Union accuses School District of taking sides in labor dispute

Friday, Oct. 22, 2004 | 8:48 a.m.

Officials for Teamsters Local 14 have accused the Clark County School District's senior attorney of improperly choosing sides in a bitter and prolonged legal battle over the right to represent more than 8,000 support employees.

In a recent brief filed with the Nevada Supreme Court -- which is considering a challenge by the Teamsters as to how the representation election should be carried out -- the School District agreed with legal arguments made by the existing union, the Education Support Employees Association.

In the brief, Bill Hoffman, the district's senior counsel, supported the conclusion of the Nevada Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board that "50 percent plus one" of all eligible employees had to show support in order for one of the unions to win the election. The Teamsters are challenging that threshold, saying a simple majority of the people who turn out to vote -- not all employees -- is all that should be required.

Hoffman also states that if neither side shows an outright majority, ESEA should remain the recognized bargaining group, provided the union can demonstrate employee support through other means.

"The election determines whether the incumbent should be unseated by the challenger, but not whether the incumbent possesses majority support outside of the election," the brief states.

It's that position that has the Teamsters questioning the district's impartiality.

Kristin Martin, attorney for Teamsters Local 14, said Hoffman's brief went beyond the issues considered by the labor relations board as well as beyond the legal challenges raised by the two unions. It also goes beyond the scope of his authority as the district's senior counsel, Martin said.

Based on its own regulations, only the Clark County School Board may set policy and that responsibility cannot be delegated to district staff, Martin said.

"If the district's argument is that they're doing this to make sure there's some union in place, that means supporting the Teamsters' position," Martin said. "If the election is decided by the majority of the votes cast (rather than a majority of eligible employees), it's more likely that one of the unions will win outright. That will also ensure it's a union employees want rather than one that's being crammed down their throats."

Based on the district's reasoning "if 1 percent of the employees vote for ESEA, 49 percent vote for Teamsters and the rest don't vote, ESEA wins," Martin said.

Hoffman said the only side his office was on was the district's.

"Labor stability is a vital component of the district's success -- we're better off with a union representing those employees' interests," Hoffman said. "The fact that people don't vote in the election doesn't mean they don't want a union."

He agreed with Martin's contention that only the School Board can set the district's policy. However, Hoffman said, it is Nevada Revised Statutes and the Nevada Administrative Code -- and not the School Board -- that dictate how union elections are held and the criteria for recognizing bargaining groups.

Hoffman said his brief does not call for a policy change and does nothing more than explain that the district intends to follow the state statutes already in place.

For the past three years the Teamsters have been campaigning to replace the Education Support Employees Association as the union for the district's bus drivers, custodians, food service workers and office personnel.

In 2002 the Teamsters went to the Nevada Local Government Employee Management Relations Board with what they said were signature cards showing that the required "50 percent plus one" of the district's support employees backed the Teamsters. But the ESEA countered with evidence that the same percentage of employees were still paying dues to the union.

That board ruled there was "good faith doubt" over which union the employees wanted representing them and ordered an election. Citing Nevada statute, the board said in order to win, either union would have to meet the "50 percent plus one" threshold. Employees would also be given the opportunity on the ballot to vote for no union representation.

But the Teamsters challenged the order, claiming all that should be required is a simple majority of individuals that turn out to vote -- the same standard used by the National Labor Relations Board.

Doug McCain, president of the ESEA, said he doubted the Teamsters would be able to duplicate their signature card campaign success. The Teamsters moved in at a time when the ESEA -- facing $8 million in debt after the collapse of its health trust in 2001 -- was "very vulnerable," McCain said.

The unpaid bills have been resolved and a new, district-sponsored insurance plan is in place, McCain said.

" Nowhere near the number of people who were upset back then are unhappy at this point," McCain said. "Whatever advantage the Teamsters had back then, they don't have anymore."

Kathy Naumann, campaign coordinator for Teamsters Local 14, disagreed.

"There's been no drop in support," Naumann said. "We're stronger than ever."

She added that the fight has grown beyond the question of who will represent the district's support employees to a possible push by the Teamsters during the upcoming legislative session to change the statute governing how unions demonstrate employee support.

"This is a civil rights issue," Naumann said.