2025 Legislative Update (Part One): New Employee Protections, Leave Laws, and Union Representation

January 21, 2025 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine

 

Captive Audience Meeting Ban (SB 399)

By: Grant Reed-Hoos

This bill, effective January 1, 2025, prohibits employers from disciplining or withholding pay from employees who decline to attend an employer-sponsored meeting regarding the employer’s opinion on political or religious matters, including the decision to join or support a labor union.

California joins nine other states who have passed similar bills over the last decade. The NLRB has historically permitted captive audience meetings discouraging unionization and this federal policy has invited legal challenges to state captive audience meeting bans. Oregon’s law has withstood legal challenges since 2010, but Wisconsin’s law was struck down in federal court. The Biden NLRB’s decision in November 2024 to join the states in prohibiting captive audience meetings has complicated legal challenges to these state bans, but litigation is likely to continue, especially once Trump appointees control the NLRB again. For now, union organizing drives are bolstered by both federal and state laws forbidding employers from forcing workers to listen to anti-union propaganda under threat of termination.

 

Quicker Access to Paid Family Leave (AB 2123)

By: Laura Christensen Garcia

AB 2123 was enacted to make it easier for workers to access and use Paid Family Leave (“PFL”). PFL allows workers to take time off to care for a family member while receiving a partial wage replacement. Currently, employers can force an employee to use two weeks of their accrued vacation time before they can begin using PFL benefits. AB 2123, which became effective on January 1, 2025, prohibits employers from requiring employees to use accrued vacation before they can access PFL.

 

Unions May Charge Non-Member Public Safety Officers for Representation (AB 1941)

By: Leo Melton

AB 1941 is an amendment to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act which allows a union to charge certain law enforcement employees for the reasonable cost of representation. Law enforcement employees covered by this bill are the same as those covered by the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, which includes County Sheriffs, University Police Officers, City Police Officers, as well as officers representing agencies like the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The bill applies to employees who are not members of the union but have requested representation in a disciplinary, grievance, arbitration, or administrative hearing. The union’s right to charge the individual under this bill only applies if the union does not have exclusive control over the employee’s ability to bring the claim, for example when the employee has an individual right to pursue the claim on his/her own in an administrative proceeding. Note that passage of this bill does not necessarily reflect that such legislation is required for a public sector union to charge non-members for representation.

 

The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.