Committee considers AB356 to align collective bargaining timelines with Nevada budget calendar

Assemblymember Danielle Monroe Moreno, sponsor of Assembly Bill 356, told the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs that the bill would move statutory timelines for state collective bargaining earlier in the cycle so arbitration awards and negotiated settlement information can be included in the executive budget presented to the Legislature.

"This is a common sense measure that improves the capacity of efficiency and proper planning within our budget process," Monroe Moreno said, describing an amendment that would set bargaining start and decision dates in even‑numbered years to allow the governor and the Economic Forum time to account for negotiated compensation in the biennial executive budget.

What the amendment would change

As described to the committee, the amendment would: require collective bargaining to begin within 60 days after notice or on or before June 1 of each even‑numbered year (whichever is earlier); allow mediation to begin within 120 days after negotiations start or on or before Nov. 15 of each even‑numbered year; require arbitration to begin on or before Nov. 30 (unless the parties agree to a later date) and require an arbitrator to render a decision on or before Dec. 20 of an even‑numbered year. The amendment would also require the governor, to the extent practical, to include amounts agreed upon in collective bargaining agreements in the final biennial proposed executive budget and would move the Economic Forum’s statutory report date to on or before Nov. 15 of even‑numbered years instead of Dec. 3.

Supporters, rationale and neutral concerns

Representatives of state public safety unions and public employee unions told the committee those timeline changes would reduce the need for rushed arbitration and give both branches clearer fiscal information before the Legislature must act. Dan Gordon of the Nevada Police Union said current law has led to "a rush to get agreed upon contracts done by the end of the legislative session" and that the amendment would create "a path for more productive negotiations." Randy Saltero of AFSCME and representatives of firefighters and law enforcement organizations echoed that view.

Several witnesses described court and arbitration challenges under the current timeline. Troyce Krumme and Rick McCann said the earlier timeline would help prevent repeated arbitration outcomes being resolved after the budget is set, which forces the Legislature to accommodate contract obligations mid‑session.

The Attorney General’s Office testified neutral and said it supports the sponsor's intent but asked to work with the sponsor to ensure the office’s attorneys and counsel have time to meet any modified timelines.

No committee vote

The committee did not vote on AB356 at the hearing. Monroe Moreno and fiscal staff told members the amendment is intended to realign bargaining outcomes with the budget process so the executive budget can better reflect anticipated employee compensation costs. Several labor organizations and public‑safety groups urged the committee to adopt the change.

The Assembly Government Affairs Committee closed the hearing on AB356 without taking a vote and moved to the work session portion of its agenda.