Unemployment insurance; benefit eligibility conditions, lockout exception, etc.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when HB 938 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on HB 938.
You're tracking HB 938
We'll email you the moment it moves.
HB 938 — Unemployment insurance; benefit eligibility conditions, lockout exception, etc.
Last action — House sustained Governor's veto
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed House of Delegates
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 09, 2024. Enacted.
Signed by Governor Glenn Youngkin (Republican) on March 07, 2024.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow 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 removedPlain-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.
SESSION INTRODUCEDENROLLED 24103282DVIRGINIA IACTS HOUSEOF BILLASSEMBLY NO.–– 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 ––––––––––[H Referred938] toApproved CommitteeL onL Labor and Commerce D –––––––––– U Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
CE § 60.2-612.
ED A.Commission finds that:dividual shall be eligible to receive benefits for any week only if the 1.
AnHe unemployedhas, individualin shallthe behighest eligibletwo toquarters receiveof benefitsearnings within his base period, been paid wages in employment for anyemployers weekthat onlyare ifequal to not less than the Commissionlowest findsamount that: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 toHo shutdown or start-up operations caused by such dispute which exists (i) at the factory, establishment,establi9hment, 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 Commonwealth9Commonwealth, which (a) is owned or operated by the same employing unit which owns or operates the premises at whic8which he is or was last employed and (b) supplies materials or services necessary to the continued and usual laboroperation 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-outpremises employeesat refuseswhich tohe meet under reasonable conditions with the employer to discuss the issues giving rise to the lockout, (2) there is aor finalwas adjudicationlast underemployed. the federal National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.
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 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 37bargaining therepresentative satisfaction of the Commissionlocked-out that:out employees.
This subdivision shall not apply if it is shown to 38the (1)satisfaction (A)of He is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the laborCommission dispute;that:
and(1) 39(A) (2) (B) He doesis 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.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.
notMembership alonein constitutea financingunion, aor laborthe dispute.rpayment of regular dues to a bona fide labor organization, however, shall 3.not alone constitute financing a labor dispute.
He3. 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;
however,He ifis thenot appropriatereceiving, 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,accordance waive or alter either or both of the requirements of this subdivision for certain types of cases when it finds that compliance with such requirementsregulations wouldas be oppressive, or would be inconsistent HB938 2 of 2 with the purposesCommission ofmay thisprescribe. title.
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.
of 2 7.
View plain text versions (2)
- HB938ER View text Current pdf March 05, 2024
- Prefiled Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/10/24 24103282D pdf January 09, 2024
Action History
-
House sustained Governor's veto
-
Vetoed by Governor
-
Governor's Action Deadline 11:59 p.m., April 8, 2024
-
Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on March 11, 2024
-
Signed by President
-
Signed by Speaker
-
Impact statement from DPB (HB938ER)
-
Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB938ER)
-
Enrolled
-
Passed Senate (20-Y 19-N)
-
Read third time
-
Reported from Finance and Appropriations (10-Y 5-N)
-
Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N)
-
Rereferred to Finance and Appropriations
-
Reported from Commerce and Labor (9-Y 5-N)
-
Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
-
Constitutional reading dispensed
-
VOTE: Passage (50-Y 47-N)
-
Read third time and passed House (50-Y 47-N)
-
Read second time and engrossed
-
Read first time
-
Reported from Labor and Commerce (12-Y 10-N)
-
Subcommittee recommends reporting (4-Y 3-N)
-
Impact statement from DPB (HB938)
-
Assigned L & C sub: Subcommittee #2
-
Referred to Committee on Labor and Commerce
-
Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/10/24 24103282D
Sponsors
- Alfonso H. Lopez · Cosponsor
- Destiny LeVere Bolling · Primary
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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 20 | 19 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 20 | 19 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 50% | 48% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Aaron R. Rouse | — | Yea |
| Angelia Williams Graves | — | Not Voting |
| Barbara A. Favola | — | Yea |
| Bill DeSteph | — | Nay |
| Bryce E. Reeves | — | Nay |
| Carroll Foy, Jennifer D. | — | Yea |
| Christie New Craig | — | Nay |
| Christopher T. Head | — | Nay |
| Danica A. Roem | — | Yea |
| David R. Suetterlein | — | Nay |
| David W. Marsden | — | Yea |
| Ebbin, Adam P. | — | Yea |
| Emily M. Jordan | — | Nay |
| Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr. | — | Nay |
| Hashmi, Ghazala F. | — | Yea |
| J.D. "Danny" Diggs | — | Nay |
| Jennifer B. Boysko | — | Yea |
| Jeremy S. McPike | — | Yea |
| L. Louise Lucas | — | Yea |
| Lamont Bagby | — | Yea |
| Lashrecse D. Aird | — | Yea |
| Mamie E. Locke | — | Yea |
| Mark D. Obenshain | — | Nay |
| Mark J. Peake | — | Nay |
| McGuire, John J., III | — | Nay |
| R. Creigh Deeds | — | Yea |
| Richard H. Stuart | — | Nay |
| Russet Perry | — | Yea |
| Ryan T. McDougle | — | Nay |
| Saddam Azlan Salim | — | Yea |
| Schuyler T. VanValkenburg | — | Yea |
| Scott A. Surovell | — | Yea |
| Stella G. Pekarsky | — | Yea |
| Subramanyam, Suhas | — | Yea |
| T. Travis Hackworth | — | Nay |
| Tammy Brankley Mulchi | — | Nay |
| Tara A. Durant | — | Nay |
| Timmy French | — | Nay |
| Todd E. Pillion | — | Nay |
| William M. Stanley, Jr. | — | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 39 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 39 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 98% | 0% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Aaron R. Rouse | — | Yea |
| Angelia Williams Graves | — | Yea |
| Barbara A. Favola | — | Yea |
| Bill DeSteph | — | Yea |
| Bryce E. Reeves | — | Yea |
| Carroll Foy, Jennifer D. | — | Yea |
| Christie New Craig | — | Yea |
| Christopher T. Head | — | Yea |
| Danica A. Roem | — | Yea |
| David R. Suetterlein | — | Yea |
| David W. Marsden | — | Yea |
| Ebbin, Adam P. | — | Yea |
| Emily M. Jordan | — | Yea |
| Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr. | — | Yea |
| Hashmi, Ghazala F. | — | Yea |
| J.D. "Danny" Diggs | — | Yea |
| Jennifer B. Boysko | — | Yea |
| Jeremy S. McPike | — | Yea |
| L. Louise Lucas | — | Yea |
| Lamont Bagby | — | Yea |
| Lashrecse D. Aird | — | Yea |
| Mamie E. Locke | — | Yea |
| Mark D. Obenshain | — | Yea |
| Mark J. Peake | — | Yea |
| McGuire, John J., III | — | Yea |
| R. Creigh Deeds | — | Yea |
| Richard H. Stuart | — | Yea |
| Russet Perry | — | Yea |
| Ryan T. McDougle | — | Yea |
| Saddam Azlan Salim | — | Yea |
| Schuyler T. VanValkenburg | — | Yea |
| Scott A. Surovell | — | Yea |
| Stella G. Pekarsky | — | Yea |
| Subramanyam, Suhas | — | Yea |
| T. Travis Hackworth | — | Yea |
| Tammy Brankley Mulchi | — | Yea |
| Tara A. Durant | — | Yea |
| Timmy French | — | Yea |
| Todd E. Pillion | — | Yea |
| William M. Stanley, Jr. | — | Not Voting |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 67% | 33% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (15)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Barbara A. Favola | — | Yea |
| Bryce E. Reeves | — | Nay |
| David W. Marsden | — | Yea |
| Ebbin, Adam P. | — | Yea |
| Hashmi, Ghazala F. | — | Yea |
| Jennifer B. Boysko | — | Yea |
| Jeremy S. McPike | — | Yea |
| L. Louise Lucas | — | Yea |
| Mamie E. Locke | — | Yea |
| Mark D. Obenshain | — | Nay |
| R. Creigh Deeds | — | Yea |
| Richard H. Stuart | — | Nay |
| Ryan T. McDougle | — | Nay |
| Scott A. Surovell | — | Yea |
| Todd E. Pillion | — | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 9 | 5 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 9 | 5 | 0 | 1 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 49 | 47 | 0 | 3 |
| Total | 49 | 47 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 49% | 47% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (99)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 12 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 12 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 55% | 45% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (22)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Alfonso H. Lopez | — | Yea |
| Charniele L. Herring | — | Yea |
| Chris S. Runion | — | Nay |
| Convirs-Fowler, Kelly K. | — | Yea |
| Dan I. Helmer | — | Yea |
| Gilbert, C. Todd | — | Nay |
| Irene Shin | — | Yea |
| Israel D. O'Quinn | — | Nay |
| Jason S. Ballard | — | Nay |
| Jeion A. Ward | — | Yea |
| Joseph P. McNamara | — | Nay |
| LeVere Bolling, Destiny | — | Yea |
| Maldonado, Michelle Lopes | — | Yea |
| Marshall, Daniel W., III | — | Nay |
| Michael B. Feggans | — | Yea |
| Michael J. Jones | — | Yea |
| Michael J. Webert | — | Nay |
| Mundon King, Candi | — | Yea |
| Richard C. "Rip" Sullivan, Jr. | — | Yea |
| Terry G. Kilgore | — | Nay |
| Tony O. Wilt | — | Nay |
| Wren M. Williams | — | Nay |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 4 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| % 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 |
Subjects
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 →