Clark County union cites deal, wants 2 percent pay cut restored
Clark County and its largest union are in the midst of a dispute over whether employees represented by the Service Employees International Union are entitled to a 2 percent boost to their base salaries that were cut during the recession.
The restoration would cost the county $4 million to $5 million annually.
The dispute is continuing as the county is putting the finishing touches on a budget proposal that, under current figures, leaves the county with just $2.3 million for supplemental positions and capital projects after putting additional dollars toward needs that include the Metropolitan Police Department, the Clark County Detention Center and University Medical Center.
At the heart of the matter is a one-page agreement that the county and the union struck in 2011, when employees took a 2 percent pay cut. Under that pact, reached through mediation, the parties agreed that SEIU-represented employees would get their salaries restored when the county added back the 2 percent pay cut that nonunion staff shouldered at the same time.
In August, nonunion staff got a 2 percent raise. The union’s employees have not, and SEIU officials say it’s only fair that the agreement is honored.
County commissioners will discuss the issue Tuesday. The union’s leadership had raised concerns with commissioners at their March 18 meeting. The SEIU represents about 5,500 employees who work in divisions that include McCarran International Airport, the Department of Family Services and water reclamation.
“They raised a very valid point that none of us were aware of,” said Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, who requested the item be placed on the agenda.
Giunchigliani said Friday she hasn’t reached a final stance on the issue yet but said that it merits a look.
Clark County and the SEIU have reached an impasse in bargaining talks and have gone to fact-finding. In June, the county offered the union a 2 percent cost-of-living increase and a 2 percent increase in merit pay for eligible employees. The county had frozen merit pay.
That June proposal was contingent on eliminating longevity pay for new hires, according to a county memorandum, a sticking point between the county and SEIU. Longevity pay kicks in after employees reach eight years of service, boosting salaries by 0.57 percent a year.
Longevity pay for future nonunion employees was eliminated when the county restored their 2 percent pay cut.
Martin Bassick, president of the SEIU Local 1107, said his organization had tried previously to bring up the 2011 agreement with the county. Union officials also say that the agreement makes no mention of the salary restoration being contingent on the elimination of longevity pay.
In January, the SEIU filed a prohibited-practices complaint against the county with the state’s Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board. The complaint seeks to get the 2 percent reduction restored retroactively to August and accuses the county of failing to abide by the agreement.
Court records show the dispute also centers on whether the 2011 document is still valid.
In its response, the county argues that the one-page agreement is no longer in effect. Under the county’s argument, a subsequent collective bargaining agreement dated Feb. 7, 2012, eliminated the terms of the 2011 agreement. The county is seeking to have the case dismissed.
The collective bargaining agreements of 2011 and 2012 are both separate documents from the 2011 agreement concerning the restoration of wages.
The SEIU contends that the 2011 agreement is a stand-alone document and isn’t tied to collective bargaining.
Bassick said his organization realized there was a disagreement about how the parties viewed the agreement when it was brought up in bargaining.
“We passed it across the table during contract negotiations and said, ‘Look we were already entitled to this 2 percent retroactive to last August,’ ” he said. “We were trying to get an equitable contract.”
Despite the filing with the state board, Bassick said he is hopeful the sides can reach an agreement without going through the costly court process. A delayed agreement that is retroactive would be a burden for the county, and it’s important to resolve the matter sooner, he said.
Contact Ben Botkin at bbotkin@reviewjournal.com or 702-405-9781. Find him on Twitter: @BenBotkin1.
