Reno wins Supreme Court ruling in firefighter layoffs

http://www.reviewjournal.com ^ | December 31, 2014 - 4:15pm | By SEAN WHALEY

[redreno]

CARSON CITY — The Nevada Supreme Court on Wednesday gave a victory to the city of Reno in its decision in May to lay off 32 firefighters after federal funding that supported their positions ran out.

The court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice James Hardesty, found that a Reno District Court did not have the authority to grant a preliminary injunction in the labor dispute because the underlying grievance was not arbitrable under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.

A District Court judge in Reno issued the preliminary injunction in June preventing Reno from completing scheduled layoffs. The order said that the union could prevail in administrative proceedings that haven’t yet happened, including taking the dispute before an arbitrator. Reno appealed that order to the state’s Supreme Court.

Clark County and other local governments in Southern Nevada were actively supporting Reno in the dispute.

Clark County’s brief argued that Reno, like other cities, has the power to manage its finances and make decisions through the separation of powers principle that prevents one branch of government from encroaching on another.

In the ruling, the court said District Judge Lidia Stiglich erroneously rejected the city’s contractual non-negotiable right to make budget-related reductions in force decisions. The court said that state law requires mandatory bargaining over the procedures for reduction in workforce, not the layoffs themselves.

[redreno]

Judge Lidia Stiglich is a stooge of the public unions.

[dsrtsage]

Wonder if this summer will see an unprecedented number of wildfires

[Eva]

About six years ago, thevWA Supreme Court ruled that the state could not be forced to find contracts of five new SEIU unions if the money was not in the budget.

It was an election year and the Democrat governor was up for re-election against a balanced budget Republican candidate. The Democrat claimed to have a balanced budget by leaving out the union contracts. The unions sued the governor and the state for non-compliance and lost the case and the appeals. It was the hope of the unions that the courts would order a tax increase to fund the contracts, that would have been a win-win for the Democrats, but even the left wing courts in WA ruled against it.

[ClearCase_guy]

[kearnyirish2]

Many municipalities were smart enough to reject Obama’s offer of temporary funding to hire new cops, teachers, and such because they knew after a year or two those new parasites would be affixed to the taxpayer host and the fed funds would dry up. Rather than force taxpayers to foot the bill, they just politely declined.

In the NYC metro area those civil servants that survived layoffs and cutbacks live very well (upper middle class), while any newbies hoping to get on the gravy train are often out of luck (and lack transferable job skills for private-sector work). No sympathy from me...