This bill creates a new chapter in Title 49 RCW establishing state regulation of private-sector labor‑management relations in situations where federal law no longer preempts state regulation or where the National Labor Relations Board declines or loses jurisdiction. It gives the Public Employment Relations Commission authority to certify exclusive bargaining representatives, determine appropriate bargaining units, conduct cross‑checks or secret‑ballot elections to determine representation (cross‑check allowed if an organization shows interest of more than 50%; election triggered on written proof of at least 30% support with 10% for other ballot access), verify previously federally certified or voluntarily recognized representatives (verification to be completed within one month absent exceptional cause), and limits challenges to representation (no challenge within one year; if a valid collective bargaining agreement exists challenges only in a 90‑to‑60‑day pre‑expiration window, with certain rules about multi‑year extensions). The bill imposes collective bargaining duties after certification, requires mediation at the mutual request of an employer and an exclusive bargaining representative and permits fact finding following failed mediation, preserves most expired contract terms until renegotiated, and provides an interest‑arbitration process if no agreement is reached within specified periods (six months after certification or expiration). It sets detailed arbitration procedures and timelines (including selection of arbitrators, hearings within two months, written determinations within 30 days, and limited superior court review), allows the commission to appoint arbitrators and to promulgate rules, bars the commission from charging fees for services under the chapter, and grants the commission concurrent jurisdiction with superior courts to prevent and remedy violations of the rights described, while stating that actions are subject to administrative procedure chapter 34.05 RCW. The bill also amends RCW 5.60.060 to add or clarify multiple testimonial and evidentiary privileges: spousal/domestic partner privilege, attorney‑client privilege, parent/guardian privilege for certain juvenile communications, clergy privilege, physician‑patient rules including a 90‑day waiver rule in personal injury/wrongful death suits, public officer privilege, a peer‑supporter privilege with defined scope and exclusions, sexual assault and domestic violence advocate privileges with limited safety exceptions and immunities for good‑faith disclosures, a mental health professional privilege with enumerated exceptions, an addiction recovery sponsor privilege, and a union representation privilege protecting communications between employees and union representatives subject to enumerated exceptions. The union representation privilege does not override records otherwise subject to public disclosure under chapter 42.56 RCW and does not interfere with statutory mandatory reporting duties. Several important details are missing from the extracted text: the act’s effective date is not provided, portions of Sec. 12 and the amendment to RCW 5.60.060 are cut off, and the list of exceptions to the union representation privilege is incomplete. The extracted facts do not show any changes to criminal penalties.

If enacted, Washington’s Public Employment Relations Commission would step into a role much like the federal NLRB for private employers, employees, trades, or industries that lose federal preemption or fall outside NLRB jurisdiction: the commission would quickly certify exclusive bargaining representatives (with verification usually completed within one month), require employers to bargain with certified reps, run representation processes (cross-checks if a union shows >50% interest, elections if a union shows ≥30%), and provide mediation and binding arbitration (including interest arbitration) on predictable timelines. Practically, private employers in affected sectors should expect a new, enforceable duty to bargain, potential arbitration if agreements are not reached within months, shared arbitration costs (parties pay arbitrator fees; neutral chair split), and possible court enforcement of commission orders; the commission itself gains more work but is barred from charging fees to parties under the bill. Unions and represented employees gain clearer exclusive-representation status and a statutory privilege limiting compelled disclosure of communications between employees and union representatives, and the bill also creates or clarifies confidentiality privileges for peer supporters, sexual-assault and domestic-violence advocates, mental health providers, physicians, clergy, and addiction-recovery sponsors with stated exceptions (imminent harm, mandatory child-abuse reporting, and other specified limits). This will affect evidence availability in some civil and criminal proceedings and requires agencies to designate peer supporters before they provide services. Important details remain unclear from the provided text—most notably the act’s effective date, some enforcement and remedy language cut off in the extracts, and how the new chapter will interact in practice with existing RCWs—so the timing and some enforcement mechanics are uncertain.