MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-Second Session

March 5, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:07 a.m., on Wednesday, March 5, 2003.  Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman

Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman

Mr. Kelvin Atkinson

Mr. Chad Christensen

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Pete Goicoechea

Mr. Tom Grady

Mr. Joe Hardy

Mr. Ron Knecht

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Mr. Bob McCleary

Ms. Peggy Pierce

Ms. Valerie Weber

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel

Pat Hughey, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Marlena N. Hellwinkel, Trustee, Carson Valley Historical Society

Claudette Springmeyer, Comptroller, Douglas County Administrative Services Department

Bob Allgeier, Carson Valley Historical Society

Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association

Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO)

Lawrence Jacobsen, representing Lyon County, Douglas County and Carson City, and former State Senator

Scott MacKenzie, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association

Walter R. (Wally) Tarantino, Attorney at Law, Legal Counsel for the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, the Nevada Corrections Association, and the State Peace Officers Council

Gary Wolff, Teamsters Local No. 14, Nevada Highway Patrol Association

Ronald P. Dreher, President, Nevada Chapter Director, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada

John E. Dicks, Esq., Chairman, Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board

Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association

John Wagner, Nevada Republican Assembly

 

Chairman Manendo:

Good morning.  Madame Secretary, will you please take the roll.  [Roll taken.]  Please mark Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Williams, and Mrs. Koivisto present upon arrival.  Committee, please turn to the agenda, and I would like to go out of order to accommodate the esteemed Minority Leader Mr. Hettrick, your bill, Assembly Bill 199, and anybody else you would like to bring forward.

 

Assembly Bill 199:  Exempts proceeds from annual tax that counties may impose to support county museums, art centers and historical societies from limitation on allowed revenue from taxes ad valorem for counties. (BDR 20-157)

Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.  I am Lynn Hettrick from Assembly District 39.  Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you for taking us out of order.  I think your other bill may take some time, and I hope this bill is relatively simple.  So, we do appreciate your accommodation for these folks who would have to sit here for quite a while.  Are you ready for me to proceed, Mr. Chairman?

 

Chairman Manendo:

Yes, sir.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

Thank you.  I believe you have been passed out an amendment (Exhibit C).  We would like to amend the language slightly that is in this bill, and so I would ask each of you to look at that proposed amended language rather than the bill itself.  The intent of A.B. 199 is to allow the more rapidly growing counties to move the already allowed tax of one penny that they can levy for historical societies, museums, and the like, outside of the operating cap.  I want to make sure we are all on the same page.  The operating cap is the cap that is driven by growth plus 6 percent, and you cannot go over that by state law.  What happens is, the rapidly growing counties have growth that is sometimes greater than that 6 percent plus population, and it wedges against the cap for operating, and in these types of budgets, this tax does not get imposed.  Therefore, what happens is there is not money for the historical societies, museums, and the like.  They have nothing to operate on.  This is happening over and over again. 

 

What we are trying to do here is simply allow the county commissions to decide whether or not they want to include it in that operating cap.  If they can move it outside the cap, and they need to, this would allow them to do so.  If they choose not to move it outside of the cap, they do not have to.  The tax is already there.  We are not raising a tax.  We are simply allowing them to move it outside the cap or leave it in the cap, at their option.  That is what we are trying to do here.  Douglas County is in this situation right now.  The two museums that are down there have grown to the point that, if they are to fund them and operate them, they must have staff.  They have no way to fund the operations or the payroll of the staff.  So, that is the intent of this at that time.  County commissions would have to act to make anything happen and to move it outside the cap.

 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will take questions, or I have people who can answer the technical side of this better than I.

 

Marlena N. Hellwinkel, Trustee, Carson Valley Historical Society:

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  [Introduced herself]  As you all know, Nevada is full of history that dates back to years and years and years ago, and it is relevant that now we need to preserve and conserve that history.  It is getting to the point that we are going to lose it if we do not preserve it.  Douglas County is unique in the fact that we have 2 museums within 8 miles of each other, and both museums are run by the [Carson Valley] Historical Society.  We have over 100 volunteers that put in 9,500 hours a year.  That is equivalent to 4½ full-time, paid people.  We are now to the point where we need to have professional staff to operate our museums so we can show the community that we are able to preserve and conserve the collections in the proper way.  Other than that, the help that we can get with the staff payroll, the [Carson Valley] Historical Society can and has proven that it can meet the other expenses to keep the museums operational.  Thank you.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.

 

Claudette Springmeyer, Comptroller, Douglas County Administrative Services Department:

[Introduced herself]  Assemblyman Hettrick did a great job of pointing out how the operating tax rate works.  The important thing, I think, is that this is enabling legislation.  As he said, there is already the ability to tax this and there are other mechanisms, but this gives them the ability, should they choose, to pull that out of that operating tax cap that we deal with, not the 364.  Several counties are either at that limit or will be soon, and it gives the ability to pull this outside of that, if they should choose to.  I am happy to answer any questions on the specifics of the tax, if you have them.  Thank you.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.  Questions, Committee?

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

Mr. Chairman, if I may.  One point of clarification just to, again, make sure that everybody understands.  The 364 [$3.64 per $100 limitation on ad valorem tax levy—NRS 361.453(1)] would not be affected by this.  You could not pull this outside the cap and put it over the 364.  So, we are not raising the cap in any way.  We want to make sure everyone understands [that] this is the operating cap, not the total ad valorem tax cap.  I just want to clarify that.  We are not in any way affecting the cap.

Chairman Manendo:

Questions, Committee?  I do not see any.  Thank you.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

Once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and Committee members for allowing us to go first.  We do appreciate it.

 

Chairman Manendo:

No problem.  Do you have any other witnesses?

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

I have other witnesses, if they would like to testify.  I do not know if they feel the need or not, but if they feel the need, they are welcome.

 

Chairman Manendo:

They are welcome to come and go on record.  Come on, don’t be shy.

 

Bob Allgeier, Carson Valley Historical Society:

[Introduced himself]  I was chairman of the finance committee that studied the finance problem for the [Carson Valley] Historical Society and the museum operations.  I wanted to mention specifically that the [Carson Valley] Historical Society has taken certain important steps to generate a more stable supply of funding that can be used for maintenance, utility payments, office operations, janitorial staff, things of that nature, which amount to several tens of thousands of dollars a year.  They have imposed a visitor’s fee this past year, which has worked out very satisfactory.  We have also established an endowment trust committee and are taking steps to, hopefully, in the long run, completely wean ourselves from any financial support required by the county.  We would much prefer not to be funded in part by any taxes, but right at the present time, in order to proceed, we feel it is a necessity.  Thank you.

 

[Chairman Manendo and Assemblyman Hettrick thanked each other for their courtesies.]

 

Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO):

[Introduced himself]  Assemblyman Hettrick, in working on this bill, brought NACO [Nevada Association of Counties] in early to make sure that there were not provisions in there that would be of a concern of any of the counties in the state.  Having checked with everyone, we believe that this is an important piece of legislation, and everyone agrees with it, and we urge you to pass it.

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.  Senator?

 

Lawrence Jacobsen, representing Lyon County, Douglas County and Carson City, and former State Senator:

[Introduced himself]  I am a native of Douglas County and I would tell you that, many years ago, through my efforts and that of former Senator Henry Berrum, we transferred title from the school district for both museums to the [Carson Valley] Historical Society.  I cannot tell you how active the Society has been.  Marlena Hellwinkel is probably one of the real promoters of the museum area and a lot of activity is there.  Certainly, you are all invited to stop any time and take a look.  I think you would be impressed as to the artifacts that are there and the activities that go on.  Any questions, I would certainly try to answer them for you.  I would be happy to be your host there anytime. 

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.  Questions, Committee?  [There were none]  Thank you, gentlemen.  Anybody else speaking on Assembly Bill 199?  Any opposition?  [There was none]  I am going to close the hearing on Assembly Bill 199.  Mr. Knecht?

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Would you entertain a “do pass” motion at this point?

 

Chairman Manendo:

We are missing a Committee member, so I am going to wait.  We are going to open the hearing on Assembly Bill 65.  Mr. MacKenzie, and anybody else you want to bring up.  Good morning.

 

Assembly Bill 65:  Authorizes collective bargaining for certain state employees. (BDR 23-659)

 

Scott MacKenzie, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association:

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.  [Introduced himself]  I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak and explain A.B. 65, the state workers collective bargaining bill.  As I recall from our last meeting, there was some information requested, so I thought maybe I would start by dealing with that.  We have provided to the Chair a copy of my written testimony.  I hope folks got that.  The Personal Wage and Benefits Study, the Workplace Economic State Employee National Benefits Study, the AFSCME [American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees] research on collective bargaining, and then there was a request for rural wage information, which, unfortunately, in response to that, there was not a whole lot of information, but I did provide an insert from the personnel manual that shows the average wage of—which is this handout here that I think you all have (Exhibit D)—for the various counties and the rurals.  I apologize, but that is all the information that was available from [Nevada State Department of] Personnel on that.  Are there any questions regarding any of that information at this time?

 

Chairman Manendo:

Do all of the Committee members have the handout?  (Exhibit C)  Questions, Committee?  They are going to study this.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Also, we were asked to provide the turnover costs and also the hiring of a trained worked benefit, and we talked to [Nevada State Department of] Personnel about that, and they had absolutely no information on that.  When we asked them why, they said that each classification had its own unique training issues and that they had never done any studies to retain any data on that.  They had no information on that.  I apologize for that.

 

The other issue that came up is that there were some amendments that some of my colleagues wanted to make from other labor organizations and, also, we received a request from the university system [University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN)] also.  Do you want me to bring those forward now, or do you want me to go through the bill, and as we run into the section that applies to that, bring that up, or how do…

 

Chairman Manendo:

Let’s do that.  Let’s go through the bill and then when there is an amendment, stop us, let us know, so we can take note of that.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Do you want me to read line-by-line or basically summarize each of these sections and then if somebody has an interest in it, I could read it.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Yes, you can go section by section.  If we have a question, we will stop you.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Well, it [A.B. 65] starts out as:

 

An act relating to state employees; authorizing collective bargaining for certain state employees; creating a Board for Labor Relations for State Employees; providing for bargaining units and for their representatives; establishing procedures for collective bargaining and for making, revising and amending collective bargaining agreements; prohibiting certain unfair labor practices; authorizing the Superintendent of the State Printing Division of the Department of Administration to make certain labor agreements; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.”

 

The first section [of A.B. 65] basically deals with various ways for withholding monies.  Are there any questions on that, or would you like me to read that?

 

Chairman Manendo:

You do not have to read it.  Just go over an explanation of sections.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

It is basically just withholding monies and procedures for doing such.

 

The second section talks about what does not apply, what exclusions there are in various agencies, that type of thing.

 

The third [section of A.B. 65] talks about adding provisions.  It explains Chapter 288 of NRS [Nevada Revised Statutes] “is hereby amended by adding thereto the provisions set forth as Sections 4 through 50, inclusive, of this act.”  What that means is that [Sections] 4 through 50 of this document are the crux of the collective bargaining agreement.  That is where the “meat” of the agreement is.  After that, it basically goes into discussing the effects of NRS [Chapter] 288 and some changes thereto.  So, the majority of what we will be talking about this morning is Section 4 through Section 50.  Also, Section 5 through Section 17 is particularly important to pay attention to, because they describe the meaning of certain concepts.  Probably the most important concept is the definition of “employee,” because that will clarify quite a bit in the document if we understand that up front.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Committee, if you have a question, let me know and we can stop. 

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Section 4 describes the definitions of [Sections] 5 through 17 and the importance of them.

 

Section 5 describes the “bargaining unit” as described in Section 27, which we will approach and will give you a clearer definition.

Section 6 describes the meaning of the word “board”.

 

Section 7, “chief of the budget division”.

 

Section 8, “collective bargaining”.

 

Section 9, “confidential employee” and what the purpose of a confidential employee is.

 

Section 10, defines “employee,” which I think is particularly important, so if you don’t mind, I am going to read that.

 

“Employee” means a person who: is employed in the classified service of the State pursuant to chapter 284 of NRS, including, without limitation, persons employed in the classified service by the University and Community College System of Nevada; is employed by the Public Employees’ Retirement System and who is required to be paid in accordance with the pay plan for the classified service of the state; and is employed by any other employer that receives money from the state of Nevada if the National Labor Relations Board has refused to assert jurisdiction over the employer because the employer lacks the ultimate authority to determine the primary terms and conditions of employment and who is in a position similar to a position in the classified service of the state.

 

The term does not include… 

 

This is where we have one of the amendments.  (Exhibit E)  So, under Section 10, subsection 2(a), we would like to remove the language that is there currently and insert:

 

A managerial employee whose primary function is to administer and control the business of an agency, department or division of the state and who is vested with discretion and independent judgment with the general conduct and control of an agency, department or division of the State.  The Board shall determine whether the employment functions or relations of particular managerial employees preclude their inclusion in a bargaining unit.

 

That was an amendment offered by the Teamsters Union.

[Chairman Manendo and Assemblyman Collins asked for clarification regarding the exhibits that had been distributed, and Scott MacKenzie provided the necessary clarification].

 

Scott MacKenzie:

[A.B. 65, section 10.2](b) An employee who is not in the classified or unclassified service of the State pursuant to NRS 223.085;

 

A compositor, bindery operator, pressman or assistant who is employed pursuant to NRS 344.080 by the Superintendent of the State Printing Division of the Department of Administration; a confidential employee; an employee who is normally scheduled to work 20 hours or less per week, unless the employer is hired to avoid the provisions of sections 4 to 50, inclusive, of this act; and a temporary employee who is employed for a fixed period of 4 months or less.

 

So that outlines the definition of “employee.”

 

Section 11 [of A.B. 65] describes “employee organization.”

 

Section 12, “exclusive representative” defined.

 

Section 13, “executive department” defined.

 

Section 14 defines “mediation.”

 

Section 15, party exclusions.

 

Section 16, supplemental bargaining.

 

Section 17, “terms and conditions of employment”.  

 

Section 18 [of A.B. 65 reads as follows:]

 

The provisions of chapter 241 of NRS do not apply to any of the following if conducted for the purposes of Sections 4 to 50 inclusive, of this act:

 

Section 19, description of the Board [for Labor Relations for] State Employees.

 

I would like to make a comment at this time that Jim Wilkerson [Commissioner, State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board], if you remember, also had testimony at the last meeting and he said that his Board is prepared to assimilate the state workers board into their organization, and he has actually gone as far as to cost‑out the cost of doing so.  We are not opposed to doing that if he is interested in offering up an amendment on that, if that would save the state money.

 

Section 20 describes the Board and internal procedures.

 

Section 21, the Board’s entitlements.

 

Section 22, the Board will adopt regulations and procedures.

 

Section 23, the powers of the Board.

 

Section 24 describes how the Board may use subpoenas.

 

Section 25 protects employees’ rights.

 

Section 26, management’s rights.

 

Section 27 goes through the bargaining units as described.  I would also like to read this because this is where our other two amendments are going to take place:

 

Section 27.  The Board shall, by regulation, establish bargaining units on a statewide basis, including, without limitation, the bargaining units described in subsection 2.  The Board shall establish one bargaining unit for each of the following occupational groups and each such bargaining unit must include all supervisory employees at the working level of the occupational group:  Labor, maintenance, custodial and institutional employees, including, without limitation, employees of penal and correctional institutions who are not responsible for security at those institutions; administrative and clerical employees, including, without limitation, paralegals and employees whose work involves general office work, or keeping or examining records and accounts; technical aides to professional employees, including, without limitation, computer programmers, tax examiners, conservation employees and crew supervisors; professional employees, including, without limitation, physical therapists and other employees in medical and other professions related to health; employees, other than professional employees, who provide health care and personal care, including, without limitation, employees who care for children; officers of the Nevada Highway Patrol who hold the rank of sergeant or lower; adult and youth correctional employees, including, without limitation, classification caseworkers, group supervisors in correctional institutions and forensic specialists; employees, other than officers of the Nevada Highway Patrol and adult and youth correctional employees, who have the powers of a peace officer and whose work includes investigation, the enforcement of statutes, ordinances or regulations, or the preservation of public order, including, without limitation, all such employees of the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, the Transportation Services Authority and the Taxicab Authority; supervisory employees not otherwise included in other bargaining units.

 

Then we have two amendments.  We would like to add:  “(j) All employees of the Nevada print shop”  (Exhibit F).  This was submitted by CWA.  [Communications Workers of America]

 

Then “(k) All employees of the University of Nevada and Community College system”  (Exhibit G).  This was submitted by the university system.

 

Chairman Manendo:

We have (j), and then you want to add (k), and that would be all employees of the Community College System?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

All employees of the University of Nevada and Community College System [of Nevada].  They requested that separate unit.

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

I have a couple questions.  First, Section (h), does that include P&P?  [Nevada Division of Parole and Probation]

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Yes, I believe it does.

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

Then on the amendment about the University and Community College System [of Nevada], should that not specify classified or is that somewhere else?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

That comes under the definition of “employee,” so we don’t have to specify it, but because of the definition of “employee,” it means “classified employee.”

 

Chairman Manendo:

Who is proposing amendment (k)?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Ray Thomas, who is with UCCSN.  He is their general counsel.  He actually faxed you a FAX, and I called him yesterday, and this was the agreement that we made.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thomas J. Ray.  CWA is?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Communication Workers of America.  I’ll just continue reading this section then.

 

[A.B. 65, Section 27, subsection 3.]  This Section does not prohibit the Board from including within an occupational group employees other than those specified for that group.  The Board shall, by regulation, establish the exact classifications of employees within each bargaining unit.  The Board may assign a new classification to a bargaining unit based upon the similarity of the new classification to other classifications within the bargaining unit.  The Board shall not change an established bargaining unit arbitrarily. 

 

As used in this section:  “Professional employee” means an employee engaged in work that:  Is predominantly intellectual and varied in character as opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical or physical work; involves the consistent exercise of discretional and judgment in its performance; is of such a character that the result accomplished or produced cannot be standardized in relation to a given period; and requires advanced knowledge in a field of science or leaning customarily acquired through a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in an institution of higher learning, as distinguished from general academic education, an apprenticeship or training in the performance of routine mental or physical processes.

 

“Supervisory employee” means an employee who has authority to:  Hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward or discipline other employees, or who has the responsibility to direct such employees; or adjust the grievances of other employees or effectively recommend such an action, if the exercise of that authority requires the use of independent judgment and is not of a routine or clerical nature.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

[Section] 28 [of A.B. 65], Board may designate an employee organization if over 50 percent membership.  That basically says that if you prove that you represent more than 50 percent of the workers, they will automatically appoint you as the employee representative.

 

[Section] 29, if no employee organization is exclusive representative, it talks about that.

 

[Section] 30, if the Board orders an election.

 

[Section] 31, the Board presides over all elections.

 

[Section] 32, the Board may designate an employee organization over more than one unit.  Currently with the amendments, that would make 11 units.

 

[Section] 33, adds description and responsibilities to exclusive representative.

 

[Section] 34, exclusive representative will negotiate with the Governor or agent.

 

[Section] 35, Governor shall sign and enforce agreement.

 

[Section] 36, negotiations timeline.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I’m sorry.  Mr. MacKenzie, we have a question.  Is that on 36, Mr. Knecht?

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Actually, it is on the last half dozen.  We are going through these so fast, and there is so much text there, Mr. MacKenzie.  I’m just wondering, is there anywhere in there, and I would think it would be in these sections, any “no strike” provision, or is that not part of the bill?

Scott MacKenzie:

No, there is a “no strike” provision, although I cannot tell you exactly where it is, but there is one in here.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

I will find it, or you will let me know.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Yes, it does exist.

 

[Section] 37, conditions of appointment of mediator.

 

[Section] 38, conditions of impartial arbitrator.

 

[Section] 39, arbitrator may use a final offer as a technique to settle the contract.

 

[Section] 40, parties may agree to amend decision of the arbitrator.

 

[Section] 41, submit outcome of negotiations.

 

[Section] 42, does not require an appropriation from Legislature; how that affects the agreement.

 

[Section] 43, during any session, parties may agree to a revised agreement.

 

[Section] 44, the Legislature makes an appropriation.

 

[Section] 45, supplemental bargaining.

 

[Section] 46, conflicts with provisions of NRS.

 

[Section] 47, prohibited practice of Executive Department.

 

[Section] 48, establish a party has committed a prohibited act.

 

[Section] 49, may sue or be sued.

 

[Section] 50, judicial review.

 

I realize we ran through that, but there is a lot of text, so I am not sure [but] if there are any specifics that you want me to go through, I’ll be happy to.  But that is the crux of the collective bargaining agreement.  The rest of the document, as I said before, has to do with NRS Chapter 288 and changes that were made in the last session, I believe.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

Mr. MacKenzie, I have a quick question for you.  As far as your reference to [NRS] Section 288, just for comparison’s sake, I’m trying to understand all the language here, how this compares to the current agreements, like for example, what SEIU [Service Employees International Union] has in Clark County and the city or the county collective bargaining down there.  From a high level, can you just give me a brief answer, how this type of agreement, if it’s enacted, how it would be different from the county, or is it the same as what is down in Clark County?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

This primarily sets up the mechanism for achieving collective bargaining.  This sets up the rules by which you function.  It’s actually quite similar to the county and the city and how they function and how they achieve collective bargaining.  The rules are pretty much the same, and they are pretty much standard with little exception throughout the country, as far as I could tell.  So, I think this is a pretty standardized way to achieve collective bargaining.  I do not think there is anything that I have read that’s extraordinary here.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

Mr. Chairman, if I may?  Can you think of any significant changes—or is it really the same if I were to read the two different bargaining agreements through—would I notice anything structural, because this is a state bill and the counties are related to the counties.  Are there any significant functional changes?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

If there is, I am not aware of them.  I think it is quite similar.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

That answers my question.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.  And we do have an answer to Mr. Knecht’s question, Ms. O’Grady?

 

Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel:

With regard to the “no strike” provision in Section 35, subsection 2 [of A.B. 65], it just states that each collective bargaining agreement must not authorize any conduct that would violate the provisions of the no strike provisions.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Questions on Section 35?  [There were none.]  Thank you.  Any other questions up to [Section] 50?  [There were none.]  You left off at Section 50, and Ms. O’Grady is going to talk to us about the remaining sections. 

 

Eileen O’Grady:

[Exhibit H (Explanation of Assembly Bill No. 65) was distributed.]  Sections 51 through most of the rest of the bill just change the reference from Chapter 288 to the provisions that just encompass the local government collective bargaining sections, because now the new collective bargaining provisions for state employees will be put in the same chapter as the local one, and we just need to distinguish between those two sections.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

The only thing I would like to add is I received a document this morning that I have not had a chance to review on the way over here from Carol Thomas who used to be with the Employee Management Board, and I have not had a chance to cipher through the costs here, but it is my understanding in talking to Jim Wilkerson that he felt that the cost of doing this was about 17 cents per member per month.  The union would be happy to pick up that cost.  I’m not sure whether he meant that that was the entire cost or what he felt should be the union’s cost involved with this.  I mean, he would have to answer that. 

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

If we may go back to the comparison page (Exhibit D) between the city and county government benefits and salaries versus state salaries.  I did a little check on my computer to determine that the averages that you have for the cities and counties are not weighted averages by the number of employees that each have.  So, for example, you have got Carson City, Douglas County, Elko, Elko County, Washoe County Airport Authority, Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority—these are among the smaller groups there and they also have the lower salaries.  I think if you did this on a weighted average basis, the difference between state and city and county would increase to something in excess of 30 percent that you have over here at the bottom line.

Scott MacKenzie:

Okay.

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

I just want to make sure on the structure of this, if I could understand it a little more.  There is a lot to read, and I appreciate your walking us through it.  It is a lot to digest in a short period of time, even through I’ve had the bill, certainly, before today.  If you could give me an idea of what the structure is, because I’m interested, obviously, in the money side of it, as you might imagine, and all of us probably are.  The board to be set up is supposed to be three members, and they are appointed by—and all of that goes through there—and they are going to need to actually set up regulations which are probably going to take more time at the front end to do that.  Then I think you said that there were 11 bargaining units that.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

With the 2 amendments that we have offered up, it brings it to 11.

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

If those were included, it is 9, 10 and 11?  How many members total do you perceive would be covered by the all new Board?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Probably about 16,500 statewide would be broken into the 11 units, and I have no idea what the number of each unit is and how that breaks down.  That includes the Community College System.

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

If I could follow up.  16,500 approximately.  That is all employees in those 11 areas?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Yes.

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

So, they all would be including˿

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Classified employees.

Assemblywoman Weber:

So, they would automatically be covered or would it be a choice for them to be a party in it?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

They would have a choice of whether they wish to join the union, but the organization, it would be the exclusive representative, would be responsible for representing them and, you know, if they had a grievance or such, whereas right now, if you are a state employee, we have the right to refuse representation, state employees, whether they are a member or not.  But, if we had a bargaining unit, any member of that bargaining unit, we would be compelled to represent them whether they were a member [or not].  Just to make sure it is clear, the group of workers within that bargaining unit would vote.  They would have a choice who they are represented by, and they would also have a choice not to be represented by anybody, if they chose not to be.

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

And if I might follow up just one more time.  So that would be that 50 percent portion which I’m trying to flip through and I cannot find right now.  So, I just wanted to make sure to resort back to that part of the section if you will.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Yes.

 

Assemblywoman Weber:

Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.  Mr. Hardy?

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Mr. Chair, a naïve question.  What is the benefit to the union?  The union has been up front saying they would be willing to pay the 17 cents per employee per year.  What are the union dues, typically?  What would the employee, if 50 percent vote for a particular union to represent them, accrue to the union in so doing?

 

Scott Mackenzie:

Well, whatever percentage chose to be members of the union, our union dues are 1 percent of their base pay, which is roughly about $28 to $33 dollars, somewhere in there, depending on how much money you make. 

Assemblyman Hardy:

That is on the average that you are quoting—

 

Scott MacKenzie:

I guess so.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

So, 1 percent of the 42,000—is that what I am looking at?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Yeah.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

So, there would have to be a 4 and a 2 in there somewhere to get an average of 1 percent.  $420 a year.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

A year.  The advantage to the union, to answer your question on that, is that it gives us a remedy to actually do something beneficial to the employees whereas right now it is quite frustrating under the current state regulations because, for example, in a grievance, we go before an employee-management committee and there is no case law to discuss grievances.  So, we have arbitrary decisions coming out all over the state here where we have the same situation, and the remedies are completely different.  Whereas, when you have a case law which collective bargaining affords, there is a consistency, and we contend that in Nevada, if you are a state employee, there is punitive instruction, whereas all the courts across the land have continually ruled that corrective action is what discipline is all about, not punitive.  But, if you have arbitrary decisions coming up all over the state on the same issues, that is punitive, and so in Nevada, if you are disciplined, it can be considered punitive which has been scorned by all the courts in the United States repeatedly.  We are looking for remedy to that because our people come to us and say, “How come he got this decision, and I got that decision?” and we really do not know what to say except there is no case law in order to review the outcome and dispensation of a grievance.

 

Then you take it further, you go to the hearing officer level.  The hearing officers are under contract with the state, and if their performance is bad, they look at their contract.  We view that as kind of a fixed deal, frankly, where we cannot get any real remedy to our people at the hearing level.  So, there is frustration all over the state with state workers that we have a real difficult time just solving simple problems.  It is just like it’s right past the ladder and nobody wants to deal with it, because there are 220 deputy attorney generals in this state who can just take it out of a manager’s hand, and the management does not really have to deal with issues and problems.

 

I submit that that is a huge problem for the state of Nevada, that if they cannot solve simple workplace issues on a day-to-day basis, you are creating a real bad environment for the workers, and it creates an abusive situation with a small number of managers who recognize that there is no accountability to them whatsoever.  That is where we are coming from.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.  Mr. MacKenzie—and I apologize—when you referenced the 17 cents per member per month, can you explain what that means?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

This was a conversation that was given to me over the phone yesterday, so I will do my best to try and explain what he was saying.  The cost of running the organization that would oversee collective bargaining for state workers has a price, and somehow the Employee Management Board in Las Vegas has figured out how to cost that out.  So, they were basically telling us that the union share of that would be 17 cents a member, which we would be happy to pay.  That would defray the cost to the state of the employee.  I mean, there seems to be this worry that collective bargaining is going to cost the state a ton of money.  They seem to have figured out how much it is going to cost, and they were telling us that our share of it would be 17 cents a member, approximately $38,000 a year, if we represented all 11 units.  So, I think that the concern about the cost to the state is somewhat overstated, and that was basically my point. 

 

Chairman Manendo:

Who was that conversation with?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Jim Wilkerson.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Our fiscal note on the biennium is half a million.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Over what period of time?  Biennium?

 

Chairman Manendo:

Yes.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Well, I’m not sure where Mr. Wilkerson — Maybe he was just talking about strictly the cost to his organization.  I don’t know.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Yeah, we are just supposed to make sure if it is right or wrong to do it and let the money guys do that, because you can throw dollars all over the place on trying to figure out what it costs for grievances and arbitration and negotiation stuff, and most of the time it’s no more than what they have already been spending to date to screw around with people.  Thank you.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Mr. Chairman, if I might add to that comment?  Currently, the State of Nevada Employees Association [SNEA] is involved in a lawsuit with the Director of [Nevada Department of] Corrections.  Just in the last three months, we have spend $40,000 in legal bills just to try to ask for respect for our first amendment right of the Constitution of the United States.  I have no idea how much the state has spent on that, but I assume that their legal bills are also adding up, and that is a right that we are guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.  We are fighting for it in federal court.  So, I think that this is a bargain compared to what is going on and the cost of the legal battles that go on between the union and the state to solve simple issues that, if there was a mechanism that would deal with it, many of the managers would be forced to sit down and talk to their employees.  The way it is right now, they could just pass it on and not worry about it, and there is something inherently wrong with that system. 

 

Chairman Manendo:

I think during the first hearing, there was some discussion about how collective bargaining doesn’t just deal with pay; it deals with respect and quality of life of the members and dignity.  We have several questions.  Mr. McCleary?

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. MacKenzie, I am confused about something.  I’m not a lawyer, and this is confusing for me.  I‘ve read it twice, and I heard something that I am concerned about, and I just wanted to clarify.  The state workers do not have to become members of the union if you get the right to collective bargaining.

Scott MacKenzie:

That’s correct.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

And that means they do not have to pay dues.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

No.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

That concerns me somewhat because I see a good example on the Strip where you have the unions that go and they represent these people, and they fight the battles and get the concessions for the workers.  Of course, the union people benefit from that, but then all the non-union people, it seems to fall upon them also.  It just does not seem fair to me.  If you have a comments on that.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

That is the state of the labor movement in Nevada currently under right-to-work.  People have a choice whether they want to belong to a collective bargaining unit or not.  There is no compulsory membership.  I think the culinary union runs probably between 70 and 80 percent.  I was actually the secretary-treasurer for the Culinary Workers Union in northern Nevada for 10 years, and we kept a high membership because we were very, very proactive and, yeah, it is very difficult when you get a member who gets fired, and you have to represent him and you spend $25,000 on their legal fees, and they refuse to join the union.  I think that is the discussion of the “fair share” situation in Nevada.  If we are going to have right-to-work, we might want to consider fair share.

 

With the state workers, since we do not have collective bargaining and there are 16,000 workers, there is actually this competitive field for unions to represent workers, and we are tripping over each other in all these classifications and quite often at odds with each other.  For example, we are at odds with the Nevada Corrections Association about what is going on in corrections right now, and it is extremely frustrating to have a situation where company unions are allowed to exist.  They were outlawed in the private sector in 1930, yet in Nevada right now, we have company unions that are at the direction and control of management, and it is an extremely difficult situation.  I don’t think the average person has any idea what state workers are dealing with in classified service in terms of how frustrating it is to just try to get something done.  Anything.  So, I appreciate you bringing that up, because this is a very, very difficult environment for unions to do what they are meant to do for the employee.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Different bill, different day. 

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Yes.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

I recall, Mr. MacKenzie, from our last session on this bill that you mentioned you had 30 or so states that allow collective bargaining.  Do you happen to have that list, or can you supply who it is that does and does not, or do we already have it?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

You already have it.  That was part of the information that I supplied to you.  [AFSCME Rate and Local Collective Bargaining Arrangements (Exhibit I)] 

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

Okay. 

 

Scott MacKenzie:

It is the larger sheet that you have.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

I’ll see if I can find mine, otherwise I will request staff supply it.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie.

 

Scott MacKenzie:

You’re welcome.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Are you talking about this?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Yes.

 

Chairman Manendo:

The Committee does not have that.  We will make copies and make sure everyone gets a copy today.  Questions?  [There were none.]  Anything else you would like to add?

 

Scott Mackenzie:

No.  Just thank you to Mr. Chair and the Committee for your patience, and thank you on behalf of all state workers.

 

Chairman Manendo:

This is a huge bill.  It is complicated, and we felt it was necessary to review it section by section.  There were several requests made to me by [Committee] members that they wanted to spend some more time on the bill.  So, we appreciate your time in walking us through it. 

 

Scott MacKenzie:

If anybody has any questions, I am at your disposal on this.  It was difficult to deal with all this information in this forum.  I would be happy to meet with anybody and go over anything, any questions, anything like that.  Thank you very much.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.  Wally, did you want to come up and testify?

 

Walter R. (Wally) Tarantino, Attorney at Law, Legal Counsel for the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, the Nevada Corrections Association, and the State Peace Officers Council:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.  [Introduced himself]  Obviously, I understand that the Committee more than likely has the minutes of the last meeting, and I really do not want to repeat the testimony that was provided earlier.  I understand that this was an opportunity for Mr. MacKenzie to walk the Committee through the bill, some of the technical aspects.  During the last meeting, we did provide testimony as far as the philosophical, ideological reasons why we think that collective bargaining for state employees is long overdue.  So, I am not going to repeat any of that testimony, and I can certainly answer any questions that the Committee members may have. 

 

The one thing that I would like to comment on is when Mr. MacKenzie was talking about the 17 cents—well, initially the cost was 17 cents, and then he clarified a little bit later that he said it would be the union’s share or the employee association’s share.  Obviously, that is something that has to be clarified.  If the total cost was 17 cents per member per month for the 16,500 employees or however many there may be for the LGEMRB [Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board] to be the watchdog agency for a collective bargaining bill, I would be concerned if that was the total cost.  If it was a share, then I wouldn’t be as concerned.  You wouldn’t want to have a situation where one party, the employee organization, was paying for the entire bill, and the employer was not having some kind of a share.  You would not want to create a stigma that one group of a bilateral process was funding the Board itself, and you would not want to create that stigma or potential conflict.  If it was a share, I would be wholeheartedly in support of that.

 

In other words, if the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board were to provide an amendment to oversee in lieu of a board as the current bill draft provides, and there were costs associated to the employee associations as well as the employer and they were matching costs, I do not think there would be any objection to that.  But that is something that obviously needs to be clarified.  With that, I would also like to thank SNEA and Mr. MacKenzie for accommodating the amendment that we provided as provided by the Teamsters, and point out that there is still one area of concern.  Mr. MacKenzie and I will agree to consult again in the future and discuss that, but that is a proposed amendment to Section 32(2)(b) of the bill [A.B. 65], and Section 32(2)(b) says:

 

An officer of the Executive Department may not, pursuant to NRS 281.129, withhold any amount of money from the salary or wages of an employee within the bargaining unit to pay dues or similar fees to an employee organization other than the employee organization that is the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit.

 

The additional amendment that we sought was to strike that language in its entirety, and the reason is this—we understand that there can only be one exclusive bargaining representative.  To have more than one would be utter chaos.  It just would not work.  The groups that I represent are willing to compete if there are elections, if they cannot demonstrate that they currently represent more than 50 percent of a proposed bargaining unit.  The concern with only allowing the one group to have a payroll deduction is this—the Nevada Highway Patrol Association has been in existence since the 1970s, and at this stage they represent well over 50 percent of the Nevada Highway Patrol, which would be a designated unit in this bill.  That is not to say that there is a guarantee that they would be the bargaining representatives if there were an election.

 

There are competing organizations out there, not only SNEA, but the Department of Public Safety Employees Association is a group that has formed within the last year, and they are in direct competition with the Nevada Highway Patrol Association for troopers.  So, conceivably, there could be an election.  The point is that there would only be one certified bargaining representative, and that certified bargaining representative certainly would be entitled to payroll deduction.  But I do not think you want to exclude the other group.  Hypothetically, if the Nevada Highway Patrol Association were not to win an election, they still have over 300 members and provide $20,000 of life insurance for all of the members at no cost.  If they were not to be designated as the certified representative, it should still have the ability to have payroll deduction for any of those employees that wanted to maintain that $20,000 life insurance.

 

I understand that other groups, SNEA included, also have some type of fringe benefits for their employees or their members.  I would think that they would be in the same category.  If they were to compete in an election and not be the successful certified bargaining representative, their former members should still have the ability to maintain membership.  SNEA would not be able to represent at that stage, either for collectively bargaining or grievance procedures, but for purposes of insurance or any other type of fringe benefits that the organization provides, those former members should have the ability to be maintaining membership which is solely for the purpose of those benefits.

 

Obviously, without payroll deduction, the organizations do not want to be bill collectors and chasing their members or former members to collect the dues, and I am sure the employees themselves would not want to be hounded by someone on a monthly basis.  So, that is the concern that we have.  I’m confident we can work out some language with SNEA as this goes through the process.  We do not want to offer an amendment today.  We do not want to derail the deliberations of the Committee at this point in time.  What we are basically saying is we are in support of this bill draft.  We hope that the Committee, when it comes time, when they deliberate and vote on this issue, that they will support this bill draft and report it to the Assembly.  Thank you.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Mr. Tarantino, the Highway Patrol is currently represented by a collective bargaining entity?

 

Wally Tarantino:

No, sir.  State employees do not enjoy the privileges of collective bargaining, so what you have with state employees, unlike cities and counties, is you have a membership — employee organizations have members, and basically it is up to the employer as to what level of participation, what level of dialogue, that you enjoy with that particular employer.  As the Chair was referencing somewhat this morning, one of the concerns about collective bargaining is [that] it is much more than wages and fringe benefits, it is just the ability to sit down and talk, try to resolve problems.  Right now, I do not know how many state agencies we have, 50, 60, whatever have you, and you have a different environment.  What this bill will do is create a level playing field where you will have one set of rules where an employer would be obligated to sit down and discuss problems with the certified bargaining representative.

 

So, right now, the Nevada Highway Patrol Association represents over 300 Nevada Highway Patrol sworn troopers.  You also have some troopers that belong to SNEA.  You have troopers that belong to the Department of Public Safety Employees Association.  You have troopers that maybe belong to other groups.  Every single one of those employees has the ability to have their representative come in and speak for them, and that is where you have inconsistency, where you have at times utter chaos, because that is the way that the law is now.  What you have in the Nevada Revised Statutes and the Nevada Administrative Code are provisions for any employee, whether they belong to an employee group or not, to have someone come in and speak for them.  It does not have to be NHPA [Nevada Highway Patrol Association] or SNEA.  It could be their uncle, or their aunt could come in and say, “I’m representing John Doe today.”  That is what the law provides.  This obviously provides the stability that has been much needed.

 

As I explained, and I hate to repeat the testimony from several weeks ago, I represent several state groups.  The Nevada Highway Patrol, for example, has had a seniority policy since the early 80s where their employees, whether they belong to a group or not, have a seniority policy where they can bid for shifts and days off.  It is a gratuity.  Collective bargaining would give groups the ability to, in a collective bargaining agreement, provide that you will bid for shifts and days off and maybe even assignments by seniority.  What has been in place with the Nevada Highway Patrol since the 70s can be taken away tomorrow by the whim and caprice of a management official.

 

Conversely, I have also represented the Nevada Corrections Association since 1989 and only recently have they been willing to embark on a pilot program for seniority where you would bid, not for assignments, but for shifts and days off.  So, they have not had this same luxury and that is fine, the law provides the same.  If you can agree with something with your employer, that is fine, but it is a gratuity.  It is not something that is grounded in statute.  We do not have a collective bargaining agreement for state employees.  We have the NAC, the NRS, and whatever policies and procedures groups can agree upon.

 

Some state agencies go out of their way to refuse to recognize employee groups.  It is as simple as that.  You can call a director or a division chief and ask for a meeting, and if the chief wants to meet with you, he will meet with you.  If he does not want to meet with you, he won’t.  Collective bargaining levels the playing field, and there will be a common obligation on both parties to sit down and meet regularly and discuss problems.  That is what we are seeking.  That is long overdue. 

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Mr. Chairman, I did not know my question was so complicated.  Thank you.

 

Wally Tarantino:

You’re welcome.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Rather than telling us all the groups you represent, this is a very simple bill.  It is common sense, whatever trade.  Whether you are carpenter, lawyer, doctor, plasterer, nurse—I don’t care what your trade—it’s very simple.  You want to be treated fairly and work in unison with your employer.  This allows consistent, fair treatment from both sides.  So, if you just say that, instead of getting into all these paycheck deductions and all this stuff —

 

People that do not get a paycheck do not know what that means.  These guys just live off of luxury.  Let’s keep it down to the working guys, simple level, and say that this is the thing that makes for the state to work consistently with its employees, and that the rules do not change when a new director is hired, or a new governor is elected, or when the powers of a party change in the house, but that it is a consistent, fair way to treat our employees and this real simple language to do that with.  Do that other stuff out in negotiations.  Just pass this thing and quit covering it up.  Okay?  Can you respond to that in a simple answer?

 

Wally Tarantino:

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I would like to adopt the comments of Assemblyman Collins and say that this is a fair bill and it is going to help workers and employers and the state and the community it serves, and we hope that you will adopt it.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you, Mr. Collins.  Any other questions?  [There were none.]  Thank you very much for your testimony.  Mr. Wolff?

 

Gary Wolff, Teamsters Local No. 14, Nevada Highway Patrol Association:

[Introduced himself]  I just wanted to make a couple of comments here.  You are right.  This is a very simple issue of fairness and equity for all state employees.  Last session, to answer Mr. McCleary’s question, I think to clear up one area on… It seems every time we bring this bill up, somebody throws a fiscal note on it to some horrendous amount of money.  Last session, we passed a very good benefit program dealing with sick leave, and one of the agencies in the state threw a fiscal note on the paying out of sick leave of $11 million, and everybody fell over and fainted and kicked around the building and everything else.

 

Coming to the reality, this sick leave bill has probably saved millions of dollars and the reality is that payouts have been less than $1 million over two years.  So, fiscal notes have a way of putting a dim picture on collective bargaining.  The reality is collective bargaining will keep you out of courts because the inconsistencies and rulings at EMC meetings, hearings officers, and everything else that my esteemed colleague, Mr. Tarantino, pointed out, leaves us little choice, as SNEA has pointed out.  They are in court now, and everyone spends a great deal more money litigating things because of inconsistencies and creating a fair playing field.  I urge you to support this bill in fairness for all state employees.  Thank you.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.  Do you happen to know how much the state spends in litigation per year?

 

Gary Wolff:

You go into that through an audit.  I will tell you one thing.  On one recent case I think is famous, and I do not want to get into it right now, a very simple case that Mr. Tarantino handled that should have been handled very easily, I can easily estimate one case cost the state over $100,000 in preparation.  I know it cost Mr. Tarantino—we talked about it—close to $40,000 of his own time involved with the association.  I handled a case that was absolutely ridiculous to even take into an EMC hearing, and I can estimate that case cost the state well in excess of $100,000.  We were successful in that case, but it is being appealed now by the state, and I can guarantee that it is going to cost him another $100,000.  You start auditing what these things cost, and that is up to your bean counters and your money crunchers over in Ways and Means, I think you would really have an eye-opening experience with what these cases cost.  It is unbelievable.  Collective bargaining is going to save you money, because you are going to sign an agreement that says, “I agree, you agree” and that is the playing field we are in.  If you violate this, there is no litigation because you signed an agreement.  So, I think this is a lot more than salaries; this is fairness.  Mr. Collins is right and everybody here ˿ this is not something with horns on it.  This thing is fair to employees. 

 

Ronald P. Dreher, President, Nevada Chapter Director, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada:

[Introduced himself]  I would just like to make four comments regarding the bill regarding certain sections with some concerns I had.  First of all, as I testified the last time when I appeared before this Committee, we definitely support A.B. 65, but there are some changes which I will address with Mr. MacKenzie, and I did prior to this Committee meeting this morning.

 

The first one was under Section 17 on page 5 that deals with the conditions and terms of employment.  It has been my experience in the 20 years that I have been doing this and representing the people under Nevada Revised Statutes [Chapter] 288, that what needs to be placed in there would be the words “discipline and discharge” as one of the mandatory things and what defines that.  “Grievance” is just too open, so I will address that, and I wanted you to be aware of that.  “Discipline and discharge” should be put along with “salaries and wages,” “hours and working conditions,” and “grievances,” because that is a very real part of what we go through. 

 

The second part would be Section 19 on the same page that deals with the Board for Labor Relations [for State Employees].  As you heard Mr. MacKenzie testify to, Mr. Wilkerson, I believe, is preparing or will prepare an amendment that says, “Let’s merge this with the Nevada Local Government Employee‑Management Relations Board.”  The third part would deal with Section 27 ˿

 

Chairman Manendo:

Section 27 you were referencing?

 

Ronald Dreher:

Yes, Mr. Chairman.  If I could continue.  It would be subsection 2(h).  Just for the record, we have defined in that a couple of law enforcement associations and, as I said last time, if we are going to define a couple of them, then perhaps we may be better off defining all of the state law enforcement agencies that we would think need to be included, or none, because you have a variety of them.  There is, to give you some examples, the Gaming Control Investigators, the Attorney General Investigators, the Secretary of State Investigators—there are all kinds, brand inspectors, everybody that falls in that.  We have a definition under NRS [Chapter] 289 that deals with all law enforcement.  I mean, obviously, when I first read section (h), it appeared to be inclusive of all law enforcement, but then it defines, just for example, the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, the transportation services, and the [Nevada] Taxicab Authority, which are only 3 groups out of at least 15 or 20, and that would be a concern I have with the bill.  As long as it is understood, and we put on the record that section (h) covers all classified law enforcement people, then, obviously, we do not have a problem with that.  We just need to clarify that. 

 

And then, lastly, would be Section 82 that deals with who does the appointing, and who doesn’t do the appointing.  Currently, under NRS [Chapter] 288 and under the Nevada Administrative Code [Chapter] 288, there is a procedure in place for who sits on the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board.  It has been our experience over the years that while they do not always rule in our favor, obviously it is a very good way of handling disputes when it gets to that level.  It seems to me that Section 82 then changes that, and I would have a concern with that because what I have said before is we would like to see this bill merged into a system that you already have in place, so it is very easy to do.

 

I don’t know if we would be expanding that Board by adding these other people on there, or if it would be just saying, “Okay, if Mr. Wilkerson, the Commissioner of the [Local Government] Employee‑Management Relations Board, comes up with an amendment to this bill that says, “Let’s merge these groups,“ and everybody gets on the same page, and we all agree to do that, then do we really need Section 82, if we already have a procedure in place for who sits on that Board and who does not?  Those are, basically, the only concerns that I have with the bill.  We definitely support it; it is long overdue.  Thank you very much.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.  Do you have all the suggested changes in writing? 

 

Ronald Dreher:

Mr. Chairman, I will put them in writing for you.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Can you get that to me today?

 

Ronald Dreher:

Yes, I can.

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.  Questions, Committee?  Mr. Collins?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Are they going to clarify that (h)?  The way I read it, it covers everybody that has got POST [Peace Officers Standards and Training] training.  Do you need a clarified statement on that on Page 10?  Looks like to me it covers everybody in the world.

 

Eileen O’Grady:

I agree with Mr. Collins.  I think it applies to all peace officers other than the ones that are listed in (f) and (g).  The references to the Public Utilities Commission, and transportation, and services authority, those are just examples and not the full range of whom it covers.

 

Ronald Dreher:

I’d like to testify again.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Yes.

 

Ronald Dreher:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Again, Ron Dreher.  I won’t include that section then based on Legal Counsel’s thinking.  I will just give you the amendments on the other 3 sections that we had, if that is all right.

 

Chairman Manendo:

That’s fine.  Anyone else speaking in favor of Assembly Bill 65?  Sir?  Good morning.

 

John E. Dicks, Esq., Chairman, Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board

Good morning.  Thank you.  [Introduced himself]  I have two colleagues, Ms. Barengo and Ms. Trost that are on the Board with me.  Ms. Barengo is from Reno and Ms. Trost is from Las Vegas.  Our offices are located in Las Vegas, and our Commissioner is there.  You have heard his name, Mr. Jim Wilkerson.

 

I am here to support the position he has taken in some previous testimony and also give you my particular view on how this bill might be dealt with in an efficient way.  Senator Dodge, about 20 or 25 years ago, introduced our current statute, NRS [Chapter] 288, and the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board has administered that act for the last 20 or 25 years.  It essentially is patterned after the National Labor Relations Board and the National Labor Relations Act on the federal level.  However, it is specifically for local governments, employees of those governments, and the associations that represent those employees.  This includes quite a variety of employers—counties, cities, sheriffs, police departments, fire departments, improvement districts, hospitals, school boards, etc.  So we have had quite an experience with a variety of employers in the state over the years.

 

A.B. 65 now provides collective bargaining for state government employees, and I must say to you that what the Board feels about collective bargaining rights for state employees is uncertain.  We have not discussed that.  So my thought for you in that regard is my own personal thought, and that is that this is a process that civilizes and brings order and discipline to relationships between employers and employees and their organizations.  In my view, that is a good thing.  [A.B.] 65 would create a new agency, and Lord only knows what that will cost.  I assure you, initially, there would be some high expenses, I think, in sorting things out—what is the new case law to be, competing organizations for the same employees, the elections that would create, etcetera.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I’m sorry, you are in favor of this bill?

 

John Dicks:

Well, I must say, I signed up, and I checked that I was opposed to it for the reason that my real position is this should be dovetailed into [NRS Chapter] 288 and apply that to state employees.  So, I do not know whether I’m in favor of [A.B.] 65 or against it.  It seems to me like it creates an additional agency, a lot of additional expense, and some other things I will explain here that probably we don’t need in this state, because we already have an agency.  So, maybe put a check in each box as to whether I support or not [A.B.] 65.  Let me assure you that most of the hearings I go into, I go into with a tabula rasa but when I come out, I make up my mind.  Thank you for pointing that out, but essentially I’ve made a note that I’m not really opposed to this bill, but I believe there is a better way of getting to the end result.

 

What we propose is to place the state employees under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board by some amendment to NRS [Chapter] 288, so it would be necessary for an amending clause.  I do not have that for you this morning, but I think it is in the pipeline someplace.  We feel this would be justified by the following, what we think are important elements.

 

First of all, our current Board—I have no hesitation to tell you that we are efficient, we are fair, we are very cost-effective, and we are able to come to what I think is a fair resolution of the cases that come before us.  It is a simpler process in [NRS Chapter] 288 than what is in [A.B.] 65.  If there are disputes, those get filed with us through a complaint.  We have the process, if you will, in place as to how those get handled by our agency and, within a relatively short period of time, we deal with them.  We have hearings, we have pre-trial motions, et cetera.  We have processes already in place for subpoenas, motions, et cetera.  It is there, it has existed, and it has been around for 20 years or so.  We have a decisional history of not only the decisions that the [Local Government] Employee-Management Relations Board has made, but also when the decisions got appealed to the District Court or the Supreme Court that have been handed down in our cases, and we follow that precedent.  So, it is already there.  It is not like it needs to be created all over again.

 

We had some hesitation with this legislation, and we feel that NRS [Chapter] 288, as it currently stands, is appropriate.  There might be some things that some of us might like to see a different way but, overall, the compromise that was struck was a good one.  It is a good process.  It is substantial, and we do not want to mess with it.  So, we had some trepidation that if A.B. 65 did come about, and it was brought into [NRS Chapter] 288, there might be some temptation to tweak some things in [NRS Chapter] 288.  So I would say to you that if you do decide to do this, please don’t start trouncing around in [NRS Chapter] 288.  We think it is a good statute as it is.  We also have NAC [Chapter] 288, which is our regulations, and we have done some adjustment of those in the last year, a couple of little things that needed to be changed, in our view.  We had, of course, public hearings and we’ve made those changes, but the point is that we do have an administrative process in place so that any party, whether that is an employee, an employer, or an association, can go to our regulations, to section 288, and they know exactly what the law provides.  They know what the case history has been before the Board and the District Courts and the Supreme Court.  It is all there.

 

I was listening to what some of the other witnesses have said, particularly Mr. MacKenzie, and to make some examples for you, there is a definition of “employee” there.  There is a definition of “confidential employee.”  There are rules as to how confidential employees are dealt with between the association and the employer.  There are definitions of the organization.  There is exclusive representation, terms, and conditions of employment.  As a matter of fact, Mr. Dreher mentioned one to you that is in [NRS Chapter] 288 that apparently is not in A.B. 65, and that is the discipline rules, etcetera. 

 

Chairman Manendo:

Can I stop you a second?  We have a couple of questions.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

In the short of it, I think rather than telling us all these details, aren’t you just saying everybody is in favor of amending the bill to just put state employees, classified, UNLV, whatever, into [NRS Chapter] 288?  Is that your short of it?  I am just trying to save our time here.

 

John Dicks:

Yes, basically that is it. 

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Isn’t that the bottom line?

 

John Dicks:

But I would like to tell you that I think you have an excellent board and an excellent commissioner right now, so that message is there, too.

 

There is one other thing, though, that is really not quite in A.B. 65 that I think is important.  This is due in part to my history of living in Michigan for a while when there wasn’t the civilized process of collective bargaining.  That is the tradeoff in [NRS Chapter] 288, that for recognition, an association must agree not to strike.  I think that is a fair trade.  It’s a civilized trade, and something that is worth a great deal to us as citizens of the state of Nevada.

 

Assemblyman Grady:

I wish Mr. Dicks would have come forward on 220.  It probably would have saved us 2 or 3 hours of testimony, and I was not sure where I wanted to go on this, because I had some real questions with the testimony, and I think you brought forward the answer.  Thank you.

 

John Dicks:

If I could, Mr. Chairman.  There is one other thing that needs to be broached here, and that is the cost.  You have heard this 17 cents, and I have not had an opportunity to look at those numbers, but I understand they have grown out of a discussion between Mr. Wilkerson, our Commissioner, and the Governor’s Office.  I would point out a couple of things.  First of all, I think that is half of it.  It is really 34 cents.  But I think that number is a bit flaky right now.  It is being thoroughly looked at by the Governor’s Office and, keep in mind as to that, we are only talking about the amount necessary to fund the agency.  In other words, if you took the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board and said to us, “We are going to expand your jurisdiction and include this 16,000 to 20,000 state employees—whatever it is—what would it cost you to do that, to hold the hearings, etcetera,” and so that is what that number relates to. 

 

If you look at [NRS Chapter] 288, ladies and gentlemen, I think you will find most of the elements already there with a case history.  It is in A.B. 65.  I must say it is stated a lot less complicated, but the fact is we have got decisional background to it that are not in A.B. 65.  Thank you.

 

Eileen O’Grady:

I just want to be clear on your proposal.  Are you proposing that the provisions on state employees to [NRS] Chapter 288 would be expanded to cover them in what is existing language, or the board would just be applying within A.B. 65 for the state employees?

 

John Dicks:

What I am proposing is that an amendment to [NRS Chapter] 288 be drafted that would bring the state employees under the provisions of [NRS Chapter] 288 and not ˿I must say I have read A.B. 65 once.  At the time I read it, it was 51 pages and there were some things that I think [NRS Chapter] 288 more adequately covers, so I would not take anything from A.B. 65 and put it into [NRS Chapter] 288.  I would simply bring the state employees within the purview of [NRS Chapter] 288.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

I think that gets to my question.  If we took A.B. 65 and put it in [NRS Chapter] 288, would that be 288.999, or would it be incorporated throughout in different sections pertaining to the different groups and employees?

 

Eileen O’Grady:

No, it would be placed as a separate subhead in [NRS Chapter] 288, and they would all be self-contained in that group.  They would not be intermixed with the current existing ones in [NRS Chapter] 288.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

So, we would not have conflict in statutes on locals versus states?

John Dicks:

Actually, I think one of the things you could do is just expand the definition of “employee” under [NRS Chapter] 288 to include state employees, and then the “employer” section would probably need to be changed to include state agencies or the state of Nevada. 

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

It would be interesting, Mr. Chair, to see how many trees the definition change in [NRS Chapter] 288 would mean from putting A.B. 65 in.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.  Any other questions?  [There were none.]  Thank you.  Mr. MacKenzie, did you have any comments regarding that?  Did you have any comments regarding his testimony?

 

Scott MacKenzie:

Yes.  It seems to me that both this bill and [NRS Chapter] 288 are trying to model themselves after the National Labor Relations Act.  I do not really have a problem.  There may be some differences, but I am not aware of them.  So, if we wanted to amend Section 19 [of A.B. 65] to change it to the current board that exists in cities and counties, that would be fine with me.  Or if, as the former speaker has suggested, we amend [NRS Chapter] 288, I do not really have a problem with that either, as long as it is a similar provision modeled after the National Labor Relations Act, which I think it is.  So, I think that should be at your pleasure, which way to go with this.  I would support it either way.  I think either way is extremely critical and beneficial to state workers, and I think both try to accomplish the same thing.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Questions?  Thank you.  Anyone else speaking on Assembly Bill 65?  Ms. Vilardo?

 

Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association:

[Introduced herself]  I am speaking in opposition to Assembly Bill 65.  It is a simple issue, but the bill is not simple; and the bill has some problems, and before I get into that, a couple of comments on it.  I would like to say I have a slight bit of familiarity with this.  I served as a member of the Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board in the late 1970s through 1980.  There have been some changes, and I have tried to keep up with them.  That being said, probably the biggest difference between local government employee bargaining and state employee bargaining is the fact that with the local governments, the elected city council, or the elected county commissioners are both the executive branch—the administrative part—and the policy branch, so that they have the ability to do both.  When you are dealing with state collective bargaining, you are dealing with an issue that has become problematic in some of the states, and that is the fact that you have an Executive Branch, which is totally separate and apart from your Legislative Branch, which is making the decisions, and that is one of the reasons ˿

 

By the way, if you choose to process the bill, and obviously it would need serious amendment to it, and you roll it into [NRS Chapter] 288, one of your issue problems is going to be that you do have to carry some of the sections, cleaned up in my opinion, into the existing [NRS Chapter] 288 statute.  For a quick example, your time lines do not work.  Time lines in existing [NRS Chapter] 288 are structured for local governments who budget annually.  The time lines in this bill are structured for state government that budgets biennially.  So, that is a change which needs to be made.

 

There are a couple of other changes that I am sure your legal staff could point out readily to you.  I would like to talk about some issues in the bill that I think are problematic and, if you were to pass this, you absolutely have to get cleaned up or we are creating major problems.  That being said, please understand that employees, whether they are state employees, local government employees, or private sector employees, deserve to be treated with respect, and there deserves to be some uniformity.  I have supported some issues from the state employees union in prior sessions because you want consistency, and there should probably have been some changes made in [NRS Chapter] 281 to allow some of the consistency issues that you have heard addressed today to be taken care of.  That being said, let me go through some of the sections that I pulled out, because I think they were the most problematic from my perspective in having a little bit of familiarity with the issue.

 

[In A.B. 65,] if you go to Section 25, which is on page 8, from line 27 to page 9 on line 3, we talk about defining “collective bargaining” and “supplemental bargaining,” and there is a phrase in there that speaks to “other concerted activities.”  I am not sure I know what “other concerted activities” means.  Is it work stoppage?  Is it informational picketing?  Is it having birthday parties or promotion parties?  What are the “other concerted activities?”  I think that is definitely too broad a definition, and if it were to remain in this bill, it is something that has to be cleaned up.

 

There is another issue.  Unless there have been some very recent changes—I would say within the last two legislative sessions—I do not remember NRS [Chapter] 288, as it exists for local government, speaking to supplemental bargaining.  That is another issue.  Collective bargaining and supplemental bargaining entail mutual obligations of the executive department and the exclusive representative to meet at reasonable times to bargain in good faith, et cetera, and that is something that transcends whether it is the National Labor Relations Board or whether we are dealing with just our state laws.  I think I understand what it means to bargain salaries and wages and hours and working conditions and benefits, but does the language mean that the executive department and the exclusive representative will meet at reasonable times and bargain in good faith on grievances and labor disputes?  It is usual and customary to bargain the procedure for handling grievances.  You usually do not bargain grievances, and the language in there, I think, needs to be cleaned up.  You bargain a procedure for grievances, and the same thing with bargaining procedure for labor disputes.

 

In Section 27, establishing the bargaining units, there were some recommendations for change to add two of the units.  If I counted this right, you would have by amendment, if it was accepted, 11 units.  There are 38 types of employee groups named, and supervisors have to be included.  The board itself, whether you create a new board or have a different board, as is proposed in this version of A.B. 65, is authorized to establish more bargaining units.  Many of the bargaining contracts have separate agreements for both supervisory and non-supervisory employees.  If I have done my math right on this, conceivably you could have 76 or more bargaining units.  Now, I submit to you that, if this went through like that—unlike local governments where a school district may have two units, and that school district can handle the two units—your largest area in Clark County or Washoe County could have 5 or 6 units when you look at medical, when you look at police and supervisory, and then you look at the classified employees.  So, those times spent on negotiations are more in proportion given the size of employees; but if you take a look at that, you could wind up with 76 different bargaining units, and would have to negotiate contracts on these because each exclusive representative would obviously handle, and as you heard testimony, there could be more than one group.  In all probability, you would probably have approximately 50 if you had this many representative groups, maybe it would be 20, but the point is, the Executive Branch is definitely going to need to have the additional staff to bargain with these additional numbers of employee associations.  The supervisor being in the bargaining unit and being represented by this same exclusive representative either puts the supervisor in a very difficult position, or it gives the bargaining unit an unfair advantage in resolving disputes.  I believe, again if I remember right, that in the existing [NRS Chapter] 288, there is a distinction made on that, so that that would not occur.  That is something I think you would probably want to look at. 

 

In Section 28 of A.B. 65 on determining the exclusive representation of a bargaining unit, and that section starts on page 11, and is lines 10 through 44, I think the section—at least to me in reading it, and I have read it a couple of times—is a bit confusing and needs to be tightened up.  You have an employee organization that files with the labor board a list of its membership showing that the employee organization represents more than 50 percent of the employees within the bargaining unit, and the labor board shall designate the employee organization as the exclusive representative.  An employee may want to belong to an employee organization, but not necessarily have that employee organization be their exclusive representative.  Unlike NRS [Chapter] 288, the list of membership is not required to be verified and the employee organization—this is where you might want to lift something out of [NRS Chapter] 288 for state recognition of the groups—in [NRS Chapter] 288, you have very specific issues which say that an employee organization will submit its corporate papers and its bylaws, will annually submit a list of officers, and will submit a list of those units that they are authorized to bargain for.  So, in effect, you have certified the credentials, and you verify that you have a legitimate operating, legally functioning employee association or union, however that is, and I think that is for the protection of the employees as much as anything else.  So, again, if you process the bill, I think you would want to take and make sure that provisions from [NRS Chapter] 288 were included in this. 

 

At any rate, there is confusion, at least for me, over dates, lists, percentages, and timelines in Sections 28, 29, and 30, and, although it is an expensive proposition, if that is not really cleaned up, it would almost make sense, even though it is expensive, to have an election each month of July during the bargaining year to make sure that the representation is as it is supposed to be.  I think, again, it is a very expensive procedure, but I think, at least in the initial stages because of the way the lists are handled, you should probably have an election in those that is conducted by the board and the board should also design those balances.

 

Another issue within these sections is that not all grievances go to final and binding arbitration, especially the oral or written reprimands in the progressive discipline process.  It becomes time-consuming and expensive, and yet here it appears that you are mandating that this time and expense be incurred.  So, I would ask again, if you process the bill that you look at those provisions.

 

In Sections 36 and 37, where we talk about the negotiation of time lines and the mediators, you can see, generally, what it is.  Negotiations begin no sooner than January 1 of even-numbered years.  If you have the exclusive representative determined before March 1, then negotiations begin March 15.  If the exclusive representative is determined after March 15, they begin July 15.  If they do not reach agreement before July 1, then the board appoints a mediator who has to attempt to reach and settle the issue by August 15, or a date later set by the mediator.  I submit to you, looking at those time frames, when you get up against those time frames, finding a mediator within a two‑week time frame is very difficult.  I know there were some issues where we had parties coming before us, and you would question why you had this huge time lag, and you could have the huge time lag because of the problem of finding a mediator who was available, and it is basically the same comment with arbitration.  If you look at those time lines, and you look at where you are required for binding, final arbitration, and you look at the fact that when you go to that point, you are going to select that arbitrator within, I believe it is 7 days, and then you go out from there, it can take you a couple of months because of the way you do the check-offs to actually come to the arbitrator, and I think some of you are very familiar with that.

 

I know there was another issue that we had.  I do not think the time lines are realistic in that.  So, if you are again to proceed with the bill, it is an area that I think needs to be cleaned up.  There are shortcomings.  The other shortcoming you have is, it is nice to get an arbitration decision in 30 days.  Sometimes I wonder how you actually do that, because I know that was a problem with some of the cases that came before us.

 

Now, if you go through all of this, the arbitrator is supposed to start, at the latest, September 15.  If you take a look at the procedures and the time lines of what happens, and the reality of them actually happening as they are written—which do not bear too much similarity—you are almost certainly going to be into the budget being prepared before you get the decisions, and you have happen what you would intend to have happen, and that is a budget being prepared that would accommodate any appropriation that might be decided on. 

 

There is language in here that the arbitrator has to use rules of reasonableness, and there is a series of issues that you have to take in, comparison of wages in other jurisdictions, private sector, and public sector.  The comparable communities language is extremely wide-open and gives an arbitrator a huge amount of latitude.  We have already seen—and I can remember a case I served on.  In fact it was the second case that I served on with the EMRB Board.  The salaries and benefits under the existing provisions of [NRS Chapter] 288 in some cases have really gotten a little out of hand when you have an arbitrator who takes a look at the funds available, takes a look at what is being paid even within the state or another jurisdiction within a location, and then takes a look at L.A. County and what L.A. is paying, and we wind up with an award that is based more on that than anything else that we have got comparable in the state.  I think there needs to be some tightening up on that language and the rules of reasonableness.  That has created a problem in some of the local governments.

 

When I talked about the second case I heard, we had a case with the City of North Las Vegas where the firefighters were going into negotiations.  The City of Las Vegas firefighters were in negotiations.  The City of North Las Vegas firefighters wanted parity with the City of Las Vegas firefighters relative to wages.  The contract had not yet been negotiated with the City of Las Vegas.  It wound up going to arbitration.  I think Mr. Collins may remember when Mr. Franklin was the attorney.  He brought the case before the Board, and the Board could not hear that case under our rules because it was, in effect, grievance arbitration, and we deal only with interpretations of contract.  At any rate, the arbitrator awarded parity to the North Las Vegas firefighters based on what the City of Las Vegas firefighters were going to get, but nobody knew what they would get, and you didn’t have it in the budget.  So, as I said, you need to be very careful when you look at things like this, rules of reasonableness—in whose eye?  There are some cases out there and that’s a serious issue, particularly for local governments when some of those budgets will be very tight.  Potentially, it is a serious issue for state employees and for the whole process of negotiations.

 

Now on the arbitrator’s decision as it appears in [A.B. 65] Section 40, page 18, lines 1 to 25, per Section 35, subsection 2, paragraph (a), there is a requirement that the grievance arbitration be binding.  Section 39, subsection 5, says, “Except as provided in [Sections] 40, 43, 44 and 50”—and we’re looking at final and binding arbitration on also the wage provisions, because we set it up as “last best offer package” in the way the arbitrator will select these awards, we allow the arbitrator’s award to be open, and maybe it’s for these supplemental agreements, but I know in reading this language a couple of times, I think it’s very confusing.  If you process it, I think that it needs to be looked at and some corrections made on it.

 

Section 43 discusses negotiations during the legislative session.  That is on page 19, lines 20 through 36.  I think that, as this is written, where you have an appropriation required, or where you would open up because of the supplemental arbitration—personal comment—this would involve some very interesting politicking during the legislative session.  Section 45 defines “supplemental bargaining.”  It’s page 20, line 17, through page 21, line 24, and it speaks to, again, conditions on the supplemental bargaining and the agreement that might be in effect with the executive department.  I think that “supplemental bargaining,” as it’s written, would effectively create year-round bargaining, because there aren’t any specified conditions other than if you agree to doing this, you open it.  Normally there would be some agreement within the initial agreement as to those times when you would open up or when there is a provision for the agreement to be reopened.  Those are usually specific.  Those are usually the way that a contract would be written.  So, I find this in a bit of contradiction, and I think it problematic insofar that it might allow, literally, year-round bargaining on this.  I think that the items that do not require an appropriation, in many cases would be identified as a management right, and they would be reserved to management without negotiations, or otherwise would be contained specifically as an enumerated item that you would negotiate for and have in your contract.  It’s a case of either just adding an additional layer of confusion and, by the way, does not exist.

 

I think that I would like to close with asking the Committee to very seriously consider the ramifications of passing this bill as written, and I would further submit to you that, as legislators, you’re going to be the ones negotiating the contracts during upcoming legislative sessions if this bill passes, because of the way it is written.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Do you happen to have anything in writing?

 

Carole Vilardo:

I can get this to your secretary, but I have scratched all over it.  I’d like to clean it up a little bit.

 

Chairman Manendo:

That’s fine.  Thank you.  We have some questions.  Mr. Collins?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just want to make sure you’re talking about around 1975, the Las Vegas/North Las Vegas fire negotiations when the city council erroneously and not by unanimous decision put their Water Fund into their General Fund to balance their budget for the year, because the law required them to, and the arbitrator snuck in and said, “Oh, you’ve got lots of money.  Parity.”  Calls for recall.  I thought that was an interesting time.

Carole Vilardo:

It was.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

And I wonder if we’re understanding that the multiple units of the collective bargaining issue -I want to make sure that you’re talking about the state employees being a multiple of units, or are you adding all the different organizations that would be involved?  Do you understand my question?

 

Carole Vilardo:

Yes, I do, and I don’t know that it’s clear in here, because on one hand you have the multiple units.  Now, as the discussion was, who is going to represent highway patrol?  Will it be the same group that is representing Parole and Probation, or correction officers?  Will you have the same group?  In all probability, you won’t.  At least in the contracts, I remember and the issues coming before us, supervisory employees would be in another unit.  So, you’re negotiating all of these generally at, not different times, because of the time frames you put in, but you have multiple groups that you are negotiating with.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Mr. Chairman, follow-up?  You’re doing that currently in local government, though.

 

Carole Vilardo:

Yes.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

With one or two or three agencies, and you’re doing them with city employee associations, and the metro police, and the marshals, and the administrators’ group, so you have several groups; or at the school district where you’ve got the teachers, the support employees, and so forth.  Then you break that down into several subgroups like in the private sector.  So, they’re the same, except this language you’re concerned about, who is going to be the outside bargaining group representative?  Is that right?

 

Carole Vilardo:

Mr. Collins, it’s a slightly different concern than that.  I spoke about the fact that you have a school district and the school district maybe has the bus employees classified, the educational employees—maybe they have 3, 4, or 5 bargaining units—and there is the school district, and that board is both the administration, the executive branch, and the policy branch, and they are only dealing with 5.  Now, if I remember right, the last year I was on the board, we had 86 associations that had filed their papers with the board, but those 86, if they were all negotiating at the same time, and we know in local governments they don’t, we have different contracts.  We have one-year, two-year, three-year, contracts, but if you take that to the state level where you’re negotiating, because of the time frames, literally at the same time, you’re not splitting those 86 groups that are bargaining.  Even if they’re each representing 2 among 1 agency, which you would be doing with the state, in theory you’ve got 236 local governments.  So you have just a couple being negotiated at any time with any local government, and that is not what would happen with the state.  That is why I’m saying you would probably have a division or definitely additional employees, because I would be hard-pressed to see the budget director suddenly negotiating, because he would be the executive branch and maybe in meetings about budgets at that same time that you’re doing some of this.  I think you need additional staffing relative to the executive department.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

But you know a lot of those groups meet, too, along with the contract, when they are negotiating.

 

Carole Vilardo:

That may be very true, but I’m saying that is a point.  There is a difference there, and that’s the point I was making on that.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

You did good, and especially on the arbitration issue.  You can’t get an arbitrator in two weeks.  On this calendar date time, you bring up a good point, because you know and I believe that, should this get processed, and there is a collective bargaining issue, the deals are going to get done the night before just like we in session, or it will go to an arbitration and roll over just like the school district does.  Thank you.  You made some very good points and reminded me of some funny times in North Las Vegas, too.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

I had a question, and I’m very familiar with the bargaining process, especially in Clark County where I was in labor relations for a number of years.  I’m very confused about the 76 bargaining units.  I really don’t get that, and I know you attempted to clear that up with Mr. Collins, and I was going to leave it alone, but I’m even more confused after your explanation.

 

Carole Vilardo:

It’s never my intent to do that, but unfortunately, I sometimes do, so why don’t I put it down on paper the way I saw it and deliver it to you, if I may have until tomorrow morning, since I’ve got hearings this afternoon, too.  I’ll show you how I came to that.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

Okay.  The reason I asked that question is because, being familiar with the process, and certainly we have that many units as well, but they are usually broken down, and the district attorney’s office has a contract, and the employees have one, and then fire, and then supervisor and non-supervisor, et cetera.  It only ends up being about 7 or 8 bargaining units and each department is not, typically, responsible for the negotiation of contracts.  The responsibility of that is usually given to human resources, or the director, or someone in that department who oversees labor relations, and it’s not the finance manager doing the negotiations. It would be someone assigned in one of the HR [Human Resources] divisions or something like that.  That is usually my understanding, so I just got confused and, maybe if you did provide that to me in writing, I would probably understand where you are going with that.

 

Carole Vilardo:

Mr. Atkinson, I will do that.  I’m sorry I confused you, but one point that I would make on that.  With the state, it’s executive departments, so it may go to human resources, but even at that, there would be some additional staffing that would be required.  I think that is just a case in point right now. 

 

[Chairman Williams, Assemblyman Atkinson, and Carole Vilardo thanked each other for their courtesies.]

 

John Wagner, Nevada Republican Assembly:

Mr. Chairman, Assembly members, my name is John Wagner for the record.  I represent a group called the Nevada Republican Assembly.  They’re generally against collective-bargaining-type procedures.  I’ve had the pleasure of working both with collective bargaining and without it, and I’ve always much preferred to be able to go to the employer myself and negotiate my own worth and my own salary, which has seem to done quite well for me.  Right now, of course, I’m unemployed, I’m retired, and my thing in life now is to bother you people.  Generally speaking, I hate to see you get into a situation where now suddenly instead of the employee-employer relationship, you get into a situation where you’ve got a third party in there, and suddenly it’s “hate the boss” philosophy, and I’ve seen that happen, and I would hate to see that happen with state, because I feel it would be disruptive to the state and so, I’m against this bill.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Where did you work prior to retirement?

John Wagner:

I retired from Sony about 3 years ago.  That’s why I wear a thing here that says Sony on it, which stands for “soon, only not yet.”

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I guess if you’ve been keeping track of what’s been going on in Nevada, then you’ve probably seen lawsuits and letters and disgruntled employees and furloughs.  I don’t know if we could get the state to expose itself to what it’s been spending on this now.  The collective bargaining would probably bring some consistent unity to this.  Do you think it’s okay now that all of this is going on with our state employees?  Only if you’re informed enough to answer that question, do I want you to say yes, and if you’re not, I don’t want you to answer.

 

John Wagner:

I’m not well informed on that issue.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

Mr. Wagner, I just pretty much had one question.  You mentioned that you were against it, because you would like to go and talk to management on your own behalf and said you wouldn’t need the unit, et cetera.  Do you understand that even if this did happen, that employees that did not want to join the union still had that option?  This doesn’t force people to have to go through that process.

 

John Wagner:

Yes, I understand that, but I also understand that as soon as the union gets in there, then they want to bring other people in there, and they call them freeloaders.  Now, these other people did not ask to be included in the collective bargaining unit, but the union insists that everybody has to be negotiated salary‑wise through the union as the exclusive bargaining agent.  Now, these people who say I don’t want them to do it, that’s tough.  You’re stuck in there anyway, and then the union can come back and say, “Well, you should pay us some money because we’re negotiating for you.”  Basically, we’re being forced to say, “Well, we don’t want to pay it.  We don’t want to pay the money, and we don’t you to negotiate.”  It’s kind of a catch-22.   What came first, the chicken or the egg?  This is what will happen eventually, and then it causes employee relationships between the union and the non-union, and I think it puts stress and strain on that.  I hope I answered your question.

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

Mr. Wagner, do you think it’s all right then that if the people that don’t join the bargaining unit and don’t want to have any part of the bargaining unit, do you think it’s all right then if they aren’t allowed to benefit from whatever the bargaining unit negotiates for the people who do belong to the bargaining unit?

 

John Wagner:

I believe the people who are not in the bargaining unit should have their own right to go to the employer and bargain for their own salaries.  They know what they’re worth, the individual.  If he feels that he is worth more than the other employees, I think he should have the right to go and argue his case.

 

Assemblyman McCleary:

I have been in the room with the Governor several times at several different functions, but I have actually not met him yet, personally.  It would be very intimidating for me as an elected official to try to approach the Governor when he’s surrounded by people and say, “Hey, I’m Bob McCleary.  Good to meet you.”  I can’t imagine being one of his employees and trying to go up and say, “Oh, by the way, I want to negotiate my position with you.”  I think that’s very intimidating.  In a small business, I think you’re right.  I think that would work, and I’ve done that.  I’ve had to do that.  Nevertheless, in a situation like this with so many employees, it’s too intimidating.  I just don’t understand your point on that, sir, and I’m sorry.

 

John Wagner:

Sony is not exactly a small company.  I worked for them out of the San Jose office, and they have a huge humungous building there.  Their main offices, of course, are in Park Ridge, New Jersey.  I went to my manager when it came time for salary increases, or actually, he came to me.  Of course, we had salary reviews, and basically he says we can afford so much down the line, but I know my manager had flexibility to give raises according to how he felt the department people were.  It wasn’t across the board.  Everybody didn’t get a 3 or 4 percent raise.  Some people got 4.5 [percent], some people got 3.5 [percent], or something like this, depending upon their capabilities and their achievements.  I was very fortunate within Sony that I was able to move up fairly rapidly.  I started out as an instructor and moved to a senior instructor, where I developed courses, and I taught broadcast engineers and how to maintain equipment and so forth.  There was a lot of research we had to do to get this far, it was a lot of work.  I didn’t put in that much teaching time, but put in a lot of development time, and I was evaluated by how my students felt.  I was evaluated every six months by how the students felt after they got back into the business and started working.  Basically, my salary was based on merit, and I feel that I earned what I got.  I always felt I should have had a lot more, of course, but we all do.  I think it may depend on the structure of the company as well.  In my particular case, we had managers and so forth on down.  In that case, my manager had to go to his boss in order to negotiate his salary as well.  We also had profit sharing, depending on how well we did and how much money we saved and this type of thing.  It worked quite well. 

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you.  Where you worked in your division just say, if for some reason half the employees were terminated or quit to move on to other positions, and thus your workload doubled, and you did your job, and so did everybody else in that department, and they were loyal, and they came to work on time, and everybody was basically on the same level.  Do you think they would be deserving of a raise?  A substantial raise, 2 percent, 1 percent, 5 percent?

 

John Wagner:

The amount of the raise is going to be difficult.  I worked for a company in southern California that was an English-owned company, and we had one year with no salary increases at all.  The company was in financial trouble, unfortunately, and they started laying off people, and they started laying off the people with the highest salary which, unfortunately, I happened to fit in there, and so, basically, I was laid off there.  The company survived for about 2 years longer and went belly up.  I was one of the lucky ones.  They let me go when I still had money to pay me for my vacation pay.  As far as my employment with Sony, I know of a couple of cases where employees were terminated, and they were terminated for cause, and it was all done through HR, and everything was done through the procedures, and so forth.  Even though, yes, I felt sorry for the people who got terminated for cause, the company was well justified.  No matter how I felt towards my fellow employees, it was one of the facts of life.

 

Chairman Manendo:

That’s nice that they got an explanation of their termination.  In my service, we’ve gone out over the years to prisons, as an example…  In fact, the Transportation Committee took a tour to look at the license plate factory there.  I was scared out of my mind.  We were right out in the open.  We’ve been informed there are guard towers that are empty right now.  We have the lowest percentage as far as inmates to corrections officers.  Our state employees are working very hard.  I get a few e-mails from some of the state employees that live in my district, and they’re not asking for the moon, they’re just asking…  In some cases, it would be nice if we were recognized for a cost of living increase every year, and that hasn’t happened year after year.  People work hard for us, to protect us, and it’s sad that they’re the only ones out of public service that don’t have this collective bargaining right.  I hope we can do something to try to help, because they are deserving.  Ms. Pierce has a question.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

It’s just a comment.  I’m a member of the culinary union in Las Vegas, so that’s the contract that I’m familiar with.  The culinary contract which covers 50,000 workers on the Las Vegas Strip in downtown delineates a minimum salary.  There is a clause in the culinary contract called “superior workman’s wages” which allows the management at any time to pay an employee above the union minimum.  At least in terms of the culinary contract, there would be no reason that you couldn’t go into the boss’s office and convince him that you were superior to all of your co-workers and get superior workman’s wages.  I have to say that in the 12 years that I worked on the Strip, I never actually knew anyone that the boss had decided was superior, but, like I say, that’s a part of the culinary contract.  Thank you.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Is there anybody else speaking in opposition?  Generally, we have the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce.  Are they going to come speak on this bill as well?  Maybe they’re not here today.  Anyone else speaking in opposition to Assembly Bill 65?  Mr. Collins?

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just wanted to reflect that, whether or not a person belongs to a labor organization or association or union or doesn’t realize whether or not they’ve benefited from collective bargaining…  You know, I’ve got a picture in my office of these kids working in a mine if anybody wanted to come by and look at it.  I just wanted to remind people that 40 hours a week, 5 days a week, weekends off, clean air in the mine, hard hats, safety provisions, tools, sick leave, retirement, vacation pay—those things didn’t come about from a nice employer; those came about from workers collectively bargaining.  They learned to negotiate together and work together for their benefit.  So, those folks that don’t recognize that people died for them to have some of the benefits they gained today, whether it be in their current salary or retirement, should reflect again on the history of their families in this county we live in.  Thank you.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you, Mr. Collins.  Anyone else who wants to come forward?  [There were none]  Okay, we’re going to close the hearing on Assembly Bill 65.  I ask that anybody who wants to submit amendments on this bill, do so by the end of today to me in writing.  Committee, comments or questions?  All right.  I appreciate the Committee’s patience and work in the Committee today.  8:00 tomorrow morning.  Anything else to come before the Committee?  We’re adjourned.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Pat Hughey

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman

 

 

DATE: