Truckee Meadows Fire Protection Dist. v. International Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 2487
| Decision Date | 25 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 22993,22993 |
| Citation | 109 Nev. 367,849 P.2d 343 |
| Parties | , 144 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2288 TRUCKEE MEADOWS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2487, and State of Nevada Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Dorothy Nash Holmes, Dist. Atty., and Gregory Shannon, Deputy Dist. Atty., Washoe County, for appellant.
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Atty. Gen. and John Redlein, Deputy Atty. Gen., Carson City, for respondent Board.
Dyer & McDonald and James W. Penrose, Carson City, for respondent IAFF Local 2487.
Weinstein & Ashman, Las Vegas, and Mulholland & Hickey and Erick Jay Genser, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae IAFF.
Appellant Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District ("TMFPD") and respondent Local 2487 of the International Association of Fire Fighters ("Local 2487") entered into negotiations regarding a collective bargaining agreement for 1989-91. During collective bargaining, Local 2487, exclusive bargaining agent for the nonsupervisory employees of TMFPD, proposed the following successorship clause for negotiation in the event that TMFPD transferred its firefighting operations during the term of the collective bargaining agreement:
The District agrees to not sale [sic] or convey or cause to sale [sic] or convey or otherwise transfer or cause to transfer its operations to a new employer without first securing the agreement of the successor to assume the District's obligations under this agreement.
TMFPD's bargaining representative refused to negotiate over the inclusion of the proposed successorship clause in the collective bargaining agreement, and Local 2487 filed a complaint with respondent Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board ("EMRB").
The EMRB decided that the clause did not purport to limit TMFPD's power to sell, convey or transfer firefighting operations, but instead, merely addressed that contingency of successorship on the employees in Local 2487 should a transfer occur. The EMRB determined that the subject matter of the successorship clause "significantly related" to the subjects of mandatory bargaining set forth in NRS 288.150(2), and was therefore a mandatory subject of bargaining.
TMFPD sought review by the district court, and the district court affirmed the EMRB's decision. On appeal, TMFPD contends that the successorship clause involves its initial decision to sell, convey or transfer its operations rather than the effects of that decision, and therefore, the clause impermissibly intrudes on an area reserved to management.
NRS 288.110 authorizes the EMRB to "hear and determine any complaint arising out of the interpretation of, or performance under, the provisions of this chapter by any local government employer, local government employee or employee organization." Historically, this court has accorded substantial deference to EMRB rulings. See, e.g., Local Gov't Emp. v. General Sales, 98 Nev. 94, 641 P.2d 478 (1982). In Clark Co. Sch. Dist. v. Local Gov't, 90 Nev. 442, 446, 530 P.2d 114, 117 (1974), this court stated:
Unless the [EMRB] should act arbitrarily, unreasonably or capriciously beyond administrative boundaries the courts must give credence to the findings of the board. An agency charged with the duty of administering an act is impliedly clothed with power to construe it as a necessary precedent to administrative action. Indeed, NRS 288.110 charges the board with that responsibility and great deference should be given to the agency's interpretation when it is within the language of the statute.
See also City of Reno v. Reno Police Prot. Ass'n, 98 Nev. 472, 474, 653 P.2d 156, 158 (1982).
Nevada's statutory scheme for collective bargaining in the
public sector.
The Nevada Legislature enacted the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Act in 1969. One of the act's provisions created the EMRB to adjudicate labor disputes between local government employers and their employees' labor organizations. NRS 288.010. NRS 288.060 defines local government employers as any political subdivision including cities, counties, school districts and "other special districts." TMFPD qualifies as a "special district" under the provision.
After an employee bargaining unit has been formed and recognized pursuant to NRS 288.160-.180, the employer and employee representatives are required to participate in collective bargaining. NRS 288.033. NRS 288.150(2) enumerates the following subjects on which local government employers must collectively bargain with their organized workers:
2. The scope of mandatory bargaining is limited to:
(a) Salary or wage rates or other forms of direct monetary compensation.
(b) Sick leave.
(c) Vacation leave.
(d) Holidays.
(e) Other paid or nonpaid leaves of absence.
(f) Insurance benefits.
(g) Total hours of work required of an employee on each workday or work week.
(h) Total number of days' work required of an employee in a work year.
(i) Discharge and disciplinary procedures.
(j) Recognition clause.
(k) The method used to classify employees in the bargaining unit.
(l ) Deduction of dues for the recognized employee organization.
(m) Protection of employees in the bargaining unit from discrimination because of participation in recognized employee organization consistent with the provisions of this chapter.
(n) No-strike provisions consistent with the provisions of this chapter.
(o) Grievance and arbitration procedures for resolution of disputes relating to interpretation or application of collective bargaining agreements.
(p) General savings clauses.
(q) Duration of collective bargaining agreements.
(r) Safety of the employee.
(s) Teacher preparation time.
(t) Materials and supplies for classrooms.
(u) The policies for the transfer and reassignment of teachers.
(v) Procedures for reduction in work force.
Pursuant to NRS 288.150(3), the local government employer is not, however, required to bargain on certain subjects, which are reserved to management. NRS 288.150(3) provides as follows:
Those subject matters which are not within the scope of mandatory bargaining and which are reserved to the local government employer without negotiation include:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (u) of subsection 2, the right to hire, direct, assign or transfer an employee, but excluding the right to assign or transfer an employee as a form of discipline.
(b) The right to reduce in force or lay off any employee because of lack of work or lack of money, subject to paragraph (v) of subsection 2.
(c) The right to determine:
(1) Appropriate staffing levels and work performance standards, except for safety considerations;
(2) The content of the workday, including without limitation work load factors, except for safety considerations;
(3) The quality and quantity of services to be offered to the public; and
(4) The means and methods of offering those services.
(d) Safety of the public.
Successorship is not one of the enumerated subjects of mandatory bargaining under NRS 288.150(2). This court, however, has held that a subject not specifically enumerated in NRS 288.150 as a nonnegotiable subject is nevertheless a mandatory subject of bargaining if it bears a "significant relationship" to wages, hours, and working conditions. This court approved the EMRB's use of the "significantly related" test in the consolidated cases of Clark Co. Sch. Dist. v. Local Gov't and Washoe Co. Teachers Ass'n v. Washoe Co. Sch. Dist., 90 Nev. 442, 530 P.2d 114 (1974). 1 In Clark Co. Sch. Dist., this court addressed, inter alia, the issue of a teacher's classroom preparation time. The 1974 version of NRS 288.150 required employers to bargain with employee representatives concerning "wages, hours and conditions of employment." The school board asserted that classroom preparation time was a policy matter, and therefore, was not subject to negotiation. Id. at 445, 530 P.2d at 116. This court rejected the school board's argument, noting that many matters which bear on management policy also involve wages, hours, and working conditions. 2 Id. at 446, 530 P.2d at 117. Thus, this court held "that the government employer be required to negotiate if a particular item is found to significantly relate to wages, hours and working conditions even though that item is also related to management prerogative." Id. at 446-47, 530 P.2d at 117. This court found that the "significantly related" standard and the EMRB's findings based on the standard were reasonable. Id. at 447, 530 P.2d at 117. This court stated that the district court properly upheld the EMRB's conclusion because "NRS 288.110 gives the board power to hear and determine any complaint arising out of the interpretation of [NRS 288.150]." Id.
In Kansas Bd. of Regents v. Pittsburg State Univ. Chapter, 233 Kan. 801, 667 P.2d 306, 319-20 (1983), the Kansas Supreme Court extensively discussed Clark Co. Sch. Dist. in approving the Kansas Public Employee Relations Board's adoption of a "significantly related" test. In Pittsburg State Univ. Chapter, the court noted that:
PERB, as the arbiter between employer and employee, has fashioned the "significantly related" test in an effort to steer a middle course between minimal negotiability, with nearly absolute management prerogative, and complete negotiability, with few management prerogatives. In so doing it has devised a commonsense approach to the problem of sorting out matters which cannot be easily defined or neatly categorized, in order to determine their negotiability.
We conclude that the "significantly related" test which the EMRB used in the instant case was within the scope of the agency's authority.
Precedent regarding successorship clauses.
In reaching its decision in the instant case, the EMRB relied on the decision of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Castaneda
... ... Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 289, 292, 129 P.3d 682, 684 ... 297 (1895); accord Virginia and Truckee R.R. Co. v. Henry, 8 Nev. 165, 174 (1873) ("It ... exposures just because they offend local sensibilities or standards of morality. Leaving ... ' " (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1147 (1966))); State v. Galbreath, ... ...
-
Berry v. State
... ... mechanism." When asked whether it could fire a bullet, he answered, "Definitely not a .45, but ... Silvar v. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 289, 292, 129 P.3d 682, 684 ... ...
-
City of North Las Vegas v. State Local Gov't Employee–mgmt. Relations Bd.
...of review This court, like the district court, gives considerable deference to the EMRB's rulings. Truckee Meadows v. Int'l Fire Fighters, 109 Nev. 367, 369, 849 P.2d 343, 345 (1993); see also NRS 233B.135(3)(e), (f). “ ‘Unless the board should act arbitrarily, unreasonably or capriciously ......
-
Weiner v. Beatty
...government employee" as "any person employed by a local government employer"). 26. NRS Chapter 288. 27. Truckee Meadows v. Int'l Firefighters, 109 Nev. 367, 374, 849 P.2d 343, 348 (1993). 28. See id. at 375-76, 849 P.2d at 348-49. 29. 116 Nev. 473, 479, 998 P.2d 1178, 1182 (2000); see also ......