LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION

STATE OF NEVADA

(775) 684-6800

MICHAEL ROBERSON. Senator. Chairman

LEGISLATIVE

COUNSEL

BUREAU

Rick Combs, Director, Secretary

LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

INTERIM FINANCE COMMITTEE

401

S. CARSON STREET

CARSON CITY, NEVADA

(775) 684-6821

PAUL ANDERSON. Assemblyman, Chairman

Cindy Jones, Fiscal Analyst
Mark Krmpotic. Fiscal Analyst

89701-4747

Fax No.: (775) 684-6600

BRENDA J. ERDOES. Legislative Counsel

PAUL V. TOWNSEND. Legislative Auditor

RICK COMBS. Director

(775) 684-6800

VACANT. Research Director

(775) 684-6830
(775)684-6815

(775) 684-6825

June 12,2015

Senator Michael Roberson

P.O. Box 530940

Henderson, Nevada 89053-0940

Dear Senator Roberson:

This will serve to supplement our letter to you of earlier today, in which we reviewed the
provisions of Senate Bill No. 241 (2015). The bill became effective on June 1, 2015. You have
asked specifically about section 1.3 of S.B. 241 and whether it precludes a local government
employer from implementing a salary increase provided for in an expired collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) before a successor CBA becomes effective. In pertinent part, section 1.3
provides:
1. A collective bargaining agreement:
(a) May extend beyond the term of office of any member or officer of the
local government employer.
(b) Expires for the purposes of this section at the end of the term stated in
the agreement, notwithstanding any provision of the agreement that it remain in
effect, in whole or in part, after the end of that term until a successor agreement
becomes effective.

2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3 and notwithstanding any

provision of the collective bargaining agreement to the contrary, upon the
expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, if no successor agreement is
effective and until a successor agreement becomes effective, a local government
employer shall not pay to or on behalf of any employee in the affected bargaining
unit anv compensation or monetary benefits in anv amount greater than the
amount in effect as of the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement.
3. The provisions of subsection 2 do not prohibit a local government
employer from paying:

(NSPO Rev. 6-15)

Senator Michael Roberson

June 12,2015

Page 2

(a) An increase in compensation or monetary benefits during the first

quarter of the next ensuing fiscal year of the local government employer after the
expiration of a collective bargaining agreement; or

(b) An increase in the employer's portion of the matching contribution

rate for employees and employers in accordance with an adjustment in the rate of
contributions pursuant to NRS 286.450.
(Emphasis added).

As with any other statutory language, the language of section 1.3 of S.B. 241 must be

interpreted in accordance with its plain meaning unless doing so violates the "spirit" of the bill.
See, e.g., McKay v. Bd. of Supervisors. 102 Nev. 644, 648 (1986). Withthe exceptions provided
in subsection 3 of section 1.3, quoted above, the plain meaning of subsections 1 and 2 of section
1.3 is that: (1) a CBA expires for the purposes of the section at the end of its stated term,

notwithstanding the existence of "evergreen" language in the CBA; and (2) a local government
that is a party to the CBA is thereafter precluded, "until a successor [CBA] becomes effective,"
from paying compensation or monetary benefits in any amount greater than the amount in effect
when the prior CBA expired.

Thus, if a CBA expires on June 30, 2015, any increase in salaries that was otherwise to
have become effective on or after July 1, 2015, cannot be implemented until a new CBA is
negotiated and ratified by the parties. In this regard, section 1.3 makes no distinction between an
increase paid as a cost-of-living adjustment or one paid because employees have acquired an
additional year of experience and moved from one step to another on a salary schedule; the
payment of any such increase is effectively stayed until a new CBA becomes effective. On the
other hand, if an employee moves from Position A to Position B during the pendency of
negotiations {e.g., because of a promotion), section 1.3 would not preclude the employee from

being paid the higher salary associated with Position B, as long as the salary for that position and
paid to the employee remained at the level existing (in the example above) on June 30.
Although the legislative record of S.B. 241 is apparently silent on the point, the clear

purpose of section 1.3 is to give the parties to an expired CBA - and particularly the employee
organization involved - an economic incentive to conclude negotiations or resolve any impasse
in bargaining and settle the successor CBA at the earliest possible date. The limited exception
provided in paragraph (a) of subsection 3, allowing the payment of an increase during the first
quarter of the next ensuing fiscal year, effectively provides a brief grace period if a successor
CBA has not yet been settled at the beginning of the fiscal year.

Three additional points need to be made for the sake of clarity. First, as we stated in our
earlierletter, determining when the term of a given CBA has ended will require consideration of

the specific language of the CBA and any circumstances that may be relevant in interpreting the
language.

Second, as a matter of labor law, it is well-established that the expiration of a CBA does
not immediately entitle an employer to modify terms and conditions of employment that involve

Senator Michael Roberson

June 12, 2015

Page 3

"mandatory subjects" of bargaining. Clear Pine Mouldings, Inc. v. NLRB, 632 F.2d 721, 729
(9th Cir. 1980); Police Officers Ass'n of the Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Clark County Sch. Dist..

Item No. 720 (EMRB 2010), Case No. Al-045944. Section 1.3 does not abrogate that principle
or provide that an expired CBA is ineffective except as otherwise provided in section 1.3 itself:
salaries and monetary benefits are to remain in status quo until a new CBA is effective.
Finally, under existing law, any award of an arbitrator in resolving a bargaining impasse
"is retroactive to the expiration date of the last contract" between the parties. See, e.g., NRS
288.215, 288.217. Unless the parties otherwise agree or unless so much time has passed that
retroactive payment is impracticable, the result should be that any increase in salaries provided
for in a successor CBA would ordinarily become effective retroactively to July 1, 2015 (using
the example above), and be paid in a lump sum even if the arbitrator does not render an award
until after July 1. Section 1.3 does not change that result.
I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely,
Brenda J. Erdoes

Legislative Counsel

James W. Penrose

Senior Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel

JWP:dtm