North Las Vegas court hires lawyer to fight City Hall

North Las Vegas’ Municipal Court is declaring its independence from City Hall after a monthslong battle between the two branches of government.

The court has hired attorney Anthony Hall, who has helped city courts around the state negotiate the delicate balance between local executive and judicial branches of government, most publicly with the city of Sparks.

In Sparks, it took a ruling from the Nevada Supreme Court to settle the dispute between City Hall and the court. That case — decided in 2013 — found that Sparks was giving city government undue power over court personnel, infringing on the court’s independence. City Hall had tried to reduce court employee pay, and the court fought back.

It’s also the case North Las Vegas’ Municipal Court is using as the basis for its argument with its own City Hall.

The court sent a letter on April 14 informing employees that the court considered their union agreements void because the contracts were negotiated by the city and the recent Nevada Supreme Court decision gives the court oversight of its personnel. The North Las Vegas Municipal Court is run by two elected judges who handle small civil and criminal matters.

The letter went on to list how the court felt employees would benefit from not being union members: savings from not paying union dues, rewards based on merit instead of seniority and the court’s flexibility to save jobs in 2017 when all city departments face a 7 percent cut.

The letter did not sit well with the Teamsters Local 14, whose head called it “union busting.”

“My concern is about the court employees, and I will protect them to the end,” said Larry Griffith, secretary-treasurer-CEO of Local 14. He added that he had met with city officials and told them that as far as he is concerned, the collective bargaining agreement stands, and if anything happens to the court employees, he will sue the city.

Hall said the judges aren’t out to bust unions.

“The very comment of calling it union busting is ignoring the Supreme Court’s decision,” Hall said. “They, as judges, have to follow the law.”

Hall stressed that the court didn’t want to pick a fight with the city, calling the dispute a straightforward issue involving separation of powers. He also said the court wants to discuss any transition issues with the unions.

“For the city, it’s let’s not pull the rug out from under these employees with no notice,” City Attorney Sandra Douglass Morgan said.

The city stands by a memorandum of understanding that keeps the union agreements in place, she said. That memorandum of understanding was approved in October 2014 but was not signed by all the judges.

During that meeting, Douglass Morgan noted that the City Council could approve the memorandum, but the agreement would not be valid until signed by both judges, which never happened.

The court and the city have had continued disagreements about operations, such as in March when the city manager tried to oust the judges from interviews for new bailiffs.

After the court’s letter went out, Douglass Morgan sent a letter to the union heads accusing the court of trying to create a “culture of fear” by telling employees the court was trying to avoid more layoffs.

The letter went on to say that the city manager recently had told staff the city was not looking to lay off staff as a way to cut costs.

“We’re looking at, coming down the pipe, some real cuts that are not just going to be overnight one-year adjustments and the court really wants to try and protect the employment of its employees,” Hall said.

“How they are going to do another 7 percent without layoffs or cuts? I don’t know how they are going to do that. “

Contact Bethany Barnes at bbarnes@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3861. Follow @betsbarnes on Twitter.