Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
Bills/119th Congress · Senate

S. 3124

Introduced

Protection on the Picket Line Act

Sponsor
RTommy Tuberville· Alabama
Introduced
November 6, 2025
Policy area
Labor and Employment
Latest action
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.November 6, 2025
[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>

Plain-language analysis

Not yet analyzed.

A plain-language breakdown — including any hidden or off-intent provisions and whether the bill was fast-tracked — is generated separately and reviewed before publishing. It will appear here once ready. Until then, the verbatim text above and the official source are the record.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →