Amid dispute with SEIU union, county makes contract offer

Clark County managers have made a contract offer to their largest employee union amid a dispute over interpretation of a new state law that revamps collective bargaining for government workers.

The offer would end concerns over the county’s moves to end paid union leave for employees and stop all increases to wages and benefits, County Manager Don Burnette wrote in an email late Friday to management and commissioners.

In the past week, the county has pulled Martin Bassick, president of Service Employees Local 1107, off of county-paid union leave. That leave had allowed him to do SEIU work full-time while getting his county paycheck. The county ordered Bassick back to his job as a plans checker in the public works department, saying Senate Bill 241, passed this session and signed into law by Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, barred him from being on paid union leave.

The county also stopped all wage and benefit increases for SEIU-affiliated employees effective June 1, saying the new state law doesn’t allow raises when contracts are expired.

The proposal from the county would give employees a 2.5 percent cost-of-living increase, retroactive to July 1, 2014. That would be followed by another 2 percent increase on July 1, followed by negotiations in 2016 for the third year.

The county’s offer also would reinstate paid union leave, as well as the wage and benefit increases that stopped on June 1.

Under SB241, employees can only get paid union leave if the union reimburses the government or makes financial concessions during contract negotiations.

The last approved contract between the county and SEIU granted full-time paid leave to the union president, as well as part-time leave to other employees for tasks like assisting at grievances. The SEIU represents about 4,900 county employees.

Under the county’s offer, employees could continue to take county-paid leave for union work in exchange for giving up longevity pay for new, future county hires.

Longevity pay kicks in for employees after they have eight years of service. It would still be paid to current employees, including those who aren’t eligible yet because they haven’t hit the eight-year mark.

Also, each employee would receive a $500 one-time bonus within 30 days of the county and union approving the contract.

“I believe this is a very generous offer that also resolves the concerns raised by the Union and our employees this past week,” Burnette wrote in the Friday email, obtained by the Review-Journal. Burnette declined comment Monday.

Bassick said the SEIU has sent the county a counteroffer Monday, but declined to offer specifics.

Bassick said there’s a difference between the county’s implementation of SB241 and the efforts to get a new contract.

“This is county management playing politics with people’s wages and salaries,” Bassick said.

Records obtained by the Review-Journal show that the SEIU had proposed salary increases across a three-year period.

Both sides did agree upon was the county’s offer of a 2.5 percent increase retroactive to July 1, 2014. The differences: the SEIU sought a 2.5 percent increase effective July 1, 2015, up from the county’s 2 percent. The union’s proposal also sought a 2.5 percent increase effective July 1, 2016. The county’s contract offer made no guarantee for that year, other than to negotiate it.

The SEIU also doesn’t want to eliminate longevity pay for future hires. However, its offer includes a concession to make future employees eligible for longevity pay after 10 years instead of eight years.

The county’s bargaining team swiftly turned down the union’s counter-offer Monday. In a letter, the county told the SEIU that the concession doesn’t meet the new law’s requirements for a concession to be financially equal to the cost of union leave.

Bassick sharply criticized the county’s rejection, suggesting that its swiftness in responding demonstrates a lack of serious consideration.

He called it “political theater.”

Burnette has previously said the county’s merely following legal advice from its attorney.

SEIU Local 1107 last week filed a complaint withe the state’s Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board over the county’s implementation of SB241.

The county and union disagree on whether the contract is actually expired. County attorneys point to the contract’s June 30, 2013, end date and a separate “interim agreement” signed that gave employees a 2 percent raise. But union officials point to a clause that says the contract is to be extended year-to-year if the deal isn’t amended or terminated.

Under the new state law, pay increases cannot be granted after contracts have expired and new collective bargaining agreements aren’t in place.

Without a contract approved between the union and county, the two sides will go to binding arbitration on July 1, which puts the final outcome in the hands of an arbitrator. The two sides started negotiating in 2013.

One sticking point has been longevity pay, which the county has pushed to end for future hires to save money. Those savings are estimated at $133.2 million for a 30-year period — or higher. The figure is $210.3 million when factoring in cost-of-living increases to base salaries, which longevity is based on, according to county estimates provided in response to an information request from the Review-Journal.

Contact Ben Botkin at bbotkin@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2904. Find him on Twitter: @BenBotkin1