NRS
288.270 Employer or representative; employee or employee organization.
1. It is a prohibited practice for a local
government employer or its designated representative willfully to:
(a) Interfere, restrain or coerce any employee in
the exercise of any right guaranteed under this chapter.
(b) Dominate, interfere or assist in the
formation or administration of any employee organization.
(c) Discriminate in regard to hiring, tenure or
any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in
any employee organization.
(d) Discharge or otherwise discriminate against
any employee because the employee has signed or filed an affidavit, petition or
complaint or given any information or testimony under this chapter, or because
the employee has formed, joined or chosen to be represented by any employee
organization.
(e) Refuse to bargain collectively in good faith
with the exclusive representative as required in NRS 288.150. Bargaining collectively
includes the entire bargaining process, including mediation and fact-finding,
provided for in this chapter.
(f) Discriminate because of race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, physical
or visual handicap, national origin or because of political or personal reasons
or affiliations.
(g) Fail to provide the information required by NRS 288.180.
(h) Fail to comply with the requirements of NRS 281.755.
2. It is a prohibited practice for a local
government employee or for an employee organization or its designated agent
willfully to:
(a) Interfere with, restrain or coerce any
employee in the exercise of any right guaranteed under this chapter.
(b) Refuse to bargain collectively in good faith
with the local government employer, if it is an exclusive representative, as
required in NRS 288.150. Bargaining
collectively includes the entire bargaining process, including mediation and
fact-finding, provided for in this chapter.
(c) Discriminate because of race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, physical
or visual handicap, national origin or because of political or personal reasons
or affiliations.
(d) Fail to provide the information required by NRS 288.180.
3. As used in this section:
(a) “Protective hairstyle” includes, without
limitation, hairstyles such as natural hairstyles, afros, bantu knots, curls,
braids, locks and twists.
(b) “Race” includes traits associated with race,
including, without limitation, hair texture and protective hairstyles.
(Added to NRS by 1971,
1508; A 1975,
924; 1977,
757; 2017,
1069, 1429;
2021,
1711)
Notes of Decisions
Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 302 P.3d 1108 (Nev. 2013).
· cites it 2× “2d 1321 (1986), this court adopted the framework used in adjudicating federal prohibited-labor-practice claims under the National Labor Relations Act for use in resolving state prohibited-labor-practice claims against employers brought under NRS 288.270. Specifically, this court…”
City of North Las Vegas v. State, Local Gov't Emp.-Mgmt. Relations Bd., 261 P.3d 1071 (Nev. 2011).
· cites it 3× “Department did not fully investigate this matter, (5) the Department’s internal investigation was conducted contrary to its policy, (6) Spannbauer resigned based upon the misinformation conveyed to him concerning his probationary status with the Department, and (7) the City and…”
City of Reno v. Reno Police Prot. Ass'n, 59 P.3d 1212 (Nev. 2002).
· cites it 2× “The complaint alleged that the City engaged in a prohibited practice in violation of NRS 288.270 1 by adopting new criteria for disciplining police personnel for off-duty conduct without conducting mandatory negotiation as required by NRS 288.”
Wholey v. Roebuck, 803 A.2d 482 (Md. 2002).
“§ 39-31-401 (2001)(state employees); Nev.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 288.270 (Michic 2002 Repl.”
Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107 v. Orr, 119 P.3d 1259 (Nev. 2005).
· cites it 4× “’ ” 6 NRS 288.270 prohibits a government employer, such as UMC, or an employee organization, such as the Union, from willfully “interfering] with, restraining] or coercing] any employee in the exercise of any right guaranteed under” NRS Chapter 288.”
Cone v. Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107, 998 P.2d 1178 (Nev. 2000).
· cites it 4× “140(1) and NRS 288.270(2) Appellants’ final argument is that the union discriminated against its nonunion members, and thereby breached its duty of fair representation set forth in NRS 288.”
Weiner v. Beatty, 116 P.3d 829 (Nev. 2005).
“140(1); NRS 288.270(2). 30 118 Nev. 444, 449 , 49 P.”
Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't. v. Jenkins (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 5× “The Board's conclusion regarding LVMPD's unilateral adoption of the practice of using administrative transfers LVMPD argues that the Board's determination that LVMPD had been using administrative transfers in violation of NRS 288.270 improperly deprived LVMPD of its statutory…”
Clark Cnty. Deputy Marshals Ass'n. v. Clark Cnty. (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “CCDMA filed a complaint with the Employee Management Relations Board (EMRB) over Clark County's refusal to bargain, alleging a violation of NRS 288.270(1)(e). The EMRB held a three-day hearing to determine whether the deputy marshals were employees of Clark County for the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.270(1) — 1 case
City of North Las Vegas v. State, Local Gov't Emp.-Mgmt. Relations Bd., 261 P.3d 1071 (Nev. 2011).
“Department did not fully investigate this matter, (5) the Department’s internal investigation was conducted contrary to its policy, (6) Spannbauer resigned based upon the misinformation conveyed to him concerning his probationary status with the Department, and (7) the City and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.270(1)(a) — 3 cases
Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107 v. Orr, 119 P.3d 1259 (Nev. 2005).
“’ ” 6 NRS 288.270 prohibits a government employer, such as UMC, or an employee organization, such as the Union, from willfully “interfering] with, restraining] or coercing] any employee in the exercise of any right guaranteed under” NRS Chapter 288.”
Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't. v. Jenkins (Nev. 2015).
“The Board's conclusion regarding LVMPD's unilateral adoption of the practice of using administrative transfers LVMPD argues that the Board's determination that LVMPD had been using administrative transfers in violation of NRS 288.270 improperly deprived LVMPD of its statutory…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.270(1)(b) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.270(1)(d) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.270(1)(e) — 2 cases
Clark Cnty. Deputy Marshals Ass'n. v. Clark Cnty. (Nev. 2018).
“CCDMA filed a complaint with the Employee Management Relations Board (EMRB) over Clark County's refusal to bargain, alleging a violation of NRS 288.270(1)(e). The EMRB held a three-day hearing to determine whether the deputy marshals were employees of Clark County for the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.270(1)(f) — 1 case
Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 302 P.3d 1108 (Nev. 2013).
“2d 1321 (1986), this court adopted the framework used in adjudicating federal prohibited-labor-practice claims under the National Labor Relations Act for use in resolving state prohibited-labor-practice claims against employers brought under NRS 288.270. Specifically, this court…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.270(2) — 2 cases
Cone v. Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107, 998 P.2d 1178 (Nev. 2000).
“140(1) and NRS 288.270(2) Appellants’ final argument is that the union discriminated against its nonunion members, and thereby breached its duty of fair representation set forth in NRS 288.”
Weiner v. Beatty, 116 P.3d 829 (Nev. 2005).
“140(1); NRS 288.270(2). 30 118 Nev. 444, 449 , 49 P.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.270(2)(a) — 3 cases
Cone v. Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107, 998 P.2d 1178 (Nev. 2000).
“140(1) and NRS 288.270(2) Appellants’ final argument is that the union discriminated against its nonunion members, and thereby breached its duty of fair representation set forth in NRS 288.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.270(l)(a) — 2 cases
Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107 v. Orr, 119 P.3d 1259 (Nev. 2005).
“’ ” 6 NRS 288.270 prohibits a government employer, such as UMC, or an employee organization, such as the Union, from willfully “interfering] with, restraining] or coercing] any employee in the exercise of any right guaranteed under” NRS Chapter 288.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.270(l)(e) — 2 cases
City of Reno v. Reno Police Prot. Ass'n, 59 P.3d 1212 (Nev. 2002).
“The complaint alleged that the City engaged in a prohibited practice in violation of NRS 288.270 1 by adopting new criteria for disciplining police personnel for off-duty conduct without conducting mandatory negotiation as required by NRS 288.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.270(l)(f) — 1 case
City of North Las Vegas v. State, Local Gov't Emp.-Mgmt. Relations Bd., 261 P.3d 1071 (Nev. 2011).
“Department did not fully investigate this matter, (5) the Department’s internal investigation was conducted contrary to its policy, (6) Spannbauer resigned based upon the misinformation conveyed to him concerning his probationary status with the Department, and (7) the City and…”
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.