Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 288 - RELATIONS BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.110 (2026)

Rules governing various proceedings and procedures; hearing and order; injunction; time for filing complaint or appeal; costs

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 288.110  Rules governing various proceedings and procedures; hearing and order; injunction; time for filing complaint or appeal; costs.

      1.  The Board may make rules governing:

      (a) Proceedings before it;

      (b) Procedures for fact-finding;

      (c) The recognition, as defined in NRS 288.136, of employee organizations;

      (d) The designation of the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit in accordance with the provisions of NRS 288.520, 288.525 and 288.530; and

      (e) The determination of bargaining units.

      2.  The Board may hear and determine any complaint arising out of the interpretation of, or performance under, the provisions of this chapter by the Executive Department, any local government employer, any employee, as defined in NRS 288.425, any local government employee, any employee organization or any labor organization. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection and NRS 288.115, 288.280 and 288.625, the Board shall conduct a hearing within 180 days after it decides to hear a complaint. If a complaint alleges a violation of paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of NRS 288.620 or paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of NRS 288.620, the Board shall conduct a hearing not later than 45 days after it decides to hear the complaint, unless the parties agree to waive this requirement. The Board, after a hearing, if it finds that the complaint is well taken, may order any person or entity to refrain from the action complained of or to restore to the party aggrieved any benefit of which the party has been deprived by that action. Except when an expedited hearing is conducted pursuant to NRS 288.115, the Board shall issue its decision within 120 days after the hearing on the complaint is completed.

      3.  Any party aggrieved by the failure of any person to obey an order of the Board issued pursuant to subsection 2, or the Board at the request of such a party, may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for a prohibitory or mandatory injunction to enforce the order.

      4.  The Board may not consider any complaint or appeal filed more than 6 months after the occurrence which is the subject of the complaint or appeal.

      5.  The Board may decide without a hearing a contested matter:

      (a) In which all of the legal issues have been previously decided by the Board, if it adopts its previous decision or decisions as precedent; or

      (b) Upon agreement of all the parties.

      6.  The Board may award reasonable costs, which may include attorneys’ fees, to the prevailing party.

      7.  As used in this section, “bargaining unit” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 288.134 or 288.415.

      (Added to NRS by 1969, 1381; A 1975, 919; 1977, 1366; 1987, 1435; 1989, 1671; 2013, 44; 2015, 1593; 2017, 1429; 2019, 2673, 3741)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: City of North Las Vegas v. State, Local Gov't Emp.-Mgmt. Relations Bd., 261 P.3d 1071 (Nev. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of North Las Vegas v. State, Local Gov't Emp.-Mgmt. Relations Bd., 261 P.3d 1071 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 10× “In doing so, we determine whether the six-month deadline for filing claims with the EMRB under NRS 288.110(4) is subject to equitable tolling.”
UMC Physicians' Bargaining Unit of Nevada Serv. Employees Union v. Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107, 178 P.3d 709 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 12× “11 Two statutes and two administrative codes primarily provide the basis for our analysis: NRS 288.110, which governs complaints before the Board; NAC 288.”
City of Henderson/Henderson Police Dep't v. Kilgore, 131 P.3d 11 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 13× “Kilgore argues that NRS 288.110 empowers the EMRB to issue preliminary injunctions because NRS 288.”
Kansas Bd. of Regents v. Pittsburg State Univ. Chapter, 667 P.2d 306 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 4× “Indeed, NRS 288.110 charges the board with that responsibility and great deference should be given to the agency's interpretation when it is within the language of the statute.”
Rosequist v. Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters Local 1908, 49 P.3d 651 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 4× “Specifically, Rosequist argues that the word “may” contained in NRS 288.110(2) and NRS 288.280 means that there is no mandatory requirement for the EMRB to hear the complaint.”
City of Reno v. Reno Police Prot. Ass'n, 59 P.3d 1212 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 3× “38 NRS 288.110. 39 Ormsby County Education Assoc.”
Fausto Vs. Sanchez-flores, 2021 NV 11 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 2× “State, Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board, this court affirmed a district court's decision to equitably toll NRS 288.110(4)s six-month deadline for filing a complaint asserting prohibited labor practices against a local government agency.”
Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 194 P.3d 96 (Nev. 2008). “3d at 655 (quoting NRS 288.110(2) and also citing to NRS 288.”
Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107 v. Orr, 119 P.3d 1259 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 4× “The district court affirmed the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and its award of attorney fees and costs, as well as its decision to allow Orr to waive the pre-termination hearing and proceed directly to arbitration. However, the district court reversed the…”
Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Local Gov't Emp.-Mgmt. Relations Bd., 530 P.2d 114 (Nev. 1974). · cites it 3× “” NRS 288.110. The provisions of the statute pertinent to the issues of this appeal are: “288.”
Nev. Local Gov't Emp.-Mgmt. Relations Bd. v. Educ. Support Emps. Ass'n, 429 P.3d 658 (Nev. 2018). “The Board may refer to its use of the higher standard as an experimental interpretation, but the plain language dictates that the majority-of-the-unit standard be used for elections conducted pursuant to NRS 288.160 and NAC 288.110(10)(d).”
Truckee Meadows Fire Prot. Dist. v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 2487, 849 P.2d 343 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 4× “On appeal, TMFPD contends that the successorship clause involves its initial decision to *369 sell, convey or transfer its operations rather than the effects of that decision, and therefore, the clause impermissibly intrudes on an area reserved to management.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.110(1)(a) — 1 case
Umc Phys. Bar. Unit of Nv. v. Nv. Ser. Emp., 178 P.3d 709 (Nev. 2008).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.110(1)(c) — 1 case
Nev. Local Gov't Emp.-Mgmt. Relations Bd. v. Educ. Support Emps. Ass'n, 429 P.3d 658 (Nev. 2018). “The Board may refer to its use of the higher standard as an experimental interpretation, but the plain language dictates that the majority-of-the-unit standard be used for elections conducted pursuant to NRS 288.160 and NAC 288.110(10)(d).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.110(2) — 12 cases
UMC Physicians' Bargaining Unit of Nevada Serv. Employees Union v. Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107, 178 P.3d 709 (Nev. 2008). “11 Two statutes and two administrative codes primarily provide the basis for our analysis: NRS 288.110, which governs complaints before the Board; NAC 288.”
Rosequist v. Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters Local 1908, 49 P.3d 651 (Nev. 2002). “Specifically, Rosequist argues that the word “may” contained in NRS 288.110(2) and NRS 288.280 means that there is no mandatory requirement for the EMRB to hear the complaint.”
City of Henderson/Henderson Police Dep't v. Kilgore, 131 P.3d 11 (Nev. 2006). “Kilgore argues that NRS 288.110 empowers the EMRB to issue preliminary injunctions because NRS 288.”
City of Reno v. Reno Police Prot. Ass'n, 59 P.3d 1212 (Nev. 2002). “38 NRS 288.110. 39 Ormsby County Education Assoc.”
Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 194 P.3d 96 (Nev. 2008). “3d at 655 (quoting NRS 288.110(2) and also citing to NRS 288.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.110(3) — 2 cases
City of Henderson/Henderson Police Dep't v. Kilgore, 131 P.3d 11 (Nev. 2006). “Kilgore argues that NRS 288.110 empowers the EMRB to issue preliminary injunctions because NRS 288.”
Umc Physicians' Bargaining Unit Of Nev. Serv. Employees Union Vs. Nev. Serv. Employees Union (Nev. 2021).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.110(4) — 5 cases
City of North Las Vegas v. State, Local Gov't Emp.-Mgmt. Relations Bd., 261 P.3d 1071 (Nev. 2011). “In doing so, we determine whether the six-month deadline for filing claims with the EMRB under NRS 288.110(4) is subject to equitable tolling.”
Fausto Vs. Sanchez-flores, 2021 NV 11 (Nev. 2021). “State, Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board, this court affirmed a district court's decision to equitably toll NRS 288.110(4)s six-month deadline for filing a complaint asserting prohibited labor practices against a local government agency.”
Rosequist v. Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters Local 1908, 49 P.3d 651 (Nev. 2002). “Specifically, Rosequist argues that the word “may” contained in NRS 288.110(2) and NRS 288.280 means that there is no mandatory requirement for the EMRB to hear the complaint.”
Cone v. Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107, 998 P.2d 1178 (Nev. 2000).
City of Mesquite Vs. Dist. Ct. (smaellie), 2019 NV 33 (Nev. 2019).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.110(6) — 1 case
Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't. v. Jenkins (Nev. 2015).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.110(l)(a) — 1 case
UMC Physicians' Bargaining Unit of Nevada Serv. Employees Union v. Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107, 178 P.3d 709 (Nev. 2008). “11 Two statutes and two administrative codes primarily provide the basis for our analysis: NRS 288.110, which governs complaints before the Board; NAC 288.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.110(l)(f) — 1 case
City of North Las Vegas v. State, Local Gov't Emp.-Mgmt. Relations Bd., 261 P.3d 1071 (Nev. 2011). “In doing so, we determine whether the six-month deadline for filing claims with the EMRB under NRS 288.110(4) is subject to equitable tolling.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.