Signed into law September 20, 2025, AB 288 amends the Labor Code to expand the jurisdiction of California’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a state agency with the authority to enforce federal labor law in the absence of action by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Agency”), and allow PERB to resolve private sector issues of federal labor law and grant appropriate relief if the NLRB has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction.
In addition to allowing PERB to order any appropriate remedy, including injunctive relief and penalties to resolve unfair labor practice charges, AB 288 grants PERB the authority to assess civil penalties in the amount of $1,000 per worker per violation to employers it finds have engaged in a pattern or practice of committing unfair labor practices.
The legality of AB 288 was immediately challenged by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which filed a lawsuit against the State of California and the PERB seeking to block enforcement of the new statute. The NLRB contended that AB 288 is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and that it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Court’s Decision
On December 26, 2025, a California district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of those sections of AB 288 that allow PERB to intervene in cases impacted by NLRB delays or in situations where the Agency experiences a loss of independent governance. Finding that such situations are not indicative of an abdication of authority and that PERB intervention in such circumstances would create unnecessary conflicts and issues of uniformity in the application of federal law.
Nonetheless, the court did agree with the state that AB 288 should remain enforceable under very limited circumstances, such as where the NLRB is legally enjoined from acting or the conflict at issue is no longer covered under the NLRA.
A quiet ALRA change that is still moving forward
One provision of AB 288 received far less attention, but could have real consequences for agricultural employers. Buried in the bill is an amendment to Labor Code section 1148 of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA).
Since the ALRA was adopted in 1975, section 1148 has required the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) to follow applicable precedents under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). That statutory link has served an important function: it keeps California agricultural labor law generally aligned with federal labor doctrine and helps provide predictability for employers, unions, and employees alike.
AB 288 changes that framework. As amended, section 1148 states that the ALRB may follow applicable NLRA precedents, treats those precedents as persuasive authority, and expressly provides that the Board is not obligated to follow federal precedent where it deems it inappropriate to do so.
That discretion is not theoretical. Rob Roy, President and General Counsel of the Ventura County Agricultural Association, recently flagged that the ALRB has already cited amended section 1148 in a recent administrative decision (KEM Farms, Inc., Case No. 2024-CE 113, Order Denying Petition to Revoke), declining to follow NLRB precedent.
Importantly, the December 26, 2025 federal injunction discussed above addressed AB 288’s new PERB jurisdiction provisions. It expressly did not enjoin the separate amend ent to the ALRA In other words, even if much of AB 288 is tied up in federal court, this change to ALRB decision-making is still positioned to take effect.
What Does it Mean
At this point, outside of the ALRA context, the court’s ruling will likely have very little impact. Both sides could appeal the decision. Moreover, as of January 7, 2026, for the first time in a long time, the NLRB has a quorum, and a Senate confirmed General Counsel. James Murphy and Scott Mayer were sworn in as new Board members with Crystal S. Carey sworn in as General Counsel. As a result, the NLRB can now begin conducting Agency business and will hopefully work quickly to clear its existing backlog of pending cases.
For now, California employers that are not subject to the ALRA should be aware that the labor-law landscape remains largely unchanged. Although California and some other states have sought to broaden local authority over general labor relations, those efforts have mostly been halted.