New York and California are moving to reshape the balance of U.S. labor law. Each state recently enacted legislation allowing their public employment boards to handle private-sector union disputes—a role traditionally reserved for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). If these measures withstand legal challenges, they could fragment a framework that has governed U.S. labor relations since 1935.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the laws grant state agencies—New York’s and California’s Public Employment Relations Boards (PERB)—authority to oversee union elections and unfair labor practice (ULP) cases in situations where the NLRB cannot or will not act. That could create differing standards and enforcement approaches across state lines.

“It’s a whole different system that employers would have to be part of,” said Daniel D. Schudroff, a principal at Jackson Lewis PC in New York. “You would have different states interpreting issues in different ways.”

New York’s law has already triggered lawsuits from both the NLRB and Amazon, each arguing that federal labor law preempts the state measure. The Amazon Labor Union, a Teamsters affiliate, recently filed an unfair labor practice charge with the state PERB, alleging that Amazon retaliated against a worker for strike activity. Amazon claims the filing duplicates an existing case before the NLRB.

California’s law, which takes effect in 2026, similarly asserts state authority when the NLRB is “impaired” or inactive—for example, if it lacks a quorum or delays decisions beyond six months. The California Chamber of Commerce warned legislators that such measures invite “two different entities interpreting federal law,” with state regulators permitted to disregard NLRB precedent.

That concern is not hypothetical. The NLRB is currently operating with just one member after a series of vacancies and court challenges, including a Fifth Circuit ruling finding its structure unconstitutional. Acting General Counsel William Cowen has maintained that the agency continues to function through its regional offices, resolving most cases without full board review.

The state laws also diverge substantively from the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). New York’s statute bans a list of employer practices without establishing corresponding limits on unions. California’s version goes further, authorizing binding arbitration if collective bargaining stalls beyond six months—an authority federal law lacks.

Procedural differences could compound the complexity. Under California’s process, the PERB investigates and, if it proceeds, allows the charging party to present the case directly to an administrative law judge. By contrast, at the NLRB, agency staff act as prosecutors for ULP charges. PERB General Counsel J. Felix De La Torre said forthcoming regulations will clarify these procedures, but acknowledged, “That’s one place the law doesn’t provide us with clarity or direction.”

Legal scholars say the ultimate question is one of federal supremacy. Jeanne Mirer, who represents the Amazon Labor Union before New York’s PERB, argued that “states have the right to protect workers in their boundaries.” Yet employers see the prospect of state-by-state labor regimes as destabilizing for compliance and operations nationwide.