IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE 

•ASSOCIATION METRO, INC., A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, AN AGENCY OF THE 

STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

No. 83960 

FILE 

NOV 3 0 2022 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

This is an appeal from a district court judgment in an action for 

declaratory and injunctive relief. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark 

County; Timothy C. Williams, Judge. 

Appellant Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro, Inc. 

(LVPPA) claimed that respondent Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 

Department (LVMPD) mandated overtime for its employees in violation of 

the parties Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). LVPPA sued in 

district court, asking the court to find that the CBA could not be interpreted 

to allow LVMPD to mandate overtime and to grant LVPPA a preliminary 

injunction to stop LVMPll from mandating overtime. The district found 

that the plain language of the CBA allowed LVMPD to mandate overtime 

and denied the preliminary injunction. LVPPA appeals, arguing that the 

district court's interpretation of the CBA is erroneous and that it was 

entitled to injunctive relief. We disagree. 

"This court reviews a district court's interpretation of a 

contract, a question of law, de novo." Nev. State Educ. Ass'n v. Clark Cty. 

Educ. Assn, 137 Nev. 76, 80, 482 P.3d 665, 671 (2021). When interpreting 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 
a contract on de novo review, the objective "is to discern the intent of the 

contracting parties." Davis v. Beling, 128 Nev. 301, 321, 278 P.3d 501, 515 

(2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Therefore, the initial focus is 

on whether the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous; if it is, 

the contract will be enforced as written." Id. 

The disputed language is located primarily in Article 18 of the 

CBA: 

ARTICLE 18 — HOURS 

18.4 Overtime. Overtime pay is defined as 

additional compensation earned by an employee 

who is held over on his regularly scheduled tour of 

duty, or is requested to return to duty at a time that 

is more than 12 hours after notice is given. . . . 

Officers who voluntarily sign up for overtime and 

are called to work the overtime, are not entitled to 

travel time or callback pay. 

Compensatory Tirne. Overtime (excluding callback 

and reimbursable hours) may be paid in the form of 

compensatory time off. Employees will have the 

option of choosing whether overtime hours worked 

will be paid or accumulated as compensatory time 

— this selection is irrevocable except under the 

following circumstances: 

A. Death of the employee (in this event, 

payment will be made to the 

beneficiary); 

B. Involuntary separation of the 

employee; 

C. The Department may specify that some 

voluntary overtime assignments may 

only be paid as compensatory time; or 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A <SW 

2 
D. In some circumstances, such as New 

Year's Eve, where overtime is 

mandatory, the Department may 

require that the overtime be paid. 

Resident Officers. 

The following payment classifications have been 

created to help determine how to count hours 

worked: 

• Special Circumstances Overtime: New Year's 

Eve, Laughlin River Run or any other 

overtime that is authorized by the Section 

Lieutenant or above.[1] 

LVPPA argues that the word "requested!' as used in Article 

18.4s definition of "Overtime is a permissive, rather than a mandatory, 

verb. We disagree and conclude that, reading the CBA as a whole, Article 

18.4 clearly supports a mandatory interpretation. See Fed. Nat'l Mortg. 

Assn v. Westland Liberty Vill., LLC, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 57, 515 P.3d 329, 

334 (2022) (Contracts must be read as a whole without negating any 

term."). 

Additionally, LVPPA argues that the mandatory overtime 

referenced in the Compensatory Time subsection of Article 18.4 refers only 

1We note that this language is taken from the 2016-2019 version of 

the CBA, which is the version that the district court had before it and from 

which the parties cite in their briefing before this court. •We note that in 

2019, the parties entered into a second collective bargaining agreement. 

Because the disputed language is the same in both versions, the parties do 

not dispute that the controversy regarding whether the CBA permits 

mandatory overtime is still live. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A mstexo 

3 
to a method of compensation. However, paragraphs C and D of that 

subsection establish the types of compensation an employee is entitled to 

depending on whether overtime is voluntary or mandatory. For instance, 

paragraph C provides that voluntary overtime can "only be paid as 

compensatory time," whereas paragraph D "require [s] that the [mandatory] 

overtime be paid." Paragraphs C and D appear sequentially and are 

separated with an "or," juxtaposing compensation for voluntary overtime on 

the one hand from mandatory overtime on the other.2

For these reasons, we conclude that the plain language of the 

CBA clearly permits LVMPD to mandate overtime. We thus concluded that 

the district court did not err in denying LVPPA's request for declaratory 

relief and subsequently denying LVPPA's motion to enjoin LVMPD frorn 

mandating overtime. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED 

bkle, 

Hardesty 

, J 

Stiglich 

J. 

Herndon 

2LVPPA also argues that the language appearing in the Resident 

Officers subsection of Article 18.4 does not support an interpretation 

allowing mandatory overtime because that subsection only applies to 

resident officers. We need not reach this argument because, even if true, 

other provisions of the CBA clearly allow mandatory overtime. Further, we 

do not reach the parties arguments regarding parol evidence because the 

language of the CBA itself is clear. See Davis, 128 Nev. at 321, 278 P.3d at 

515. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

N EVADA 4 

(0) 1947A 426). 
cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge 

Ara H. Shirinian, Settlement Judge 

Sgro & Roger 

David J. Roger 

Marquis Aurbach Chtd. 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

5