Teamsters optimistic in schools election

By Emily Richmond

Tuesday, April 18, 2006 | 7:13 a.m.

Ballots were mailed Monday to more than 10,000 Clark County School District bus drivers, custodians, food-service workers and office personnel, the kickoff to a union vote nearly five years in the making.

The election, which the Nevada Supreme Court ordered four months ago, gives the district's support employees a choice of retaining the Education Support Employees Association, choosing the Teamsters or choosing to have no union.

State statute requires the winner's share of the ballots to equal 50 percent plus one of all eligible voters, known as a "supermajority."

But in truth, ESEA has the upper hand because if neither union receives a supermajority, ESEA will continue to be the bargaining agent, said Bill Hoffman, senior legal counsel for the School District.

"The election is not an action to decertify the ESEA, it is an election to determine whether the ESEA should be replaced by the Teamsters," said Hoffman, who submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in favor of upholding the state's supermajority requirement.

Jim Wright, a consultant for Teamsters Local 14, said those circumstances make it easier for ESEA to continue its representation because votes for the union and votes against any union essentially help ESEA. What's more, anyone who chooses not to vote also is a choice to continue the status quo.

"In a sense, they have three bites of the apple," Wright said.

Richard Hurd, professor and director of labor studies at Cornell University, concurred.

"A nonvote is a vote against the Teamsters," said Hurd, a nationally recognized expert on trade union administration and strategy.

ESEA's position is further solidified by the four-year contract it has with the School District, Hurd said. Without a contract in place, the Teamsters would find it easier to challenge unfavorable election results, Hurd said.

"The fact that there is a long-term contract being enforced suggests the union is recognized and established," Hurd said.

Gary Mauger, chief executive of the Teamsters local, said "all options are open," including possibly returning to court if neither union wins the supermajority. It's illogical for the ESEA to remain the union by default, Mauger said.

But he said the Teamsters expect to win outright, making further judicial intervention unnecessary.

"This has been significant time and effort in the last 4 1/2 years, a half-million dollars spent by us, at no cost" to the support employees, Mauger said.

"We felt strongly enough that they deserved the option for a change that they've never had before to fight through the courts on their behalf. People know the importance of this vote."

Teamsters Local 14 has a lengthy history in Southern Nevada, representing employees of Henderson, North Las Vegas and Boulder City, as well as the Southern Nevada Water Authority.

The Teamsters local argues that ESEA lacks the resources and expertise to adequately represent the district's support employees.

ESEA counters that it has negotiated increased pay and benefits, including the lifting of a cap on the number of unused vacation days an employee could cash out.

The Teamsters' campaign to represent the district's support employees stretches from 2002. At that time, ESEA was vulnerable, facing $8 million in debt after the collapse of its health trust. The unpaid bills have since been resolved, and a district-sponsored health insurance plan is in place.

The Teamsters went to the Nevada Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board with what the union said were signature cards showing that the required "50 percent plus one" of the district's support employees backed the Teamsters.

But ESEA countered with evidence that the same percentage of employees were still paying dues to the union.

The board ruled the next year that "good faith doubt" existed over which union the employees wanted representing them. The board ordered an election. Citing Nevada statute, the board said either union would have to meet the "50 percent plus one" threshold to prevail.

But the Teamsters challenged the order, claiming all that should be required is a simple majority of individuals who vote - the same standard used by the National Labor Relations Board for some federal employees.

The Supreme Court disagreed, siding with the Employee-Management Relations Board in December.

Hurd said it's entirely possible for the Teamsters to produce a majority of signature cards and ESEA to correctly claim more than half of the district's support employees are paying dues.

"They may be paying dues because they prefer the current union to no union at all," Hurd said.

To be recognized for collective bargaining, a union must show its membership consists of at least 50 percent of eligible employees plus one person, Hoffman said.

If the membership of a union drops below 50 percent of eligible employees, the district has an obligation to go before the Employee-Management Relations Board to determine "whether decertification is appropriate," Hoffman said.

Currently, 5,967 support employees - 57 percent of the 10,485 total - pay dues to ESEA.