill back. If the Senate moves the bill, Wilkins said, it will be put immediately on the House schedule.

"It's important to make it loud and clear that we are an at-will state," he said. "Hopefully, the amendments added in the Senate will not make the bill too weak."

The employment-at-will bill started in the House more than a year ago, eventually passing by a 102-9 vote. But according to McConnell, it came to the Senate with ambiguities that needed addressing.

Originally, the employment-at-will proposal focused on loopholes in state law regarding employee handbooks. Some lawmakers were alarmed over court decisions that ruled employers had created contracts by issuing them.

Proponents of employment-at-will, a state doctrine that basically allows an employer to hire and fire at will, disagreed with that decision and wanted state law to clarify the matter.

Groups such as the AFL-CIO feared lawmakers would go too far and ultimately allow employers to break promises without fear of reprisal.

Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, worked closely on rewriting the House's bill. He said members started out addressing what seemed to be a simple issue and before long were dealing with a lot more.

"We had to be careful because we didn't want to create a law that would just get more employers sued," he said.

What the senators did was add provisions to the bill, including:

-- A stipulation that grievance procedures outlined in a handbook must be followed. "If you put it in a book," McConnell said, "you will be held to it."

-- Clarification that tenure issues for college professors and state employees are not affected.

-- Assurance that contracts negotiated under an established collective bargaining agreement are not affected.

-- A stipulation that an employer cannot terminate an employee for refusing to do something illegal or something that "shocks the conscience." Also, an employee cannot be fired for expressing a particular political view.

Many of these issues have been addressed in the courts, but until now state law has been silent on them, McConnell said.

Otis Rawl, vice president of public policy for the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, has been anxiously awaiting the bill's emergence from the Senate.

"It's like it has been stuck in quicksand," he said. "We have our fingers crossed that this time it will be ready to go."

Rawl said the chamber's lawyers have seen the bill as it stands now, and the reviews are mixed.

"Some like it; some don't," he said. "But we can live with it."

Donna Dewitt, president of the AFL-CIO in South Carolina, could not be reached for comment. Dewitt spoke out against the bill when it was in the House.

Charleston attorney Terry Ann Rickson, a Supreme Court certified specialist in employment and labor law, says the bill will make it tougher for employees to protect themselves.

Rickson has yet to see the changes made to the bill in the Senate, but when she read a list of the amendments said: "I think these exceptions are really just fluff to make the bill more palatable. I don't like it. It's still pretty abhorrent."

Charleston attorney Shawn Wallace, also a Supreme Court certified specialist in employment and labor law, had a different take. Wallace, who has yet to see the changes in the bill, sees the legislation itself as necessary to stem the erosion of the state's at-will status.

"Really, the erosion of at-will has become harmful to both the employers and the employees," she said. "It has taken away confidence in a handbook. Now companies have to be careful to qualify everything said in one, to make sure it is not construed as a contract. That leaves just the bare bones, and the communication between employer and employee is diminished."

If the House votes to concur with the changes made by the Senate, the bill will go to the governor for final approval. If the House votes to nonconcur, the bill will go to Conference Committee for a compromise to be hammered out.

State Rep. John Graham Altman III, R-Charleston, hopes the bill has not been weakened. But, he said, "We can't let the chase for perfection get in the way of making something better."