If you work in HR in California, you are already used to operating in a constant state of legal change. Just as policies are updated and managers are trained, another regulation or enforcement theory seems to emerge. That sense of uncertainty was front and center in late 2025, when California attempted to dramatically expand its role in private-sector labor relations. A recent federal court decision has now paused that effort, offering HR professionals some much-needed clarity—at least for the moment.
The law at issue (AB288) was California’s response to perceived slowdowns and uncertainty at the National Labor Relations Board. During periods when the NLRB lacked a quorum or faced operational challenges, state lawmakers sought to fill what they viewed as an enforcement gap. Their solution was to authorize the California Public Employment Relations Board—an agency traditionally limited to public-sector labor disputes—to step into private-sector matters that have historically been governed exclusively by federal law.
For HR professionals, this raised immediate and practical concerns. A state agency applying its own procedures, timelines, and remedies to union organizing disputes or unfair labor practice allegations would have meant learning an entirely new enforcement system. It also would have created real risk of conflicting guidance between state and federal authorities, placing HR teams in the difficult position of trying to satisfy two different regulators with overlapping jurisdiction.
The US District Court for the Eastern District of California recognized those concerns and stepped in. In issuing a preliminary injunction, the court made clear that Congress intended private-sector labor relations to be governed by a uniform national framework. The National Labor Relations Act gives the NLRB exclusive authority in this area, and that authority does not evaporate simply because the agency experiences delays or political uncertainty. Allowing states to substitute their own enforcement regimes under those circumstances would undermine the consistency federal labor law is designed to provide.
For HR professionals, the immediate impact of the ruling is reassurance. The familiar rules still apply. The NLRB remains the primary forum for addressing unfair labor practice charges, representation issues, and protected concerted activity. There is no need to overhaul labor-relations strategies or retrain managers on a brand-new state process—at least not yet.
That does not mean the issue is settled. The court’s decision is procedural, not final, and California is unlikely to abandon its efforts to expand workplace regulation. Appeals and further litigation are expected, and HR leaders should expect continued pressure at the state level to test the boundaries of federal preemption.
At the same time, the NLRB has resumed full operations, and federal labor enforcement is expected to be active. For HR professionals, this means staying focused on compliance with federal labor law while remaining alert to developments that could affect how labor issues are handled in California workplaces.
The takeaway is a familiar one for anyone working in HR in this state. Even when a proposed law is blocked, it signals where enforcement priorities are headed. This decision provides breathing room, but it also serves as a reminder that labor relations remain a high-risk area requiring careful planning, consistent training, and informed legal guidance.
For California HR professionals, staying ahead of these developments is not just about compliance—it is about protecting the organization, supporting managers, and maintaining stability in an environment where the rules are always evolving. For more information contact the Employer Lawyers at Chauvel & Glatt.
