Blogs

CSDA Submits Comment Letter on Proposed Workplace Violence Prevention Regulations

By: @Aaron Avery

On June 1, CSDA submitted a letter to Cal/OSHA commenting on a discussion draft of the Workplace Violence Prevention Regulation. The letter was submitted in coalition with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and Association of California School Administrators (ACSA). A copy of the letter can be viewed here.

The rulemaking relates to Cal/OSHA's most recent updates/revisions to the draft proposed regulations (April 23, 2026 Draft) implementing Senate Bill 553 (Cortese, 2023) pertaining to Workplace Violence Prevention.

SB 553 was signed into law September 30, 2023, and became effective July 1, 2024. With limited exceptions, the measure requires employers to develop and implement a plan for addressing workplace violence as specified in Labor Code Section 6401.9.

Due to several concerns, including the expansion of temporary restraining order (TRO) filing authority and administrative burdens that cannot be recouped through cost recovery, CSDA and other local government organizations opposed SB 553. Over the course of the legislative process, SB 553 opponents garnered some significant changes to the originally introduced version. Ensuring that problematic provisions do not return within the proposed regulations, and that the final regulations are as workable as possible within public agency operational requirements, remains a priority for CSDA and coalition partners.

While the statutory requirements of SB 553 have taken effect, Cal/OSHA has engaged in an advisory committee process, which is developing draft regulations for implementing the new law. Cal/OSHA is required to adopt its standard no later than December 31, 2026. CSDA commented on one of the earlier drafts of the proposed regulation – the May 13, 2025 draft – along with coalition partners. That July 14, 2025 coalition letter can be viewed here.

Previous public comments were taken into consideration by the Cal/OSHA advisory committee, and the newly proposed changes became available for public comment in the April 23, 2026 Draft.

An overview of significant changes proposed in the April 23, 2026 Draft is provided below:

• Adds “employer-provided transportation” to the scope and applicability of the regulation.
• Expands EXCEPTION 6 from the regulation, for non-public places of employment for employers with less than a total of 10 employees at the workplace at all times during the previous year as long as they are in compliance with California Code of Regulations section 3203 (Injury and Illness Prevention Program).
• Amends the definition of an “authorized employee representative” to mean a labor organization with a collective bargaining relationship with an employer and which represents affected employees or an employee organization which has been formally acknowledged by a public agency as an employee organization that represents employees of the public agency.
• Adds a definition of “designated representative” to mean any individual or organization to whom an employee gives written authorization to exercise a right of access. A recognized or certified collective bargaining agent shall be treated automatically as a designated representative for the purpose of access to records required by this section.
• Adds an exception to the definition of “threat of violence” for texts, electronic messages, or personal social media that are not brought to the attention of the employer or that the employer could not otherwise be reasonably be aware of.
• Moves stalking from the “workplace violence” definition to the “workplace violence hazards” definition and removes a reference to the Penal Code.
• Amends a definition under “work practice controls” to include appropriate staffing to oversee and respond to any workplace violence incidents in a timely manner.
• Amends various examples of factors to consider when determining what is a “workplace violence hazard” while condensing or repealing various subsections listed.
• Adds additional context regarding employees or authorized employee representatives reporting specified workplace violence to a supervisor who is not involved or associated with the incident.
• Amends the requirement to have effective procedures to identify and evaluate workplace violence hazards to also include inspections when changes to the place of employment or job responsibilities that create new workplace violence hazards.
• Adds clarity that while an employer may not retaliate against an employee involved in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of others, the employer may implement policies designated to avoid physical confrontation and prevent injuries.
• Adds that initial counseling to an employee or trauma counseling offered through workers’ compensation satisfies the requirement for an employer to offer trauma counseling as a post-incident response. Removes the limitation that it be upon request.
• Removes employer exemptions for involuntary and/or unintentional type 2 repetitive workplace violence, as specified.
• Requires employers to provide answers from a knowledgeable person for employees who receive non-in-person workplace violence prevention training, which must be answered within 1 business day.
• Amends requirements around records and personal identifying information requests, including with respect to confidentiality, in connection with records requests from the Department of Industrial Relations.
• Authorizes employers to redact personal identifying information, except for training records, when responding to records requests from employees or their designated representatives.
• Expands the scope of records that need to be made available.

The local government coalition’s most recent comment letter focused on the following areas:

• Seeks additional clarity on exceptions from the regulation found at Code of Regulations §3343(a)(1).
• Highlights the apparent conflict between pending legislation seeking to restrict employers’ flexibility in the use of workplace technology, and the regulation’s contemplation that employers may utilize certain workplace technologies to improve workplace safety, as well as concerns about the impact that other pending legislation may have on employers’ ability to comply with the regulation.
• Seeks additional clarity on the employer’s proposed non-responsibility for texts, electronic messages, or personal social media that are not brought to the attention of the employer or that the employer could not otherwise be reasonably aware of.
• Expresses various concerns pertaining to proposed rights of authorized employee representatives and designated representatives in §3343(c)(6), §3343(f)(4), and §3343(f)(7).
• Seeks clarity on when certain inspections are required.
• Suggests changes to the definitions of Workplace Violence Hazards – §3343(b)(10) and Work Practice Controls §3343(b)(9).
• Requests removal of a requirement to offer trauma counseling.
• Seeks restoration of a limited exception from certain obligations for certain types of repetitive incidents, as specified.
• Requests additional flexibility, beyond the proposed 1 business day, to respond to questions posed in connection with a required workplace violence prevention training conducted in a format other than in-person.
• Requests additional redaction authority for employ training records containing personal identifying information.

Additional information on the regulation and advisory committee meetings can be viewed here: Workplace Violence Prevention in General Industry – Advisory Meetings.

CSDA’s advocacy on workplace violence prevention regulation seeks to ensure workability within the day-to-day realities of public agency operations and avoid unnecessary administrative burdens.

At this time, it is not known whether Cal/OSHA will issue another comment opportunity on the proposed regulation or move forward to prompt adoption. Stay tuned to Advocacy News and CSDA eNews for additional information.

#AdvocacyNews
#FeatureNews
#WorkplaceSafety