Pay raises at stake in Clark County, SEIU clash

Clark County and its largest union are locked in a contentious labor dispute over a new state law, a battle that might not end until September.

In the meantime, workers affiliated with the Service Employees International Union Local 1107 with a June hiring anniversary will be the first to be denied the salary increases they anticipated before the law passed. A growing number will suffer the same fate each month until the dispute is resolved.

The county and SEIU disagree about how to implement Senate Bill 241, a collective bargaining reform legislation passed by the Republican-dominated Legislature and signed into law by GOP Gov. Brian Sandoval.

County management, relying on attorneys, says the new law means that all increases to salaries and benefits for the 4,700-employee SEIU bargaining group must cease because the collective bargaining agreement expired in 2013.

But the SEIU says the new law doesn’t apply because the contract has a provision that it extends year to year beyond the 2013 end date unless the agreement is amended or terminated.

CHANGES FOR EMPLOYEES

Employees who started their county careers in the month of June are the first to take a hit. The new law took effect June 1.

About 70 percent of SEIU county employees are eligible for merit pay increases, which provide about a 4 percent raise after an employee’s hiring anniversary, a county official said.

As a result, an average of about 274 additional employees each month will not see the increase until the dispute is resolved, according to county figures.

There’s also longevity pay, which about 60 percent of the workforce receives. That kicks in after an employee reaches eight years of service and increases each year afterward. The SEIU workers won’t be eligible for that increase either — only what they got the year before.

Also, employees who reach the eight-year mark during the impasse won’t become eligible for longevity pay as they otherwise would have.

WHAT DOESN’T CHANGE

County employees will still get a paycheck and benefits — just not any increases. The county also says workers will continue to accrue vacation and sick leave time as usual.

“SB241 only speaks to stopping salary and benefit increases,” County Manager Don Burnette said in a statement.

The only difference is employees who are eligible for increases in vacation and sick leave time won’t get the increases. Instead, they’ll accrue and receive the same time as the prior year, a county official says.

But county employees are only eligible for increases to vacation time three times in their career: after two years, eight years and 15 years. Annual sick leave accrual only increases once: after 10 years.

NEXT STEPS

Different scenarios could unfold.

In theory, SEIU Local 1107 and the county could agree on a contract before going to arbitration on July 1. That date, planned before the dispute arose about SB241, would give both sides a contract in August or September.

Both sides have made and rejected offers. So unless either side changes its position — or its proposal — it’s more likely that an arbitrator will make a final determination. A new contract would end the freeze on wage and benefit increases.

The SEIU has filed a complaint with the state’s Employment-Management Labor Relations Board against the county about its interpretation of SB241. The complaint is pending.

But both sides appear willing to talk. Clark County Chief Financial Officer Yolanda King, who represents the county in negotiations, contacted the SEIU on Thursday, responding to the union’s desire to talk about SB241. King told the union the county is willing to meet, and is available seven days a week.

“I’m hoping that’s a good sign,” SEIU Local 1107 President Martin Bassick said.

In a statement Friday, the county said it’s not going to change how SB241 is applied in the absence of a contract.

“The County is not negotiating the application of wage and benefit increases as part of SB241. All wage and benefit increases have been stopped effective June 1st pursuant to SB241 and the status of wage and benefit increases will not change until such time that a contract is in place,” King said in a statement.

“In an effort to successfully bargain a contract in lieu of going to arbitration, the County did propose the reinstatement of wage and benefit increases as an incentive to settle the contract, however, the Union did not accept the County’s offer,” she said.

DIFFERENT OFFERS

The county offered to restore paid union leave in exchange for the SEIU giving up longevity pay for future hires, while allowing current employees to remain eligible for longevity pay.

The SEIU’s counteroffer was to get paid union leave in exchange for making employees eligible for longevity pay after 10 years of service, not eight years.

Clark County rejected the union’s counteroffer, saying it didn’t meet one of the requirements of SB241 for the union to make a concession in exchange for getting paid union leave.

The new law requires local governments and unions to allow union leaders to take paid leave, but unions must either reimburse agencies for the pay, or negotiate a financial concession.

The county also has ordered Bassick to return to his county job, saying the new law doesn’t allow him or county employees who do part-time SEIU work to get paid union leave.

The two sides disagree about pay increases. The county offered a 2.5 percent cost-of-living increase retroactive to July 1, 2014, a 2 percent increase on July 1, a one-time $500 bonus per employee, with salaries negotiated in 2016.

The union has asked for a 2.5 percent cost-of-living increase for each of three years: 2014, 2015 and 2016.

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