119 P.3d 1259 (2005) NEVADA SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION/SEIU LOCAL 1107, Appellant, v. Iris ORR; and State of Nevada Employee-Management Relations Board, Respondents. Iris ORR, Cross-Appellant, v. NEVADA SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION/SEIU LOCAL 1107; and University Medical Center, Cross-Respondents. No. 42025. Supreme Court of Nevada. September 29, 2005. *1260 Patricia S. Waldeck, Las Vegas, for Appellant/Cross-Respondent Nevada Service Employees Union. Brian Sandoval, Attorney General, and Dianna Hegeduis, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondent Employee-Management Relations Board. John J. Tofano, Las Vegas, for Respondent/Cross-Appellant Orr. Alverson Taylor Mortensen Nelson & Sanders and Diane Carr Roth and Kristol B. Ginapp, Las Vegas, for Cross-Respondent University Medical Center. Before ROSE, GIBBONS and HARDESTY, JJ. OPINION PER CURIAM. In this appeal, we consider whether an employer and a union can be held liable for willfully interfering with an employee's rights under a collective bargaining agreement when through inaction they failed to provide the employee with a pre-termination hearing on her request. We affirm the district court's decision and conclude that such inaction amounted to willful interference with the employee's attempt to exercise her rights under the collective bargaining agreement. FACTS Iris Orr was employed as an X-ray technician by University Medical Center (UMC), a local government employer in Las Vegas, Nevada. Orr was a nonunion employee, but her position is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between UMC and the Nevada Service Employees Union, Local 1107 (the Union). On July 27, 2000, UMC suspended Orr pending termination for allegedly releasing patient information without authorization, leaving the hospital without authorization, and insubordination. Orr's attorney wrote to UMC's Director of Human Resources requesting a pre-termination hearing under Article 9 of the collective bargaining agreement. Orr signed the letter acknowledging her request for a hearing. *1261 A copy of the letter was then forwarded to the Union's Executive Director. UMC's Labor and Employee Relations Manager testified that a copy of the letter was also forwarded to the Union's Chief Steward for the unit where Orr works. Under the collective bargaining agreement, the grievance process begins when the chief steward signs the letter for the Union and returns a copy to UMC. The Union, however, never returned a signed copy of Orr's letter to UMC, and after ten days, UMC assumed that Orr waived her right to a pre-termination hearing and terminated her employment. Consequently, Orr filed a complaint with the Employee-Management Relations Board (the Board) seeking an injunction precluding her termination without a pre-termination hearing, the restoration of her benefits, the award of reasonable costs and attorney fees, and such other relief as justified. Following a hearing, the Board entered its decision and order finding that: (1) Orr was an employee covered under the collective bargaining agreement between UMC and the Union; (2) she requested a pre-termination hearing within the 10-day period specified in Article 9, Step 2 of that agreement; (3) the Union made a conscious decision not to sign Orr's letter in contravention of the agreement; (4) UMC was aware of Orr's request; (5) due …
Original document ES