WeVote
Log In

Bill

JA

Bill

HB 4439

Labor: health and safety; employee communication regarding an occupational safety and health practice or hazard; prohibit an employer from taking an adverse employment action based on. Amends 1974 PA 154 (MCL 408.1001 - 408.1094) by adding sec. 66a.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Joey Andrews and 25 co-sponsors

HB 4439 protects workers from retaliation when refusing unsafe or disease-related work if they report the condition and steps are followed, with potential wage coverage for uncorre

bill electronically reproduced 05/06/2025
#labor:discrimination #labor:fairemploymentpractices #labor:healthandsafety #labor:workingconditions
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 4439

Summary — HB 4439 (May 6, 2025 version)

Sponsor: Rep. Matt Hanson (primary); introduced in House by Rep. Regina Weiss
Statute amended: Adds section 66a to the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (1974 PA 154, MCL 408.1001–408.1094)
Companion: SB 2053

Purpose / Intent

HB 4439 creates a specific employee protection under Michigan’s Occupational Safety and Health Act to prevent employer retaliation when an employee refuses to work or report to work because they reasonably believe doing so would expose them, coworkers, or the public to a communicable disease (per MCL 333.5101) or to an unsafe/hazardous condition — provided certain procedural steps are taken beforehand.

Key provisions

  • Creates new section 66a with four requirements that must be met for refusal-to-work protection:
    1. The employee reasonably believes work would cause exposure to a communicable disease or unsafe/hazardous condition.
    2. Before refusing, the employee or the employee’s bargaining representative requested the employer correct the condition.
    3. The condition was not corrected at the time of the refusal.
    4. The employee contacted the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) by telephone or email to report the condition before the refusal.
  • Employers may not discharge, discriminate against, or retaliate against employees who refuse under these conditions.
  • If an employee is not reassigned to other work after such a refusal, the employer must pay the wages the employee would have otherwise earned for the period the unsafe or disease-related condition remains uncorrected.
  • A presumption of unlawful retaliation arises if an adverse employment action occurs within 90 days after the protected activity; the employer can rebut this presumption only by clear and convincing evidence that the action was otherwise authorized by law.

Who is affected

  • Employees covered by the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act who reasonably refuse work for the specified health/safety reasons.
  • Employers subject to Michigan’s OSH Act — who would face limits on discipline and potential wage obligations.
  • Labor representatives/bargaining agents (their prior request to correct conditions is recognized).
  • MIOSHA — increase in reports/complaints and potential inspections/enforcement.

Procedural status (selected)

  • Filed: March 11, 2025 (bill text reproduced May 6, 2025)
  • Introduced/Read first time in House: May 6, 2025; referred to Committee on Economic Competitiveness.
  • Public hearing: April 30, 2025 (testimony taken; left pending in committee).

Potential impacts and practical effects

  • Strengthens worker protections for refusing dangerous work related to communicable diseases or hazardous conditions when procedural steps are followed.
  • Could increase MIOSHA reporting and investigations.
  • Employers may face additional wage liabilities if they cannot reassign employees while hazards remain uncorrected.
  • Shifts evidentiary burden toward employers in close-timing adverse actions (90-day presumption, rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence).

For the exact statutory language, see the bill’s Section 66a text added to 1974 PA 154.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.