Opinion ID: 1280747
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: does nevada law prohibit collective bargaining representation on behalf of state employees unless the representative is recognized by the state?

Text: Next, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit would like this court to determine whether Nevada law prohibits collective bargaining representation on behalf of state employees unless the representative is recognized by the State. The rule is well-settled among a majority of jurisdictions throughout the United States that absent express statutory authority, public officials or state agencies do not have the authority to enter into collective bargaining agreements with public employees.  Local 2238 AFSCME v. Stratton, 108 N.M. 163, 769 P.2d 76, 80 (1989) (emphasis in original). However, a minority of jurisdictions hold otherwise, concluding that, in the absence of express statutory authority to bargain collectively, a general grant of power to administrative officers may imply the necessary means for carrying into execution the power granted, and this may include collective bargaining agreements between the administrative officers and state employee representatives. Stratton, 769 P.2d at 80-81. There are a number of reasons why courts are split on this issue: some courts have concluded that the separation of powers doctrine mandates specific legislative authorization before public employee collective bargaining can occur; other courts have concluded that the preemption doctrine bars collective bargaining absent specific legislative authorization. See DOLE, JR., State and Local Public Employee Collective Bargaining in the Absence of Explicit Legislative Authorization, 54 IOWA L.REV. 539, 549-550 (1969). We believe a cogent argument against implying a power to bargain collectively in these cases is couched in a concern that the legitimization of public employer collective bargaining will increase the incidence of public employee strikes. [1] Collective bargaining would seem to contemplate the strike as a weapon to enforce the demands of employees. While such a result is uncertain, as a policy matter, we believe the issue is best left to legislative debate and rule-making. Likewise, we conclude it is appropriate to allow the Legislature, if it so chooses, to confer exclusive recognition upon specific public employee bargaining entities. Where there are actual or potential rival employee representatives, it may be difficult for public employers to obtain a master contract: competitive pressures may make each representative reluctant to reach an agreement until every representative is willing to accept the same terms. Comment, Public Employee Collective Bargaining Contracts: The Chicago Teachers, 33 U.CHI.L.REV. 852, 863-864 (1966). Again, the Legislature is in the best position to resolve the legitimate concerns associated with this fact intensive issue. Accordingly, we adopt the majority common law rule and hold that absent express statutory authority, Nevada public officials and state agencies do not have the authority to enter into collective bargaining agreements with public employees, and that Nevada law prohibits collective bargaining representation on behalf of state employees unless the representative is recognized by the State.