What Happened?

As a reminder for employers in California, a federal district court has preliminarily blocked most of California Assembly Bill (AB) 288, preserving the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) exclusive role over union elections and unfair labor practices (ULP).

For now, California’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) cannot take over these matters, and the state largely returns to the pre–Assembly Bill 288 status quo while appeals proceed.

Overview

• Context: Assembly Bill 288, which expands both worker rights and the authority of the state’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), was to take effect January 1, 2026, but is mostly enjoined in advance. A parallel New York law was also enjoined in late November 2025, and the NLRB’s quorum was restored on December 18, 2025.
  
• Court action (December 26, 2025): The Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part the NLRB’s motion for a preliminary injunction in NLRB v. State of California & PERB, No. 2:25‑cv‑02979‑TLN‑CKD, enjoining AB 288’s “implied cession” triggers (e.g., NLRB quorum loss, alleged loss of independence, or processing delays).

• What survives: Three narrow carve‑outs where PERB may proceed:
  • (1) workers who truly fall outside NLRA coverage
  • (2) cases where the NLRB expressly cedes jurisdiction, or
  • (3) matters judicially enjoined due to constitutional challenges to the NLRB.

• Practical effect now: None of the surviving carve‑outs currently apply. Employers and unions should continue filing and litigating with the NLRB; PERB is not a substitute under the enjoined provisions.

Why this matters: The ruling avoids parallel federal–state tracks that could create conflicting rulings, deadlines, and remedies. For day‑to‑day operations, it keeps union elections and unfair labor practice charges on familiar NLRB timelines and procedures. Employers should monitor appeals; a different outcome could revive parts of AB 288 or shift limited categories to PERB.

Key Risks for Employers

• Filing errors and missed deadlines if parties try to route NLRA matters to PERB despite the injunction.

• Process confusion for HR and labor relations teams.

• Litigation exposure from relying on invalidated provisions (e.g., state‑level remedies or procedures not currently available).

• Change risk on appeal: Outcomes could shift the balance.

Action Steps for Compliance: Until the litigation over AB 288 is resolved, California employers should continue following established federal labor law procedures:

• File and litigate private‑sector labor matters with the NLRB, not PERB, except in rare situations involving workers outside NLRA coverage or express federal jurisdictional cession

• Refrain from relying on state‑level remedies created by AB 288, which the court has largely enjoined.

• Ensure HR and labor‑relations teams are aligned on the NLRB’s continued authority to prevent procedural errors.

• Stay alert to appeals and NLRB developments, particularly following the restoration of the Board’s quorum in December 2025.

Source References

• California Expands Public Employment Relations Board Authority (VensureHR)
• U.S. District Court – Eastern District of California – No. 2:25-cv-02979-TLN-CKD (12-26/25) 

This communication is intended solely for the purpose of conveying information. The present post might incorporate hyperlinks directing readers to websites managed by third-party entities. The inclusion of any links within this communication is meant to serve as points of reference and could encompass opinion articles from various law firms, articles from HR associations, official websites, news releases, and documents of government agencies, and other relevant third-party sources. Vensure has no authority over these external websites and bears no responsibility for their content. Furthermore, Vensure does not endorse the materials present on these websites. The contents of this communication should not be interpreted as legal advice or as a legal standpoint concerning specific facts or scenarios. Nor should it be deemed an exhaustive compilation of facts potentially pertinent to federal, state, or local laws. It is strongly advised that employers solicit legal guidance from an employment attorney when undertaking actions in response to any legal updates provided. This is due to the possibility of future alterations occurring in federal, state, and local laws, regulations, as well as the directives and guidelines issued by governing agencies. These changes may transpire at any given time, potentially rendering certain portions of the content within this update void or inaccurate.