Striking and Locked Out Workers Healthcare Protection Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 21, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to protect striking and locked-out workers' access to employer-sponsored health insurance by making the termination of such coverage an unfair labor practice subject to significant civil penalties, thereby altering the leverage dynamics in labor disputes.
What it actually does
This bill amends the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to prohibit employers from terminating or altering an employee's group health plan coverage during an employer-initiated lockout or a lawful employee strike. It designates such actions as unfair labor practices and establishes civil penalties for violations, including increased penalties for repeat offenses or those causing serious economic harm, and extends potential liability to individual corporate directors and officers.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is crucial for protecting workers' fundamental right to organize and strike without the coercive threat of losing essential healthcare benefits, which is often used by employers to undermine collective bargaining. They contend it levels the playing field in labor disputes, ensuring workers can advocate for better conditions without risking their families' health and financial stability, thereby upholding the spirit of fair negotiation.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill interferes with the existing balance of power in labor negotiations, imposing undue burdens and costs on employers during periods of economic disruption. They could contend that it removes a legitimate leverage point for employers, potentially prolonging strikes and lockouts, and that mandating continued benefits during a work stoppage is an overreach into private contractual agreements and business management.
The bill is concise and clearly written, allowing for a thorough understanding of its provisions and implications within a short reading time.
Section 2(a), amending NLRA Section 8(a)
Prohibition on Terminating Health Coverage During Lock-Outs
This provision amends the National Labor Relations Act to make it an unfair labor practice for an employer to terminate or alter an employee's group health plan coverage when the employer is engaged in a lockout. This means employers cannot use the threat or act of removing healthcare benefits to influence collective bargaining prior to a strike.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision prevents employers from using healthcare as a weapon in labor disputes, ensuring that workers are not forced to choose between their health and their right to bargain collectively. They contend it promotes fair negotiations by removing a coercive tactic.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that this provision infringes on an employer's right to manage their business operations during a lockout, potentially increasing costs and reducing leverage in negotiations. They may view it as an overreach into employer-employee relations.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances an employer's right to manage operations during a lockout against an employee's right to maintain essential benefits during a labor dispute, aiming to reduce economic coercion.
Section 2(b), further amending NLRA Section 8(a)
Prohibition on Terminating Health Coverage During Lawful Strikes
This provision further amends the National Labor Relations Act to establish that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to terminate or alter an employee's group health plan coverage while that employee is engaged in a lawful strike. This ensures that workers on strike retain their health benefits throughout the duration of the work stoppage.
Section 3(b), amending NLRA Section 12
Civil Penalties for Lock-Out Related Health Coverage Violations
This provision establishes civil penalties for employers who commit an unfair labor practice by terminating or altering health coverage during a lockout. Penalties can be up to $75,000 per violation, doubled to $150,000 if the violation coincides with an employee discharge or causes serious economic harm, and if the employer has a prior violation within 5 years. These penalties are in addition to any other remedies ordered by the Board.
Section 3(c), amending NLRA Section 12
Civil Penalties for Strike Related Health Coverage Violations
This provision sets civil penalties for employers who commit an unfair labor practice by terminating or altering health coverage during a lawful strike. Penalties can be up to $50,000 per violation, doubled to $100,000 if the violation coincides with an employee discharge or causes serious economic harm, and if the employer has a prior violation within 5 years. These penalties are in addition to any other remedies ordered by the Board.
Section 3(d), amending NLRA Section 12
Director and Officer Liability for Health Coverage Violations
This provision allows for civil penalties for health coverage violations during lock-outs or strikes to be assessed against any director or officer of the employer. This applies if the individual directed or committed the violation, or had actual or constructive knowledge of it, the authority to prevent it, and failed to do so.
Section 3(e), amending NLRA Section 12
Considerations for Determining Civil Penalty Amounts
This provision outlines the factors the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must consider when determining the amount of any civil penalty. These factors include the gravity of the employer's actions, the impact on affected parties, the size of the employer, the employer's history of previous unfair labor practices, and the public interest.
This section adds a definition for 'group health plan' to the National Labor Relations Act, clarifying that it has the same meaning as defined under section 607(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure consistency with existing legal frameworks and avoid redundant or conflicting definitions. It streamlines the bill by leveraging established legal terminology.
Case for: Proponents argue that a clear and consistent definition is essential for effective implementation and enforcement, preventing ambiguity and potential loopholes. It ensures the bill's protections apply to the intended range of health plans.
Case against: No significant case against, as it's a technical clarification that aims to enhance legal precision rather than introduce new policy.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the scope of the bill for all employers and employees covered by the NLRA and ERISA-defined group health plans, ensuring uniform application of the new prohibitions.