On March 19, 2025, Partner Attorney David E. Mastagni testified before the State Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee in support of AB 340 on behalf of the Peace Officers’ Research Association of California (PORAC). AB 340 would prohibit a public agency employer from asking any employee or their union representative about communications concerning workplace matters that are made in confidence between the employee and their representative.
The bill safeguards public employees’ union representation by prohibiting invasive employer questioning and compelled disclosures that undermine confidential union communications. It ensures workers – whether peace officers, firefighters, or teachers – can discuss critical issues like safety concerns, overtime grievances, or discipline appeals with their union representatives without fear of employer interference.
Strengthening Union Representation Rights and Codifies PERB Precedent
Current state law does not explicitly prohibit employers from compelling employees or their union representatives to disclose what they discussed in private. AB 340 would codify existing Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) decisions, which have long held it's “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 (PERB Dec. No. 2361-M). Merced further held that compelling such disclosure “restrains employees in their willingness to candidly discuss matters with their chosen…representatives” and “prohibits stewards from obtaining the needed information from employees.”
William S. Hart (PERB Dec. No. 2595) held a District’s questioning of a shop steward about complaints received from bargaining unit members about another member violated the steward’s protected rights and the union’s ability to effectively represent its bargaining unit. PERB noted that “[a]n employer’s legitimate investigation into alleged wrongdoing cannot include quizzing the shop steward about…communications between employees and their union representatives, thereby deputizing the union as the employer’s agent for conducting disciplinary investigations.”
The bill levels the playing field for public employees by making this protection universal across all public employers under PERB’s jurisdiction. When employees discuss workplace matters, like grievances or adverse actions, with their representatives, they often believe that these conversations are confidential. Keeping these communications confidential remains essential to fostering trust and ensuring effective representation for unit employees. If employees begin to question the confidentiality of their communications with union agents, such fears undermine the core functions of the union and may deter future employees from coming forward with claims of workplace misconduct or other concerted issues.
AB 340 enshrines the union representative’s ability to properly discharge its duty because effective representation hinges on privacy; when employers extract details about union communications, they undermine the union’s ability to advocate for its members. Such questioning chills open communications, discourages whistleblowers, provides employers an unfair insight into the union, and can be used to target union leaders.
Bill opponents argue that the bill creates an evidentiary privilege regarding employee-union communications. The bill is modest and balanced. No such privilege is created. The bill does not alter the evidence code. Rather, it codifies a limited protection against employer compelled disclosures 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. It is only enforceable through PERB as an unfair practice charge against the employer.
The bill does not limit the ability of local agencies to conduct thorough investigations, as it has no application to the questioning of percipient witnesses, including union representatives, to the underlying matters under investigation. Only confidential union communications are off-limits. There is also no limitation on questioning a representative who is a witness to the underlying events that are the focus of the inquiry. The bill excludes any application to criminal investigations, and incorporates portions of the Peace Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights precluding peace officer representatives from being “a person subject to the same investigation.”
In sum, AB 340 ensures public employees can turn to their unions without employer shadows looming over every conversation. Codifying this protection is a modest but powerful step. California has long led the nation in protecting workers’ rights, and AB 340 enshrines those representational rights into law.
