SB1984 bars employers from ending or changing an employee’s coverage under a group health plan while the employer is engaged in a lockout or while the employee is engaged in a lawful strike. It also expands the National Labor Relations Act to define “group health plan” in line with ERISA and introduces penalties for violations.
The bill strengthens enforcement by authorizing civil penalties against employers and, in limited circumstances, against directors or officers who directed or failed to prevent the violation. The core aim is to ensure continuity of health coverage for workers during labor disputes while preserving the existing labor protections framework.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds new prohibitions to NLRA sections 8(a)(6) and 8(a)(7) preventing termination or alteration of group health coverage during lockouts or lawful strikes. It also defines “group health plan” per ERISA and expands penalties under NLRA section 12 for related unfair labor practices.
Who It Affects
Directly affects employers offering group health plans, unions and their members, and HR/benefits teams that administer coverage during disputes. The enforcement framework involves the National Labor Relations Board and health-plan administrators linked to employers.
Why It Matters
The measure codifies health-coverage continuity as a core worker protection during disputes, deterring tactics that would otherwise erode access to care and potentially harming workers with ongoing medical needs. It also clarifies liability pathways for employers and leaders who fail to uphold coverage obligations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Striking and Locked Out Workers Healthcare Protection Act prohibits an employer from terminating or altering an employee’s coverage under a group health plan during a lockout or a lawful strike. To accomplish this, the bill adds new provisions to the National Labor Relations Act: it expands the prohibitions on interference with employees’ rights to include protections for health-plan coverage during labor disputes and defines what counts as a group health plan by aligning the term with ERISA.
The bill also amends penalties to punish unfair labor practices related to health coverage in these contexts, including potential penalties for directors or officers who directed or knew of the violation and failed to prevent it. The penalties are calibrated to the gravity of the misconduct and the employer’s size and history, and they can increase when harm to employees or discharge is involved.
Enforcement relies on the NLRB with civil penalties in addition to existing remedies. The overall goal is to maintain continuous health coverage for workers while they exercise protected labor rights and to deter tactics that would disrupt coverage as a bargaining lever.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds new prohibitions (8(a)(6) and 8(a)(7)) against terminating or altering group health coverage during lockouts and lawful strikes.
Group health plan is defined per ERISA, ensuring consistent coverage terms for the bill’s scope.
Civil penalties are created for violations: up to $75,000 per lockout violation and up to $50,000 per strike violation, with doubling for harm or discharge in specific circumstances.
Director or officer liability may be imposed for violations directed or failed to prevent by those in authority.
Penalty amount considerations include gravity, employer size, prior history, and the public interest.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Continuation of coverage under a group health plan during a lock-out or lawful strike
Section 2 expands NLRA 8(a) to prohibit termination or alteration of an employee’s group health plan during periods of lockout or lawful strike (new subsections 8(a)(6) and 8(a)(7)). It also defines “group health plan” by adopting the ERISA interpretation (15) to align with 29 U.S.C. 1167(1). These changes ensure that health benefits remain intact during disputes and set the stage for enforcement under NLRA rules.
Penalties for unfair labor practices related to coverage under a group health plan during a lock-out or lawful strike
Section 3 rewrites Section 12 to create civil penalties for unfair labor practices tied to health-coverage issues in lockouts and strikes. It establishes a maximum civil penalty of $75,000 per lockout-coverage violation (doubling to $150,000 for harm or discharge scenarios) and $50,000 per strike-coverage violation (doubling to $100,000 for harm or discharge scenarios). It also extends potential liability to directors or officers who directed or failed to prevent the violation and requires the Board to consider factors such as gravity, employer size, and public interest when setting penalties.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Unionized workers who are locked out or on lawful strikes and rely on employer-provided coverage to access care, including those with ongoing medical needs.
- Labor unions and worker advocacy groups, who gain a clear statutory standard to protect member health coverage during disputes and can use penalties as a deterrent against coercive tactics.
- HR/benefits teams at employers with group health plans, who gain clearer rules and reduced litigation risk when administering coverage during disputes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers that terminate or alter health coverage during a lockout or lawful strike, facing substantial civil penalties and potential director/officer liability.
- Senior leaders and HR/benefits personnel responsible for implementing continuity-of-coverage requirements and monitoring compliance, increasing administrative burden.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing workers’ access to continuous health coverage with employers’ need to exert bargaining leverage during disputes. The bill achieves protection through penalties, but the line between lawful bargaining and coercive coverage disruption can be nuanced, potentially leading to contested interpretations of what constitutes “termination or alteration” of coverage during dispute periods.
The bill’s protection of health coverage during labor disputes rests on a straightforward policy choice: workers should not lose medical coverage as leverage is applied in bargaining. While this reduces the leverage of a strike or lockout to disrupt care, it also introduces new enforcement hooks and higher potential penalties for employers who violate the rule.
The use of ERISA’s definition of group health plans anchors the bill to existing health-coverage regimes, but it may raise questions about applicability to self-funded or multiemployer plans where coverage decisions are made differently. Practitioners should anticipate questions about exemptions (if any) for emergency care, the scope of “coverage” (e.g., preventive services vs. elective care), and how this interacts with existing collective bargaining agreements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.