Bargaining Updates

---

Bargaining at Impasse: Why NFA Is Fighting to Preserve Your Contract – Published: April 24, 2026
CSN-NFA Bargaining Team

After sixteen+ months of intensive negotiations, CSN-NFA and CSN Administration have reached impasse on a successor collective bargaining agreement. While both parties have reached tentative agreements on 23 articles, fundamental disagreements remain on faculty governance, contract enforcement, and protection of current contract rights.

The core issue: CSN Administration is proposing to remove or weaken multiple provisions from your current contract while simultaneously refusing binding arbitration—the neutral enforcement mechanism that would make any new agreement meaningful.

This post provides the full story: what happened at the bargaining table, what CSN is proposing to take away, why arbitration matters, and what happens next.

---

NFA’S POSITION: PRESERVE THE CONTRACT, ADD ENFORCEMENT

CSN-NFA’s primary objective is to preserve the current contract’s core protections while adding binding arbitration as the enforcement mechanism for grievances. The current contract represents years of negotiated agreements that faculty depend on for workload protections, fair compensation, shared governance, and academic freedom.

NFA has indicated willingness to discuss modifications to certain provisions, but only in the context of a complete agreement that includes neutral arbitration for contract disputes. CSN’s refusal to engage on arbitration while simultaneously proposing takeaways from the current contract has created the impasse.

Why arbitration matters:
Without binding arbitration, contract language is only as strong as management’s willingness to follow it. When disputes arise, faculty currently have no neutral third-party process—management acts as both party and judge in its own case.

Important context:
NSHE already provides binding arbitration to classified employees under the AFSCME Local 4041 contract at CSN and other NSHE institutions. NFA is requesting the same enforcement mechanism for faculty—a process NSHE has already demonstrated is operationally compatible with its governance structure and that NSHE includes in its list of mandatory topics for bargaining. 

---

CSN’S PROPOSALS: TAKEAWAYS FROM YOUR CURRENT CONTRACT

Throughout negotiations, CSN has proposed removing or significantly weakening provisions in the current contract, including:

Faculty Governance:
Eliminating department chair oversight of course scheduling, giving Dean authority to recognize, or not, department chair recall procedures, require only in-person and onsite department chair workloads that require Dean approval. 

Summer Teaching:
Modifying summer compensation structures, despite public assurances to Faculty Senate that summer teaching would not be affected.

Shared Governance and Contract Enforcement:
Removing NFA’s mandatory representation on committees formed to address issues covered by this Agreement, eliminating faculty ability to participate in decisions about how contract provisions are implemented and enforced.

Commencement:
Requiring all-faculty attend commencement, without any maximum time requirement. Removal of the option to attend affinity ceremonies.  

Salary Protections:
Removing anti-erosion firewall language that protects faculty from having COLA or merit eligibility reduced or offset by other provisions.

Contract Enforcement:
Refusing binding arbitration for contract disputes.

When NFA requested that CSN cite the specific NSHE Code provision or Nevada statute that prohibits binding arbitration, CSN has not provided this citation. Instead, CSN repeatedly references the Personnel Judicial Review (PJR) process as a substitute. When NFA asked for evidence that PJR has ever been successfully used by NSHE faculty to resolve a contract dispute, CSN has not provided this evidence.

---

WHY BINDING ARBITRATION MATTERS: SUMMER TEACHING LITIGATION

The importance of binding arbitration isn’t theoretical—it’s playing out right now in ongoing litigation over summer teaching pay that began in 2023 and still isn’t resolved in 2026.

What happened:
In May 2023, CSN’s Human Resources Director sent a letter to NFA stating that CSN would not honor the negotiated summer teaching multiplier in the contract. The contract, ratified by faculty in October 2022 and approved by the Board of Regents in November 2022, contained a 0.75 multiplier for calculating summer teaching pay under Article 8, Section 2.G.

CSN claimed this was a “drafting error” and announced it would instead pay faculty at a 0.075 multiplier—ten times less than the contractually agreed rate. This decision meant faculty would be paid approximately 10% of what they were owed under the signed contract.

The grievance process:
NFA immediately filed a grievance in May 2023 on behalf of all affected faculty. Under the contract’s grievance procedure (Article 18), NFA appealed through multiple levels:

• CSN’s HR Director initially refused to process the grievance
• CSN’s HR Director refused to provide information about affected faculty members
• The grievance eventually reached CSN’s President, who denied it
• NFA requested mediation under Article 19 in August 2023
• CSN did not engage in good faith discussions about scheduling mediation until March 2024
• Mediation finally occurred in April 2024 but reached no resolution

The litigation:
With administrative remedies exhausted and mediation unsuccessful, NFA filed a lawsuit in August 2024 (Case No. A-24-900338-C, Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County). The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks declaratory relief.

Where we are now (April 2026):

• Discovery process is nearly complete
• CSN-NFA has completed depositions requested by CSN
• CSN has an upcoming deposition
• Either party will then file for summary judgment—a request for the judge to rule based on undisputed facts without a full trial
• Resolution discussions are expected in May-June 2026

Meanwhile, CSN underpaid faculty for summer 2023 AND summer 2024 using the 0.075 rate despite the ongoing litigation.

The cost:

• Time: Three years from initial violation (May 2023) to expected resolution (May-June 2026)
• Money: Tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees for NFA, tens of thousands more for CSN and their outside law firm
• Process: More than a dozen individual grievances filed, mediation delays, extensive discovery, depositions, and ongoing litigation
• Faculty harm: Underpayment for two summers (2023 and 2024) while the case proceeds

What this would have cost with binding arbitration:

• Time: 60-120 days from filing to decision
• Money: $2,000-$4,000 total cost per hearing day, shared between parties (typically 1-5 days total)
• Total per party: $1,000-$10,000
• Faculty harm: Back pay ordered within 2-3 months, not 3 years

This is exactly what binding arbitration prevents.

---

CSN-NFA’S OFFER: ARBITRATION IN EXCHANGE FOR SUMMER TEACHING MODIFICATIONS

CSN-NFA has consistently stated that we would be willing to renegotiate summer teaching provisions if binding arbitration is integrated into the agreement.

This offer makes practical and financial sense for both parties:

The current situation without arbitration:

• Summer teaching dispute: 3 years, tens of thousands of membership dollars, still unresolved
• Faculty underpaid for two consecutive summers while litigation proceeds
• Both parties spending institutional resources on outside legal counsel
• No certainty about outcome or timeline

What arbitration would provide:

• Speed: Contract disputes resolved in 2-4 months, not 2-4 years
• Cost efficiency: $1,000-$10,000 per party total vs. tens of thousands in litigation costs
• Expertise: Neutral arbitrator with labor law and higher education experience
• Finality: Binding decision ends the dispute; no prolonged appeals
• Faculty protection: Back pay ordered and paid within weeks of decision

The trade NFA proposed: Renegotiate summer teaching compensation structures (which CSN has repeatedly requested) in exchange for binding arbitration to enforce whatever terms are agreed upon.

CSN’s response: Refuse arbitration, propose modifications to summer teaching anyway, and continue litigating the current summer teaching dispute through the courts.

---

WHY CSN AND NSHE REFUSE ARBITRATION

The refusal is not based on legal prohibition—it’s based on institutional control.

NSHE’s position across the system:
CSN and NSHE have consistently opposed binding arbitration across all three NSHE faculty bargaining units (CSN, TMCC, WNC). When pressed to cite the specific NSHE Code provision or Nevada statute that prohibits arbitration, CSN has not provided one.

The real reason:
By refusing neutral arbitration, NSHE maintains the position that all disputes are resolved internally, with no external oversight. This allows NSHE to control the narrative presented to the Nevada Legislature and the public—maintaining a perception that “there are no issues in NSHE” because no independent third party ever rules that NSHE institutions violated a contract.

The contradiction:
CSN cannot claim arbitration is incompatible with NSHE governance when it is already in use on the same campuses for non-faculty employees and when NSHE’s own policies and procedures state it as a topic to be bargained over. 

---

THE BOTTOM LINE ON ARBITRATION

The summer teaching litigation demonstrates three critical points:

1. Contract violations happen—and CSN’s response was to double down.
CSN announced in May 2023 it would not honor the 0.75 multiplier. Rather than correct course when challenged, CSN underpaid faculty for summer 2023, denied the grievance, delayed mediation for eight months, and then underpaid faculty again for summer 2024 and 2025 while the lawsuit proceeded.

2. Without arbitration, enforcement is impossibly slow and expensive.
Three years. Tens of thousands of dollars. More than a dozen grievances. Mediation delays. Ongoing litigation. Faculty still not made whole. This is what contract enforcement looks like without neutral arbitration.

3. CSN’s current bargaining position is untenable.
CSN is simultaneously:

• Refusing to pay the current summer teaching rate (still in litigation)
• Proposing to modify summer teaching rates further in the new contract
• Refusing binding arbitration for the new contract

NFA cannot responsibly agree to modify contract provisions when:

• CSN is actively violating the current contract
• The violation has taken three years and tens of thousands of dollars to litigate
• CSN refuses to provide the enforcement mechanism that would prevent this from happening again

If arbitration had been in the contract in 2023:

• A neutral arbitrator would have reviewed the contract language, the bargaining history, and the Board of Regents approval
• Decision issued within 60-90 days
• Faculty paid back wages by fall 2023
• Both parties would have had certainty and finality
• Total cost per party: a few thousand dollars, not tens of thousands

That is what binding arbitration does. That is why NFA is fighting for it.

---

If you believe you are owed compensation from the 2023 or 2024 summer teaching underpayment, or have questions about the litigation, contact NFA leadership at <csn-nfa@nevadafacultyalliance.org>.

---

TIMELINE: WHAT HAPPENED IN RECENT NEGOTIATION SESSIONS

November 1, 2024: Negotiations began for a successor collective bargaining agreement.

November 2024 – February 2026: Parties reached tentative agreements on 23 articles.

February 2026: CSN offered mediation. NFA declined in favor of continuing negotiations. CSN initiated fact-finding.

March 19, 2026: CSN agreed to postpone fact-finding and resume negotiations with an accelerated schedule to meet the Board of Regents June 2026 deadline for inclusion in the legislative budget request process.

March 27, 2026: Parties re-engaged in negotiations.

April 7 & 8, 2026 (evening): NFA sent formal written questions on binding arbitration to CSN, as agreed, in advance of the next session.

April 10, 2026: Full-day bargaining session. NFA presented a comprehensive counter-package and formal questions on arbitration. The package demonstrated NFA’s willingness to discuss modifications to certain contract provisions in the context of a complete agreement that includes binding arbitration. CSN requested extended caucus to review.

April 17, 2026: Bargaining session. CSN caucused for 4.5 hours and returned with a one-page letter requesting joint signatures. The letter characterized NFA’s position and stated that fact-finding was the appropriate next step.

NFA declined to sign the letter because it:

• Misrepresented NFA’s statements at the table
• Highlighted CSN’s economic proposals while omitting simultaneous takeaways from current contract provisions
• Attempted to create a joint record that did not accurately reflect the negotiations

April 24, 2026: Scheduled bargaining sessions [cancelled/not held].

Total caucus time in final two weeks: Over 9 hours, significantly reducing available bargaining time as contract deadlines approached.

Both negotiating teams acknowledged that the parties have likely reached impasse and that fact-finding is the appropriate next step.

---

CLARIFICATION: THE ARBITRATION QUESTION

CSN has characterized NFA as unwilling to negotiate without prior agreement on arbitration. This requires context.

The facts:

Binding arbitration is a mandatory subject of bargaining under Nevada law (NSHE Code Title 4, Chapter 4, Section 13.1(m)). It is the standard enforcement mechanism in collective bargaining agreements nationwide.

NFA has repeatedly requested that CSN either:

1. Cite the specific NSHE Code provision or Nevada statute that prohibits binding arbitration, OR
2. Engage in good-faith bargaining on arbitration language

CSN has done neither.

NFA’s actual position:
We are willing to discuss modifications to current contract provisions, but in the context of a complete, enforceable agreement. When CSN proposes to eliminate or weaken provisions from the current contract while simultaneously refusing the enforcement mechanism that would make any new agreement meaningful, NFA cannot responsibly agree to such terms on behalf of bargaining unit members.

---

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IN NEGOTIATIONS: THE FACT-FINDING PROCESS

How it works:

A neutral fact-finder is appointed to:

• Review both parties’ positions and supporting evidence
• Hear testimony and arguments from both sides
• Issue written findings and recommendations

The fact-finder’s recommendations are advisory, not binding, but carry significant weight in public sector labor negotiations and create a public record of the dispute.

Timeline:
The fact-finding process will proceed according to NSHE procedures. Both parties continue under the terms of the current contract during this time.

What the fact-finder will evaluate:

• Whether both parties bargained in good faith
• The reasonableness of each party’s positions
• Whether proposed changes are justified
• Comparability with other institutions and contracts
• Legal questions (such as whether NSHE Code prohibits arbitration)

The fact-finder’s report becomes a matter of public record and is often influential in resolving impasses.

---

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU: YOUR CONTRACT REMAINS IN EFFECT

This is the most important thing to understand:

Under the contract’s evergreen clause, all terms and conditions of your current employment continue unchanged during fact-finding and any subsequent negotiations.

Nothing changes to:

• Your salary, COLA eligibility, or merit pay
• Your workload or contact hours
• Your summer teaching rights and compensation
• Your governance rights, including election of department chairs
• Your benefits, reassigned time, or travel funding
• Any other provision of your current contract

The contract you currently work under remains your fully enforceable agreement throughout this process. No changes occur unless and until a successor agreement is ratified by the bargaining unit.

---

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Stay informed:

• Read NFA communications and blog posts
• Attend NFA Membership & Faculty Senate meetings
• Ask questions of NFA leadership
• Reach out to NFA Leadership

Know your rights:

• Review your current contract 
• Understand that the evergreen clause protects you during negotiations
• Know that you can file grievances under the current contract

Document issues:

• If you experience management actions that contradict current contract terms, document them with dates, times, and witnesses
• Report contract violations to NFA Leadership
• Keep copies of any relevant emails or documents

Stay engaged:

• Do not agree to contract modifications outside the formal bargaining process
• Participate in NFA meetings and events
• Talk to your colleagues about contract protections
• Support your bargaining team
• Consider joining the bargaining team or a contract committee
• Recruit NFA members – Build union strength

---

NFA’S COMMITMENT TO YOU

CSN-NFA remains committed to reaching a fair, complete, and enforceable successor agreement that:

✓ Preserves core contract protections faculty depend on for fair workload, compensation, and working conditions
✓ Maintains faculty governance rights, including the governance of department chairs
✓ Protects summer teaching compensation and priority assignment rights
✓ Preserves salary protections including anti-erosion language and equity study requirements
✓ Provides neutral arbitration for contract enforcement—the same mechanism NSHE uses for classified employees

We came to the table prepared to discuss modifications in the context of an enforceable agreement. CSN’s position—demanding takeaways from the current contract while refusing arbitration—would leave faculty with fewer protections and no neutral enforcement mechanism.

Your current contract protects you during this process. The evergreen clause means nothing changes to your employment terms while negotiations and fact-finding proceed. We will provide regular updates and will continue to advocate for your rights and interests throughout the process.

---

Questions or Concerns?

Contact NFA Bargaining Team:
Nayelee Villanueva <nayeleevillanueva@gmail.com>
Patrick Villa <villa4regent@gmail.com>
Staci Walters <staci.walters@nevadafacultyalliance.org>Stay Connected:
CSN-NFA Website <nfa-csn.org>