House Bill 269, titled the Workforce Freedom and Protection Act, would substantially change North Carolina labor and licensing law. It repeals Articles 10 and 12 of Chapter 95, which are the state’s labor-organizing and collective-bargaining provisions, and creates a new Article 24 in Chapter 95 to prohibit most non-compete agreements for employees earning less than $75,000 per year. The bill also bars employers from requiring, enforcing, or threatening to enforce non-compete clauses, and it restricts certain franchise-related mobility limits and choice-of-law or out-of-state venue provisions that would reduce protections for North Carolina workers.
The bill further directs the Legislative Research Commission to conduct a broad study of occupational licensing in North Carolina. That study would review licensed professions across the state, with emphasis on construction trades, cosmetology, health-related professions, and personal care services, and would assess whether licensing rules are necessary, overly restrictive, or duplicative. The LRC would be required to gather stakeholder input, hold public hearings, and issue interim and final reports with recommendations for reform, consolidation, or repeal of licensing requirements.
In practical terms, the bill would affect employers, employees, franchise operators, occupational licensing boards, and the Attorney General. It creates a private right of action for workers harmed by prohibited non-compete practices, authorizes Attorney General enforcement, and makes covered non-compete provisions void and unenforceable for agreements entered into on or after July 1, 2025. It also sets up a formal legislative review process that could lead to future changes in licensing statutes and administrative rules, but the study itself does not immediately alter licensing requirements.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly pro-worker and pro-labor-market competition. The stated purpose is to remove barriers to job mobility, empower workers to negotiate better wages, and reduce exploitative employment practices. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s own framing, but the measure appears designed to appeal to supporters of labor mobility, small business formation, and occupational deregulation.
The main points of contention are likely to be the repeal of existing labor-organizing and collective-bargaining statutes, the broad ban on non-competes for a large category of workers, and the potential impact on employers’ ability to protect business interests and training investments. Licensing boards and regulated industries may also resist the mandated review, especially where licensing is viewed as necessary for public safety. On the other hand, worker advocates, entrepreneurs, and reform groups would likely support the bill’s restrictions on restrictive covenants and its push to reduce licensing barriers.
HB269 would amend Chapter 95 of the North Carolina General Statutes by repealing Articles 10 and 12 and adding a new Article 24 governing workplace freedom. It would void and prohibit most non-compete agreements for employees earning under $75,000, limit certain franchise transfer restrictions, and bar contract terms that force North Carolina workers to litigate outside the state or waive North Carolina law. It also authorizes civil suits by injured persons and enforcement actions by the Attorney General. Separately, it directs the Legislative Research Commission to study occupational licensing across state government and recommend reforms, which could lead to future changes affecting licensing boards, regulated professions, and entry into licensed occupations.
The bill is framed in strongly favorable terms toward workers, job mobility, wage competition, and reduced regulatory barriers. Its language suggests a reform-oriented, pro-market approach to labor and licensing policy, with an emphasis on helping workers move between jobs and reducing constraints on entry into occupations. No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no independent evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s text and stated purpose.
Likely areas of dispute include the repeal of labor-organizing and collective-bargaining provisions, which could draw opposition from labor advocates or public employee interests, and the categorical ban on non-competes for lower-paid workers, which employers may argue is too broad. Franchise operators may object to the restriction on location-based employee mobility limits, while business groups may also resist the choice-of-law and venue provisions. Occupational licensing boards and professional associations may contend that the LRC study could undermine licensing standards needed for consumer protection and public safety, whereas reform advocates would likely argue that many licenses are unnecessarily restrictive.