Sponsor proposes job-protection leave for legislators to prevent employment conflicts during session

Representative Loy introduced House Bill 347, a proposal to create an employment-protection leave so that employees can attend mandatory House session days without risking discipline from outside employers. Loy framed the proposal as similar to jury-duty protections: employers would not be required to pay during leave but would need to allow the legislator the time off to perform statutory duties.

Why it matters: Many House members hold outside employment. Loy said an employer in a prior situation prohibited an employee from attending legislative sessions; the bill aims to prevent employers from blocking constitutionally required legislative duties and to protect legislators from having to choose between their jobs and representation duties.

Key points from the hearing

- Scope and calculation: Loy said the bill’s 168-hour cap was an initial estimate based on the 2022 legislative calendar multiplied by eight-hour days; she said the number could be amended after review. She said the proposal would apply to session days when the legislature requires presence; it would not cover committee work or campaigning.

- Employer size and hardship clause: Loy did not include a minimum-employee threshold in the draft but included a hardship clause to exempt employers who could not afford the absence. She said she was open to adding a size threshold if the committee preferred.

- Jurisdiction and enforcement: John Garrigan, general counsel for the Department of Labor, noted RSA 273:11-a as the general penalty provision the department uses to enforce labor statutes. He said RSA 273:11-a allows for a warning and 30-day cure period for a first violation and penalties for subsequent violations, but it does not automatically give the Department of Labor investigatory authority for novel enforcement items. Garrigan suggested adding explicit investigation or enforcement language or amending existing labor statutes to give the department jurisdiction if the committee intends that enforcement route.

- Out-of-state employers: Members asked how the bill would apply to employers located outside New Hampshire. Loy acknowledged the state lacks jurisdiction over such employers and said the bill would not directly alter out-of-state employers’ obligations; it could, however, give employees leverage in negotiations and an argument with an employer that the state recognizes legislative leave.

Process and next steps

The Department of Labor said it was neutral on the bill but offered technical drafting guidance. Loy indicated willingness to revise the hourly cap and to further develop enforcement language and thresholds with staff and stakeholders. No vote was recorded at the hearing; the bill will return to the committee for further consideration.

Taper: The committee closed the hearing after staff and member questions; Loy and staff will consider revisions, especially on the cap, employer-size thresholds and enforcement mechanism.