AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFSCME Local 2851 (AFSCME) sought to include various positions within the City of Las Vegas into an existing bargaining unit. Despite these positions having "supervisor" in their job titles, AFSCME contended that the employees did not meet the definition of "supervisors" under the Public Employees Bargain Act (PEBA). A hearing was held, and testimonies were provided by the employees in question, their subordinates, AFSCME officials, and City managerial representatives. The City of Las Vegas Labor Management Relations Board (the Board) ultimately dismissed AFSCME's petition (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• AFSCME: Argued that the employees in question were not "supervisors" as defined under PEBA, asserting that they did not spend a majority of their time on supervisory duties and thus should be accreted into the bargaining unit (paras 2, 6).
• City of Las Vegas: Contended that AFSCME had not met its burden of proof to show that the positions in question should be accreted into the bargaining unit. Emphasized AFSCME's failure to provide citations to support its assertions regarding the testimony given at the merits hearing (paras 7-8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the City of Las Vegas Labor Management Relations Board's decision to dismiss AFSCME's petition for accretion was supported by substantial evidence in the record (para 10).
• Whether the district court erred in upholding the Board's decision without a complete record, including a transcript or recording of the merits hearing (para 12).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order upholding the Board's decision and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to direct the City to file a complete record in accordance with Rule 1-074(H) and to undertake a whole record review to determine if substantial evidence supports the Board's determination (para 16).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the Board and the City failed to comply with their obligations under Rule 1-074, specifically in filing a complete record for appellate review. This failure included not filing a transcript or recording of the merits hearing, which was critical for determining whether the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The Court emphasized that the district court could not have properly carried out its responsibilities without reviewing the entire record, including the merits hearing. The absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Board and the inadequate reasoning provided at the Board's meeting further necessitated a remand for a complete and proper review (paras 11-15).