North Las Vegas will continue fighting ex-cops’ lawsuit

Diana Sahagun

Friday, Sept. 8, 2000 | 10:33 a.m.

Rather then settle with two former North Las Vegas Police officers who were stripped of their badges, the city and police union will take their fight to the Nevada Supreme Court.

The two officers say they were unjustly fired and are seeking an independent review, but the city and the Police Officers Association say the decision to fire them was proper.

Part of the debate swirls around the union's collective bargaining agreement, which covers all union members and nonmembers who work for the North Las Vegas Police Department. The agreement is the same as in Henderson, which allows the union to decide if a grievance is valid and whether the case should go to arbitration.

By contrast, the Metro Police agreement allows employees themselves to opt for an independent review.

Attorney Mark Ferrario, representing former North Las Vegas officers Mike Thomas and John Armstrong, said the city's collective bargaining agreement clashes with state labor laws.

"You cannot have the union being judge and jury," Ferrario said.

This fiscal year, which began July 1, North Las Vegas has spent $26,400 in outside attorney fees to fight Thomas and Armstrong, City Attorney Sean McGowan said.

The city attorney's office budgets $530,000 for outside attorney fees and self-insurance. The city also has a $1 million contingency fund.

Thomas and Armstrong, who were each fired twice by the police department, argue that an arbitrator should hear their side of the story. They sued the union and the city in December, asking for that right.

On July 11 District Judge Gene Porter agreed, ordering the city to grant the officers arbitration. But the city and union petitioned the state Supreme Court last month, asking that Porter's decision be overturned.

The city filed its appeal Aug. 17, but Porter's ruling is effective Monday -- 60 days after his decision -- unless the high court intervenes. Ferrario said he is ready to move forward.

The officers' battle with the city, police department and the union dates back to the early 1990s.

Thomas joined the police department in 1993 and in the years following began questioning the union's health insurance policies.

He was fired in November 1996 amid charges that he failed to obey administrative orders.

At that time, Thomas was able to hire an arbitrator to review his termination, under terms of the union's collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator ruled that Thomas should be rehired.

Thomas rejoined the department in September 1997 and according to court documents began airing his complaints about the union to local radio programs, the television show "Hard Copy," the City Council and newspapers.

The police department fired Thomas again on Aug. 31, 1999, for violation of rules including associating with known offenders, unprofessional conduct and making public statements about the department.

But this time, Thomas did not have the recourse of an arbitrator.

In 1998 language in the union's collective bargaining agreement was modified, giving the union the sole right to submit cases to arbitration.

The union turned down Thomas' request for an arbitrator and he lodged a complaint with the Nevada Employee Management Relations Board. The board declined to hear the case.

On Dec. 21, 1999, Thomas filed a lawsuit against the city and the union to force them into arbitration.

Armstrong was named as a second defendant in the lawsuit. He was fired in 1997 for not taking corrective action when responding to a domestic dispute. An arbitrator ordered that he be rehired. Armstrong was fired again Nov. 12, 1998, following a sexual harassment claim filed by a fellow male officer.

Ferrario argues that the city and the union changed the agreement solely to prevent the two officers from receiving an independent review.

Attorney John Dean Harper, who represents the police union, said the union should decide if a case is sent to arbitration.

"That way, you weed out frivolous grievances and it benefits everyone," he said. "We are absolutely not limiting anyone's rights."

McGowan said he has met with each City Council member and was given approval to move ahead with the appeal.

"(The officers') terminations were appropriate, and we feel an obligation to represent the city's decision," McGowan said.