MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Sixty-eighth Session February 20, 1995 The Senate Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Ann O'Connell, at 2:10 p.m., on Monday, February 20, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Vice Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter Senator William J. Raggio Senator William R. O'Donnell Senator Dina Titus Senator Raymond C. Shaffer STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Danny Thompson, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Scott Walker, President, Chapter 6, Nevada Classified School Employees Association Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards Dr. Patricia Hawkins, Associate Superintendent, Carson City School District Dr. Gregory Betts, Nevada Rural School Districts Charlotte Brothwell, Executive Director, Nevada Classified School Employees Association Mike Langton, Nevada Classified School Employees Association Elaine Lancaster, State Chairman, Nevada State Education Association Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association Mark Balen, President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada Lucille K. Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Mindi Ratzlaff, Personnel Administrator for Classified Employees Services, Douglas County School District Sheralynn Kern, Bus Driver, Douglas County School District BILL DRAFT REQUEST (BDR) 30-517: Makes various changes regarding Airport Authority of Washoe County. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 30-517. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. SENATOR RAGGIO ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.) ***** Danny Thompson, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, asked for a committee introduction on a current resolution to encourage the purchase of local agricultural products grown and raised in Nevada by state institutions. Senator Townsend asked about the current status which requires statutory intervention. Mr. Thompson stated it does not require statutory intervention, it only encourages the state to buy agricultural products that are produced in Nevada. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO DO A BILL DRAFT REQUEST. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** SENATE BILL (S.B.) 56: Revises provisions relating to collective bargaining between school districts and certain employee organizations. (BDR 23- 651) Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, (NASB) spoke in favor of S.B. 56. He stated his association is bringing S.B. 56 before the committee as a means to bring the potential for mediation and fact-finding back to the collective bargaining process between teachers and other education personnel and the school districts. He explained all local government entities and their employee groups have mediation and fact-finding available to them no matter which section of chapter 288 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that they are negotiating under. He pointed out educational personnel in the school districts do not have the mediation and fact-finding process. Mr. Etchemendy testified after one side or the other declares an impasse, both sides immediately go to binding arbitration. He stated the arbitrator can ask both parties to continue to negotiate, but there is no mediation or fact-finding involved. He said the Nevada Association of School Boards feels this is an important process to have in any kind of employee-employer negotiations. He mentioned the public safety officers in Nevada (police and fire) have last-best-offer binding arbitration, as do the teachers and other personnel. He clarified the difference is the police and fire officers have mediation and fact-finding, whereas the educational community does not. He stated all other local governments have the mediation and fact- finding process available for their employees. Mr. Etchemendy stated it is the conviction of NASB that the negotiations process between teachers, other educational personnel and the districts will be enhanced by the proposed amendments. He stressed mediation and fact-finding are an important option to have in the process. He discussed the various amendments. Dr. Gregory Betts, Nevada Rural School Districts, testified in favor of S.B. 56. He explained two optional features to the negotiation process if this bill were passed. He explained these two features are the mediation and fact-finding process. He stated either side could request mediation or fact-finding, but it would not necessarily happen, and would not be asked for if it were not needed. He said if it is needed, it would probably result in a better final process. He asked the committee to please bring back these two features to the negotiation process, keeping in mind that the features are optional and nonbinding. Senator Titus asked for a review of the history of the bill. Mr. Etchemendy reviewed the history of the bill for the committee. He explained in 1991, the Nevada State Education Association asked for a law granting binding arbitration in the form which is adopted, NRS 288.217. He stated he could not tell her the specific vote. He recounted Nevada Association of School Boards had opposed the bill in 1991 for the basic reasons that mediation and fact-finding were not options in the bill. He said since that time, negotiations for the past 4 years have gone on with that law in effect. Senator Titus asked if that law required binding arbitration without taking out mediation and fact-finding. Mr. Etchemendy stated, "Yes, it does." Senator Titus requested further clarification, "Did it take it out or did it create binding arbitration without fact-finding? I think that's two different things." Mr. Etchemendy explained after four meetings, either side is allowed to call an impasse. Then both groups mutually select an arbitrator. The arbitrator reviews the proposals from both sides and makes a determination which is binding arbitration. He reiterated from his earlier testimony when the arbitrator first works with both parties, the arbitrator can suggest to the parties that they continue negotiation for 3 weeks. He explained at the end of that 3-week period, if they cannot reach an agreement, each party has to submit to the arbitrator a written statement on each unresolved item. Then the arbitrator takes all of that into consideration after a hearing and comes back with a decision. The decision must be to totally accept one or the other total package. Senator Titus asked how this is different prior to 1991? Mr. Etchemendy replied prior to 1991, there is a process that if by a certain date the parties had not agreed, then either party may request fact-finding. He emphasized he did not know if this is done individually or mutually; however, either party could request a fact-finding panel be formed. The fact-finding panel will make a determination whether the future decision from the fact-finder would be final and binding or advisory. Whatever the panel decides is what the fact-finder must abide by. Senator Titus asked if the supporters of S.B. 56 are trying to go back to the way the bill was prior to 1991. Mr. Etchemendy replied yes, they wanted to bring in fact-finding and mediation as an option to the process. Senator Titus requested evidence that the new system is not working, which requires the law to revert to the pre-1991 status. Mr. Etchemendy responded the school districts had indicated to the Nevada Association of School Boards, that the districts have had adverse experience in the negotiation process where the other party decided to "drag their feet" and get beyond the four meeting process. It is being used as a threat in the negotiation process and in some cases there is not really negotiating going on, it is spending time. Senator O'Connell asked for further clarification. She wanted to know, if after an arbitrator requests both parties to negotiate for another 3 weeks, could either party go into the fact-finding process. Mr. Etchemendy acknowledged under the current law, once the arbitrator has been jointly selected through the processes in the law, by both parties, the arbitrator can request both sides to go negotiate for up to 3 weeks. After 3 more weeks of negotiation, if a resolution has not been reached on all the issues, they go back to the arbitrator. At that point the arbitrator asks both parties to submit their "last-best-offer" item by item to him. The arbitrator then determines which package is the final binding offer. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Etchemendy if that is the problem he, Dr. Betts and Dr. Hawkins are trying to resolve. Mr. Etchemendy replied, "yes." Dr. Patricia Hawkins, Associate Superintendent for the Carson City School District, testified in favor of S.B. 56. She introduced Mr. Gary Imelli, Assistant Superintendent of Churchill County School District as one of the supporters for S.B. 56. She submitted a letter to the committee (Exhibit C) which she said clearly states the district's position on S.B. 56. She stated the letter is written by Charles Cockerill who represented the Carson City School District and other school districts in the state in the bargaining process with the teacher associations. Dr. Hawkins emphasized that fact-finding is a necessary intermediate step in the negotiations' process. She stated when this step is missed and parties go to immediate and binding arbitration after four meetings, both parties have to go with last-best-offer. She stated this is binding on school districts and could prove to be costly and may take funds away from students. She stated the opportunity to go to fact-finding allows the fact-finder to go issue by issue instead of the entire package. She said the fact-finding would hopefully resolve and bring the parties together so the negotiations process can take place more quickly with each issue dealt with. She stated the Carson City School District wholeheartedly supports S.B. 56. Scott Walker, President, Chapter 6, Nevada Classified School Employees Association, gave Senator O'Connell a two page petition with 31 signatures on it opposing S.B. 56 (Exhibit D). Charlotte Brothwell, Executive Director, Nevada Classified School Employees Association, read a written statement (Exhibit E) testifying against S.B. 56. She advocated the committee vote against S.B. 56, stating that it is punitive to labor organizations. Michael Langton, Nevada Classified School Employees Association, submitted a letter from Laura Cadot, President of the Carson City Employees Association, (Exhibit F) stating opposition regarding S.B. 56. Mr. Langton testified the scheme that currently exists under the NRS 288.217 works very, very well. He continued adding nonbinding fact-finding is not an answer. He explained in an arbitration proceeding, each party has to present the facts. The arbitrator has to make fact-finding a binding resolution. He stated once there is a third party called an arbitrator who has made a binding decision, the parties live by it. He added that most clients, after four meetings, do not declare impasse as long as the negotiation process is proceeding. Mr. Langton attested the employees in every case are willing to go to binding arbitration to get the process over. He provided an example of an arbitration he was involved in 2 months ago involving the Douglas County School District employees: In that meeting, the arbitrator was named Charles Askin and he basically chewed out both sides saying one of the problems with the current legislative scheme in the state of Nevada is that it is prolonged too much. He said it is great for arbitrators and fact-finders. If you read [NRS] 215 which is the one provision which is talked about being amended, it says go to an arbitrator and it doesn't always say the fact-finder will be the arbitrator, nor does it say that the mediator will be the fact-finder and then the arbitrator. So there exists the possibility you will have 3 separate people, which is a tremendous waste of time and energy on both sides of the table, both management and labor side. It is good for attorneys such as myself and Mr. Cockerill because we get paid for doing this. But it is bad for the clients and it is bad for the public. I think it should be a shorter process. I have never, ever been against mediation. If the committee wants to add in [NRS] 217, I think it would be right after [NRS] section 2 in 217, 'if the parties so desire, the parties can mutually agree to mediate and fact- find before proceeding to binding arbitration.' That would allow the parties and address Mr. Etchemendy's concern. I would ask that it be mutual and not unilateral because that way neither side can dictate what the expenses are going to be incurred by the other party. That gives the option to the parties and I say as the current statute is, the option is there because the parties in every case I've been involved in have been real reasonable. I also represent fire fighters and policeman. They are directly affected by [NRS] 215. They have shown a certain amount of frustration by the fact that they first have to go to fact-finding before they can proceed to binding arbitration. In the couple of cases I've had there it has worked, but it has taken a little bit longer. I have to write a brief for the fact- finder and then one for the arbitrator, especially if they are different persons. In Mr. Cockerill's and Mr. Cox's cases, they have to do the same exact thing. We think if it is not broke, it doesn't need to be fixed, but if there is a tendency to fix it, add that option at the end of [NRS] section 2. Senator Shaffer asked Mr. Langton if fact-finding is brought forward in the first four meetings. Mr. Langton stated a lot of facts were brought forth at that time. He explained under the current law a union must give notice by February 1. The budget process says March 15 is when the preliminary budget is submitted. April 15 is when the budget is finalized, but the augmented final budget is ready August 15. He stated it is difficult to start the meetings until the union knows something about the budget, which puts the first meeting at March 15 at the earliest. He stated the first two meetings are wasted because the first meeting lays the ground rules and the union usually presents their proposal to management. The management takes the proposal and comes back to the second meeting with a response. He stated if this were nirvana, everyone would have the facts, everyone would know the budget, everyone would know the revenue available, and in four meetings, negotiations could be accomplished. However he stated in his 12 years of experience with public employees, this scenario has never worked. He stated the real bargaining usually starts after August 15, but there is another provision for September and October dates. Mr. Langton testified the classified employees in Storey County are still negotiating for fiscal year 1993-1994, but it is now fiscal year 1995. He said it should not take 2 years to resolve a raise which should have been effective July 1, 1993. Senator Porter suggested the process be changed to coincide with the budget process. Mr. Langton stated this would be an easier solution and if it resulted in binding arbitration, he felt all of the parties would agree to it. Senator Porter asked Mr. Langton to repeat his suggested change for section 2. Mr. Langton complied, "If the parties desire, they could mutually agree to mediate and or fact-find before proceeding to binding arbitration." Elaine Lancaster, State Chairman, Nevada State Education Association, read a written statement to the committee (Exhibit G). She testified against S.B. 56. She stated, "Binding arbitration is the 'encourager' that gets everyone to the table with the mindset of settling their contract without the final step." Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association, read a written statement to the committee (Exhibit H) in which he opposed S.B. 56. He stated the mediation process is available to be used if needed. Mark Balen, President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada (PFFN), stated PFFN is opposed to S.B. 56. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Balen how S.B. 56 would affect PFFN. Mr. Balen replied PFFN feels the school teachers would be going backwards in their negotiation efforts. He stated police officers and fire fighters had fact-finding. He stated fact-finding does not work. It is a stall process. He stated it is nonbinding and is time consuming. Senator Raggio asked if the changes proposed by the teachers changes anything in the bill for the police and the fire fighters. Mr. Balen stated, "no." Senator O'Connell stated the teachers had testified sometimes the revenue they were negotiating for is gone when the negotiations ended. She asked Mr. Balen how this concern is addressed for the fire fighters and for the police. Mr. Balen testified the money is set aside in the ending fund balance and is held there until the negotiations are ended no matter how long it takes. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Etchemendy to explain what happens to the funds for the teachers. Mr. Etchemendy related an instance which happened 2 years ago. He stated Governor Miller was cutting budgets of different state agencies to meet the state budget shortfall. He explained Governor Miller asked the school districts to voluntarily cut back on their budgets. All of the school districts complied by cutting back on their operating budgets. He stated the Carson City School District was taken to binding arbitration without fact-finding. The arbitrator's decision favored the employees. Mr. Etchemendy explained the arbitrator's rationale was that the school district had money available to them, but chose instead to voluntarily cut back their budget at the Governor Miller's request and there is not a statutory requirement to do so. The arbitrator stated the money is there to return to the state, so therefore the money is available to pay the teachers' negotiation. The arbitrator took the money which the district had voluntarily given up. The school district then had to cut into other operating revenue to meet Governor Miller's request. Senator O'Connell asked in situations like this where the arbitrator finds in favor of the employees in the district, if the district says "we do not have the money," does the arbitrator have to identify where the funds come from? Mr. Etchemendy stated when parties are in fact-finding the funds have to be identified. He stated he does not think an arbitrator has to identify where the funds come from. Mr. Bellister stated the law has requirements which the arbitrator must consider when he renders a decision. He stated the arbitrator must identify funds which the decision is based upon. He stated the arbitrator stated he must notify both parties of his reason for accepting the final offer and specifying an estimate of the total cost of the award. He stated the arbitrator must identify how much it will cost and what funds he has identified which form the basis of his award. Lucille K. Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens (NCC), spoke in favor of S.B. 56. She stated binding arbitration takes the decisions totally out of the hands of the elected representatives of the people which eliminates the ability of the people to have influence on it whatsoever. She stated NCC objects to binding arbitration on principle and consequently supports S.B. 56. Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 56. SENATE BILL (S.B.) 82: Prov ides that unlicensed employees of school districts have sufficient community of interest to negotiate as separate bargaining unit. (BDR 23-650) Mr. Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB) testified in favor of S.B. 82. He gave the committee a copy of the proposed amendment to S.B. 82 (Exhibit I). He stated this is another of NASB's bills trying to improve the negotiating process. He asserted the need for this legislation (identifying a common community of interest among unlicensed employees in the school districts) is originally expressed to NASB by some of the officials in several of the school districts. He described that the districts felt they had a potential problem facing them, ongoing negotiations with several groups which would normally be identified as one group. He reported a district may have several small bargaining units which would be negotiating one right after the other. He testified if the unlicensed employees are treated as a group, then there would be one negotiating process. He expressed if the unlicensed employees are treated as one group, it would require one lawyer for the group, save revenue for the group and the district, and eliminate some of the negotiation time. Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Etchemendy if the different groups affected by this amendment are aware of the legislation. Senator O'Connell stated she is concerned about the groups which might have only three or four members in them. Mr. Etchemendy related there are people in the audience to speak to this concern. Dr. Patricia Hawkins brought a visual aid for the committee. She showed them a 4-inch binder filled with documents from 1 year of negotiated agreements with the different entities at the Carson City School District. She explained she manages those negotiated agreements on a daily basis. She described the district's four bargaining units: administrators, teachers, nurses, and classified employees. She stated: During the negotiations process you end up with a whipsaw effect. In other words, the nurses are asking for what the teachers have; the classified are asking for what the nurses have; and they're all asking for the same thing. It is very costly for my salary to manage all these negotiated agreements. Each of them have different jury leave, sick leave, personal leave, and annual leave. All of those kinds of things are different with each of the bargaining units. I know that my secretary spends the majority of her time trying to figure out, 'Okay, this is an administrator so this is how they accrue leave, this is how they use leave, this is the grievance process for this particular group.' One of the particular concerns I have is that if you have people who are able to bargain separately and create their own bargaining unit, you could, in fact, have bargaining groups consisting of very small numbers (like we have in Carson City with the nurses). We pay dearly to Roger Laird to negotiate with those people for us. You could have 3 electricians, 5 grounds people, etc., who all consider themselves different in their own issues. But when it comes to the bargaining process, they are all asking for the same kinds of things anyway. What if the teachers were to be broken out? Right now we have one employee bargaining unit for all of our teachers. They cover psychologists, librarians, itinerant staff, special education staff, gifted and talented staff, elementary, middle, and secondary school personnel. They bargain together as one solid unit. I am very much in favor of S.B. 82. Senator Titus asked Dr. Hawkins if she has four separate arrangements for the administrators, teachers, classified personnel and nurses. Dr. Hawkins said, "yes." Senator Titus asked who would fit into the group that Dr. Hawkins wants to make a single group. Dr. Hawkins replied the unlicensed employees (also known as classified employees) and this would be the bus drivers, food service workers, etc. Senator Titus asked if these groups are currently listed as classified. Dr. Hawkins replied "Yes, but there is a possibility they could become separate groups." Senator Titus asked where Dr. Hawkins would put the nurses. Dr. Hawkins replied the nurses are in the same bargaining unit they are in now. This law would not affect the nurses. Senator Titus asked Dr. Hawkins if this really affected the district. Dr. Hawkins stated in the future, if any of the classified employees decided to break out, there could be many more separate groups with which to negotiate. Mindi Ratzlaff, Personnel Administrator for Classified Employees Services, Douglas County School District, testified in favor of S.B. 82. She stated Douglas County School District currently has two separate classified bargaining units: the food service workers and bus drivers. She explained the food service workers bargaining unit represents 24 employees. She explained the bus drivers bargaining unit represents 44 employees. She reiterated points brought out by Dr. Hawkins. Ms. Ratzlaff stated Douglas County could conceivably have five more additional bargaining units representing their 345 classified employees. She said this could create employee groups representing as few as 10 employees to as many as 50 employees. She said the cost of negotiating with several different groups requires additional personnel to interpret and administer contracts. She explained this is a substantial cost to districts, and some of the rural districts simply do not have the resources to provide those services. She asserted currently there is no district which has several different bargaining units, but with the structure of the current statute, there is a possibility of this occurring. She stated when the bus drivers in Douglas County requested to be organized, the Board of Trustees denied the recognition because they believed a wall- to-wall unit including all classified employees would be more appropriate and more efficient. The bus drivers took the issue to the Employee Management Relation Board and were granted organization. She described this as the precedent for other employee groups to do so, which the food service employees did. She explained for those reasons, Douglas County School District would be interested in keeping all of the classified employees as one bargaining unit to keep the cost down, not only for Douglas County School District, but for other rural districts as well. She voiced strong support for S.B. 82. Senator O'Connell asked Ms. Ratzlaff when she spoke of keeping costs down, did she have any idea of dollar figures? Ms. Ratzlaff responded she did not have these figures available, but Dr. Hawkins did a cost projection for the Carson City School District. Dr. Hawkins testified the Carson City School District hires staff to negotiate with the four bargaining units. She stated the costs have been as high as $25,000 which is the equivalent of one full-time teacher's salary. Senator O'Connell asked what would change for the Carson City School District with S.B. 82? Dr. Hawkins responded the costs range is between $6,000 and $10,000 per year for just the classified employees unit. She stated if that figure is for one unit, one would need to multiply the costs by the number of units which break out. Ms. Brothwell spoke against S.B. 82. She provided a written statement to the committee (Exhibit J). She stated, "It is our desire to have one contract (wall-to-wall) to negotiate in each school district, but we strongly believe it's unlawful and discrimatory to mandate this all or nothing amendment." She distributed copies of a coloring book. (Exhibit K. Original is on file in Research Library.) Senator Raggio asked Ms. Brothwell the effect if the law mandated single units? Ms. Brothwell stated, "It is our interpretation that with the word 'single', if we were to have a request from a potential bargaining unit for representation (for instance in the case of the school bus drivers in Douglas County and they were the only ones who wanted to be represented at that point), we would have to (in order to go in and protect their rights and get them a negotiated agreement), we would have to go in and organize and organize people who weren't ready to be organized." Senator Raggio stated he does not interpret it that way. He asked if it mandates all of the unlicensed employees must negotiate as single unit. Ms. Brothwell said it is her interpretation for the whole district to be organized, or not at all. Senator Raggio indicated to Senator O'Connell that he wanted clarification. Senator O'Connell indicated she would ask Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst, to provide clarification. Sheralyn Kern, Bus Driver, Douglas County School District, testified against S.B. 82 by reading a written statement to the committee (Exhibit L). She explained the reasons the Douglas County school bus drivers created their own unit. Mike Langton stated to the committee and to Senator Raggio in particular that S.B. 82 does mandate all unlicensed employees negotiating as a single unit. He said the statute which has been enacted in this stated under [NRS] chapter 288 gives the right of every local government employee to choose to belong to an organization. He emphasized the mandate of one unit would take away the rights of some of the employees. Mr. Langton asserted when a community-of-interest group wants to establish a union, they must pass a 12-part test called the "Community-of- Interest" test. Mr. Langton stated the Douglas County School District Bus Drivers had to petition the Employee Management Relations Board (EMRB) and prove the bus drivers had a community-of-interest. He said under certain conditions in a rural school district, there may be one school where employees want to form a union, when the employees in the other schools in the district do not want to form a union. He explained under the current law, it is possible for the one group to form a union without mandating all of the employees of that district have union representation. He stated this option should not be taken away from the employees. He said he is adamantly opposed to the way the amendment is written. He expressed the EMRB is doing a good job of making the units prove a community-of-interest before the EMRB approves them as a unit. Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), read a written statement to the committee (Exhibit M) opposing S.B. 82. He stated NSEA is opposed to the bill for two reasons. He said the bill is ambiguous as drafted and does not serve the public interest. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Bellister what authority do the present groups have to be a single unit? He explained he understands they do have single units, he understands what the law says regarding community-of-interest, but he asked did not the law grant the groups the authority to be single units? Mr. Bellister stated currently nonlicensed employees can form a wall-to-wall unit which represents every job family in the nonlicensed employees or, as in Douglas County, the food service employees and the bus drivers elected to form groups separate from everyone else. He said nonlicensed employees have the right to form separate units as long as they have sufficient community-of-interest. He explained the amendment to require a single unit must require something different than what is being done now. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Etchemendy if this amendment is an attempt to mandate a single unit. Mr. Etchemendy testified "Yes, that is the intent." Senator O'Connell closed the hearing on S.B. 82. The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Teri J. Spraggins, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Ann O'Connell, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Government Affairs February 20, 1995 Page