Virginia 2024 Regular Session Status: Enacted

HB 938 — Unemployment insurance; benefit eligibility conditions, lockout exception, etc.

Last action — House sustained Governor's veto

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed House of Delegates
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 09, 2024. Enacted.

Signed by Governor Glenn Youngkin (Republican) on March 07, 2024.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 72% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 2 sponsors

    1 primary, 1 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 7 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Unemployment insurance; benefit eligibility conditions; lockout exception to labor dispute disqualification. Amends the Virginia Unemployment Compensation Act's labor dispute disqualification to provide that a lockout by an employer shall not constitute a labor dispute and that locked-out employees who are otherwise eligible for benefits shall receive such benefits unless (i) the recognized or certified collective bargaining representative of the locked-out employees refuses to meet under reasonable conditions with the employer to discuss the issues giving rise to the lockout, (ii) there is a final adjudication under the federal National Labor Relations Act that such representative has refused to bargain in good faith with the employer, or (iii) the lockout is the direct result of such representative's violation of an existing collective bargaining agreement. This bill is identical to SB 542.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

103 added · 107 removed

Plain-language change summary

The updated version of HB 938 clarifies that individuals affected by a lockout by their employer will not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Previously, a labor dispute included lockouts, but the change specifies that those on lockout will still qualify for benefits, ensuring they have financial support during this challenging time. This matters because it provides greater protection for workers facing the disruption of employment due to actions beyond their control while still maintaining eligibility for assistance.

→
Previous
Latest
SESSION INTRODUCED 24103282D I HOUSE BILL NO.
SESSION ENROLLED VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY –– CHAPTER E An Act to amend and reenact § 60.2-612 of the Code of Virginia, relating to unemployment insurance;
938 Offered January 10, 2024 N Prefiled January 9, 2024 T A BILL to amend and reenact § 60.2-612 of the Code of Virginia, relating to unemployment insurance;
R Patrons––LeVere Bolling and Lopez O –––––––––– Referred to Committee on Labor and Commerce D –––––––––– U Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
R O [H 938] Approved L L Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
C § 60.2-612.
E § 60.2-612.
E A.
D Commission finds that:dividual shall be eligible to receive benefits for any week only if the 1.
An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits for any week only if the Commission finds that:
He has, in the highest two quarters of earnings within his base period, been paid wages in employment for employers that are equal to not less than the lowest amount appearing in Column A of the "Benefit Table" appearing in § 60.2-602 on the line which extends through Division C and on which in Column B of the "Benefit Table" appears his weekly benefit amount.
D employment for employers that are equal to not less than the lowest amount appearing in Column A of the "Benefit Table" appearing in § 60.2-602 on the line which extends through Division C and on which in Column B of the "Benefit Table" appears his weekly benefit amount.
His total or partial unemployment is not due to a labor dispute in active progress or to shutdown or start-up operations caused by such dispute which exists (i) at the factory, establishment, or other premises, including a vessel, at which he is or was last employed, or (ii) at a factory, H establishment or other premises, including a vessel, either within or without this Commonwealth9 which (a) is owned or operated by the same employing unit which owns or operates the premises at whic8 he is or was last employed and (b) supplies materials or services necessary to the continued and usual labor dispute does not include a lockout by an employer, and an individual who otherwise qualifies for benefits under this section shall not be denied benefits due to a lockout except for any week during which (1) the recognized or certified collective bargaining representative of the locked-out employees refuses to meet under reasonable conditions with the employer to discuss the issues giving rise to the lockout, (2) there is a final adjudication under the federal National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.
His total or partial unemployment is not due to a labor dispute in active progress or Ho shutdown or start-up operations caused by such dispute which exists (i) at the factory, establi9hment, or establishment or other premises, including a vessel, either within or without this Commonwealth, which (a) is owned or operated by the same employing unit which owns or operates the premises at which he is or was last employed and (b) supplies materials or services necessary to the continued and usual operation of the premises at which he is or was last employed.
§ 151 et seq., that during the period of the lockout the recognized or certified collective bargaining representative of the locked-out employees has refused to bargain in good faith with the employer over 34 issues giving rise to the lockout, or (3) the lockout has resulted as a direct consequence of a violation 35 of the provisions of an existing collective bargaining agreement by the recognized or certified collective 37 the satisfaction of the Commission that:out employees.
For the purposes of this subdivision, a labor dispute does not include a lockout by an employer, and an individual who otherwise qualifies for benefits under this section shall not be denied benefits due to a lockout except for any week during which (1) the recognized or certified collective bargaining representative of the locked-out employees refuses to meet under reasonable conditions with the employer to discuss the issues giving rise to the § 151 et seq., that during the period of the lockout the recognized or certified collective bargaining representative of the locked-out employees has refused to bargain in good faith with the employer over issues giving rise to the lockout, or (3) the lockout has resulted as a direct consequence of a violation of the provisions of an existing collective bargaining agreement by the recognized or certified collective bargaining representative of the locked-out employees.
This subdivision shall not apply if it is shown to 38 (1) (A) He is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the labor dispute;
This subdivision shall not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commission that:
and 39 (2) (B) He does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement of the labor dispute, there were members employed at the premises, including a vessel, at which the labor dispute occurs, any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute.
(1) (A) He is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the labor dispute;
and (2) (B) He does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the at which the labor dispute occurs, any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute.
not alone constitute financing a labor dispute.r dues to a bona fide labor organization, however, shall 3.
Membership in a union, or the payment of regular dues to a bona fide labor organization, however, shall not alone constitute financing a labor dispute.
He is not receiving, has not received or is not seeking unemployment benefits under an unemployment compensation law of any other state or of the United States;
3.
however, if the appropriate agency of such other state or of the United States finally determines that he is not entitled to such unemployment benefits, this subdivision shall not apply.
He is not receiving, has not received or is not seeking unemployment benefits under an agency of such other state or of the United States finally determines that he is not entitled to such unemployment benefits, this subdivision shall not apply.
He has registered for work and thereafter has continued to report at an employment office in regulation, waive or alter either or both of the requirements of this subdivision for certain types of cases when it finds that compliance with such requirements would be oppressive, or would be inconsistent HB938 2 of 2 with the purposes of this title.
He has registered for work and thereafter has continued to report at an employment office in accordance with such regulations as the Commission may prescribe.
6.
The Commission may, by regulation, waive or alter either or both of the requirements of this subdivision for certain types of cases with the purposes of this title.th such requirements would be oppressive, or would be inconsistent 6.
7.
of 2 7.
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. House sustained Governor's veto

  2. Vetoed by Governor

  3. Governor's Action Deadline 11:59 p.m., April 8, 2024

  4. Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on March 11, 2024

  5. Signed by President

  6. Signed by Speaker

  7. Impact statement from DPB (HB938ER)

  8. Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB938ER)

  9. Enrolled

  10. Passed Senate (20-Y 19-N)

  11. Read third time

  12. Reported from Finance and Appropriations (10-Y 5-N)

  13. Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N)

  14. Rereferred to Finance and Appropriations

  15. Reported from Commerce and Labor (9-Y 5-N)

  16. Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor

  17. Constitutional reading dispensed

  18. VOTE: Passage (50-Y 47-N)

  19. Read third time and passed House (50-Y 47-N)

  20. Read second time and engrossed

  21. Read first time

  22. Reported from Labor and Commerce (12-Y 10-N)

  23. Subcommittee recommends reporting (4-Y 3-N)

  24. Impact statement from DPB (HB938)

  25. Assigned L & C sub: Subcommittee #2

  26. Referred to Committee on Labor and Commerce

  27. Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/10/24 24103282D

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 146 not signed on · 67 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (1)

Not signed on (146)

146 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 146 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Passed Senate (20-Y 19-N)

Passed 20 Yea · 19 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 201901
Total 201901
% of votes cast 50%48%0%3%
How each member voted (40)

Official roll call →

Passed 39 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 39001
Total 39001
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (40)

Official roll call →

Passed 10 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10500
Total 10500
% of votes cast 67%33%0%0%
How each member voted (15)

Official roll call →

Passed 9 Yea · 5 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9501
Total 9501
% of votes cast 60%33%0%7%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Aaron R. Rouse — Yea
Bill DeSteph — Nay
Bryce E. Reeves — Nay
David W. Marsden — Yea
Ebbin, Adam P. — Yea
Jeremy S. McPike — Yea
L. Louise Lucas — Yea
Lamont Bagby — Yea
Mamie E. Locke — Yea
Mark D. Obenshain — Not Voting
Mark J. Peake — Nay
R. Creigh Deeds — Yea
Ryan T. McDougle — Nay
Scott A. Surovell — Yea
William M. Stanley, Jr. — Nay

Official roll call →

VOTE: Passage (50-Y 47-N)

Passed 49 Yea · 47 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 494703
Total 494703
% of votes cast 49%47%0%3%
How each member voted (99)
Member Party Vote
Adele Y. McClure — Yea
Alex Q. Askew — Yea
Alfonso H. Lopez — Yea
Amy J. Laufer — Yea
Anne Ferrell Tata — Nay
Arnold, Jonathan, E. P. — Nay
Atoosa R. Reaser — Yea
Batten, Amanda E. — Nay
Betsy B. Carr — Yea
Bill Wiley — Nay
Bonita G. Anthony — Yea
Briana D. Sewell — Yea
Bulova, David L. — Yea
C.E. Cliff Hayes, Jr. — Yea
Charniele L. Herring — Yea
Chris S. Runion — Nay
Convirs-Fowler, Kelly K. — Yea
Cordoza, A.C. — Not Voting
Coyner, Carrie E. — Nay
Dan I. Helmer — Yea
David A. Reid — Yea
Debra D. Gardner — Yea
Delores L. McQuinn — Yea
Delores Oates — Nay
Earley, Mark L., Jr. — Nay
Elizabeth B. Bennett-Parker — Yea
Ellen H. McLaughlin — Nay
Ennis, N. Baxter — Nay
Eric Phillips — Nay
Eric R. Zehr — Nay
Fowler, Hyland F."Buddy," Jr. — Nay
Freitas, Nicholas J. — Nay
Gilbert, C. Todd — Nay
Green, W. Chad — Nay
H. Otto Wachsmann, Jr. — Nay
Higgins, Geary — Nay
Holly M. Seibold — Yea
Irene Shin — Yea
Israel D. O'Quinn — Nay
Jackie H. Glass — Yea
James A. "Jay" Leftwich — Nay
James W. Morefield — Nay
Jason S. Ballard — Nay
Jeion A. Ward — Yea
Joseph P. McNamara — Nay
Joshua E. Thomas — Yea
Joshua G. Cole — Yea
Kannan Srinivasan — Yea
Karen Keys-Gamarra — Yea
Karrie K. Delaney — Yea
Kathy K.L. Tran — Yea
Katrina Callsen — Yea
Kent, Hillary Pugh — Nay
Knight, Barry D. — Nay
Laura Jane Cohen — Yea
LeVere Bolling, Destiny — Yea
Lovejoy, Ian T. — Nay
Luke E. Torian — Yea
M. Keith Hodges — Nay
Maldonado, Michelle Lopes — Not Voting
Marcia S. "Cia" Price — Yea
Marcus B. Simon — Yea
Marshall, Daniel W., III — Not Voting
Marty Martinez — Yea
Michael B. Feggans — Yea
Michael J. Jones — Yea
Michael J. Webert — Nay
Mike A. Cherry — Nay
Milde, Paul V. — Nay
Mundon King, Candi — Yea
Nadarius E. Clark — Yea
Obenshain, Chris — Nay
Orrock, Robert D., Sr. — Nay
Owen, David — Nay
Patrick A. Hope — Yea
Paul E. Krizek — Yea
Phil M. Hernandez — Yea
Phillip A. Scott — Nay
R. Lee Ware — Nay
Rae Cousins — Yea
Richard C. "Rip" Sullivan, Jr. — Yea
Robert S. Bloxom, Jr. — Nay
Rodney T. Willett — Yea
Rozia A. Henson, Jr. — Yea
Sam Rasoul — Yea
Scott A. Wyatt — Nay
Shelly A. Simonds — Yea
Sickles, Mark D. — Yea
Taylor, Kim A. — Nay
Terry G. Kilgore — Nay
Terry L. Austin — Nay
Thomas A. Garrett, Jr. — Nay
Thomas C. Wright, Jr. — Nay
Timothy P. Griffin — Nay
Tony O. Wilt — Nay
Vivian E. Watts — Yea
Wendell S. Walker — Nay
Will Davis — Nay
Wren M. Williams — Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 12 Yea · 10 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 121000
Total 121000
% of votes cast 55%45%0%0%
How each member voted (22)

Official roll call →

Passed 4 Yea · 3 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4302
Total 4302
% of votes cast 44%33%0%22%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Alfonso H. Lopez — Yea
Chris S. Runion — Nay
Convirs-Fowler, Kelly K. — Yea
Dan I. Helmer — Yea
Jason S. Ballard — Nay
Jeion A. Ward — Not Voting
LeVere Bolling, Destiny — Yea
Marshall, Daniel W., III — Nay
Michael B. Feggans — Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does HB 938 do?
Unemployment insurance; benefit eligibility conditions; lockout exception to labor dispute disqualification. Amends the Virginia Unemployment Compensation Act's labor dispute disqualification to provide that a lockout by an employer shall not constitute a labor dispute and that locked-out employees who are otherwise eligible for benefits shall receive such benefits unless (i) the recognized or certified collective bargaining representative of the locked-out employees refuses to meet under reasonable conditions with the employer to discuss the issues giving rise to the lockout, (ii) there is a final adjudication under the federal National Labor Relations Act that such representative has refused to bargain in good faith with the employer, or (iii) the lockout is the direct result of such representative's violation of an existing collective bargaining agreement. This bill is identical to SB 542.
Who sponsors HB 938?
HB 938 is sponsored by Alfonso H. Lopez and Destiny LeVere Bolling.
What is the current status of HB 938?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 09, 2024. Enacted.
Where can I track HB 938?
Track HB 938 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on HB 938

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of HB 938

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →