Assembly Bill (AB) 191 is generating considerable discussion in Nevada, especially concerning its potential impact on professional employees within the Nevada system of Higher Education (NSHE). This FAQ aims to address common questions and dispel misconceptions surrounding the bill.

What Exactly is AB 191?

AB 191 seeks to establish a framework for collective bargaining for NSHE professional employees, integrating them into Chapter 288 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. This would align them with the regulations already in place for local government employees and state Classified employees, including Classified staff within NSHE itself.

in essence, the bill proposes to grant these employees the right to negotiate terms and conditions of their employment collectively through a union representative, a common practice in many sectors across the United states.

Legislative Journey of AB 191

As of march 5, 2025, AB 191 underwent its inaugural hearing before the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. The immediate next step involves a work session where the committee will vote on whether to advance the bill. If it clears this hurdle, it is indeed anticipated to be directed to the Assembly Committee on Ways & Means to evaluate its fiscal implications.

Addressing Concerns About Faculty Portrayal

A common question arises: Aren’t NSHE faculty already represented? The answer is nuanced. Currently, faculty at some institutions operate under Title 4, Chapter 4 (T4C4), which provides a limited framework for shared governance. However, AB 191 aims to provide a more robust and standardized collective bargaining process for all NSHE professional employees, including those not currently covered or whose representation is limited.

The Scope of “Professional Employees” Under AB 191

The definition of “professional employee” is central to understanding AB 191’s reach. It encompasses a broad range of positions within NSHE, including instructors, researchers, librarians, and other non-faculty professionals. However, the bill does not automatically unionize everyone. Organizing efforts would still need to occur, with employees deciding whether or not they want to be represented by a union.

Such as,the UAW union is actively involved,and Graduate Assistants at NSU are pushing for an election,demonstrating their “super majority” support to NSHE. According to the text, “Organizing any units beyond these two will be a deliberative and democratic process, often taking a few years.”

Potential Number of Bargaining Units

even if all eligible professionals chose to organize, the expectation is that the total number of bargaining units would remain manageable. The principle guiding this process is to ensure equal rights and terms for all employees. AB 191 is intended to streamline the process for both workers and NSHE.

The text notes, “even in the unlikely scenario that all eligible professionals chose to organize, the total number of bargaining units would likely be fewer than a dozen bargaining units. Some employees are challenging to organize, some might not want to. The principle we hold is that all employees should have equal rights and equal terms. AB 191 rationalizes and simplifies the process not only for workers, but for NSHE, too.”

Can UNLV, UNR, and DRI Support Graduate Assistants Without Collective Bargaining?

While institutions can offer support, the argument is that collective bargaining provides the most effective means to address power imbalances and mistreatment reported by graduate assistants (GAs). It gives GAs a direct voice in shaping workplace policies. Currently, NSHE policy is largely silent regarding due process for terminating GA positions. Collective bargaining ensures clear rights and responsibilities for both GAs and their supervisors.

It’s critically important to note, “The power imbalances and resulting mistreatment reported by graduate assistants are best addressed through collective bargaining, giving GAs input in their workplace policies. Only recently have institutions provided any due process for terminating GA positions; NSHE policy is mostly silent as it relates to GAs. Allowing GAs to collectively bargain ensures that everyone (GAs and their supervisors) know their rights and responsibilities and hold to them. A supermajority of GAs at UNLV,UNR,and DRI have requested recognition of their union for collective bargaining.”

Impact on Compensation and Benefits

AB 191 itself does not automatically increase compensation or benefits. These items would be subject to negotiation during collective bargaining. Any resulting agreements requiring new state appropriations would need to go through the standard state budget process, requiring approval from both the Governor and the Legislature.

Put simply, “Not without mutual agreement in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Compensation and benefits are a topic of negotiation for cbas, but any compensation approved that requires new state appropriations for implementation would be a budget request by NSHE through the regular state budget process.Such provisions would not go into effect unless and until the state funds are appropriated. The Governor is not required to include funding of collective bargaining agreements in the Executive Budget, and the Legislature is not required to approve them.”

However, collective bargaining can also lead to cost-free improvements in working conditions and institutional efficiency.Some studies suggest that higher education institutions with faculty unionization experience lower costs and better student outcomes. Examples of current collective bargaining agreements at CSN, TMCC, and WNC can be reviewed here.

Estimated Implementation Costs

NSHE has estimated that AB 191 would require the hiring of 20 new staff, including nine labor attorneys. Though, proponents of the bill argue that existing administrators and human resources staff have successfully handled negotiations at CSN, TMCC, and WNC without requiring additional positions.

As evidence,”After CSN faculty negotiated their first CBA in 2019,the labor-related staff in CSN legal and human resources departments did not require an increase in positions–although the responsibilities of some positions may have shifted for different processes under the CBA.”

A more reasonable approach, according to supporters, would be to add a labor relations expert and an administrative assistant at the system level to support the institutions and manage an additional bargaining unit for Graduate Assistants.

The bill includes fees to support the EMRB which would cost “roughly up to  $8700 per year until additional bargaining units are established.” However,the actual EMRB assessment for State Classified employees is currently $4.25/year,well below the $10 statutory maximum.

Furthermore, it’s argued that the costs of arbitrations would be offset by savings from avoided litigation.

Addressing the Misconception of mandatory Binding Arbitration

A key point of clarification is that AB 191 does *not* mandate binding arbitration for all grievances. Instead, it allows arbitration as the final level of appeal for grievances that are not resolved at lower levels. This applies only to members of bargaining units with a collective bargaining agreement.

To reiterate, “No, that is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding. AB 191 allows arbitration as the final level of appeal of a grievance that is not resolved at lower levels.  Collective bargaining agreements negotiated under AB 191 would provide for binding resolution by an independent arbitrator of final appeals, but it would only apply to members of bargaining units with a collective bargaining agreement.  Arbitration avoids expensive litigation, a cost savings to NSHE which regularly hires outside counsel to handle lawsuits over personnel issues.”

scope of Grievances

AB 191 would expand what is grievable, but only after a collective bargaining agreement is in place for a specific employee group.Currently, the scope of grievances for faculty in Title 2 Chapter 5 is narrowly defined. AB 191 aims to provide a more standardized foundation for all employees.

In essence, “Yes, but only once a collective bargaining agreement is established for a particular employee group. The scope of grievances for faculty in Title 2 Chapter 5 is narrowly defined and does not encompass the standard definition of grievances NSHE classified employees in bargaining units currently have. There is no grievance policy in the Handbook for graduate assistants or other non-faculty employees. AB 191 provides the same foundation for all employees.”

Projected Number of Arbitrations

In 2023, NSHE projected that AB 224, a similar bill to AB 191, would lead to hundreds of arbitrations. However, data indicates that there were only 17 grievances statewide that were denied by Presidents, the final level of decision under NSHE Code. these would be eligible for appeal to arbitration under AB 191.

To illustrate, “In 2023, NSHE claimed AB 224, the nearly identical predecessor of AB 191, would lead to hundreds of arbitrations over grievances. If that were the case, it would just show a dire need for collective bargaining to improve working conditions for professional employees at NSHE.  In the fiscal note for AB 191, NSHE reports that last year there actually were only 17 grievances statewide that were denied by Presidents, the final level of decision under NSHE Code. Those would be eligible for appeal to arbitration under AB 191.”

Strike Prohibition

It is indeed crucial to emphasize that AB 191 does *not* grant NSHE professional employees the right to strike. Nevada law (NRS 288) maintains strong prohibitions against strikes by public employees, and AB 191 does not alter this.

Simply put, “No, NRS 288 has strong prohibitions against strikes by public employees in Nevada, and AB 191 does not change that.”

Right to Work Status Unchanged

AB 191 does not impact Nevada’s status as a Right to Work state.Employees cannot be forced to join a union or pay dues as a condition of employment. This principle remains unchanged.

To clarify, “No.  Right to Work means that employees are not required to join a union or pay dues to receive the benefits of collective bargaining.Employees cannot be forced to join a union as a requirement of employment.  That will not change with AB 191.”

Addressing Impasses in Negotiation

Under existing T4C4, negotiations can be prolonged because management is not obligated to accept recommendations from an independent fact-finder. AB 191, mirroring the process for state Classified employees under NRS 288, involves mediation followed by binding arbitration with strict timelines. The arbitrator must select the more reasonable proposal from either party, incentivizing realistic offers.

Simply put, “Under T4C4, there is a mediation and advisory fact-finding process but management is not required to accept the proposal of the independent fact-finder. That means negotiations can drag out for a long time–the first contract at CSN took years to negotiate.  Under AB 191, which follows the same process as in NRS 288 for state Classified employees, an impasse first goes to mediation and then binding arbitration under strict timelines.  The arbitrator is required to choose the more reasonable proposal from the two parties based on stated criteria, and is not allowed to modify the chosen proposal. That forces both parties to make final proposals that are reasonable,not ask for exaggerated provisions hoping the arbitrator will split the difference.  The two parties can extend the times for negotiation, mediation, and arbitration only by mutual agreement.”

Applicability Outside of NSHE

AB 191 is specifically tailored to NSHE. The definitions of “professional employee” and “state professional employer” limit its application to NSHE institutions.

To be precise, “No.  The definitions of “professional employee” and “state professional employer” in AB 191 limit its applicability to NSHE in practice.”

Negotiation responsibilities

NSHE is authorized and required to conduct its own labor relations and collective bargaining negotiations with its professional employee bargaining units. While NSHE could utilize the services of the DHRM or the Attorney General’s Office, it would be responsible for any associated costs.

Put simply, “No.  AB 191 both authorizes and requires NSHE to conduct its own labor relations and collective bargaining negotiations with its professional employee bargaining units.  NSHE could choose to use the services of the DHRM or the Office of the Attorney General for labor relations, but those entities could charge NSHE for any such service.”

Management Rights and Shared Governance

AB 191 recognizes the principles of shared governance, which emphasizes the role of faculty in determining the “means and methods” of delivering education and research. Personnel decisions incorporate peer review,reflecting the unique nature of higher education institutions.

As stated, “AB 191 recognizes the principles of shared governance, which is a good thing. Academic freedom means that the determination of the “means and methods” of delivering education and research are the responsibility of teachers and scholars, not management. Personnel decisions in academia involve peer review.  More expansive management rights for a governmental agency such as the DMV or Corrections,for exmaple,for absolute control over staffing and services would not be appropriate for institutions of higher education.”

“At-Will” Employment Status

AB 191 does not extend collective bargaining to “at-will” employees. The bill’s focus is on professional employees within NSHE, excluding political appointees and upper management in other state agencies who typically hold “managerial” or “confidential” roles.

To clarify, “the Unclassified and Nonclassified employees in other state agencies are political appointees and upper management.  As “managerial” or “confidential” employees, most if not all would be ineligible to collectively bargain under AB191 if the bill included those agencies among “state professional employers”, which it doesn’t.”

While NSHE has suggested that graduate assistants are “at-will,” the existence of due process for termination indicates exceptions to a purely “at-will” arrangement. Collective bargaining can standardize termination procedures and provide recourse for violations.