Protection of employees; restricting use of accrued leave for other employment prohibited.
Summary
HB2688 would prohibit an employer from barring an employee from using accrued annual or vacation leave to work for another employer, unless the outside work would create a conflict of interest. The bill preserves an employer’s ability to limit an employee’s use of the employer’s property, office space, equipment, materials, trade secrets, confidential information, or other assets in connection with outside employment.
The measure also creates an enforcement mechanism within the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry. An employer that knowingly violates the section could face a civil penalty of up to $100 per violation, with penalties assessed by the Commissioner and paid into the Literary Fund. The Commissioner would notify the employer by certified mail, allow a request for an informal conference, and may seek injunctive or other relief in circuit court to enforce the law.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new employee-protection provision to Title 40.1 of the Code of Virginia and limit employer policies that restrict workers from using earned leave for secondary employment. It would create a new civil penalty process administered by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry and authorize court enforcement, affecting employers’ leave policies, conflict-of-interest rules, and workplace restrictions on moonlighting or side jobs.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests mixed or skeptical sentiment toward the bill. In subcommittee, the measure was recommended to be laid on the table by a 6-3 vote, indicating that a majority of members were not ready to advance it. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote outcome suggests limited support or unresolved concerns.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between employee freedom to use earned leave for outside work and an employer’s interest in preventing conflicts of interest and protecting proprietary resources. Supporters would likely view the bill as a worker-protection and income-flexibility measure, while opponents may be concerned about employer control over scheduling, loyalty, conflicts, and the practical difficulty of enforcing a broad restriction on leave use. The low civil penalty and the table motion suggest the bill may have been viewed as either too narrow, too broad, or in need of further refinement.