2017 Orders
The following summaries may have been created with the assistance of AI. These summaries are created by Staff for the benefit of users but are not sources of law and shall not be relied upon or cited to as such.
| Case Name | Decision Date | Summary |
| 15-PELRB-2017, PELRB 107-17 State of New Mexico v. AFSCME and CWA |
November 16, 2017 | |
| 14-PELRB-2017, PELRB 120-17 Cullision v. Santa Fe County |
November 16, 2017 | |
| 13-PELRB-2017, PELRB 305-16 AFSCME Council 18 & New Mexico Department of Health |
November 16, 2017 | |
| 12-PELRB-2017 Open Meetings Act Resolution |
February 7, 2017 | |
| 11-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO. 102-17 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFL-CIO & New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions |
October 3, 2017 | Hearing examiner granted the Department’s Motion for a directed verdict as to the § 10-7E-19(F) and § 10-7E-19(H) claims. Additionally, the Union did not meet its burden of proof regarding whether denial of pay increases in connection with the pay band adjustment constituted a failure to bargain or a breach of the contract. Directed verdict was denied, however, as to whether NMDWS increased performance measures without bargaining. AFSCME appealed the Board’s Order affirming the Directed Verdict to the District Court and NMDWS appealed the Board’s Order concluding that it violated § 10-7E-19(F) and § 10-7E-19(H) when the Employer increased performance measures without bargaining. The District Court affirmed the Board’s conclusion that the number of inspections employees were required to perform each month was a term or condition of employment and a mandatory subject of bargaining under the PEBA and that NMDWS violated § 10-7E-19(F) when it unilaterally changed the required number of inspections. |
| 10-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO. 118-17 New Mexico Coalition of Public Safety Officers & Santa Fe County |
October 3, 2017 | |
| 9-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO. 304-17, 305-17 NEA-Deming & Deming Pubic Schools |
August 15, 2017 | The labor board concluded that the “[c]ontinued recognition of the existing wall-to-wall bargaining unit is mandated by NMSA 1978, Section 10-7E-24(A) which allows bargaining units established prior to July 1, 1999 to continue to be recognized as appropriate bargaining units” and “[t]he Board’s rule 11.21.2.37 NMAC expressly exempts bargaining units under Section [10-7E-24(A)] … from being subject to unit clarification except in limited circumstances not applicable here.” |
| 8-PELRB-2017 Amendments to NMAC 11.21.1.10, 11.21.1.24 & 11.21.1.7 |
May 24, 2017 | |
| 7-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO. 302-17 New Mexico Motor Transportation Employees Association, Fraternal Order of Police State of New Mexico & New Mexico Department of Public Safety |
May 2, 2017 | |
| 6-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO. 309-16 IAFF Local 4366, Santa Fe Fire Fighters Association & Santa Fe County |
May 2, 2017 | |
| 5-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO. 301-17 New Mexico Coalition of Public Safety Officers & Colfax County |
May 2, 2017 | |
| 4-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO. 311-16 Santa Fe Community College-American Association of University Professors & Santa Fe Community College |
May 2, 2017 | |
| 3-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO. 307-16 United Mine Workers of America & Socorro County |
January 19, 2017 | |
| 2-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO.305-16 AFSCME Council 18 & New Mexico Department of Health |
January 19, 2017 | |
| 1-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO. 309-15 AFSCME Council 18 & New Mexico Human Services Department and NM PELRB, (D-202-CV-2016-07671). |
January 23, 2017 | AFSCME argued that a unit clarification petition was proper. The Board disagreed stating that the argument made, “confuses the merits of the underlying dispute with the threshold requirement to demonstrate changed circumstances. Neither the refusal to deduct dues, the creation of new positions, nor a change in supervision were changes sufficient to justify a petition for clarification. The court noted that prohibited practice complaints or petitions for representation or accretion were alternatives when the dispute is about whether certain positions are included in a unit or not. See In re Kaiser Found. Hosps., 337 NLRB 1061 (2002), describing longstanding doctrine that NLRB will not entertain unit clarification petition seeking to accrete historically excluded classification into the unit unless the classification has undergone recent, substantial changes. Changed circumstances is the threshold requirement for resolving the dispute in a unit clarification proceeding. |
Revised on 12/08/2025