Existing law that governs the labor relations of public employees and employers, including, among others, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the Ralph C. Dills Act, provisions relating to public schools, and provisions relating to higher education prohibits employers from taking certain actions relating to employee organization, including imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on employees, discriminating or threatening to discriminate against employees, or otherwise interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees because of their exercise of their guaranteed rights. Those provisions of existing law further prohibit denying to employee organizations the rights guaranteed to them by existing law.

This bill would prohibit a public employer from questioning a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative regarding communications made in confidence between an employee and an employee representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organizations representation. The bill would also prohibit a public employer from compelling a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative to disclose those confidential communications to a third party. The bill would not apply to a criminal investigation or when a public safety officer is under investigation and certain circumstances exist.

Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by Proposition 215 at the November 6, 1996, statewide general election, declares that its purpose is, among other things, to ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes, as specified, and exempts from state criminal liability certain patients and their primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient.

The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult-Use of Marijuana Act of 2016 (AUMA), an initiative measure approved as Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, established a comprehensive system to legalize, control, and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of nonmedical marijuana. Existing law, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities, including the retail sale of medicinal cannabis. MAUCRSA also authorizes specified licensees to provide free medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products to medicinal cannabis patients if specified criteria are met.

Existing law, the Medicinal Cannabis Patients Right of Access Act, prohibits a local jurisdiction from adopting or enforcing any regulation that prohibits the retail sale by delivery within the local jurisdiction of medicinal cannabis to medicinal cannabis patients or their primary caregivers by medicinal cannabis businesses, as defined, or that has the effect of prohibiting the retail sale by delivery within the local jurisdiction of medicinal cannabis to medicinal cannabis patients or their primary caregivers, as specified.

This bill, until January 1, 2030, would authorize a licensed microbusiness with an M-license, as defined, whose licensed activities include retail sale, manufacturing, distribution, and outdoor cultivation to directly ship certain medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products to a medicinal cannabis patient in the state, if the licensed microbusiness complies with specified requirements, including that the medicinal cannabis is shipped by a common carrier, as described, the amount shipped to a medicinal cannabis patient in a single day does not exceed specified possession limits, and the package is received and signed for by someone 21 years of age or older. The bill would require the shipment to comply with specified laws and regulations governing cannabis and cannabis products sold by licensed retailers, as provided. If the medicinal cannabis patient is a qualified patient that possesses a valid physicians recommendation, the bill would require the licensed microbusiness to certify in writing that they verified the recommendation and would require the retailer to keep a copy of that certification for no less than 7 years. The bill would amend the Medicinal Cannabis Patients Right of Access Act to, among other things, prohibit a local jurisdiction from adopting or enforcing any regulation that prohibits the retail sale by delivery within or shipment into the local jurisdiction of medicinal cannabis to medicinal cannabis patients or their primary caregivers by a licensed microbusiness, as specified. The bill would also authorize free medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products provided to medicinal cannabis patients in compliance with MAUCRSA to be shipped to those patients by a licensed microbusiness with an M-license, as provided.

To the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local jurisdictions, and to the extent the bill would expand the crime of perjury by requiring the licensed microbusiness to certify verification of physician recommendations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1564 (Ahrens) - Employer-employee relations: confidential communications

Bill Summary:

AB 1564 would prohibit a public employer from questioning employees and employee representatives about, or compelling them to disclose to a third party, communications between employees and employee representatives in connection with the representation relating to any matter with the scope of representation, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• This bill would result in one-time costs to the State as a direct employer, to update collective bargaining agreements and related policies and trainings, including policies regarding workplace investigations and allowable communications between represented employees and their employer. The magnitude is unknown, but minimally in the low millions of dollars (General Fund and special funds). As an example, the California Community College (CCC) Chancellor's Office estimates one-time costs between $936,000 and $1.6 million (costs between $13,000 and $22,000 per district) to implement this prohibition across its CCC's 72 districts (Proposition 98 General Fund).
• By limiting the type of information an employer may obtain, this bill additionally could result in investigation costs to the State related to preparation for an administrative or civil proceeding. The magnitude is unknown (General Fund and special funds).
• The bill would not have a fiscal impact to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB).

Background:

With respect to public employees, PERB has found that communications between an employee and their employee representative are protected from disclosure to an employer in some circumstances. However, case law and statute currently has not provided an employee and employee representative with an evidentiary privilege, in which the communication cannot be compelled to be disclosed or used as evidence in a court proceeding, for their communications.

Proposed Law:

This bill, among other things, would do the following:

• Prohibit a public employer from questioning a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative regarding communications made in confidence between a public employee and the representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization’s representation.
• Prohibit a public employer from compelling a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative to disclose to a third party, communications made in confidence between a public employee and the representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization’s representation..

Related Legislation:

• AB 340 (Ahrens, 2025) was identical to this bill, and was held under submission on the Suspense File of this Committee.
• AB 2421 (Low, 2024) would have prohibited specified public employers from questioning employees and employee representatives about communications between employees and employee representatives related to the representative’s representation, with a specified exception. The bill was as held under submission on the Suspense File of this Committee.
• AB 418 (Kalra, 2019) would have established an evidentiary privilege from disclosure for communications between a union agent and a represented employee or represented former employee. This bill died on the Senate inactive file.
• AB 3121 (Kalra, 2018) would have established an evidentiary privilege from disclosure for communications between a union agent and a represented employee or represented former employee. This bill died on the Senate inactive file.
• AB 729 (Roger Hernández, 2013) would have provided a union agent, as defined, and a represented employee or represented former employee a privilege of refusing to disclose any confidential communication between the employee or former employee and the union agent while the union agent is acting in their representative capacity, except as specified. The Governor vetoed this bill.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1564 (Author:Ahrens)

Version: May 18, 2026

Hearing Date: June 30, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: ID

SUBJECT

Employer-employee relations: confidential communications

DIGEST

This bill prohibits a public employer from questioning employees and employee representatives about, or compelling them to disclose to a third party, communications between employees and employee representatives in connection with the representation relating to any matter with the scope of representation, as specified.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The inviolability of the employee-union representative relationship is essential to an employee’s representation and to the guarding of an employee’s rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. In the context of public employees, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has found that communications between an employee and their employee representative are protected from disclosure to an employer in some circumstances when the questioning harms the employee’s collective bargaining rights. However, case law and statute so far has not provided an employee and employee representative with an evidentiary privilege, in which the communication cannot be compelled to be disclosed or used as evidence in a court proceeding, for their communications. This bill proposes to prohibit public employers from questioning their employees regarding communications between an employee and an employee representative regarding a matter within the scope of that representation, and from compelling them to disclose such communications to a third party. This bill provides an exception for criminal investigations.

This bill is sponsored by the Peace Officers Research Association of California, and is supported by a variety of employee associations. It is opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, a number of public entity and school associations, the League of California Cities, and business groups. This bill passed out of the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee on a vote of 5 to 0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act of 1968 to establish collective bargaining rights for municipal, county, and local special district employers and employees. Provides that public employees shall have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations. (Gov. Code §§ 3500 et seq.)
2. Establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and provides it with the powers to:
   1. determine and approve appropriate bargaining units;
   2. determine whether a particular item is within the scope of representation;
   3. arrange for and supervise representation elections by secret ballot;
   4. certify the results of elections;
   5. establish lists of persons to be available to serve as mediators, arbitrators, or factfinders;
   6. establish appropriate procedures for reviewing bargaining unit determinations;
   7. conduct studies relating to employer-employee relations;
   8. adopt rules and regulations;
   9. hold hearings, subpoena witnesses, administer oaths and take testimony or deposition of any person;
   10. to investigate unfair practice charges and take any action and make any determinations on such charges;
   11. bring an action in court to enforce its orders, rulings, and subpoenas; delegate its powers to any member of the board or person appointed by the board to perform its functions;
   12. decide contested matters regarding the certification or decertification of employee organizations;
   13. consider and decide issues relating to the rights, privileges, and duties of an employee organization; and
   14. to take any other action the board deems necessary to discharge its powers and duties. (Gov. Code § 3540 et seq.)
3. Makes it unlawful for governmental subdivisions, districts, public and quasi-public corporations, public agencies, and every town, city, county, city and county, and municipal corporation to do any of the following:
   1. Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or otherwise interfere with their exercise of their labor rights;
   2. Deny an employee organization any labor rights;
   3. Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good faith with a recognized employee organization;
   4. Dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of an employee organization, contribute financial or other support to any employee organization, or encourage employees to join any organization in preference over another; and
   5. Refuse to participate in good faith in an impasse procedure. (Gov. Code § 3506.5.)
4. Makes it unlawful for the state to do any of the following:
   1. Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or otherwise interfere with their exercise of their labor rights;
   2. Deny an employee organization any labor rights;
   3. Refuse or fail to meet and confer in good faith with a recognized employee organization;
   4. Dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of an employee organization, contribute financial or other support to any employee organization, or encourage employees to join any organization in preference over another; and
   5. Refuse to participate in good faith in a mediation procedure. (Gov. Code § 3519.)
5. Finds that California law does not impliedly provide for an employee-union representative privilege, but that, instead, the creation of evidentiary privileges is “the province of the Legislature.” (American Airlines, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App 4th 881, 890.)
6. Provides that, with regard to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), when an employer compels disclosure of conversations between an employee and their union steward, it interferes with the employee’s right to engage in concerted activities and collectively bargain, because allowing an employer to compel disclosure “manifestly restrains employees in their willingness to candidly discuss matters with their chosen, statutory representatives” and “inhibits [union] stewards in obtaining needed information from employees” for their representation. (Cook Paint v. Varnish Co. (1981) 258 N.L.R.B. 1230, 1232.)
7. Provides that a California public employer’s legitimate interest in certain questioning of its employees when investigating an employee’s specified conduct is outweighed by the harm to the employees’ and their unions’ protected collective bargaining right under state law by that questioning, as specified. (California School Employees Association v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2595, p. 7.)
8. Provides that questioning of an employee is permitted if: the questioning is relevant; the questioning does not have an illegal objective; and the employer’s interest in obtaining the information outweighs the employees’ protected rights. (Victor Valley Teachers Association v. Victor Valley Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2822.)
9. Provides that no person has a privilege to refuse to be a witness, to refuse to disclose any matter, or to refuse to produce any writing, object, or other thing, or prevent another person from doing the same, unless otherwise provided by statute. (Ev. Code §911.)
10. Governs the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings and generally provides a privilege to refuse to testify or otherwise disclose in judicial proceedings confidential communications made in the course of specified relationships. (Ev. Code §§ 954, 966, 980, 994, 1014, 1033, 1034, 1035.8, 1037.5, 1038.)
11. Specifies various requirements and conditions for interrogations of a public safety officer who is under an investigation that may lead to punitive action by the commanding officer or any other member of the employing public safety department. (Gov. Code § 3303.)

This bill:

1. Prohibits a public employer from questioning a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative regarding communications made in confidence between a public employee and the representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization’s representation.
2. Specifies that this prohibitions is intended to be consistent with, and not in conflict with, California School Employees Association v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2595.
3. Prohibits a public employer from compelling a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative to disclose to a third party communications made in confidence between a public employee and the representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization’s representation.
4. Does not apply these provisions to any criminal investigation, and specifies that these provisions do not supersede Government Code section 3303.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s statement

According to the author:

Many employees reasonably believe that conversations with their union representatives about workplace issues are private and cannot be disclosed to their employer. However, current law does not expressly prohibit employers from compelling employees or their representatives to reveal those discussions.

AB 1564 aims to establish a clear standard of protecting confidential communications between employees and their union representatives. Doing so would create a safe and secure environment for employees to openly discuss their workplace rights, concerns, and representation without fear of employer interference.

1. Evidentiary privileges and confidentiality protections

California and federal law recognizes in various contexts that the importance of certain relationships requires that those relationships and communications made pursuant to them be protected from forced disclosure. For example, for the attorney-client relationship, the law generally recognizes the need for the client to be free to speak candidly with their attorney, and thus rules of professional conduct and evidence preclude an attorney from disclosing or being required to disclose things that their client has told them in the course of representation. This protection typically takes two forms: a guarantee in the confidentiality of the communication, and a protection against compelled disclosure in a judicial proceeding.

The second form is what is called an evidentiary privilege, and it generally prohibits a court from compelling any person to disclose or testify about communications covered by the privilege. Thus, an evidentiary privilege is a protection of the communications under the privilege being used against one of the parties to the privilege in court, thereby excluding the evidence contained in the communication from the proceeding. The exclusion is irrelevant to the reliability or importance of the privileged information, and is generally absolute. California has created a number of statutory evidentiary privileges, including: the attorney-client privilege; lawyer referral service-client privilege; spousal privilege; physician-patient privilege; clergyman-penitent privilege; sexual assault counselor-victim privilege; and the privilege against self-incrimination. (Ev. Code § 930 et seq.)

The differences between an evidentiary privilege and a guarantee of confidentiality are important. Privileges generally prevent the introduction of certain communications or testimony in court. Rules guaranteeing confidentiality, however, do not. Thus, while a court cannot compel a witness to testify about privileged information, it may compel testimony of confidential communications, in certain circumstances. Moreover, if the confidential information is obtained by a third-party in another way, it may be disclosed to another party and in court. Thus, a duty of confidentiality is far less broad and can be subject to various exceptions.

1. AB 1564 prohibits a public employer from questioning employees and employee representatives about their communications

AB 1564 proposes to create a rule ensuring the confidentiality of communications between an employee and their employee representative. It would specifically prohibit a public employer from questioning an employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative regarding communications made in confidence between an employee and the representative in connection with the representation. It also prohibits a public employer from compelling an employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative to disclose such communications to a third party.

AB 1564’s prohibitions are not absolute. Rather, it applies narrowly: it only applies to communications made in confidence between the employee and their representative, and the communication must be in connection to the union’s representation and relating to a matter within the scope of that representation. It does not prohibit other entities from questioning an employee or their representative about the confidential communications, such as a third-party or a court. Thus, a court may still require an employee or their employer to testify in court about their communications. Additionally, AB 1564 provides an exception to its prohibition for any communications when the questioning or compulsion is pursuant to a criminal investigation. It also does not supersede or affect the existing requirements for any interrogations of a peace officer by their employer as part of an investigation.

By prohibiting an employer from questioning an employee or employee representative, AB 1564 creates an unlawful employment practice for any covered public employer to violate that prohibition. Because the public employees covered by AB 1564 fall within the Public Employment Relations Board’s (PERB) jurisdiction, an employee would not be able to file a civil action in court for a violation of AB 1564’s provisions; their exclusive remedy would be before PERB. Thus, an aggrieved employee could allege an unlawful employment practice with PERB, or raise it in any pending action before the board, when their employer attempts to question them contrary to the prohibitions created by AB 1564. If an employee is discharged for refusing to answer an employer’s questions that violate this section, the employee could also file an unlawful employment practice charge with PERB based on that discharge.

1. Judicial decisions regarding whether communications between an employee and union representative

The existence of confidentiality between an employee and their employee representative is not an entirely new concept. In American Airlines, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 881, the court held that California law does not impliedly provide for an employee-union representative privilege, but that, instead, the creation of evidentiary privileges is “the province of the Legislature.” (American Airlines, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App 4th 881, 890.) Yet that case only dealt with the question of whether an evidentiary privilege existed, and not with the question of whether an employer can compel an employee to answer questions about communications between employee and their union representative. In Cook Paint v. Varnish Co., the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recognized that allowing an employer to compel disclosure “manifestly restrains employees in their willingness to candidly discuss matters with their chosen, statutory representatives” and “inhibits [union] stewards in obtaining needed information from employees” for their representation. (Cook Paint v. Varnish Co. (1981) 258 N.L.R.B. 1230, 1232.) Thus, the NLRB found that, when an employer compels disclosure of conversations between an employee and their union steward, it interferes with the employee’s right to engage in concerted activities and collectively bargain. (Id.)

While Cook Paint related to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and not state labor law, its reasoning has also been applied in the context of public employees in California as well. In California School Employees Association v. William S. Hart Union High School District, PERB cited to Cook Paint to find that a public school district impermissibly questioned a union representative about the substance of conversations she had with employee members of the bargaining unit under the Educational Employment Relations Act. (California School Employees Association v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2595, p. 7.) In that case, PERB determined that the harm to employees’ protected labor rights outweighed the interest the employer had to investigate an alleged improper relationship between an employee and the union representative. In another case, PERB adopted a three-part test of the NLRB for determining when an employer’s questions of an employee or union representative during a deposition interfere with the protected labor rights of public employees under PERB-administered statutes. (Victor Valley Teachers Association v. Victor Valley Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2822.) The standard adopted by PERB in that case provides that questioning in a deposition may be permissible if: the questioning is relevant; the questioning does not have an illegal objective; and if the employer’s interest in obtaining the information outweighs the employees’ protected rights. (Id., p. 11.)

These PERB cases recognize the importance of the employee-employee representative relationship, as well as the risk that the questioning of an employee or employee representative about communications between the employee and representative pose to an employee’s rights to engage in self-organization and collective bargaining. However, they do not create an evidentiary privilege for employee-employee representative communications, and they also do not create a strict rule of confidentiality. Instead, they allow an employer to question an employee or employee representative in a variety of instances, based on the employer’s need for the information and a balancing test between that need and the employee’s rights.

AB 1564 provides a more robust guarantee of confidentiality. However, it also includes exceptions for the purposes of ensuring that an employer can still question the employee or employee representative pursuant to a criminal investigation. AB 1564 also clarifies that its provisions are intended to be consistent with, and not in conflict with, PERB’s decision in William S. Hart Union High School District described above.

SUPPORT

California Association of Highway Patrolmen (co-sponsor)
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) (co-sponsor)

California Teachers Association)
SEIU California

OPPOSITION

Alameda County Office of Education
Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD)
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA)
California Association of Recreation & Park Districts
California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO)
California Chamber of Commerce
California County Superintendents
California School Boards Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
Community College League of California
County of Kern
League of California Cities
Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management (PRISM)
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
School Employers Association of California (SEAC)
Schools Excess Liability Fund (SELF)
Small School Districts' Association
University of California
Urban Counties of California (UCC)

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: AB 340 (Ahrens, 2025) is substantially similar to this bill and prohibits a public employer from questioning employees and employee representatives about communications between employees and employee representatives related to the representative’s representation, or from compelling them to disclose such communications to a third party. AB 340 is currently pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Prior Legislation:

AB 2421 (Low, 2024) prohibited specified public employers from questioning employees and employee representatives about communications between employees and employee representatives related to the representative’s representation, with specified exceptions. AB 2421 died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 418 (Kalra, 2019) established an evidentiary privilege from disclosure for communications between a union agent and a represented employee or represented former employee. AB 418 died on the Senate inactive file.

AB 3121 (Kalra, 2018) established an evidentiary privilege from disclosure for communications between a union agent and a represented employee or represented former employee. AB 3121 died on the Senate inactive file.

AB 729 (Hernández, 2013) provided a union agent, as defined, and a represented employee or represented former employee a privilege of refusing to disclose any confidential communication between the employee or former employee and the union agent while the union agent is acting in their representative capacity, except as specified. AB 729 was vetoed by Governor Brown, who stated that “I don’t believe it is appropriate to put communications with a union agent on equal footing with communications with one’s spouse, priest, physician or attorney. Moreover, this bill could compromise the ability of employers to conduct investigations into workplace safety, harassment and other allegations.”

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 0)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 65, Noes 4)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 0)

**************

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1564 (Author:Ahrens)

Version: May 18, 2026

Hearing Date: June 30, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: ID

SUBJECT

Employer-employee relations: confidential communications

DIGEST

This bill prohibits a public employer from questioning employees and employee representatives about, or compelling them to disclose to a third party, communications between employees and employee representatives in connection with the representation relating to any matter with the scope of representation, as specified.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The inviolability of the employee-union representative relationship is essential to an employee’s representation and to the guarding of an employee’s rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. In the context of public employees, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has found that communications between an employee and their employee representative are protected from disclosure to an employer in some circumstances when the questioning harms the employee’s collective bargaining rights. However, case law and statute so far has not provided an employee and employee representative with an evidentiary privilege, in which the communication cannot be compelled to be disclosed or used as evidence in a court proceeding, for their communications. This bill proposes to prohibit public employers from questioning their employees regarding communications between an employee and an employee representative regarding a matter within the scope of that representation, and from compelling them to disclose such communications to a third party. This bill provides an exception for criminal investigations.

This bill is sponsored by the Peace Officers Research Association of California, and is supported by a variety of employee associations. It is opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, a number of public entity and school associations, the League of California Cities, and business groups. This bill passed out of the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee on a vote of 5 to 0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act of 1968 to establish collective bargaining rights for municipal, county, and local special district employers and employees. Provides that public employees shall have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations. (Gov. Code §§ 3500 et seq.)
2. Establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and provides it with the powers to:
   1. determine and approve appropriate bargaining units;
   2. determine whether a particular item is within the scope of representation;
   3. arrange for and supervise representation elections by secret ballot;
   4. certify the results of elections;
   5. establish lists of persons to be available to serve as mediators, arbitrators, or factfinders;
   6. establish appropriate procedures for reviewing bargaining unit determinations;
   7. conduct studies relating to employer-employee relations;
   8. adopt rules and regulations;
   9. hold hearings, subpoena witnesses, administer oaths and take testimony or deposition of any person;
   10. to investigate unfair practice charges and take any action and make any determinations on such charges;
   11. bring an action in court to enforce its orders, rulings, and subpoenas; delegate its powers to any member of the board or person appointed by the board to perform its functions;
   12. decide contested matters regarding the certification or decertification of employee organizations;
   13. consider and decide issues relating to the rights, privileges, and duties of an employee organization; and
   14. to take any other action the board deems necessary to discharge its powers and duties. (Gov. Code § 3540 et seq.)
3. Makes it unlawful for governmental subdivisions, districts, public and quasi-public corporations, public agencies, and every town, city, county, city and county, and municipal corporation to do any of the following:
   1. Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or otherwise interfere with their exercise of their labor rights;
   2. Deny an employee organization any labor rights;
   3. Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good faith with a recognized employee organization;
   4. Dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of an employee organization, contribute financial or other support to any employee organization, or encourage employees to join any organization in preference over another; and
   5. Refuse to participate in good faith in an impasse procedure. (Gov. Code § 3506.5.)
4. Makes it unlawful for the state to do any of the following:
   1. Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or otherwise interfere with their exercise of their labor rights;
   2. Deny an employee organization any labor rights;
   3. Refuse or fail to meet and confer in good faith with a recognized employee organization;
   4. Dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of an employee organization, contribute financial or other support to any employee organization, or encourage employees to join any organization in preference over another; and
   5. Refuse to participate in good faith in a mediation procedure. (Gov. Code § 3519.)
5. Finds that California law does not impliedly provide for an employee-union representative privilege, but that, instead, the creation of evidentiary privileges is “the province of the Legislature.” (American Airlines, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App 4th 881, 890.)
6. Provides that, with regard to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), when an employer compels disclosure of conversations between an employee and their union steward, it interferes with the employee’s right to engage in concerted activities and collectively bargain, because allowing an employer to compel disclosure “manifestly restrains employees in their willingness to candidly discuss matters with their chosen, statutory representatives” and “inhibits [union] stewards in obtaining needed information from employees” for their representation. (Cook Paint v. Varnish Co. (1981) 258 N.L.R.B. 1230, 1232.)
7. Provides that a California public employer’s legitimate interest in certain questioning of its employees when investigating an employee’s specified conduct is outweighed by the harm to the employees’ and their unions’ protected collective bargaining right under state law by that questioning, as specified. (California School Employees Association v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2595, p. 7.)
8. Provides that questioning of an employee is permitted if: the questioning is relevant; the questioning does not have an illegal objective; and the employer’s interest in obtaining the information outweighs the employees’ protected rights. (Victor Valley Teachers Association v. Victor Valley Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2822.)
9. Provides that no person has a privilege to refuse to be a witness, to refuse to disclose any matter, or to refuse to produce any writing, object, or other thing, or prevent another person from doing the same, unless otherwise provided by statute. (Ev. Code §911.)
10. Governs the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings and generally provides a privilege to refuse to testify or otherwise disclose in judicial proceedings confidential communications made in the course of specified relationships. (Ev. Code §§ 954, 966, 980, 994, 1014, 1033, 1034, 1035.8, 1037.5, 1038.)
11. Specifies various requirements and conditions for interrogations of a public safety officer who is under an investigation that may lead to punitive action by the commanding officer or any other member of the employing public safety department. (Gov. Code § 3303.)

This bill:

1. Prohibits a public employer from questioning a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative regarding communications made in confidence between a public employee and the representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization’s representation.
2. Specifies that this prohibitions is intended to be consistent with, and not in conflict with, California School Employees Association v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2595.
3. Prohibits a public employer from compelling a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative to disclose to a third party communications made in confidence between a public employee and the representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization’s representation.
4. Does not apply these provisions to any criminal investigation, and specifies that these provisions do not supersede Government Code section 3303.

COMMENTS

1. First Comment About the Bill

According to the author:

Many employees reasonably believe that conversations with their union representatives about workplace issues are private and cannot be disclosed to their employer. However, current law does not expressly prohibit employers from compelling employees or their representatives to reveal those discussions.

AB 1564 aims to establish a clear standard of protecting confidential communications between employees and their union representatives. Doing so would create a safe and secure environment for employees to openly discuss their workplace rights, concerns, and representation without fear of employer interference.

1. Evidentiary privileges and confidentiality protections

California and federal law recognizes in various contexts that the importance of certain relationships requires that those relationships and communications made pursuant to them be protected from forced disclosure. For example, for the attorney-client relationship, the law generally recognizes the need for the client to be free to speak candidly with their attorney, and thus rules of professional conduct and evidence preclude an attorney from disclosing or being required to disclose things that their client has told them in the course of representation. This protection typically takes two forms: a guarantee in the confidentiality of the communication, and a protection against compelled disclosure in a judicial proceeding.

The second form is what is called an evidentiary privilege, and it generally prohibits a court from compelling any person to disclose or testify about communications covered by the privilege. Thus, an evidentiary privilege is a protection of the communications under the privilege being used against one of the parties to the privilege in court, thereby excluding the evidence contained in the communication from the proceeding. The exclusion is irrelevant to the reliability or importance of the privileged information, and is generally absolute. California has created a number of statutory evidentiary privileges, including: the attorney-client privilege; lawyer referral service-client privilege; spousal privilege; physician-patient privilege; clergyman-penitent privilege; sexual assault counselor-victim privilege; and the privilege against self-incrimination. (Ev. Code § 930 et seq.)

The differences between an evidentiary privilege and a guarantee of confidentiality are important. Privileges generally prevent the introduction of certain communications or testimony in court. Rules guaranteeing confidentiality, however, do not. Thus, while a court cannot compel a witness to testify about privileged information, it may compel testimony of confidential communications, in certain circumstances. Moreover, if the confidential information is obtained by a third-party in another way, it may be disclosed to another party and in court. Thus, a duty of confidentiality is far less broad and can be subject to various exceptions.

1. AB 1564 prohibits a public employer from questioning employees and employee representatives about their communications

AB 1564 proposes to create a rule ensuring the confidentiality of communications between an employee and their employee representative. It would specifically prohibit a public employer from questioning an employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative regarding communications made in confidence between an employee and the representative in connection with the representation. It also prohibits a public employer from compelling an employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative to disclose such communications to a third party.

AB 1564’s prohibitions are not absolute. Rather, it applies narrowly: it only applies to communications made in confidence between the employee and their representative, and the communication must be in connection to the union’s representation and relating to a matter within the scope of that representation. It does not prohibit other entities from questioning an employee or their representative about the confidential communications, such as a third-party or a court. Thus, a court may still require an employee or their employer to testify in court about their communications. Additionally, AB 1564 provides an exception to its prohibition for any communications when the questioning or compulsion is pursuant to a criminal investigation. It also does not supersede or affect the existing requirements for any interrogations of a peace officer by their employer as part of an investigation.

By prohibiting an employer from questioning an employee or employee representative, AB 1564 creates an unlawful employment practice for any covered public employer to violate that prohibition. Because the public employees covered by AB 1564 fall within the Public Employment Relations Board’s (PERB) jurisdiction, an employee would not be able to file a civil action in court for a violation of AB 1564’s provisions; their exclusive remedy would be before PERB. Thus, an aggrieved employee could allege an unlawful employment practice with PERB, or raise it in any pending action before the board, when their employer attempts to question them contrary to the prohibitions created by AB 1564. If an employee is discharged for refusing to answer an employer’s questions that violate this section, the employee could also file an unlawful employment practice charge with PERB based on that discharge.

1. Judicial decisions regarding whether communications between an employee and union representative

The existence of confidentiality between an employee and their employee representative is not an entirely new concept. In American Airlines, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 881, the court held that California law does not impliedly provide for an employee-union representative privilege, but that, instead, the creation of evidentiary privileges is “the province of the Legislature.” (American Airlines, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App 4th 881, 890.) Yet that case only dealt with the question of whether an evidentiary privilege existed, and not with the question of whether an employer can compel an employee to answer questions about communications between employee and their union representative. In Cook Paint v. Varnish Co., the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recognized that allowing an employer to compel disclosure “manifestly restrains employees in their willingness to candidly discuss matters with their chosen, statutory representatives” and “inhibits [union] stewards in obtaining needed information from employees” for their representation. (Cook Paint v. Varnish Co. (1981) 258 N.L.R.B. 1230, 1232.) Thus, the NLRB found that, when an employer compels disclosure of conversations between an employee and their union steward, it interferes with the employee’s right to engage in concerted activities and collectively bargain. (Id.)

While Cook Paint related to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and not state labor law, its reasoning has also been applied in the context of public employees in California as well. In California School Employees Association v. William S. Hart Union High School District, PERB cited to Cook Paint to find that a public school district impermissibly questioned a union representative about the substance of conversations she had with employee members of the bargaining unit under the Educational Employment Relations Act. (California School Employees Association v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2595, p. 7.) In that case, PERB determined that the harm to employees’ protected labor rights outweighed the interest the employer had to investigate an alleged improper relationship between an employee and the union representative. In another case, PERB adopted a three-part test of the NLRB for determining when an employer’s questions of an employee or union representative during a deposition interfere with the protected labor rights of public employees under PERB-administered statutes. (Victor Valley Teachers Association v. Victor Valley Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2822.) The standard adopted by PERB in that case provides that questioning in a deposition may be permissible if: the questioning is relevant; the questioning does not have an illegal objective; and if the employer’s interest in obtaining the information outweighs the employees’ protected rights. (Id., p. 11.)

These PERB cases recognize the importance of the employee-employee representative relationship, as well as the risk that the questioning of an employee or employee representative about communications between the employee and representative pose to an employee’s rights to engage in self-organization and collective bargaining. However, they do not create an evidentiary privilege for employee-employee representative communications, and they also do not create a strict rule of confidentiality. Instead, they allow an employer to question an employee or employee representative in a variety of instances, based on the employer’s need for the information and a balancing test between that need and the employee’s rights.

AB 1564 provides a more robust guarantee of confidentiality. However, it also includes exceptions for the purposes of ensuring that an employer can still question the employee or employee representative pursuant to a criminal investigation. AB 1564 also clarifies that its provisions are intended to be consistent with, and not in conflict with, PERB’s decision in William S. Hart Union High School District described above.

SUPPORT

California Association of Highway Patrolmen (co-sponsor)
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) (co-sponsor)

California Teachers Association)
SEIU California

OPPOSITION

Alameda County Office of Education
Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD)
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA)
California Association of Recreation & Park Districts
California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO)
California Chamber of Commerce
California County Superintendents
California School Boards Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
Community College League of California
County of Kern
League of California Cities
Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management (PRISM)
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
School Employers Association of California (SEAC)
Schools Excess Liability Fund (SELF)
Small School Districts' Association
University of California
Urban Counties of California (UCC)

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: AB 340 (Ahrens, 2025) is substantially similar to this bill and prohibits a public employer from questioning employees and employee representatives about communications between employees and employee representatives related to the representative’s representation, or from compelling them to disclose such communications to a third party. AB 340 is currently pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Prior Legislation:

AB 2421 (Low, 2024) prohibited specified public employers from questioning employees and employee representatives about communications between employees and employee representatives related to the representative’s representation, with specified exceptions. AB 2421 died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 418 (Kalra, 2019) established an evidentiary privilege from disclosure for communications between a union agent and a represented employee or represented former employee. AB 418 died on the Senate inactive file.

AB 3121 (Kalra, 2018) established an evidentiary privilege from disclosure for communications between a union agent and a represented employee or represented former employee. AB 3121 died on the Senate inactive file.

AB 729 (Hernández, 2013) provided a union agent, as defined, and a represented employee or represented former employee a privilege of refusing to disclose any confidential communication between the employee or former employee and the union agent while the union agent is acting in their representative capacity, except as specified. AB 729 was vetoed by Governor Brown, who stated that “I don’t believe it is appropriate to put communications with a union agent on equal footing with communications with one’s spouse, priest, physician or attorney. Moreover, this bill could compromise the ability of employers to conduct investigations into workplace safety, harassment and other allegations.”

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 0)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 65, Noes 4)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 0)

**************

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT

Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 1564 Hearing Date: June 24, 2026

SUBJECT: Employer-employee relations: confidential communications

KEY ISSUE

This bill prohibits a public employer from: 1) questioning an employee or employee representative regarding representation-related communications made in confidence between the employee and employee representative; and 2) compelling disclosure of such communications to a third party. These prohibitions do not apply to a criminal investigation or supersede rights of public safety officers under investigation.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Finds that California law does not impliedly provide for an employee-union representative privilege, but that, instead, the creation of evidentiary privileges is “the province of the Legislature.” (American Airlines, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App 4th 881, 890.)
2. Provides under National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case law with respect to private sector employees, that when an employer compels disclosure of conversations between an employee and their union steward, it interferes with the employee’s right to engage in concerted activities and collectively bargain because allowing an employer to compel disclosure “manifestly restrains employees in their willingness to candidly discuss matters with their chosen, statutory representatives” and “inhibits [union] stewards in obtaining needed information from employees” for their representation. (Cook Paint v. Varnish Co. (1981) 258 N.L.R.B. 1230, 1232.)
3. Provides under Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) decisional administrative law that a California public employer’s legitimate interest in certain questioning of its employees when investigating an employee’s specified conduct harmed the employees’ and their unions’ protected collective bargaining right under state law, as specified. (California School Employees Association v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2595, p. 7.)
4. Provides that no person has a privilege to refuse to be a witness; to refuse to disclose any matter or to refuse to produce any writing, object, or other thing, or prevent another person from the same, unless otherwise provided by statute. (Evidence (Evid.) Code §911.)
5. Governs the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings and generally provides a privilege to refuse to testify or otherwise disclose confidential communications made in the course of certain relationships. (Evid. Code §§954, 966, 980, 994, 1014, 1033, 1034, 1035.8, 1037.5, 1038.)
6. Provides that the right of a person to claim specified privileges is waived with respect to a protected communication if the holder of the privilege has disclosed a significant part of that communication or consented to disclosure, without coercion. Existing law provides that a disclosure does not constitute a waiver where it was reasonably necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the lawyer, lawyer referral service, physician, psychotherapist, sexual assault counselor, domestic violence counselor, or human trafficking caseworker was consulted. (Evid. Code §912(a), (d).)

1. Provides that if two or more persons are joint holders of a privilege, a waiver of a right of a particular joint holder of the privilege to claim the privilege does not affect the right of another joint holder to claim the privilege. In the case of the spousal privilege, the right of one spouse to claim the privilege does not affect the right of the other spouse to claim the privilege. (Evid. Code §912 (b).)
2. Provides that if a privilege is claimed on the ground that the matter sought to be disclosed is a communication made in confidence in the course of a recognized privileged relation, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence, and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish that the communication was not confidential. A communication does not lose its privileged character for the sole reason that it was communicated by electronic means or because persons involved in the delivery, facilitation, or storage of electronic communication may have access to the content of the communication. (Evid. Code §917.)
3. Governs collective bargaining in the private sector under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) but leaves to the states the regulation of collective bargaining in their respective public sectors. (29 United State Code §151 et seq.) While the NLRA and the decisions of its National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) often provide persuasive precedent in interpreting state collective bargaining law, public employees generally have no collective bargaining rights absent specific statutory authority establishing those rights.
4. Provides several statutory frameworks under California law to provide public employees collective bargaining rights, govern public employer-employee relations, and limit labor strife and economic disruption in the public sector through a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment between public employers and recognized public employee organizations or their exclusive representatives. These include, among others, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), which governs labor relations between local public agencies and their employees; the Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (EERA), which governs labor relations between school employers and their employees; and the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) which governs labor relations between the State and its employees. (Government Code (GC) §3500 et seq.)
5. Does not cover California’s public transit districts by a common collective bargaining statute. Instead, while some transit agencies are subject to the MMBA, other transit agencies are subject to labor relations provisions that are found in each district’s specific Public Utilities Code (PUC) enabling statute, in joint powers agreements, or in articles of incorporation and bylaws (for example, see PUC §40000 et seq.).
6. Establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of public agency employers and employee organizations, but provides the City, and the County, of Los Angeles a local alternative to PERB oversight through the city’s Employee Relations Board (ERB) and the county’s Employee Relations Commission (ERCOM). (GC §3541)

This bill:

1. Prohibits a public employer from questioning a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative regarding communications made in confidence between a public employee and the representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization’s representation.
2. Declares that the Legislature intends that the above prohibition be consistent with, and not in conflict with, William S. Hart Union High School District (2018) PERB Dec. No. 2595.^[1]
3. Prohibits a public employer from compelling a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative to disclose to a third party, communications made in confidence between a public employee and the representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization’s representation.
4. Provides that this bill’s provisions do not apply to a criminal investigation and do not supersede Government Code Section 3303, which provides public safety officers specified rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act when they are under investigation and subjected to interrogation, as specified. 

COMMENTS

1. Need for this bill?

According to the author:

“″Currently, California law does not explicitly protect the confidentiality of communications between public employees and their union representatives. Although the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has ruled in multiple cases (e.g., California School Employees Association v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2018), Victor Valley Teachers Association v. Victor Valley Union High School District (2022)) that questioning employees about these discussions can interfere with labor rights, these rulings do not establish an evidentiary privilege or absolute confidentiality rule.

Existing law allows employers to question employees or union representatives in certain situations, leading to potential coercion, undermining trust in union representation, and weakening employee rights.

AB 1564 codifies PERB rulings and explicitly prohibits public employers from compelling disclosure of confidential communications between an employee and their union representative.”

2. Proponent Arguments:

According to the California Association of Highway Patrolmen:

“This bill would create a union-member privilege for communications associated with representation, including discipline, grievances, unfair labor practices, contract negotiations, etc. The privilege is limited to the employer, so it would not affect a criminal investigation from an outside entity; however, employers could not compel disclosure of communications or order disclosure to 3rd parties.

This amends The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) and similar statutes to add the protection to labor statutes prohibiting employers from engaging in enumerated unfair practices. In short, this would overturn case law finding no union privilege and benefit every California union and public employee.

Union representation is important and communications with our members should be protected.”

According to a coalition of police and sheriff’s associations, including the Riverside and Burbank Police Associations:

“While employees commonly believe that discussions with their union representative regarding workplace matters, such as discipline or grievances, are confidential, current state law does not explicitly prohibit employers from compelling employees or their representatives to disclose such communications.

AB 1564 prohibits a local public agency employer, a state employer, a public school employer, a higher education employer, or the district from questioning any employee or employee representative regarding communications made in confidence between an employee and an employee representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization’s representation. Maintaining confidentiality in such communications is essential to fostering trust and ensuring effective representation.”

3. Opponent Arguments:

According to a coalition of local public employers, including the California Special Districts Association and the League of California Cities:

“AB 1564 states that its prohibition on employer questioning is intended to be consistent

with, and not in conflict with, William S. Hart Union High School District (2018) PERB Dec. No. 2595. This is problematic for two reasons. First, the bill is not consistent with that PERB decision. That decision engaged in a circumstantial analysis to determine whether employer questioning related to a disciplinary investigation was prohibited or not, while

weighing the employee’s and the employer’s interests. The bright line standard in the opinion was narrow in scope. AB 1564 goes beyond that, forgoing any circumstantial analysis or weighing of interests, and exceeding the scope of any standards articulated by the decision. Second, we are not aware of evidence that PERB is denying the interests of employees on this issue, raising the question of whether a legislative solution is warranted.

AB 1564 would create a de facto prohibition on employers requesting a court to

compel disclosure of purportedly confidential communications, which is the same outcome as if the communication was privileged in those circumstances. This will have

a significant impact on judicial and administrative proceedings.”

According to the California Chamber of Commerce and California Hospital Association:

“AB 1564 is at odds with that balancing test. This bill effectively says that the employer’s interest can never justify any questions whatsoever. This dramatically changes existing law and impedes employers’ obligations to maintain safe workplaces free from misconduct or unlawful behavior. It also assumes that communications between a worker and a union representative are on par with an attorney and their client. We believe there are significant differences between those two relationships and note that attorneys have codes of conduct and ethics that govern their profession, especially where conflicts may arise in their work. As Governor Brown stated, “I don't believe it is appropriate to put communications with a union agent on equal footing with communications with one's spouse, priest, physician or attorney. Moreover, this bill could compromise the ability of employers to conduct investigations into workplace safety, harassment and other allegations.” (Veto AB 729 (Hernandez 2013)).

It is also arbitrary that, for example, in civil litigation a non-employer party (like an individual employee defendant) could ask questions about communications, but the employer party could not.

Existing PERB case law seems to achieve the goals stated by the proponents without compromising situations in which employer’s interest in obtaining information is legitimate and necessary.

Finally, this year’s version of the bill contains findings and declarations related to cost that we find troubling. We do not believe it is appropriate for findings and declarations to usurp what is the role of the Appropriations Committees – to determine whether a proposal will burden the state with additional cost.”

4. Dual Referral:

The Senate Rules Committee referred this bill to the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

5. Prior Legislation:

AB 340 (Ahrens, 2025) was identical to this bill. The Senate Committee on Appropriations held the bill in committee on the suspense file.

AB 2421 (Low, 2024) would have prohibited specified public employers from questioning employees and employee representatives about communications between employees and employee representatives related to the representative’s representation, with a specified exception. The Senate Committee on Appropriations held the bill in committee on the suspense file.

AB 418 (Kalra, 2019) would have established an evidentiary privilege from disclosure for communications between a union agent and a represented employee or represented former employee. This bill died on the Senate inactive file.

AB 3121 (Kalra, 2018) would have established an evidentiary privilege from disclosure for communications between a union agent and a represented employee or represented former employee. This bill died on the Senate inactive file.

AB 729 (Roger Hernández, 2013) would have provided a union agent, as defined, and a represented employee or represented former employee a privilege of refusing to disclose any confidential communication between the employee or former employee and the union agent while the union agent is acting in their representative capacity, except as specified. The Governor vetoed this bill.

SUPPORT

California Association of Highway Patrolmen (Co-Sponsor)

Peace Officers Research Association of California (Co-Sponsor)

Arcadia Police Officers' Association

Brea Police Association

Burbank Police Officers' Association

California Association of Psychiatric Technicians

California Coalition of School Safety Professionals

California Narcotic Officers' Association

California Professional Firefighters

California Reserve Peace Officers Association

California State Council of Service Employees International Union

California Teachers Association

Claremont Police Officers Association

Corona Police Officers Association

Culver City Police Officers' Association

Fullerton Police Officers' Association

Los Angeles School Police Management Association

Los Angeles School Police Officers Association

Murrieta Police Officers' Association

Newport Beach Police Association

Orange County Employees Association

Palos Verdes Police Officers Association

Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association

Pomona Police Officers' Association

Riverside Police Officers Association

Riverside Sheriffs' Association

Teamsters California

OPPOSITION

Association of California Healthcare Districts

Association of California School Administrators

California Association of Joint Powers Authorities

California Association of Recreation & Park Districts

California Association of School Business Officials

California Chamber of Commerce

California County Superintendents

California School Boards Association

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties

Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges Board

City of Carpinteria

City of Los Alamitos

County of Kern

League of California Cities

Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management

Rural County Representatives of California

Small School Districts' Association

University of California

Urban Counties of California

-- END --

1. In Hart, PERB found that a school employer’s legitimate interest in investigating an employee’s on-campus nighttime activities with an employee from a different campus who was also the union steward were outweighed by its employees’ and the union’s rights under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) and that the school employer interfered with those rights when the employer questioned the union steward about whether other employees had complained about the employee under investigation. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1564

Author:(Ahrens)

As Amended Ver:May 18, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits a public employer from questioning an employee or employee representative regarding communications between the employee and employee representative, among other provisions.

Major Provisions

1. Prohibit a public employer from questioning any employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization or an exclusive representative regarding communications made in confidence between a public employee and the representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization′s representation.
2. Establish that its provisions are intended to be consistent, and not in conflict, with William S. Hart Union High School District (2018), Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) Decision No. 2595.
3. Prohibit a public employer from compelling confidential communication disclosures to a third party relating to any matter within the scope of representation of the recognized employee organization′s representation.
4. Do not apply to criminal investigation, and does not supersede existing law relating to investigations and interrogations of public safety officers.

COMMENTS

A Core Function of Employee Organizations: Protecting Employee Rights Through Representation

The communications that this bill seeks to protect occur, primarily, when an employee is filing a grievance or facing an adverse action against their employer. In these cases, the [labor organization] agent′s role in representing an employee reflects one of the core functions of the labor organization [and of organized labor, as a whole] representing an employee in a dispute with their employer […]. Should employees begin to question the confidentiality of their communications with [labor organization] agents, such fears would not only undermine the core functions of the [organization], but may provide a chilling effect with regards to employees coming forward with claims of sexual harassment, civil rights violations, or other instances of workplace misconduct.

Questioning a union agent about whether (or what) represented employees had communicated to the agent interferes with an employee′s right to serve as a union agent and employee rights to confer with their union agent. A public employer′s legitimate investigation into alleged wrongdoing cannot include quizzing a union agent (or employee) about the substance of their communication; thereby, deputizing the employee organization as the employer′s agent for conducting disciplinary investigations.

Should This Bill Advance and Be Enacted, California Would Not Be the First State To Do So

Although this bill does not propose to establish a per se explicit communications evidentiary privilege similar to those that exist for the respective lawyer-client, physician-patient, psychotherapist-patient, sexual assault counselor-victim, domestic violence counselor-victim, and clergy-penitent relationships, other states, either by statute or court ruling, have effectuated a privilege for certain communications between a labor organization agent and a represented employee.

For example, in 2012, the Alaska Supreme Court recognized that a privilege between union agents and employees, similar to that between lawyers and their clients, was necessary to encourage employees to ″communicate fully and frankly″ with their union agents. (Peterson v. State (2012) 280 P. 3d. 559, 565.) The court noted that to force disclosure of such communication, particularly in the context of grievance discussions, would have a chilling effect on the employee′s willingness to come forward and speak candidly with their agents. (Peterson, id., at p. 563; pp. 565-567.) For the same reasons, Illinois and Maryland codified the privilege between employees and their union representatives. In Maryland, labor organizations and agents of labor organizations cannot be compelled to disclose the information that is given to them by an employee so long as that information relates to an employee grievance. (Section 9-124, Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code.) The Illinois provision extends even greater protection to the union agent and employee privilege. Under Illinois state law, the privilege between the union agent and employee extends to both civil and criminal proceedings….″ (735, Illinois Compiled Statutes, 5/8-803.5) And, in Washington, an employee-union communications privilege from examination and disclosure exists.

Related PERB Decisions

In California School Employees Assn. v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2018), which is incorporated in this bill, the Administrative Law Judge found that an employer interfered with employee and union rights by asking a union steward about complaints received from bargaining unit members about another unit member. (PERB Decision No. 2595, id.)

In that case, and recall from earlier that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) often provide persuasive precedent in interpreting state collective bargaining law, the PERB cited another one of its decisions where it stated that, ″[it] is […] beyond dispute that an employer′s inquiries into discussions between employees and their union representatives have a tendency to chill the protected activities of both the employees and the representatives.″ (County of Merced (2014) PERB Decision No. 2361-M, pp. 7-8, 10.) Further, citing Cook Paint & Varnish Co. (1981) 258 NLRB 1230, 1232, the PERB′s decision in County of Merced, id., states, ″[…] as the NLRB has explained, allowing an employer to compel disclosure of the substance of conversations between an employee and [their] union steward ′manifestly restrains employees in their willingness to candidly discuss matters with their chosen, statutory representatives,′ and inhibit[s] stewards in obtaining the needed information from employees. Such conduct also interferes with protected rights more generally, because it ′cast(s) a chilling effect over all of [the] employees and their stewards who seek to candidly communicate with each other over matters′ concerning their employment.″ (Cook Paint.)

It is further noted that the aforementioned PERB decisions are not solely those where it has similarly decided. For example, it adopted a three-part test of the NLRB for determining when an employer′s questions of an employee or union representative during a deposition interfere with protected labor rights of public employees (Victor Valley Union High School District (2022), PERB Decision No. 2822), and regarding certain safeguards when interviewing an employee in preparation for an arbitration hearing. (City of Commerce (2018) PERB Decision No. 2602, citing, inter alia, Johnnie′s Poultry Company (1964) 146 NLRB 770, enf. den. (8th Cir. 1965) 344 F.2d 617.)

Please refer to the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

According to the Author

″Many employees reasonably believe that conversations with their union representatives about workplace issues are private and cannot be disclosed to their employer. However, current law does not expressly prohibit employers from compelling employees or their representatives to reveal those discussions. [This bill] aims to establish a clear standard of protecting confidential communications between employees and their union representatives. Doing so would create a safe and secure environment for employees to openly discuss their workplace rights, concerns, and representation without fear of employer interference.″

Arguments in Support

In part, the Peace Officers Research Association states that, ″… this bill would recognize the confidentiality of.. [communications between represented employees and their union representatives about matters within the scope of union representation and] preclude public employers from interfering with union representation, which benefits every public sector union and public employee in California. [This bill] would also provide that communications between an employee and their employee representative would not be confidential if the representative was a witness or party to any of the events forming the basis of a potential administrative disciplinary or criminal investigation. This exception is limited to disciplinary investigations and criminal investigations and is consistent with the peace officer and firefighter bill of rights. This exception does not apply to representation in grievances and unfair practice cases. The bill does not create a privilege equal to attorney/client or doctor/patient privileges. No privilege would exist in a civil or criminal proceeding where someone other than the employing agency or its agents sought evidence regarding those communications. For example, if an employee brought a sexual harassment lawsuit, this prohibition against employer interrogations would not prevent the plaintiff from being able to force the union representative to testify to their communications. The bill also does not preclude public employers from questioning union representatives about things they personally observed as percipient witnesses when those observations are distinct from confidential communications with union members about union representation and union matters.″ Further, ″[this bill] is modest and balanced. It prevents public agencies from interfering in union representation matters and communications in a host of circumstances, but it does not create a statutory privilege [and…] would merely constitute an unfair labor practice to be adjudicated by PERB.″

In support of this bill, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, the Orange County Employees Association, and Teamsters California offer similar statements regarding the need to protect union and represented employee communications.

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of local government representatives, i.e., cities, counties, special districts, recreation and park districts, rural counties, and urban counties, as well as education employers, i.e., small school districts, the University of California, school business officials, school administrators, and health care districts state, among other things, that prior similar bills have been ″unsuccessful″ or ″vetoed,″ and this bill is not different. They further state that, ″… to conduct proper investigations that uphold the public′s trust, protect against the misuse of public funds, and ensure the safety and well-being of both public employees and the public at large, it is critical that a public employer has the ability to interview all individuals with relevant information to ascertain the facts and under the matter fully. This bill would increase costs for [each segment of California government] by creating incomplete investigations, since all appropriate employees with relevant information cannot be questioned.″ Specifically, as to costs, they state that this bill could lead to ″unknown and unbudgeted costs… for dispute resolution, attorney fees,″ and ″could force [public agencies] to, in some cases, update collective bargaining agreements and policies regarding workplace investigations and allowable communications between represented employees and their employer….″

Opponents express concerns that this bill is inconsistent with the PERB′s decision in William S. Hart UHSD, id., as that decision engaged in a ″circumstantial analysis to determine whether employer questioning related to a disciplinary investigation was prohibited or not, while weighing the employee′s and the employer′s interests. The bright line standard in the opinion was narrow in scope…, and ″this bill goes beyond that, forgoing any circumstantial analysis or weighing of interests, and exceeding the scope of any standards articulated by the decision….″ They question ″whether evidence exists that the PERB is denying the interests of employees on this issue, raising the question of whether a legislative solution is warranted.″

Among other things, they articulate that this bill would create a ″de facto prohibition against employers requesting a court to compel disclosure of purportedly confidential communications, which is the same outcome as if the communication was privileged in those circumstances, and this bill endangers workplace safety.″

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, this bill would result in the following:

1. One-time costs of an unknown, but significant amount, potentially in the millions of dollars, to public agencies, including the state as an employer, to update collective bargaining agreements and related policies and trainings regarding allowable employer-employee communications, including policies surrounding workplace investigations (General Fund and special fund). For example, the California Community College (CCC) Chancellor′s Office estimates one-time costs between $936,000 and $1.6 million (costs between $13,000 and $22,000 per district) to implement this prohibition across the CCC′s 72 districts (Proposition 98 General Fund).
2. By limiting the type of information an employer may obtain, this bill may result in public agencies also incurring additional investigation costs to prepare for an administrative or civil proceeding. To the extent this bill′s explicit prohibitions result in an increase or decrease in dispute resolution for grievances and litigation of unfair practice charges, public agencies may incur corresponding costs or savings.
3. Likely minor and absorbable costs to the PERB, as related grievances and charges are already brought before PERB for evaluation.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT: 6-0-1

YES: McKinnor, Alanis, Boerner, Garcia, Nguyen, Michelle Rodriguez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: May 18, 2026

CONSULTANT: Michael Bolden / P. E. & R. / (916) 319-3957 FN: 0002868

Date of Hearing: May 6, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1564

Author:(Ahrens) – As Amended Ver:February 25, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits a public employer from questioning an employee or employee representative regarding representation-related communications made in confidence between the employee and employee representative.

This bill also prohibits a public employer from compelling disclosure of such communications to a third party. These prohibitions do not apply to a criminal investigation or certain public safety officer investigations.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time costs of an unknown, but significant amount, potentially in the millions of dollars, to public agencies, including the state as an employer, to update collective bargaining agreements and related policies and trainings regarding allowable employer-employee communications, including policies surrounding workplace investigations (General Fund and special fund). For example, the California Community College (CCC) Chancellor’s Office estimates one-time costs between $936,000 and $1.6 million (costs between $13,000 and $22,000 per district) to implement this prohibition across the CCC’s 72 districts (Proposition 98 General Fund).

By limiting the type of information an employer may obtain, this bill may result in public agencies also incurring additional investigation costs to prepare for an administrative or civil proceeding. To the extent this bill’s explicit prohibitions result in an increase or decrease in dispute resolution for grievances and litigation of unfair practice charges, public agencies may incur corresponding costs or savings.

1. Likely minor and absorbable costs to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), as related grievances and charges are already brought before PERB for evaluation.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose: According to the author:

Under existing law, employers may still question employees or union representatives in certain circumstances. This gap creates the potential for coercion, erodes trust in union representation, and weakens employee protections. This bill addresses this issue by codifying PERB’s rulings and expressly prohibiting public employers from compelling disclosure of confidential communications between employees and their union representatives.

1. Employee-Union Communications. The Public Employee Communication Chapter (PECC) provides the exclusive representative of a public employee specific rights to ensure meaningful access to, and the ability to effectively communicate with, the represented employee. However, as noted in the Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee’s analysis of this bill:

Although the PECC provides employee organizations with such communications rights, unlike other states that have established an explicit privilege regarding employee-union communications by statute or judicial decision, public employees in California do not have statutory communication protections with their employee organizations, which may foster apprehension or lack of candor with their union representative, and undermines trust in that relationship.

This bill does not establish an explicit evidentiary privilege for employee-union communications. Instead, this bill prohibits a public employer from questioning an employee or employee representative regarding communications made in confidence between the employee and employee representative in connection to any matter within the scope of the representation, and also prohibits a public employer from compelling disclosure of such communications to a third party.

1. Support and Opposition. This bill is sponsored by the Peace Officers’ Research Association of California, which argues this bill is “modest and balanced” because it “prevents public agencies from interfering in union representation matters and communications in a host of circumstances, but it does not create a statutory privilege.” This bill is also co-sponsored and supported by other labor organizations.

This bill is opposed by a coalition of local government employer entities, which argues this bill “would create a de facto prohibition on employers requesting a court to compel disclosure of purportedly confidential communications, which is the same outcome as if the communication was privileged in those circumstances.” This bill is also opposed by other employer groups.

1. Related Legislation. AB 340 (Ahrens), of the current legislative session, was substantially similar to this bill. AB 340 was held was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file.

AB 1109 (Kalra), of the current legislative session, establishes an evidentiary privilege for communications between a union agent and a represented employee. AB 1109 was held was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file.

1. Prior Legislation. AB 2421 (Low), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, was similar to this bill, but did not prohibit compelled disclosure and also did not apply to an administrative disciplinary investigation. AB 2421 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file.

AB 418 (Kalra), of the 2019-20 Legislative Session, and AB 3121 (Kalra), of the 2017-18 Legislative Session, were substantially similar to AB 1109. Both AB 418 and AB 3121 were ordered to the Senate Inactive File.

AB 729 (Hernández), of the 2013-14 Legislative Session, was similar to AB 1109, AB 418, and AB 3121. AB 729 was vetoed by Governor Brown, who argued:

I don’t believe it is appropriate to put communications with a union agent on equal footing with communications with one’s spouse, priest, physician or attorney. Moreover, this bill could compromise the ability of employers to conduct investigations into workplace safety, harassment and other allegations.

Analysis Prepared by: Aaron Heredia / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 18, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT

Tina S. McKinnor, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1564 (

Author:Ahrens) – As Amended Ver:February 25, 2026

SUBJECT: Employer-employee relations: confidential communications

SUMMARY: Prohibits a public employer from questioning an employee or employee representative regarding communications between the employee and employee representative, among other provisions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits a public employer from questioning any employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization or an exclusive representative regarding communications made in confidence between a public employee and the representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization’s representation.
2. Establishes that its provisions are intended to be consistent, and not in conflict, with William S. Hart Union High School District (2018), PERB Decision No. 2595.
3. Prohibits a public employer from compelling confidential communication disclosures to a third party relating to any matter within the scope of representation of the recognized employee organization’s representation.
4. Does not apply to criminal investigation, and does not supersede existing law relating to investigations and interrogations of public safety officers.^[1]
5. Includes uncodified legislative findings and declarations for these purposes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides a privilege enabling a party to refuse to testify or otherwise disclose confidential communications made in the course of certain relationships, including the following within the Evidence (Evid.) Code:
   1. The lawyer-client relationship. (Section 954.)
   2. The spousal relationship. (Section 980.)
   3. Physician-patient relationship. (Section 994.)
   4. Psychotherapist-patient relationship. (Section 1014.)
   5. Sexual assault counselor-victim relationship. (Section 1035.8.)
   6. Domestic violence counselor-victim relationship. (Section 1037.5.)
   7. Clergy-penitent relationship. (Sections 1033 and 1034.)
2. Prohibits the holder of a privilege from claiming a privilege based on one of the relations listed above if a holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to a disclosure made by anyone. (Section 912 (a), Evid. Code.)
3. Provides that if two or more persons are joint holders of a privilege, a waiver of a right of a particular joint holder of the privilege to claim the privilege does not affect the right of another joint holder to claim the privilege. In the case of the spousal privilege, the right of one spouse to claim the privilege does not affect the right of the other spouse to claim the privilege. (Section 912 (b), Evid. Code.)
4. Provides that if a privilege is claimed on the ground that the matter sought to be disclosed is a communication made in confidence in the course of a recognized privileged relation, then the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish that the communication was not confidential. Additionally, provides that a communication does not lose its privileged character for the sole reason that it was communicated by electronic means or because persons involved in the delivery, facilitation, or storage of electronic communication may have access to the content of the communication. (Section 917, Evid. Code.)
5. Governs collective bargaining in the private sector under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) but leaves it to the states to regulate collective bargaining in their respective public sectors. (Section 151 et seq. Title 29, United States Code.)

While the NLRA and the decisions of its National Labor Relations Board often provide persuasive precedent in interpreting state collective bargaining law, public employees have no collective bargaining rights absent specific statutory authority establishing those rights.

1. Provides several statutory frameworks under California law to provide public employees collective bargaining rights, govern public employer-employee relations, and limit labor strife and economic disruption in the public sector through a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment between public employers and recognized public employee organizations or their exclusive representatives. These include some, but not all, public transit districts.
2. Expressly establishes as unlawful within various statewide public employer-employee relations statutes, certain acts or conduct by a public employer relating to employee and labor organization rights, including specified acts or conduct relating to the collective bargaining process. Similar unlawful acts also are expressly applicable to employee organizations.
3. Establishes the Public Employee Communication Chapter (PECC), which gives exclusive representatives of California’s public employees specific rights designed to provide them with meaningful access and the ability to effectively communicate with represented members. (Sections 3555 et seq., Gov. Code.) Among other statutes, the PECC is within the administrative jurisdiction of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB).
4. Establishes the PERB, a quasi-judicial administrative agency charged with administering certain statutory frameworks governing employer-employee relations, resolving disputes, and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of public agency employers, employees, and employee organizations, but provides the City and County of Los Angeles a local alternative to PERB oversight. (Sections 3541 et seq., Gov. Code.)
5. Does not cover California’s public transit districts by a common employer-employee relations statute. Instead, while some transit districts are subject to specific employer-employee relations statutes, the majority of transit districts are subject to labor relations provisions found in each district’s specific Public Utilities Code (P.U.C.) enabling statute, joint powers agreements, or in articles of incorporation, and bylaws.

Generally, these provisions provide employees with basic rights to organization and representation, but do not define or prohibit unfair labor practices. Unlike other California public agencies and employees, public transit districts and their employees not within the jurisdiction of the PERB have no recourse to the PERB. Instead, they must rely upon the courts to remedy alleged violations. Additionally, they may be subject to provisions of the federal Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 and the 1964 Urban Mass Transit Act (modernly referred to as the Federal Transit Act).

1. Establishes the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, which provides procedural rights that must be accorded to such officers when they are subject to investigation or discipline. (Sections 3300 et seq., Gov. Code.)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is flagged as fiscal by Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

Among other things, information provided by the author states that, “[m]ost public employees reasonably believe their conversations with union representatives are confidential. However, current law does not explicitly prohibit employers from compelling disclosure of those communications… [to] safeguard the confidentiality of communications between public employees and their union representatives. While the [PERB] has ruled in multiple cases, including California School Employees Association v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2018) and Victor Valley Teachers Association v. Victor Valley Union High School District (2022), that questioning employees about such discussions may interfere with protected labor rights, these decisions do not create a formal evidentiary privilege or an absolute rule of confidentiality. Under existing law, employers may still question employees or union representatives in certain circumstances. This gap creates the potential for coercion, erodes trust in union representation, and weakens employee protections. [This bill] addresses this issue by codifying PERB’s rulings and expressly prohibiting public employers from compelling disclosure of confidential communications between employees and their union representatives.”

The Public Employee Communication Chapter

As previously stated under “Existing Law,” the PECC is established. Within this statute, the legislative findings and declarations expressly state that, “[…] the ability of an exclusive representative to communicate with the public employees it represents is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of state labor relations statutes, and the exclusive representative cannot properly discharge its legal obligations unless it is able to meaningfully communicate through cost-effective and efficient means with the public employees on whose behalf it acts. (Emphasis added.)

“In most cases, that communication includes an opportunity to discuss the rights and obligations created by the contract and the role of the representative to answer questions. That communication is necessary for harmonious public employment relations […].” (Section 3555, Gov. Code.)

Although the PECC provides employee organizations with such communications rights, unlike other states that have established an explicit privilege regarding employee-union communications by statute or judicial decision, public employees in California do not have statutory communication protections with their employee organizations, which may foster apprehension or lack of candor with their union representative, and undermines trust in that relationship.

A Core Function of Employee Organizations: Protecting Employee Rights Through Representation

Here, as stated verbatim in a prior analysis of a bill of similar subject, “[t]he communications that this bill seeks to protect occur, primarily, when an employee is filing a grievance or facing an adverse action against their employer. In these cases, the [labor organization] agent’s role in representing an employee reflects one of the core functions of the labor organization [and of organized labor, as a whole] representing an employee in a dispute with their employer […].

“Should employees begin to question the confidentiality of their communications with [labor organization] agents, such fears would not only undermine the core functions of the [organization], but may provide a chilling effect with regards to employees coming forward with claims of sexual harassment, civil rights violations, or other instances of workplace misconduct.”^[2]

Should This Bill Advance and Be Enacted, California Would Not Be the First State To Do So

Although this bill does not propose to establish a per se explicit communications evidentiary privilege similar to those that exist for the respective lawyer-client, physician-patient, psychotherapist-patient, sexual assault counselor-victim, domestic violence counselor-victim, and clergy-penitent relationships, other states, either by statute or court ruling, have effectuated a privilege for certain communications between a labor organization agent and a represented employee.

For example, in 2012, the Alaska Supreme Court recognized that a privilege between union agents and employees, similar to that between lawyers and their clients, was necessary to encourage employees to “communicate fully and frankly” with their union agents. (Peterson v. State (2012) 280 P. 3d. 559, 565.) The court noted that to force disclosure of such communication, particularly in the context of grievance discussions, would have a chilling effect on the employee's willingness to come forward and speak candidly with their agents. (Peterson, id., at p. 563; pp. 565-567.) For the same reasons, Illinois and Maryland codified the privilege between employees and their union representatives. In Maryland, labor organizations and agents of labor organizations cannot be compelled to disclose the information that is given to them by an employee so long as that information relates to an employee grievance. (Section 9-124, Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code.) The Illinois provision extends even greater protection to the union agent and employee privilege. Under Illinois state law, the privilege between the union agent and employee extends to both civil and criminal proceedings….” (735, Illinois Compiled Statutes, 5/8-803.5) And, in Washington, an employee-union communications privilege from examination and disclosure exists.^[3]

Related PERB Decisions

In California School Employees Assn. v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2018), which is incorporated in this bill, the Administrative Law Judge found that an employer interfered with employee and union rights by asking a union steward about complaints received from bargaining unit members about another unit member. (PERB Decision No. 2595, id.)

In that case, and recall from earlier that the NLRA and decisions of the NLRB often provide persuasive precedent in interpreting state collective bargaining law, the PERB cited another one of its decisions where it stated that, “[it] is […] beyond dispute that an employer’s inquiries into discussions between employees and their union representatives have a tendency to chill the protected activities of both the employees and the representatives.” (County of Merced (2014) PERB Decision No. 2361-M, pp. 7-8, 10.) Further, citing Cook Paint & Varnish Co. (1981) 258 NLRB 1230, 1232, the PERB’s decision in County of Merced, id., states, "[…] as the NLRB has explained, allowing an employer to compel disclosure of the substance of conversations between an employee and [their] union steward ‘manifestly restrains employees in their willingness to candidly discuss matters with their chosen, statutory representatives,’ and inhibit[s] stewards in obtaining the needed information from employees. Such conduct also interferes with protected rights more generally, because it ‘cast(s) a chilling effect over all of [the] employees and their stewards who seek to candidly communicate with each other over matters’ concerning their employment.” (Cook Paint.)

It is further noted that the aforementioned PERB decisions are not solely those where it has similarly decided. For example, it adopted a three-part test of the NLRB for determining when an employer’s questions of an employee or union representative during a deposition interfere with protected labor rights of public employees (Victor Valley Union High School District (2022), PERB Decision No. 2822), and regarding certain safeguards when interviewing an employee in preparation for an arbitration hearing. (City of Commerce (2018) PERB Decision No. 2602, citing, inter alia, Johnnie’s Poultry Company (1964) 146 NLRB 770, enf. den. (8th Cir. 1965) 344 F.2d 617.)^[4]

This Bill

Questioning a union agent about whether (or what) represented employees had communicated to the agent interferes with an employee’s right to serve as a union agent and employee rights to confer with their union agent. A public employer’s legitimate investigation into alleged wrongdoing cannot include quizzing a union agent (or employee) about the substance of their communication; thereby, deputizing the employee organization as the employer’s agent for conducting disciplinary investigations. Along these lines, this bill is consistent and in harmony with various employee organization-represented employee rights, including “Weingarten Rights,” and others discussed below.

What are “Weingarten rights?” Following the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court Ruling in NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc. (1975) 420 U.S. 251, where an employer denied an employee’s request for union representation at an interview and where the employee reasonably believed the interview might result in disciplinary action, the court reversed a judgement by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and held that the employer violated Section 7 of the NLRA. There, the U.S. Supreme Court held that unionized employees have a right to have a union representative present during an investigatory interview. As a result of that decision, such rights have commonly been referred to as “Weingarten Rights.” These rights apply during such interviews conducted by the employer and where the employee reasonably believes may result in disciplinary action. (Emphasis added.)

It is noted that, the provisions of this bill would be enacted within Chapter 11.5, Division 4 of Title 1 of the Gov. Code, known as the PECC; thus, uniformly applying its public sector employment relations provisions to local, state, K-14 education, higher education (California State University, University of California, and San Francisco College of Law [formerly, Hastings College of Law]), Judicial Council, trial court (and trial court interpreters), and public transit district employers and their employees governed by the Chapter. (Section 3555.5, Gov. Code.) While being consistent with, providing for, and applying such uniformity, this bill seeks to ensure protection of public employee-employee representative communications for purposes of representation, and more specifically, is narrowly tailored relating to communications involving representation on matters within the scope of the employee representative’s representation, i.e., wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, except in criminal investigations, and investigations and interrogations of public safety officers, as provided. In doing so, “[…] this bill recognizes that unlike most professional-client relationships, the [labor organization] agent owes a duty not only to the employee, but also to all of the employees represented by the [labor organization],” and “… the [labor organization] agent… may…. refuse to disclose the content of [the …] communication on the grounds that disclosure could adversely affect the union agent's other represented employees. This bill would provide employees with assurances that their communications would be safe, and empower employees to [candidly] communicate [with their labor organization agent consistent with the labor organization’s core functions].”^[5]

Further, as with Weingarten case law rights, statutory employee organization communication rights, and the various statutes the confer organization rights to public employees, this bill may be viewed as consistent and harmonious with, as well as in furtherance of, an employee’s rights to join and participate in the activities of an employee organization, and an employee organization’s paramount legal obligation to represent its members without employer interference.^[6]

It is further noted that the consistency, uniformity, and harmony provided by this bill would not eviscerate fully the ability of a party to file an unfair labor practice charge (ULP) with the PERB as, naturally, the facts, circumstances, and merit of each ULP filed would continue to be reviewed by the PERB for a determination as currently exists under the PECC and other employment relations statutes that it administers.

Conflict Notice to the Author

The author is informed that the Office of Legislative Counsel has issued a conflict notice regarding this bill and Assembly Bill 340 (Ahrens, 2025).

A conflict exists when two or more bills and/or constitutional amendments amend, add, repeal, or amend and renumber the same section, article, chapter, division, title, or heading. The enactment of these measures in their present form could give rise to a serious legal problem that may be avoided by appropriate amendments.

Author’s Statement

“Many employees reasonably believe that conversations with their union representatives about workplace issues are private and cannot be disclosed to their employer. However, current law does not expressly prohibit employers from compelling employees or their representatives to reveal those discussions. [This bill] aims to establish a clear standard of protecting confidential communications between employees and their union representatives. Doing so would create a safe and secure environment for employees to openly discuss their workplace rights, concerns, and representation without fear of employer interference.”

Comments by Supporters

In part, the Peace Officers Research Association states that, “… this bill would recognize the confidentiality of.. [communications between represented employees and their union representatives about matters within the scope of union representation and] preclude public employers from interfering with union representation, which benefits every public sector union and public employee in California. [This bill] would also provide that communications between an employee and their employee representative would not be confidential if the representative was a witness or party to any of the events forming the basis of a potential administrative disciplinary or criminal investigation. This exception is limited to disciplinary investigations and criminal investigations and is consistent with the peace officer and firefighter bill of rights. This exception does not apply to representation in grievances and unfair practice cases. The bill does not create a privilege equal to attorney/client or doctor/patient privileges. No privilege would exist in a civil or criminal proceeding where someone other than the employing agency or its agents sought evidence regarding those communications. For example, if an employee brought a sexual harassment lawsuit, this prohibition against employer interrogations would not prevent the plaintiff from being able to force the union representative to testify to their communications. The bill also does not preclude public employers from questioning union representatives about things they personally observed as percipient witnesses when those observations are distinct from confidential communications with union members about union representation and union matters.” Further, [this bill] is modest and balanced. It prevents public agencies from interfering in union representation matters and communications in a host of circumstances, but it does not create a statutory privilege [and…] would merely constitute an unfair labor practice to be adjudicated by PERB.”

In support of this bill, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, the Orange County Employees Association, and Teamsters California offer similar statements regarding the need to protect union and represented employee communications.

Comments by Opponents

A coalition of local government employers, i.e., cities, counties, special districts, recreation and park districts, rural counties, and urban counties, as well as education employers, i.e., small school districts, the University of California, school business officials, school administrators, and health care districts state, among other things, that prior similar bills have been “unsuccessful” or “vetoed,” and this bill is not different. They further state that, “… to conduct proper investigations that uphold the public’s trust, protect against the misuse of public funds, and ensure the safety and well-being of both public employees and the public at large, it is critical that a public employer has the ability to interview all individuals with relevant information to ascertain the facts and under the matter fully. This bill would increase costs for [each segment of California government] by creating incomplete investigations, since all appropriate employees with relevant information cannot be questioned.” Specifically, as to costs, they state that this bill could lead to “unknown and unbudgeted costs… for dispute resolution, attorney fees,” and “could force [public agencies] to, in some cases, update collective bargaining agreements and policies regarding workplace investigations and allowable communications between represented employees and their employer….”

Opponents express concerns that this bill is inconsistent with the PERB’s decision in William S. Hart UHSD, id., as that decision engaged in a “circumstantial analysis to determine whether employer questioning related to a disciplinary investigation was prohibited or not, while weighing the employee’s and the employer’s interests. The bright line standard in the opinion was narrow in scope…, and “this bill goes beyond that, forgoing any circumstantial analysis or weighing of interests, and exceeding the scope of any standards articulated by the decision….” They question “whether evidence exists that the PERB is denying the interests of employees on this issue, raising the question of whether a legislative solution is warranted.”

Among other things, they articulate that this bill would create a “de facto prohibition against employers requesting a court to compel disclosure of purportedly confidential communications, which is the same outcome as if the communication was privileged in those circumstances, and this bill endangers workplace safety.”

Prior or Related Legislation

Assembly Bill 340 (Ahrens, 2025), except for the uncodified legislative findings and declarations in the current bill, was substantially similar to the current bill and proposed to prohibit an employer from questioning an employee or employee representative regarding communications between the employee and employee representative, among other provisions. This bill was held in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Assembly Bill 2421 (Low, 2024) proposed to make changes to existing law relating to public employer prohibited activity or conduct and public employer-employee relations. This bill was held in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Assembly Bill 418 (Kalra, 2019) was substantially similar to Assembly Bill 3121 (Kalra, 2018), which proposed to establish an evidentiary privilege from disclosure for communications between a union agent and a represented employee or represented former employee. This bill died on the Senate inactive file.

Assembly Bill 3121 (Kalra, 2018) proposed to establish an evidentiary privilege from disclosure for communications between a union agent and a represented employee or represented former employee. This bill died on the Senate inactive file.

Assembly Bill 729 (Roger Hernández, 2013) proposed to provide a union agent, as defined, and a represented employee or represented former employee a privilege of refusing to disclose any confidential communication between the employee or former employee and the union agent while the union agent is acting in their representative capacity, except as specified. The former Governor vetoed this bill stating:

“I don’t believe it is appropriate to put communications with a union agent on equal footing with communications with one’s spouse, priest, physician or attorney. Moreover, this bill could compromise the ability of employers to conduct investigations into workplace safety, harassment and other allegations.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Peace Officers Research Association of California (Sponsor)

California Association of Highway Patrolmen

California Association of Psychiatric Technicians

Orange County Employees Association

Teamsters California

Opposition

Association of California Healthcare Districts

Association of California School Administrators

California Association of Recreation & Park Districts

California Association of School Business Officials

California Chamber of Commerce

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties

League of California Cities

Rural County Representatives of California

Small School Districts' Association

University of California

Urban Counties of California

Analysis Prepared by: Michael Bolden / P. E. & R. / (916) 319-3957

1. This bill incorporates Section 3303 of the Gov. Code by reference. Commonly deemed or referred to as the “heart” of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (PSOPBRA), this specific section relates to notice to, and the nature of investigations and interrogations of, “public safety officers,” as this term is statutorily defined. ↑

2. See analysis of Assembly Bill 2421 (Low, 2024), Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement. April 3, 2024. ↑

3. Washington State Legislature: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?billnumber=1187&year=2023 ↑

4. In Johnnie’s Poultry, id., the NLRB recognized that where an employer has a legitimate cause to inquire, it may exercise the privilege of interrogating employees on matters involving their NLRA Section 7 rights without incurring NLRA Section 8(a)(1) liability. To remove the coercive nature of the questioning, the employer must communicate the purpose of the questioning to the employee; provide assurance that no reprisal will take place; that employee participation is voluntary; and, the questioning must occur in a context free from employer hostility to union organization and not itself be coercive in nature, nor the questions exceed the necessities of legitimate purpose by prying into other union matters, eliciting information concerning an employee’s subjective state of mind, or otherwise interfering with the statutory rights of employees. ↑

5. See fn. 2. ↑

6. For example, see Sections Gov. Code Sections 3500, 3503, 3506, 3506.5, 3515, 3515.5, 3519, 3524.51, 3524.56, 3524.57, 3524.71, 3543, 3543.1, 3543.5, 3565, 3571, 71630, 71631, 71633, and 71815, Public Utilities Code Sections 28849, 28856, 28858, 102399, 102400, 102404, 102406, 100300, 100309, 98160.5, 98162, 98169, 999563, and 19563.7. ↑