Arbitration looms as county-SEIU talks go nowhere

Contract negotiations between Clark County and its largest union, whose workers face a freeze on wage increases, didn’t show signs of progress at a bargaining meeting Tuesday.

The nearly one-hour session didn’t lead to any exchange of offers for a contract.

As a result, it appears more likely that the impasse between the county and the Service Employees International Union Local 1107, which represents 4,700 employees, will be handled by an arbitrator, also called a fact finder, for a final determination.

Arbitration is set for July 1, but the county and union won’t get a final decision until weeks later if they go to binding arbitration.

The negotiations, which began in 2013, took a twist in June after the Republican-led state Legislature passed and GOP Gov. Brian Sandoval signed Senate Bill 241, a collective bargaining reform bill intended to speed negotiations. Citing the new law, the county froze wage and benefit increases for employees, saying it’s required because the contract expired in 2013.

The union maintains the contract remains legally valid, as it has a clause providing for annual extensions.

SEIU Local 1107 President Martin Bassick criticized the county for not providing any counteroffers Tuesday night, saying that’s part of the bargaining process. He noted that County Manager Don Burnette didn’t attend the negotiations.

Bassick on Saturday emailed county Chief Financial Officer Yolanda King, asking for negotiations with “Burnette or someone from Clark County with authority” to get the contract finished.

On Tuesday, Bassick texted members: “Clark County political games continue. Don Burnette refuses to meet, doesn’t retract illegal wage freeze. On to fact finding.”

Burnette responded Wednesday in a statement.

“SEIU leaders requested ‘someone from Clark County with authority to get the contract done’ be present at the meeting,” Burnette said, adding that King, the county’s chief negotiator, was there and has that authority.

“The union’s proposal did not comply with state law and therefore was not considered,” Burnette said. “If they choose to submit a proposal that complies with the law, it will be considered.”

Bassick said there are two separate issues: the way the county implemented SB241, which took effect June 1, and negotiations for a new contract.

A sticking point is longevity pay, which starts after an employee has eight years of service. The county has made efforts, resisted by the union, to eliminate longevity pay for future hires, while preserving it for current employees.

Citing the new state law, the county ended paid union leave, which required Bassick to return to his county job and ended county pay when stewards do union work. The new law requires unions to reimburse local governments for paid union leave, or make a concession in contract negotiations.

The county told the union it could give up longevity pay for future employees in exchange for receiving paid union leave. The SEIU’s counteroffer was to receive paid union leave while making future hires eligible for longevity pay after 10 years. The county rejected the counteroffer, saying it doesn’t meet the new law’s requirements.

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