Teacher layoffs loom as union disputes ruling

A $10 million legal victory -- saving 134 teachers from layoffs -- could be short-lived for the cash-strapped Clark County School District.

A state government board will consider Wednesday whether to undo the week-old ruling of an arbitrator, who sided with the district in deducting an average of $25 from teachers' biweekly paychecks, which the district began doing in July. The deductions cover half of the increase in payments that public employees must make to the state's retirement plan.

State law requires teachers to pay half of the 2.25 percent increase. But the teachers union wanted the district to increase teachers' salaries by 1.125 percent to cover their share of the retirement cost increase, although no other district employee groups received raises.

Teacher raises would cost the district $10 million in the 2011-12 school year, something officials said it couldn't afford and would result in laying off teachers. Because teachers earn $75,000 on average, including benefits, that would mean cutting about 134 positions.

Nevada's Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board will weigh in after the fact because the Clark County Education Association, which represents district teachers, is contending that state law prohibits the arbitrator from making a decision just yet.

The law cited by the union in its complaint says the arbitrator "shall consider whether the Board found that either party had bargained in bad faith."

The teachers union has filed two claims of bad-faith bargaining with the board, arguing that the district didn't negotiate in good faith over the retirement rate increase or its attempt to replace the union's Teachers Health Trust with a traditional insurance provider. The district is no longer pursuing the trust issue.

The district contends in its response to the union complaint that the claims are baseless and "ironic," considering union officials "publicly stated no concessions will be agreed upon by teachers before negotiations even commenced."

The state board hasn't yet ruled on these bad-faith bargaining claims, therefore the arbitrator can't rule either, the union argues. The board will decide Wednesday whether it interprets the law the same way.

The school district disagrees.

"CCEA is attempting to manufacture a conflict, or hole, in the statutes where none exists," the district writes in its response, noting that the arbitrator has a set number of days to announce a ruling.

If the arbitrator had to indefinitely wait for a ruling on bad-faith bargaining, "nothing would stop a party that wanted to derail the impasse process at any time from simply filing a complaint."

The district went on to call the union's "dubious" complaints a "delay" tactic, wasting time that the district doesn't have.

"The district has a substantial budget deficit to resolve (for 2011-12 school year)," the district wrote. "Kicking the proverbial can down the road only makes the available option less palatable."

Without arbitration decisions, the district will need to assume the worst and balance the 2011-12 budget through hundreds of teacher layoffs, officials have said.

Not wanting to do that unless absolutely necessary, the district has been waiting all school year for arbitration decisions. But the school year under debate is almost over, and the district can wait no longer.

District officials have said layoff notices will be handed out to teachers this month, arbitration decision or not.

The board's Wednesday meeting will be 9 a.m. at 2501 E. Sahara Ave., Suite 203.

Contact reporter Trevon Milliard at tmilliard@review journal.com or 702-383-0279.