NLV police file complaint over ‘bad faith’ talks

Lisa Snedeker

Thursday, Dec. 3, 1998 | 11:21 a.m.

A complaint filed by the North Las Vegas Police Officers Association alleges that the city acted in bad faith in its negotiations with the union over the police officers' contract that expired June 30.

The complaint, which was filed Tuesday with the state's Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board, also alleges that acting City Manager Pat Importuna was charged with representing the city to renegotiate the police officers' 1998 contract.

Importuna, who said Wednesday he had not seen the complaint, did not seem surprised by the allegations because the last he heard of the negotiations was that the association wrote a letter to the city attorney stating it intended to file a complaint.

"I have not received a copy of the complaint," he said.

Importuna, however, said after the council voted 4-1 to not renew the police officers' contract in August, he was asked by the council to meet informally with the association to see if the parties could find common ground and come to a resolution.

"We met on three occasions ... it was very clearly stated that the meetings were informal and that any discussions had to be communicated to council and were subject to the council's approval," he said.

The complaint alleges that Importuna, as an agent for the city, "has stated that it is his intention to 'break the union,' and has acted in bad faith to achieve that goal."

Importuna, who would not respond to the complaint's allegations because he had not seen it, declined to give any specifics about the contract because of the negotiations.

The complaint says that Importuna, as the city's chief negotiator, refused to enter into the "Rules of Negotiation," and that he "would agree to certain provisions, but then renege on said provisions at a later meeting."

Importuna did say, however, that he thought the city and the association was close to reaching an agreement at the third meeting.

"Then abruptly the city received a letter from their (association) attorney saying that we have been dealing with them unfairly and that I shouldn't be a negotiator," Importuna said.

The complaint states that, "when the NLVPOA negotiators realized that Importuna, as agent for the (city), was not negotiating in good faith, the NLVPOA discontinued negotiations and made a last and best offer."

The complaint continues, " ... the (city) in bad faith, refused to accept the last and final offer."

"They (the association) were frustrated with the unwillingness of the council to approve everything and anything they wanted and I'm quite sure they took action because they don't know what else to do," Importuna said.

The next step in the process is up to the lawyers, according to Importuna.

Dave Galyen, president of the union, agreed the impasse left the police officers in limbo, forcing the association's latest action.

Galyen said the association is asking for a 4 percent raise -- the same raise the city gave the firefighters and Teamsters unions. Galyen said the city budgeted for a 3.5 increase for the police officers' contract.

The complaint states the council used as a pretext the argument that the 1998 agreement with the police officers would not fit into its budget. "By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith ... (the council) has engaged in a prohibited practice."

Mayor Michael Montandon, however, said the allegations about the city budgeting a 3.5 percent raise for police officers is untrue.

Montandon said the reason he voted against the contract in August was because it was not appropriately sent to City Council members.

Because the contract was placed before the City Council before it was negotiated, according to Montandon, "we went back to the negotiating table to do it like it is supposed to be done and that is still where they are at."

Galyen and the complaint stated the association, which represents some 275 members, did have a negotiated contract with the city that both parties agreed upon June 18.

"When both sides reached an agreement and signed a contract, I took it back to my members, who on June 24 ratified it by a 99 percent approval," he said.

Galyen said it went to the City Council for a vote July 1, but the item was tabled until Aug. 5, when the council voted 4-1 to deny the contract. Councilman William Robinson was the lone dissenter.

The complaint asks for approval of the original contract ratified by the officers and that it be retroactive to July 1. It also asks for the association's attorney fees and costs.

The city has 20 days to respond to the complaint.