Opinion ID: 3033697
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: AB 1889’s Enforcement Provisions

Text: The majority further argues that AB 1889’s enforcement provisions have effects that require preemption. As I will explain, I agree with several of the majority’s conclusions in this regard — but these conclusions provide no basis whatsoever for holding, as the majority has, that the restriction on the use of state funds is itself preempted. My own analysis leads me to conclude that although AB 1889’s core restriction survives preemption, several of its enforcement provisions may in their effect go beyond assuring California’s neutrality in labor disputes and instead pressure employers themselves to remain neutral in labor disputes. The majority identifies these problems as well, arguing that “[b]y creating exacting compliance burdens, strict accounting requirements, the threat of lawsuits, and onerous penalties, the statute chills employer speech on the merits of unionism, and adds that “[t]he potential cost of litigation, plus the threat of severe penalties threaten to effectively halt employer campaigns . . .” Maj. Op. at 12178. The majority then details what it considers to be the evils of “the compliance provisions,” the “documentation demands” and other enforcement provisions. Maj. Op. at 12179-82. In certain respects, I share the majority’s concerns. Some of the statute’s enforcement provisions appear to have an impermissibly intrusive effect on the NLRA’s balance of private actions between employer and employee, by exposing employers to the risk of significant litigation costs and punitive sanctions if they support or oppose unionization, even without using state funds. The majority, however, uses these intrusive effects, which derive solely from a few specific enforcement provisions, as a proxy for finding the entire statute preempted. The majority has held that the restriction on the use of state funds must be preempted, but only marshaled arguments against a narrower 12230 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. LOCKYER subset of the statute’s provisions — those that implement and enforce the restriction.