Public works: prevailing wages: access to records.

Petrie-Norris advances a measure that would require private owners or developers undertaking prevailing-wage work on public works to make a defined set of records available upon request to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, to multiemployer Taft-Hartley trust funds, and to joint labor-management committees established under federal law. The records include the bid request, lists of bids received and total bid amounts, the final executed contracts showing compliance with contract requirements, the names and license numbers of contractors and subcontractors, a certified payroll copy if the owner or developer possesses or controls those records, and monthly reports detailing a skilled and trained workforce when an enforceable commitment to such a workforce exists. The measure applies to projects first advertised for bid or, if there was no bid advertisement date, contracts executed on or after January 1, 2026, with requests limited to within three years of completion.

Key mechanisms establish a structured process for production and enforcement. An owner or developer must respond within 30 calendar days of a written records request, with written extensions possible by agreement. If a request is not satisfied after a multiemployer trust fund or joint committee files a complaint, the division must issue a new written request; failure to comply within 10 days after that notice triggers penalties. Penalties are set at $100 per calendar day for each worker for payroll records and $500 per calendar day for the other specified records, deposited into the State Public Works Enforcement Fund to be used for purposes authorized by statute. The Director of Industrial Relations would promulgate rules governing release of these records, including redaction standards and reasonable copying fees, in alignment with public-records and information-privacy laws. Redaction is limited to protecting individuals’ social security numbers, while pricing and other confidential information may be redacted if not public; however, names, scope of work, and requirements to pay prevailing wages or use a skilled and trained workforce must remain observable.

The measure interacts with existing law by adding a new record-access duty for defined private owners or developers on public works subject to prevailing wage, while relying on established payroll data and enforcement mechanisms. Payroll records retain their relevance to determine disclosure scope, and the provision for a skilled-and-trained workforce links to related monthly reporting requirements where applicable. Confidentiality is preserved for payroll records and contracts, with limited sharing allowed to the DLSE or awarding agencies to demonstrate a violation. The penalties channel into the State Public Works Enforcement Fund, reinforcing a targeted enforcement channel. The measure does not redefine the core prevailing wage obligation or repeal other Labor Code provisions, and it explicitly excludes the state and political subdivisions from being considered owners or developers under the new regime.

In broader context, the proposal embeds a formal oversight framework around private actors involved in public-works projects, setting a defined pathway for transparency, documentation, and penalties when records are not produced. It contemplates rulemaking to operationalize disclosure, redaction, and fees, balancing access with privacy protections. Start-up timing centers on 2026 for projects lacking prior bid advertising, with a three-year lookback window for record requests and a structured enforcement sequence that begins with a written notice and can culminate in daily penalties. The measure’s fiscal considerations include a required fiscal committee review, with penalties potentially funding enforcement activities, while imposing administrative responsibilities on the division and the department of industrial relations to implement and administer the new process. Potential implementation questions—such as interpreting “first advertised for bid,” determining possession or control of payroll records, and resolving overlaps with trade-secret protections—are typically addressed through rulemaking and guidance as the program unfolds.