Public Sector Alert: NV Supreme Court Addresses Grievance & Arbitration Provisions
On June 3, 2026, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision in Las Vegas Police Protective Association v. City of Las Vegas, making it clear that if the parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) do not agree on specific procedures in their grievance and arbitration provision, those procedures may only be decided by an arbitrator.
In this case, the parties had a dispute over longevity pay. The CBA provided that a grievance must be filed within 30 days after discovery of the facts giving rise to the dispute. The grievance procedure set forth a four-step process, culminating in a request for arbitration. The City, the employer, stated the grievance was untimely because it was filed six years after the first alleged underpayment. It agreed to arbitrate, but only under a bifurcated procedure where the timeliness issue would be determined before the merits of the dispute.
The union filed two complaints in District Court, seeking a determination that (1) the City was in breach of the CBA by unilaterally imposing a bifurcated arbitration procedure; and (2) the City had been underpaying longevity payments. The District Court ruled in favor of the City, finding no obligation to process the grievance, which was untimely, and that the City was entitled to insist on a bifurcated proceeding. The District Court also agreed with the City’s interpretation of the contract’s longevity pay provision.
A panel of the Nevada Supreme Court disagreed, ruling the District Court should not have reached the merits of the dispute and instead should have sent the matter to arbitration. This part of the decision is not a surprise. What is important about this decision is the rest of the Supreme Court’s opinion.
The Court found that the CBA did not authorize the City to unilaterally determine the grievance was untimely or insist on a two-stage bifurcated arbitration process. Because the issue of timeliness is a procedural issue, the Court held it could only be decided by the arbitrator unless the CBA designates another procedure for resolving that dispute. Additionally, only an arbitrator could decide the format for the arbitration – i.e., whether it should be bifurcated to first address the timeliness issue. The Court explained: “The default absent a contractual provision otherwise is that the arbitrator controls the arbitration process, not that the parties are free to pick and choose their desired format. Here, the CBA does not indicate that arbitration proceeds in two stages by which the timeliness of a grievance is decided before reaching the merits. In fact, the CBA does not contain any term pertaining to the format of the proceedings. Absent such a provision, the matter falls to the arbitrator’s discretion.”
This decision is important to public sector employers using grievance and arbitration provisions in their CBAs. Given the Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling, public sector parties should agree within the CBA what the procedure will be for untimely grievances and how disputes over timeliness will be handled. For these employers, a detailed grievance and arbitration provision is likely preferred; the challenge will be negotiating a suitable provision. On the other hand, the application of this decision to private sector CBAs is less certain as they are subject to federal law, and the interplay between state and federal law in these types of cases is complicated.
KZA attorneys are well acquainted with grievance and arbitration provisions and CBA negotiations for both public and private employers. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact us.
KZA Employer Report articles are for general information only; they are not intended and should not be construed to be legal advice. Reading or replying to such articles does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In addition, because the subject matters and applicable laws discussed in Employer Report articles are often in a state of change and not always applicable to every type of business entity or organization, readers should consult with counsel before making decisions based on the same.