[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3124 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>






119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3124

  To amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect employees from 
             harassment and abuse, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 6, 2025

 Mr. Tuberville (for himself and Mr. Cassidy) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
  To amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect employees from 
             harassment and abuse, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protection on the Picket Line Act''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTING EMPLOYEES FROM HARASSMENT AND ABUSE.

    Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) In any case in which an employer takes disciplinary action 
against an employee for harassment or abuse that occurs in the course 
of activity protected under section 7, it shall not be an unfair labor 
practice under this section for the employer to take such disciplinary 
action unless--
            ``(1) the General Counsel makes an initial showing that--
                    ``(A) the employee engaged in activity protected 
                under section 7;
                    ``(B) the employer knew of that activity; and
                    ``(C) the employer had animus against that 
                activity, as proven with evidence sufficient to 
                establish a causal relationship between the 
                disciplinary action and the activity protected under 
                section 7; and
            ``(2) the employer has not met the burden of persuasion to 
        prove that the employer would have taken the same disciplinary 
        action in the absence of the activity protected under section 
        7.''.
                                 <all>