A judge issued a restraining order preventing the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department from forcing officers to work overtime.
The order for the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was issued Wednesday after a review and consideration of the points and authorities on file.
Metro officers had been working mandatory overtime since the 1 October shooting.
The court’s ruling and notes are below:
The Court had an opportunity to review Article 18.4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, and article 18.1 Work Week of the CBA sets forth and defines that Metro and the PPA agree that the normal paid weekly working hours shall be 40. However, if mutually agreed, an alternate work schedule of 80 hours bi-weekly may be utilized.
Article 18.4 defines overtime 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.
Based upon the clearly defined 40-hour work week and overtime under the CBA, the Parties negotiated the Tour of Duty (under Article 18.2) and Tour of Duty Change (under article 18.3). Of paramount importance, PPA is requesting this Court to interpret the CBA and determine whether, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the CBA, Metro can force mandatory overtime upon PPA members. Nevada Revised Statute Chapter 288 is the basis for this request, as the Employee-Management Relations Board ( EMRB ), without an express statutory grant of jurisdiction, does not have the authority to construe the provisions of an existing collective bargaining agreement or contract. Construing such provisions is reserved for the courts, pursuant to NRS Chapter 30.
In addition, the EMRB does not have the power to issue a preliminary injunction, and the instant matter is ripe for judicial review. Injunctive relief is the sole jurisdiction of the courts pursuant to NRS Chapter 33 and NRCP 65. Lastly, the Court has considered (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the threat of irreparable harm; (3) the relative interests of the parties; and (4) interest of the public. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order shall be GRANTED. Additionally, the Court shall require a minimum bond in the sum of $1,000.00, and the Court shall set a status check for the Parties on December 5, 2017, at 9:00 am to set an evidentiary hearing for determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction in the instant action.
Counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a detailed Order based not only on the foregoing Minute Order but also on the record on file herein. This is to be submitted to adverse counsel for review and approval and/or submission of a competing Order or objections, prior to submitting to the Court for review and signature.