The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has filed suit against the State of California and the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) seeking to block enforcement of Assembly Bill 288, a new law that would allow California to step into the NLRB’s shoes under certain conditions. The NLRB contends that AB 288 is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
As discussed in our prior update here, California recently joined New York in passing legislation that would allow state agencies to assume powers delegated to the NLRB by Congress. AB 288 authorizes PERB to resolve private-sector labor disputes and grant relief if the NLRB has “expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction.” The statute empowers PERB to enforce unfair labor practice claims, certify bargaining representatives, enforce collective bargaining agreements, and impose civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation (a remedy not available under the NLRA).
The NLRB’s 10-page complaint, filed in the Eastern District of California just weeks after AB 288’s enactment, asserts that the new law “creates a parallel regulatory system” that undermines Congress’s intent for a uniform national labor policy. According to the complaint, the NLRA grants the NLRB exclusive authority over private sector labor relations, and AB 288 unlawfully intrudes on this exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Employers should track this litigation as it proceeds in the Eastern District of California. If AB 288 survives judicial review, California employers could face enforcement from both the NLRB and PERB, including exposure to new state-level penalties. Furthermore, the outcome could influence how states nationwide respond to perceived gaps or delays in NLRB enforcement.
Employers with specific questions or concerns about the California legislation and litigation, or any labor relations issues, should consult with counsel. We will continue to monitor for any new developments.
The case is Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. State of Calif., E.D. Cal., No. 2:25-at-01400.