California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB792

Introduced
2/18/25  
Refer
3/10/25  
Report Pass
3/10/25  
Refer
3/11/25  
Report Pass
4/2/25  
Refer
4/2/25  
Report Pass
4/23/25  
Engrossed
4/28/25  
Refer
4/29/25  
Refer
5/7/25  
Report Pass
6/12/25  
Refer
6/12/25  
Report Pass
6/25/25  
Refer
6/25/25  
Report Pass
7/9/25  
Refer
7/9/25  
Enrolled
9/4/25  

Caption

Court interpreters.

Impact

The bill permits recognized employee organizations to request multiregional bargaining if multiple regions are engaging in negotiations within the same calendar year. This change is significant, as it facilitates broader negotiation strategies across regions, potentially leading to more consistent employment terms for court interpreters statewide. By allowing for multiregional bargaining, AB792 may improve the bargaining power of interpreters and streamline contract negotiations across different jurisdictions.

Summary

Assembly Bill 792, introduced by Assembly Member Lee, amends Section 71808 of the Government Code concerning the employment conditions of court interpreters in California. The bill builds on the existing Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act, which divides trial courts into specified regions. Each region has an established regional court interpreter employment relations committee responsible for setting terms and conditions of employment, including uniform compensation across the region. AB792 seeks to enhance collective bargaining processes among court interpreters.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB792 appears to be generally positive among labor organizations, as it empowers unions representing court interpreters to negotiate collectively across regions. Proponents argue that this will lead to fairer compensation and better working conditions. However, there may be concerns from some stakeholders about how these changes could be implemented and whether they might lead to disparities between regions or complicate local negotiations.

Contention

Some notable points of contention include the balance of power between local and regional bargaining authority. Critics may raise concerns about the implications for local autonomy and how negotiators will address variances in regional needs. The effectiveness of multiregional bargaining in achieving equitable outcomes could also be a subject of debate, indicating a tension between the desire for uniformity and the need for local flexibility in addressing specific employment conditions among court interpreters.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB1032

Courts: court interpreters.

CA AB432

California Court Interpreter Workforce Pilot Program.

CA SB133

Courts.

CA AB3013

Courts: remote court reporting.

CA SB548

Public employees’ retirement: joint county and trial court contracts.

CA AB133

Courts.

CA AB170

Courts.

CA AB1

Collective bargaining: Legislature.

CA AB1228

Fast food restaurant industry: Fast Food Council: health, safety, employment, and minimum wage.

CA AB1672

In-Home Supportive Services Employer-Employee Relations Act.

Similar Bills

CA AB1032

Courts: court interpreters.

CA AB1142

Regional transportation plans: transportation network companies.

CA SB150

Regional transportation plans.

CA AB1056

Speed laws: residence districts.

CA SB146

Regional transportation plans: sustainable communities strategies: procedural requirements.

CA AB1147

Regional transportation plan: Active Transportation Program.

CA AB2262

Greenhouse gases: zero-emission vehicle charging or fueling infrastructure: statewide assessment and zero-emission readiness plans.