AB 672 adds a formal notice-and-intervention framework around civil actions that seek injunctive relief against strikes, work stoppages, or other labor actions by public employees governed by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The bill makes PERB an alerted and potentially participating party in such court cases and directs the Judicial Council to create a specialized appellate-panel assignment system for injunctions involving trial court employees.
Why it matters: the measure changes how emergency court relief and labor disputes involving public employees are routed and litigated in California. By building in mandatory notice, a statutory right for PERB to intervene, and a routed appellate assignment for trial court employee injunctions, AB 672 shifts some disputes from a purely ad hoc courtroom process toward a structure that foregrounds PERB expertise and promotes procedural uniformity — with consequences for timing, litigation strategy, and administrative workloads.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires plaintiffs or petitioners seeking injunctive relief against PERB-regulated public employee labor actions to serve the PERB general counsel by electronic mail and to notify PERB when applying for a temporary restraining order; it preserves any legal requirement to exhaust PERB administrative remedies before suing. It also grants PERB a statutory right, upon timely application, to intervene in civil actions that implicate the constitutionality, interpretation, or enforcement of statutes PERB administers, and it instructs the Judicial Council to adopt rules creating a Court of Appeal panel process to handle injunctions involving trial court employees.
Who It Affects
Public employers and labor organizations subject to PERB (state agencies, local governments, school districts, and certain special districts), plaintiffs who seek injunctions against public-employee labor actions, PERB itself and its general counsel, and the Judicial Council and trial court administration responsible for rulemaking and case assignments involving trial court employees.
Why It Matters
The bill makes PERB a routine participant in court disputes over public-employee labor actions, which can change litigation timing, the available remedies, and strategic choices about whether to pursue administrative remedies first. It also centralizes handling of trial court employee injunctions by creating a predictable appellate assignment path, which could affect how quickly and consistently courts resolve those disputes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 672 creates three connected procedural changes for lawsuits that ask courts to enjoin strikes, work stoppages, or other labor activity by public employees covered by PERB. First, a plaintiff or petitioner who files such a civil action must serve a copy of the complaint or petition by electronic mail on PERB’s general counsel if PERB is not already a party.
Second, if that plaintiff intends to apply for a temporary restraining order (TRO), the plaintiff must email PERB’s general counsel notice of the TRO application at the same time it notifies the defendant or respondent. Third, the bill expressly preserves the existing rule that plaintiffs cannot bypass required PERB administrative remedies: where exhaustion is required by statute, regulation, or case law, the bill does not authorize going straight to court.
On the intervention side, AB 672 gives PERB an affirmative, time-sensitive right to intervene in civil actions arising from labor disputes when PERB claims the case raises questions about the constitutionality, interpretation, or enforcement of a statute PERB administers. Intervention is not automatic; PERB must apply in a timely way, and the court will evaluate that application under ordinary intervention practice, but the bill creates a clear legislative basis for PERB to seek participation in these suits.Finally, the bill addresses trial court employees specifically: it requires the Judicial Council to write rules establishing a panel of Court of Appeal justices qualified to hear actions that seek to enjoin strikes or similar labor activity by trial court employees, from which a single justice will be assigned to handle the matter in the superior court according to the adopted procedures.
The practical effect is intended to produce a predictable assignment and expertise path for this subset of public-employee injunctions, while central notice and intervention rules bring PERB into the litigation mix earlier than under current practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A plaintiff or petitioner who sues to enjoin a PERB-regulated strike, work stoppage, or labor action must serve the PERB general counsel by electronic mail if PERB is not already a party.
If the plaintiff or petitioner intends to seek a temporary restraining order, the plaintiff must notify PERB’s general counsel by electronic mail at the same time it gives that notice to the defendant or respondent.
The bill explicitly preserves the requirement that plaintiffs exhaust PERB administrative remedies before seeking court relief when exhaustion is required by statute, regulation, or case law.
PERB gains a statutory right to intervene, upon timely application, in civil actions that it says implicate the constitutionality, interpretation, or enforcement of statutes PERB administers.
The Judicial Council must adopt court rules to establish a panel of Court of Appeal justices qualified to hear injunction actions by or against trial court employees and to assign a single justice to hear those matters in superior court under the new procedures.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandatory PERB notification and TRO notice
This provision requires that any plaintiff or petitioner who files a civil complaint or petition seeking injunctive relief against a PERB-regulated labor action serve the general counsel of PERB by electronic mail when PERB is not a party. It additionally requires email notice to PERB of any application for a temporary restraining order at the same time the applicant notifies the opposing party. The mechanics — electronic service, timing tied to defendant notice, and the identity of the recipient (the general counsel) — are designed to ensure PERB learns of emergency filings immediately and can decide whether to participate or respond.
Statutory right for PERB to intervene in relevant civil actions
This chapter grants PERB the right, on a timely application, to intervene in civil litigation arising from labor disputes that affect employees whose relations PERB governs, where PERB asserts the case implicates the constitutionality, interpretation, or enforcement of statutes it administers. The language focuses intervention on matters touching PERB’s statutory domain rather than all labor disputes, which frames PERB’s role as a subject-matter guardian but leaves courts room to evaluate timeliness and relevance under established intervention standards.
No shortcut around PERB administrative remedies
AB 672 explicitly states that the new notification and intervention mechanics do not authorize plaintiffs to seek judicial relief without first exhausting administrative remedies before PERB where exhaustion is required by law. Practically, this preserves existing doctrines that funnel certain disputes through PERB’s administrative process first, even as the bill increases PERB’s visibility in court cases.
Special Court of Appeal panel and single-justice assignment for trial court employee injunctions
The bill directs the Judicial Council to adopt rules establishing a mechanism to form a panel of Court of Appeal justices qualified to handle injunctions involving trial court employees, and to assign a single justice from that panel to hear the matter in superior court. This creates an institutionalized path for these cases, aiming for consistency and expedited assignment but requiring the Judicial Council to design the operational details and procedures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Public Employment Relations Board (PERB): The bill gives PERB earlier notice of court filings and a clear statutory basis to enter litigation that affects statutes it administers, increasing PERB’s ability to protect administrative jurisdiction and statutory interpretations.
- Public employers and trial court administrators: A predictable assignment process for trial court employee injunctions and PERB’s involvement can produce more consistent adjudication and potentially reduce conflicting orders across jurisdictions.
- State and local governments that rely on uninterrupted services: Greater coordination and the requirement to consider administrative remedies can reduce the frequency of ad-hoc emergency court orders that bypass specialist administrative review.
- Judicial Council and appellate system (in the long run): Centralizing assignment for trial court employee injunctions can create institutional expertise and more uniform precedent for this specialized area of disputes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Plaintiffs seeking emergency injunctions (often employers or public entities): Additional procedural steps — electronic service to PERB, notice requirements, and the preserved exhaustion requirement — can slow access to courts or complicate emergency filings.
- PERB staff and general counsel: The board may face increased administrative and litigation workloads from early notices and intervention applications without corresponding funding or staffing increases.
- Superior courts and trial judges: Courts may need to adjust procedures for single-justice assignments and process coordination with PERB and the Judicial Council, imposing administrative burdens.
- Defendants and labor organizations: Added procedural layers and potential PERB intervention may increase litigation complexity and costs, and could lengthen the time to resolution of disputes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between speed and specialized review: the bill aims to ensure PERB’s statutory expertise guides disputes over public-employee labor actions, but it also inserts additional procedural steps that can slow or complicate emergency judicial relief — creating a classic trade-off between immediate court action to prevent public disruption and deliberate administrative oversight to preserve statutory processes.
AB 672 raises practical and doctrinal questions that implementation must resolve. First, the bill requires electronic-mail service on PERB’s general counsel but does not specify backup service rules or discovery-proof mechanisms (for example, what constitutes receipt, how to handle undeliverable notices, or time-stamping).
Courts and PERB will need clear administrative protocols to avoid disputes about whether PERB was effectively notified in an emergency TRO situation.
Second, the contours of PERB’s intervention right are purposefully framed by reference to matters that "implicate the constitutionality, interpretation, or enforcement" of statutes PERB administers, but those terms are broad. Expect litigation about what qualifies as an implicating claim and what counts as a "timely" application to intervene.
That uncertainty could produce more motion practice and early-stage litigation, which undercuts the bill’s intent to bring expertise to bear quickly. Finally, the Judicial Council rulemaking mandate places an operational burden on the courts: designing the panel, assigning justices as single-justice trial supervisors, and integrating that process with existing emergency procedures will require careful drafting to avoid unintended delays or jurisdictional friction.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.