PEBA II – 2004 to Present
Forms are in PDF format. If you do not already have the Adobe Reader you may download the latest version from the Adobe site.
2025 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 |
| 38-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 118-25 In re: UNITED HEALTH PROFESSIONALS OF NEW MEXICO, AFT, AFL-CIO (UHPNM) |
December 10, 2025 | |
| 37-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 106-25 In re: AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY and MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, NM COUNCIL 18, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 2499 |
December 10, 2025 | |
| 36-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 331-25 In re: NATIONAL UNION OF HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES DISTRICT 1199NM |
December 10, 2025 | |
| 35-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 330-25 In re: NATIONAL UNION OF HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES DISTRICT 1199NM |
December 10, 2025 | |
| 34-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 112-25 In re: AFSCME COUNCIL 18, AND AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1529, v. DOÑA ANA COUNTY |
November 11, 2025 | |
|
33-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 325-25 |
November 11, 2025 | |
|
32-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 313-25 |
November 11, 2025 | |
|
31-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 323-25 |
November 11, 2025 | |
|
30-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 318-25 |
November 11, 2025 | |
|
29-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 329-25 |
October 10, 2025 | |
|
28-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 327-25 |
October 10, 2025 | |
|
27-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 326-25 |
October 10, 2025 | |
|
26-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 322-25 |
October 10, 2025 | |
|
25-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 115-25 |
October 10, 2025 | |
|
24-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 324-25 |
September 5, 2025 | |
|
23-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 320-25 |
September 5, 2025 | |
|
22-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 319-25 |
September 5, 2025 | |
|
21-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 311-25 |
September 5, 2025 | |
|
20-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 315-25 |
August 8, 2025 | |
|
19-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 314-25 (consolidated with 316-25) |
August 8, 2025 | |
|
18-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 310-25 |
August 8, 2025 | |
|
17-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 309-25 |
August 8, 2025 | |
|
16-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 312-25 |
June 9, 2025 | |
|
15-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 303-23 |
June 9, 2025 | |
|
14-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 307-25 |
June 9, 2025 | |
|
13-PELRB-2025 |
April 3, 2025 | |
|
12-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 302-25 |
April 3, 2025 | |
|
11-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 306-25 |
April 3, 2025 | |
|
10-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 305-25 |
April 3, 2025 | |
|
9-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 304-25 |
April 3, 2025 | |
|
8-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 303-25 |
April 3, 2025 | |
|
7-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 301-25 |
April 3, 2025 | |
|
6-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 116-24 |
February 15, 2025 | |
|
5-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 104-24 |
February 15, 2025 | |
|
4-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 325-24 |
January 17, 2025 | |
|
3-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 323-24 |
January 17, 2025 | |
|
2-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 322-24 |
January 17, 2025 | |
|
1-PELRB-2025, PELRB No. 304-22 |
January 17, 2025 |
2024 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 |
|
40-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 313-24 |
November 19, 2024 | |
|
41-PELRB-2024, PELRB Case No. 319-24 |
November 19, 2024 | |
|
42-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 320-24 |
November 19, 2024 | |
|
43-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 318-24 |
November 19, 2024 | |
|
44-PELRB-2024, PELRB Case No. 114-24 |
November 19, 2024 | |
|
45-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 321-24 |
November 19, 2024 | |
|
46-PELRB-2024 |
November 19, 2024 | |
|
47-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 304-22 |
November 19, 2024 | |
|
38-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 311-24 |
October 8, 2024 | |
|
39-PELRB-2024 |
October 8, 2024 | |
|
36-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 117-23 |
September 10, 2024 | |
|
37-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 121-23 |
September 10, 2024 | |
|
30-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 109-24 |
August 9, 2024 | |
|
31-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 111-24 |
August 9, 2024 | |
|
32-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 303-24 |
August 9, 2024 | |
|
33-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 309-24 |
August 9, 2024 | |
|
34-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 310-24 |
August 9, 2024 | |
|
35-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 312-24 |
August 9, 2024 | |
|
25-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 108-24 |
July 9, 2024 | |
|
26-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 308-24 |
July 9, 2024 | |
|
27-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 314-24 |
July 9, 2024 | |
|
28-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 315-24 |
July 9, 2024 | |
|
29-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 316-24 |
July 9, 2024 | |
|
24-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 305-24 |
May 8, 2024 | |
|
20-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 304-24 |
April 3, 2024 | |
|
21-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 305-24 |
April 3, 2024 | |
|
22-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 117-23 |
April 3, 2024 | |
|
23-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 121-23 |
April 3, 2024 | |
|
15-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 306-24 |
March 7, 2024 | |
|
16-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 344-23 |
March 7, 2024 | |
|
17-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 335-23 |
March 7, 2024 | |
|
18-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 123-23 |
March 7, 2024 | |
|
19-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 343-23 |
March 7, 2024 | |
|
07-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 107-23 |
February 8, 2024 | |
|
08-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 109-23 |
February 8, 2024 | |
|
09-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 110-23 |
February 8, 2024 | |
|
10-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 111-23 |
February 8, 2024 | |
|
11-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 122-23 |
February 8, 2024 | |
|
12-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 342-23 |
February 8, 2024 | |
|
13-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 302-24 |
February 8, 2024 | |
|
14-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 345-23 |
February 8, 2024 | |
|
01-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 339-23 |
January 20, 2024 | |
|
02-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 328-23 |
January 20, 2024 | |
|
03-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 331-23 |
January 20, 2024 | |
|
04-PELRB-2024, PELRB 340-23 |
January 20, 2024 | |
|
05-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 341-23 |
January 20, 2024 | |
|
06-PELRB-2024, PELRB No. 335-23 |
January 20, 2024 |
2023 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 |
|
62-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 119-23 |
December 14, 2023 | |
|
63-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 116-22 |
December 14, 2023 | |
|
64-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 337-23 |
December 14, 2023 | |
|
65-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 338-23 |
December 14, 2023 | |
|
66-PELRB-2023, PELRB Case No. 334-23 |
December 14, 2023 | |
|
67-PELRB-2023, PELRB Case No. 336-23 |
December 14, 2023 | |
|
68-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 332-23 |
December 14, 2023 | |
|
59-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 304-22 |
November 20, 2023 | |
|
52-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 319-23 |
November 16, 2023 | |
|
53-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 320-23 |
November 16, 2023 | |
|
54-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 321-23 |
November 16, 2023 | |
|
55-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 322-23 |
November 16, 2023 | |
|
56-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 323-23 |
November 16, 2023 | |
|
57-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 324-23 |
November 16, 2023 | |
|
58-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 325-23 |
November 16, 2023 | |
|
60-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 105-23 |
November 16, 2023 | |
|
46-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 317-23 |
November 3, 2023 | |
|
47-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 318-23 |
October 4, 2023 | |
|
51-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 309-23 |
October 4, 2023 | |
|
43-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 313-22 |
October 3, 2023 | |
|
44-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 314-22 |
October 3, 2023 | |
|
45-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 319-22 |
October 3, 2023 | |
|
48-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 326-23 |
October 3, 2023 | |
|
49-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 330-23 |
October 3, 2023 | |
|
50-PELRB-2023, PELRB CASE NO. 329-23 |
October 3, 2023 | |
|
61-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 108-23 |
September 28, 2023 | |
|
31-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 312-22 |
September 5, 2023 | |
|
32-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 308-23 |
September 5, 2023 | |
|
33-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 310-23 |
September 5, 2023 | |
|
34-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 311-23 |
September 5, 2023 | |
|
35-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 312-23 |
September 5, 2023 | |
|
36-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 313-23 |
September 5, 2023 | |
|
37-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 314-23 |
September 5, 2023 | |
|
38-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 315-23 |
September 5, 2023 | |
|
39-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 316-23 |
September 5, 2023 | |
|
40-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 109-23 |
September 5, 2023 | |
|
41-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 110-23 |
September 5, 2023 | |
|
42-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 111-23 |
September 5, 2023 | |
|
27-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 315-22 |
July 11, 2023 | |
|
28-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 109-23 |
July 11, 2023 | |
|
29-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 110-23 |
July 11, 2023 | |
|
30-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 111-23 |
July 11, 2023 | |
|
23-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 317-22 |
June 9, 2023 | |
|
24-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 318-22 |
June 9, 2023 | |
|
25-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 305-23 |
June 9, 2023 | |
|
26-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 304-22 |
June 9, 2023 | |
|
16-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 328-22 |
May 3, 2023 | |
|
17-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 301-23 |
May 3, 2023 | |
|
18-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 302-23 |
May 3, 2023 | |
|
19-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 320-22 |
May 3, 2023 | |
|
20-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 322-22 |
May 3, 2023 | |
|
21-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 323-22 |
May 3, 2023 | |
|
22-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 324-22 |
May 3, 2023 | |
|
13-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 102-23 |
April 12, 2023 | |
|
14-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 303-23 |
April 12, 2023 | |
|
15-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 301-23 |
April 12, 2023 | |
|
06-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 321-22 |
March 8, 2023 | |
|
11-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 111-22 |
March 8, 2023 | |
|
12-PELRB-2023 |
March 8, 2023 | |
|
08-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 304-22 |
February 15, 2023 | |
|
09-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 304-22 |
February 15, 2023 | |
|
10-PELRB-2023, PERLB 119-22 and 122-22 |
February 15, 2023 | |
|
04-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 311-22 |
February 13, 2023 | |
|
05-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 316-22 |
February 13, 2023 | |
|
07-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 303-22 |
February 13, 2023 | |
|
01-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 327-22 |
January 4, 2023 | |
|
02-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 120-22 |
January 4, 2023 | |
|
03-PELRB-2023, PELRB No. 325-22 |
January 4, 2023 |
2022 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 |
|
23-PELRB-2022 |
December 9, 2022 | |
|
24-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 303-22 |
December 9, 2022 | |
|
25-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 114-22 |
December 9, 2022 | |
|
26-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 304-22 |
December 1, 2022 |
On December 1, 2022 this Board issued its Order 26-PELRB-2022, in which it adopted, its Hearing Officer’s recommended decision that House Supervisors and Charge Nurses are not excluded from coverage under the PEBA and are appropriate for inclusion in the bargaining unit, but reversed, that decision with respect to the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that “SRMC employees employed on a per diem or ‘PRN’ basis are not ‘regular’ employees” for the purposes of the PEBA. The Board remanded the case to the Hearing Officer for the purpose of determining whether the PRNs share a community of interest with others in the petitioned-for unit so that their inclusion in the unit would not render it inappropriate. See NMSA 1978 § 10-7E-13 (2020) re: Appropriate bargaining units. On January 13, 2023 the Board’s Hearing Officer issued his Report and Recommended Decision Concerning Designation of An Appropriate Bargaining Unit, concluding that PRNs in the proposed unit shared a community of interest with others in the unit so that their inclusion would not render the unit inappropriate. The Executive Director then conducted a card check and determined that there was a sufficient showing of interest to establish majority support for United Health Professionals of New Mexico, AFT-AFL-CIO as the exclusive representative for collective bargaining. Therefore, a Certification of Representation was issued on January 19, 2023. SRMC filed a Motion to Strike the card check results as premature and invalid, and requested to remove approval of the card check results from the Board’s February 7, 2023 agenda. The Board denied the request to remove the matter from its agenda, considered the Motion to Strike and rendered two Orders: a. 8-PELRB-2023, by which the Board affirmed found that the Executive Director resolved all questions concerning representation and his designation of the appropriate bargaining unit as including PRN or Per Diem positions was affirmed; and, b. 9-PELRB-2023, by which, the Board denied UNM SRMC’ Motion to strike card check results as premature and invalid and its request to remove review of the card check results as without merit. Because there was no timely filed objection to the card check results pursuant to NMAC 11.21.2.34 and the Executive Director’s card check was not premature nor invalid, the PELRB ratified and affirmed the Executive Director’s Card Check Results Report issued January 19, 2023 and the Certification of Representation resulting from it. As of this writing, the time for seeking Judicial review pursuant to SCRA 1-074, has not yet passed, so that the file remains open until appellate review is completed or waived. |
|
28-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 111-22 |
December 1, 2022 | |
|
30-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 108-22 |
December 1, 2022 | |
|
27-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 104-22 |
November 28, 2022 | |
|
29-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 112-22 |
November 28, 2022 |
UNM SRMC appealed to the Board from the Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommended Decision dated September 28, 2022 concluding that that SRMC violated NMSA 1978 § 10-7E-5(A)(2020), which guarantees public employees’ rights to form, join or assist a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives chosen by them without interference, restraint or coercion; NMSA 1978 § 10-7E-5(B)(2020), which guarantees public employees’ rights to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or benefit, and NMSA 1978 § 10-7E-14(A) requiring a public employer to provide the labor organization within ten business days the names, job titles, work locations, home addresses, personal email addresses and home or cellular telephone numbers of any public employee in the proposed bargaining unit. Inasmuch as NMSA 1978 § 10-7E-5(19)(G) (2020) makes it a prohibited practice to “refuse or fail to comply with a provision of the Public Employee Bargaining Act or board rule” the Hearing Officer further concluded that the UNM SRMC violated PEBA by declining to provide the Union with the list of bargaining unit employees in the proposed unit in PELRB Case No. 303-22, along with their contact information. The Board adopted the Recommended Decision and findings therein and ordered Respondent to cease and desist from violating the PEBA as therein, acknowledge the violations found therein by posting notice to its employees of the violations in a manner by which its employees customarily receive notice from Respondent. |
|
22-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 307-22 |
October 5, 2022 | |
|
19-PELRB-2022, PELRB 310-22 |
September 14, 2022 | |
|
20-PELRB-2022, PELRB 308-22 |
September 14, 2022 | |
|
21-PELRB-2022, PELRB 303-22 |
September 14, 2022 | |
|
17-PELRB-2022, PELRB 309-22 |
August 10, 2022 | |
|
18-PELRB-2022, PELRB 106-22 |
August 10, 2022 | ABCWUA refused to negotiate with the Union over a successor contract because the Union failed to request bargaining within a 30-day window called for in Article 61 of the parties’ CBA. The PELRB affirmed the Executive Director’s Summary Dismissal of the Union’s claims under NMSA 1978 §§ 10-7E-15; 10-7E-22; 10-7E-24; 10-7E-25 and 10-7E-26. However, Summary Judgment was affirmed in favor of the union on its claim that ABCWUA committed a prohibited labor practice under Section 10-7E-19(F) of the Public Employee Labor Relations Act by refusing or failing comply with its obligation to bargain collectively in good faith with AFSCME. |
|
14-PELRB-2022, PELRB 305-22 |
July 21, 2022 | |
|
15-PELRB-2022, PELRB 306-22 |
July 21, 2022 | |
|
16-PELRB-2022, PELRB 303-22 |
July 21, 2022 | |
|
12-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 313-21 In re: United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and New Mexico State University Board of Regents |
May 16, 2022 |
NMSU objected to a Card Check conducted on March 17, 2022 pursuant to Section 10-7E-14(C) of the PEBA. NMSU’s objections are summarized as follows: (1) the Board did not adopt rules governing the administration of card check proceedings before conducting the card check related to the Petition; (2) the Board did not use an updated bargaining unit list for the card check proceedings; (3) the misspelled printed names on the challenged authorization cards raised concerns about fraud in the card check proceedings; (4) the Card Check Agreement was violated because (a) an administrative assistant conducted the card count along with the Executive Director and (b) the Union had two observers physically present during the card count; (5) the authorization cards were not “sufficiently current” under the Board’s rules; and (6) the Board’s form used to record the results of the card check is misleading because it is titled “Results of Card Check in Lieu of Election” and states that the “above [tally] is a true statement of the election returns” (emphasis added). After reviewing the Director’s Report on Objections to Card Check issued on April 18, 2022, the Results of the Card Check, and the pleadings in this matter, hearing oral argument from the parties, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, the Board concluded: a. The Board has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in these proceedings. b. Section 10-7E-14(C) of PEBA provides: “As an alternative to the provisions of Subsection A of this section, a labor organization with a reasonable basis for claiming to represent a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit may submit authorization cards from a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit to the board or local board, which shall, upon verification that a majority of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit have signed valid authorization cards, certify the labor organization as the exclusive representative of all public employees in the appropriate bargaining unit. The employer may challenge the verification of the board or local board; the board or local board shall hold a fact-finding hearing on the challenge to confirm that a majority of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit have signed valid authorization cards.” c. The March 17, 2022 card check was conducted under and in accordance with Section 10-7E-14(C). d. As the Board previously decided in In re: United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and University of New Mexico (“UE v. UNM”), PELRB No. 307-20 (Jan. 27, 2022), 4-PELRB-2022, the Board’s statutory obligation to hold a fact-finding hearing on an employer’s challenge to the Board’s verification under Section 10-7E-14(C) is self-executing and does not require or depend on the adoption of procedural rules. For the same reasons discussed in that decision, the lack of rules for the conduct of a card check did not render the card check related to the Union’s Petition invalid. e. The Board also decided in UE v. UNM that PEBA does not require the Board to use an updated bargaining unit list when conducting a card check proceeding. Section 10-7E-14(C) allows labor organization to submit authorization cards from a majority of employees in the proposed bargaining unit with its representation petition. The Board then verifies “that a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit have signed valid authorization cards,” and, if so, certifies the labor organization as the exclusive representative. The Board’s verification is based on the authorization cards submitted with the petition, which means the Board necessarily relies on the list of employees in the bargaining unit at the time the petition is filed. As stated in the Board’s decision in UE v. UNM, “the purpose of a card check is to test majority support as of the time a petition is submitted” (quoting from the Director’s Report in UE v. NMSU on objections to the card check). f. The misspelled printed names on the authorization cards do not, by themselves, indicate fraud. The cards were challenged based on the misspellings and properly removed from the count. No showing was made that the challenged cards affected the validity of the remaining cards included in the count. g. NMSU’s objections related to alleged violations of the Card Check Agreement are without merit. The Agreement did not preclude the Executive Director from having a staff member under his supervision assist in conducting the card check. The Agreement’s provisions governing observers is based on the Board’s rules for observers during ballot counts, which specify that “observers shall not be … labor organization employees” and allow “representatives of the parties in addition to the observers to observe the counting of ballots.” 11.21.2.29 NMAC. Under these rules, the Union had only one eligible observer, Mr. Montalbano, who was physically present at the card check and signed the card check results. NMSU did not show what effect, if any, the alleged violations of the Card Check Agreement had on the validity of the authorization cards or the card check process. h. NMSU’s objection related to whether the authorization cards are “sufficiently current” is premised on the submission of the cards ten months before the card check was conducted. However, as with the list of eligible employees discussed above, the time for determining whether an authorization card is “sufficiently current” is when the representation petition is filed, not at the time of the card check proceedings. See 11.21.2.13(A) NMAC (requiring the Director to investigate the petition within 30 days of filing, including whether the signatures on the showing of interest (in the form of cards or a petition) “are sufficiently current”). NMSU does not claim that the authorization cards were insufficiently current when the Union submitted the Petition to the NMSU Labor Management Relations Board. Because the cards presumably were “sufficiently current” when the NMSU Labor Management Relations Board reviewed the Petition, there are no grounds for the objection. i. NMSU’s contention that the title of the Board’s form used to record the results of the card check and references in the form to “election returns” are misleading has no merit. No evidence was presented that parties and other persons participating in the card check were confused or misled by the challenged language on the form or that it affected the validity of the authorization cards or card check proceedings. j. A majority of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit have signed valid authorization cards, as evidenced by the Results of the Card Check in Lieu of Election dated March 17, 2022. The Board, therefore, dismissed NMSU’s objections to the results of the March 17, 2022 card check and directed its staff to issue a Certification of Exclusive Representation. |
|
13-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 133-21 |
May 16, 2022 | |
|
10-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 301-22 |
April 20, 2022 | |
|
11-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 302-22 |
April 20, 2022 | |
|
06-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 307-20 |
March 11, 2022 | |
|
07-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 317-21 |
March 11, 2022 | |
|
08-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 315-21 |
March 11, 2022 | |
|
09-PELRB-2022, PELRB No. 314-21 |
March 11, 2022 | |
|
01-PELRB-2022, PELRB NO. 127-21 |
January 27, 2022 | |
|
02-PELRB-2022, PELRB NO. 306-21 |
January 27, 2022 | |
|
03-PELRB-2022, PELRB NO. 309-21 |
January 27, 2022 | |
|
04-PELRB-2022, PELRB NO. 307-20 In re: United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America and University of New Mexico |
January 27, 2022 | |
|
05-PELRB-2022, PELRB NO. 311-21 In re: Classifed School Employees Council-Las Cruces and Las Cruces Public Schools |
January 27, 2022 |
2021 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 |
| 74-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 303-21 In re: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, New Mexico Council 18, AFL-CIO v. New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department |
December 9, 2021 | |
| 75-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 307-20 In re: United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America v. University of New Mexico |
December 9, 2021 | |
| 72-PELRB-2021, PELRB 308-21 In re: AFSCME, Council 18 v. Luna County |
November 9, 2021 | |
| 73-PELRB-2021, PELRB 307-20 In re: United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America v. University of New Mexico |
November 9, 2021 | |
| 67-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 302-21 In re: NEA-Turquoise Trail Charter School v. Turquoise Trail Charter School |
October 18, 2021 | |
| 68-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 107-21 In re: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFL-CIO, Local 3022 v. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority |
October 18, 2021 | A past practice will not be binding if there is insufficient evidence to establish it. Local 3022 “did not establish that the Water Authority deviated from past practice” and “the testimony presented at the hearing established that the Water Authority had a past practice of assigning new supervisors to a shift rather than having them immediately participate in a shift bid.” The instant PPC is not based on allegations the Employer violated a past practice but is entirely based on breach of the parties’ CBA and failure to bargain, as stated in the Stipulated Pre-Hearing Order, wherein Complainant alleges violations of § 17(A)(1) (requiring Respondent and AFSCME to “bargain in good faith on wages, hours and all other terms and conditions of employment”); § 19(F) (making it a prohibited practice to “refuse to bargain 13 collectively in good faith with the exclusive representative”); and § 19(H) (making it a prohibited practice to “refuse or fail to comply with a collective bargaining agreement”). To the contrary it is ABCWUA that is asserting a past practice when it argues that the Water Authority had a long history of assigning new supervisors to a shift of its choosing and that the Water Authority had a past practice of not allowing employees to bid on all available shifts, and instead included “qualifiers” limiting the shifts that were available. |
| 70-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 306-21 In re: United Health Professional of New Mexico, AFT, AFL-CIO v. University of New Mexico Sandoval Regional Medical |
October 18, 2021 | |
| 71-PELRB-2021, PELRB 106-20 In re: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFL-CIO, Local 3999 v. City of Santa Fe |
October 16, 2021 | |
| 69-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 108-21 In re: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFL-CIO, Local 3022 v. Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority |
October 15, 2021 |
On July 27, 2021 the PELRB Executive Director issued his Report and Recommended decision concluding that the Water Authority did not refuse to bargain, as required by both Article 19 of the CBA and § 17 of the PEBA, as the Union’s PPC alleged, because it already bargained for such job descriptions to be performed and approved in management’s discretion and was not required to bargain the specific issue further, midterm. Therefore, it did not violate §§ 19(F) 19(H) of the PEBA by its actions in this case. As there is no argument that the Water Authority failed or refused to comply with the parties’ collective bargaining agreement in any other respect, the Executive Director Dismissed the Complaint. The Board affirmed the Recommended Decision on October 18, 2021. See 69-PELRB-2021. Neither party sought further appeal and staff closed the file on December 10, 2021. |
| 66-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 307-20 In re: United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) v. University of New Mexico Board of Regents |
August 17, 2021 | |
| 63-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 305-21 In re: Taos Professional Firefighters Association v. Town of Taos |
August 6, 2021 | |
| 64-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 302-21 In re: NEA-Turquoise Trail Charter School v. Turquoise Trail Charter School |
August 6, 2021 | |
| 65-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 101-21 In re: American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Exployees, New Mexico Council 18, AFL-CIO v. Board of County Commissioners for Bernalillo County |
August 6, 2021 |
On March 24, 2021 the Hearing Officer issued his letter decision denying summary judgment as to claims of retaliation but recognizing the parties’ resolution of the union’s allegation in paragraph 13 of the Second Amended PPC that the County violated the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding regarding hazard pay, and summarily dismissing the alleged violation of Section 19(H). A hearing on the merits was held on April 21 and 22, 2021 and on June 8, 2021 The Board’s Hearing Officer concluded that the County committed a prohibited labor practice pursuant to NMSA 1978 Section 10-7E-19(F) (2020) by failing or refusing to bargain elimination of Boundary Spanners job positions without bargaining. The County committed a second violation of Sections 17(A)(1), and Section 19(F) by withholding information relevant to the layoff of Boundary Spanners. The County violated Sections 19(B), 19(D) and 19(E) of the Act by its investigations of two employee union organizers arising out of the HR Complaint by another employee. All other allegations of violations of Sections 19(A), 19(B), 19(D), 19(E) and 19(F) not sustained and were dismissed. The Hearing officer recommended that the Employer be ordered to (1) Cease and desist from all violations of the PEBA; (2) Post and email notice of its violations of PEBA as found herein on a form acceptable to the parties and this Board with assurances that it will comply with the Public Employee Bargaining Act in the future; (3) Bargain in good faith with the Union regarding the terms under which the laid off Boundary Spanners who have not already been, can be placed in the same or similar position with DBHS; and (4) Bargain in good faith with the Union to reach agreement on an appropriate back-pay or damages award for the Boundary Spanners who have not already been or cannot now be placed in the same or similar position with DBHS. The Board affirmed the Hearing Officer’s Decision and adopted his Recommended Decision after amending the remedies to include requiring the County remove any reference to the investigation at issue in the case from the personnel files of the two employees involved. |
| 62-PELRB-2021, PELRB 302-21 In re: NEA-Turquoise Trail Charter School v. Turquoise Trail Charter School |
July 7, 2021 | |
| 61-PELRB-2021, PELRB 301-21 In re: Santa Fe County Firefighters Association, IAFF 4366, v. Santa Fe County |
June 15, 2021 | |
| 41-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 220-20 In re: City of Albuquerque Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 42-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 206-20 In re: Central New Mexico Community College Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 43-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 207-20 In re: Dona Ana County Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 44-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 208-20 In re: Alamogordo Public Schools Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 45-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 212-20 In re: City of Hobbs Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 46-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 214-20 In re: Albuquerque Public Schools Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 47-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 216-20 In re: New Mexico State University Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 48-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 219-20 In re: Zuni Public Schools Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 49-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 204-20 In re: City of Deming Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 50-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 209-20 In re: Town of Silver City Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 51-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 211-20 In re: City of Roswell Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 52-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 218-20 In re: City of Las Cruces Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 53-PELRB-2021, PELRB 102-21 In re: McKinley County Federation of United School Employees Local 2212, AFT-NM v. Gallup-McKinley County Public Schools |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 54-PELRB-2021, PELRB 121-20 In re: Bernalillo County Court Deputies Association v. Bernalillo County |
June 1, 2021 | The Complainant filed a PPC alleging the Respondent breached a duty to bargain before changing shift hours and transferring bargaining unit work to non-bargaining unit employees. The opposing parties are in separate bargaining units, covered by separate CBAs, and represented by different unions. However, NMSA 1978, § 10-7E-6 allows the transfer of public employees unless limited by the provisions of the CBA. In this case, the CBA’s Management Rights Clause stated that management could transfer unit employees and change shift hours in order to maintain the governmental operations entrusted to it by law. In the absence of any explicit restriction within the CBA, the complaint was dismissed. |
| 55-PELRB-2021, PELRB 122-20 In re: McKinley County Federation of United School Employees Local 2212, AFT-NM v. Gallup-McKinley County Public Schools |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 56-PELRB-2021, PELRB 119-20 In re: AFSCME Council 18 Local 3999 v. City of Santa Fe |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 57-PELRB-2021, PELRB 205-20 In re: San Juan College Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 58-PELRB-2021, PELRB 210-20 In re: Sandoval County Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 59-PELRB-2021, PELRB 220-20 In re: City of Albuquerque Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 60-PELRB-2021, PELRB 213-20 In re: Los Alamos County Labor Management Relations Board |
June 1, 2021 | |
| 24-PELRB-2021 Open Meetings Notice Resolution, March 2021 – March 2022 |
February 15, 2021 | |
| 25-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 213-20 In re: County of Los Alamos Labor Management Relations Board |
February 15, 2021 | |
| 26-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 201-21 In re: City of Gallup Labor-Management Relations Board |
February 15, 2021 | |
| 27-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 202-21 In re: Luna County Labor-Management Relations Board |
February 15, 2021 | |
| 28-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 203-21 In re: Chavez County Labor-Management Relations Board |
February 15, 2021 | |
| 29-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 206-20 In re: Central New Mexico Community College Labor-Management Relations Board |
February 15, 2021 | |
| 30-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 207-20 In re: Dona Ana County Labor-Management Relations Board |
February 15, 2021 | |
| 31-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 208-20 In re: Alamogordo Schools Labor Management Relations Board |
February 15, 2021 | |
|
32-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 209-20 |
February 15, 2021 | |
|
33-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 211-20 |
February 15, 2021 | |
|
34-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 212-20 |
February 15, 2021 | |
|
35-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 213-20 |
February 15, 2021 | |
|
36-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 215-20 |
February 15, 2021 | |
|
37-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 217-20 |
February 15, 2021 | |
|
38-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 218-20 |
February 15, 2021 | |
|
39-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 219-20 |
February 15, 2021 | |
|
40-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 220-20 |
February 15, 2021 | |
|
23-PELRB-2021, PELRB 122-20 |
January 20, 2021 | |
|
1-PELRB-2021, PELRB 301-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
2-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 106-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
3-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 106-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
4-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 305-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
5-PELRB-2021, PELRB NO. 108-20 |
January 15, 2021 | Union employees claimed the School District had committed prohibited practices violating §§ 10-7E-19(A), (B), (D) or (E) (2020), by discriminating against several of the School’s Union employees, some of whom were also Union Officers, after the Union members discussed the removal of the School’s Superintendent at a few public-school board meetings while wearing Union insignia. Shortly following these events the Union member’s contracts were not renewed for various School Board policy violations. Additionally, Union members had email correspondence circulated encouraging teachers to not participate in the District’s voluntary grant survey. The District’s Superintendent cited this action as insubordinate while the Union claimed it to be concerted activities, protected under Section 5 of PEBA. After reviewing the evidence and utilizing the Wright Line analysis, the Hearing Officer found in favor of some, but not all Union members whose contracts were not renewed. Upon appeal, the Court affirmed the Hearing Officer’s decision with exception to the concerted activities (due to the action having occurred prior to the 2020 PEBA amendments which added protection for concerted activities, overlooking the Board’s long history of protecting concerted activities prior to the 2020 amendment). |
|
6-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 204-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
7-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 205-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
8-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 206-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
9-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 207-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
10-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 208-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
11-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 209-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
12-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 210-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
13-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 211-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
14-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 212-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
15-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 213-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
16-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 214-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
17-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 215-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
18-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 216-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
19-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 217-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
20-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 218-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
21-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 219-20 |
January 15, 2021 | |
|
22-PELRB-2021, PELRB No. 220-20 |
January 15, 2021 |
2020 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 |
| 19-PELRB-2020, PELRB CASE NO. 122-20 In re: McKinley County Federation of United School Employees Local 2212, AFT-NM v. Gallup McKinley County Public Schools |
December 23, 2020 | |
| 16-PELRB-2020, PELRB 304-20 In re: Communications Workers of American and State of New Mexico Office of African American Affairs |
December 15, 2020 | |
| 17-PELRB-2020, PELRB 109-20 In re: Mesa Vista Federation of Teachers/AFT v. Mesa Vista Schools |
December 15, 2020 | |
| 18-PELRB-2020, PELRB 301-20 In re: New Mexico Park Ranger’s Law Enforcement Association and New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department |
December 15, 2020 | |
| 12-PELRB-2020 In re: Approval of Model Ordinance/Resolution/Charter Amendments for Local Boards |
October 16, 2020 | |
| 13-PELRB-2020, PELRB CASE NO. 303-20 In re: AFSCME, Council 18 v. Bernalillo County |
October 16, 2020 | |
| 14-PELRB-2020, PELRB CASE NO. 301-20 In re: New Mexico Park Ranger’s Law Enforcement Division v. New Mexico Energery, Minerals and Natural Resources Department |
October 16, 2020 | |
| 15-PELRB-2020, PELRB No.’s 103-20 and 105-20 consolidated In re: Ruidoso Education Association and Daniel M. Kesslers v. Ruidoso Municipal School District and Dr. George Bickerts |
October 16, 2020 | |
| 11-PELRB-2020, PELRB CASE NO. 101-20 In re: American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFL-CIO, Local 3999 v. City of Santa Fe |
September 21, 2020 | |
| 10-PELRB-2020, PELRB NO. 115-20 In re: Akins v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department |
August 19, 2020 | |
| 8-PELRB-2020, PELRB 302-20 In re: NEA-Turquoise Trail Charter School v. Turquoise Trail Charter School |
July 22, 2020 | |
| 9-PELRB-2020, PELRB 106-19 In re: Rhonda Goodenough v. New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department |
July 22, 2020 | |
| 7-PELRB-2020, PELRB NO. 203-07 In re: Zuni School District |
March 9, 2020 | |
| 2-PELRB-2020, PELRB NO. 214-04 In re: Chama Valley Independent School District |
March 6, 2020 | |
| 3-PELRB-2020, PELRB NO. 205-05 In re: Town of Taos |
March 6, 2020 | |
| 4-PELRB-2020, PELRB NO. 202-13 In re: Ruidoso Municipal Schools |
March 6, 2020 | |
| 5-PELRB-2020, PELRB NO. 207-05 In re: Lea County |
March 6, 2020 | |
| 6-PELRB-2020, PELRB NO. 202-08 In re: Lincoln County |
March 6, 2020 | |
| 1-PELRB-2020 Open Meetings Notice Resolution |
March 3, 2020 |
2019 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 |
|
21-PELRB-2019, PELRB 304-19 |
November 25, 2019 | |
|
22-PELRB-2019, PELRB 225-04 |
November 25, 2019 | |
|
23-PELRB-2019, PELRB 202-05 |
November 25, 2019 | |
|
24-PELRB-2019, PELRB 206-07 |
November 25, 2019 | |
|
25-PELRB-2019, PELRB 202-07 |
November 25, 2019 | |
|
19-PELRB-2019 |
September 17, 2019 | |
|
20-PELRB-2019, PELRB CASE NO. 103-19 |
September 17, 2019 | |
|
18-PELRB-2019, PELRB 202-19 |
September 16, 2019 | |
|
13-PELRB-2019, PELRB CASE NO. 302-19 |
July 30, 2019 | |
|
14-PELRB-2019, PELRB CASE NO. 102-19 |
July 30, 2019 | |
|
15-PELRB-2019, PELRB CASE NO. 114-18 |
July 30, 2019 | |
|
16-PELRB-2019, PELRB CASE NO. 116-18 |
July 30, 2019 | |
|
17-PELRB-2019, PELRB CASE NO. 125-15 |
July 30, 2019 | |
|
10-PELRB-2019, PELRB Case No. 115-18 |
June 10, 2019 | |
|
11-PELRB-2019, PELRB Case No. 117-18 |
June 10, 2019 | |
|
12-PELRB-2019, PELRB Case Nos. 122-14 and 127-15 |
June 10, 2019 | |
|
9-PELRB-2019, PELRB CASE NO. 302-19 |
June 5, 2019 | |
|
8-PELRB-2019, PELRB 201-13 |
April 8, 2019 | |
|
7-PELRB-2019, PELRB CASE NO. 301-19 |
April 3, 2019 | |
|
6-PELRB-2019, PELRB CASE NOS. 125-15 and 127-15 |
March 7, 2019 | |
|
5-PELRB-2019 |
March 5, 2019 | |
|
4-PELRB-2019, PELRB CASE NO. 113-18 |
January 29, 2019 | |
|
3-PELRB-2019, PELRB No. 310-18 |
January 21, 2019 | |
|
1-PELRB-2019, PELRB CASE NO. 113-18 |
January 18, 2019 | |
|
2-PELRB-2019, PELRB NO. 311-18 |
January 18, 2019 |
2018 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 |
| 14-PELRB-2018, PELRB NO. 309-18 AFSCME, Local 2911 & Taos County |
January 18, 2019 | |
| 15-PELRB-2018, PELRB CASE NO. 113-18 AFSCME, Local 3277 & City of Rio Rancho |
November 13, 2018 | |
| 10-PELRB-2018, PELRB CASE NO. 305-18 Wagon Mound Education Association & Wagon Mound Public Schools |
October 4, 2018 | |
| 11-PELRB-2018, PELRB NO. 306-18 & 309-17 Consolidated Rio Rancho Police and Dispatchers Association & City of Rio Rancho |
October 4, 2018 | |
| 12-PELRB-2018, PELRB CASE NO. 123-17 AFSCME, Council 18 & New Mexico Human Services Department |
October 4, 2018 | |
| 13-PELRB-2018, PELRB CASE NO. 307-18 Jennifer Poling & National Education Association-Clayton & Clayton Municipal Schools |
October 4, 2018 | |
| 8-PELRB-2018, PELRB CASE NO. 302-18 AFSCME, Council 18 & City of Moriarty Police Department |
July 20, 2018 | |
| 9-PELRB-2018, PELRB CASE NO. 303-18 Cibola County & NMCPSO |
July 20, 2018 | |
| 5-PELRB-2018, PELRB CASE NO. 310-17 CWA & Third Judicial District Attorney’s Office |
February 8, 2018 | |
| 6-PELRB-2018, PELRB CASE NO. 310-17 CWA & Third Judicial District Attorney’s Office |
February 7, 2018 | |
| 7-PELRB-2018 Open Meetings Act Resolution |
February 6, 2018 | |
| 1-PELRB-2018, PELRB CASE NO. 125-17 Cullison & Santa Fe County |
January 17, 2018 | |
| 2-PELRB-2018, PELRB CASE NO. 307-17 New Mexico Coalition of Public Safety Officers & Rio Rancho Police and Dispatch Association |
January 17, 2018 |
|
| 3-PELRB-2018, PELRB CASE NO. 118-17 New Mexico Coalition of Public Safety Officers & Santa Fe County |
January 17, 2018 | |
| 4-PELRB-2018, PELRB CASE NO. 310-17 CWA & Third Judicial District Attorney’s Office |
January 17, 2018 |
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 |
| 13-PELRB-2017, PELRB 305-16 AFSCME Council 18 & New Mexico Department of Health |
November 16, 2017 | |
| 14-PELRB-2017, PELRB 120-17 Cullision v. Santa Fe County |
November 16, 2017 | |
| 15-PELRB-2017, PELRB 107-17 State of New Mexico v. AFSCME and CWA |
November 16, 2017 | |
| 10-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO. 118-17 New Mexico Coalition of Public Safety Officers & Santa Fe County |
October 3, 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. |
| 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 | |
| 4-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO. 311-16 Santa Fe Community College-American Association of University Professors & Santa Fe Community College |
May 2, 2017 | |
| 5-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO. 301-17 New Mexico Coalition of Public Safety Officers & Colfax County |
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 | |
| 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 | |
| 12-PELRB-2017 Open Meetings Act Resolution |
February 7, 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. |
| 2-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO.305-16 AFSCME Council 18 & New Mexico Department of Health |
January 19, 2017 | |
| 3-PELRB-2017, PELRB CASE NO. 307-16 United Mine Workers of America & Socorro County |
January 19, 2017 |
2016 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 |
|
23-PELRB-2016, PELRB CASE NO. 309-15 |
November 8, 2016 | |
|
24-PELRB-2016, PELRB CASE NO. 302-16 |
November 8, 2016 | |
|
25-PELRB-2016, PELRB CASE NO. 307-16 |
November 8, 2016 | |
|
26-PELRB-2016, PELRB CASE NO. 108-16 |
November 8, 2016 | |
|
20-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 128-15 |
October 17, 2016 | |
|
21-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 309-15 |
October 17, 2016 | |
|
22-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 108-16 |
October 17, 2016 | |
|
27-PELRB-2016 |
October 17, 2016 | |
|
19-PELRB-2016, PELRB 108-16 |
September 20, 2016 | |
|
18-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 306-16 |
August 16, 2016 | |
|
15-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 119-16 |
August 9, 2016 | |
|
16-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 124-15 |
August 9, 2016 | |
|
17-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 105-16 |
August 9, 2016 | |
|
10-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 105-16 |
July 13, 2016 | |
|
11-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 108-16 |
July 13, 2016 | |
|
12-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 112-16 |
July 13, 2016 | |
|
13-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 310-15 |
July 13, 2016 | |
|
14-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 304-16 |
July 13, 2016 | |
|
7-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 105-16 |
May 13, 2016 | |
|
8-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 105-16 |
May 13, 2016 | |
|
9-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 310-15 |
May 13, 2016 | |
|
6-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 128-15 |
May 11, 2016 | |
|
3-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 105-16 |
April 11, 2016 | |
|
4-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 105-16 |
April 11, 2016 | |
|
5-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 309-15 |
April 11, 2016 | |
|
28-PELRB-2016 |
March 25, 2016 | |
|
1-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 107-15 |
March 14, 2016 | |
|
2-PELRB-2016, PELRB No. 305-15 |
March 14, 2016 |
2015 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 |
| 7-PELRB-2015, PELRB No. 109-15 Central Consolidated School District v. Central Consolidated Education Association |
December 21, 2015 | |
| 6-PELRB-2015, PELRB No. 114-15 AFSCME Council 18 v. New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions |
October 9, 2015 | |
| 5-PELRB-2015, PELRB No. 305-15 AFSCME Council 18 and The Board Of County Commissioners of Santa Fe County |
September 21, 2015 | |
| 4-PELRB-2015 NEA-Raton & Raton School District |
July 14, 2015 | |
| 3-PELRB-2015, PELRB No. 124-14 Robert Gallegos v. New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department |
June 23, 2015 | |
| 2-PELRB-2015, PELRB No. 124-14 Robert Gallegos v. New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department |
April 15, 2015 | |
| 8-PELRB-2015 Open Meetings Act Resolution |
March 3, 2015 | |
| 1-PELRB-2015, PELRB No. 122-14 CWA Local 7076 v. State of New Mexico |
January 26, 2015 |
2014 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 |
|
18-PELRB-2014, PELRB No. 306-14 |
October 15, 2014 | |
|
19-PELRB-2014 |
October 7, 2014 | |
|
14-PELRB-2014, PELRB 303-14 |
August 11, 2014 | |
|
15-PELRB-2014, PELRB No. 304-14 |
August 11, 2014 | |
|
16-PELRB-2014, PELRB No. 305-14 |
August 11, 2014 | |
|
17-PELRB-2014, PELRB No. 306-14 |
August 11, 2014 | |
|
13-PELRB-2014, PELRB 303-14 |
July 14, 2014 | |
|
11-PELRB-2014, PELRB Case No. 304-14 |
July 1, 2014 | |
|
12-PELRB-2014, PELRB Case No. 305-14 |
July 1, 2014 | |
|
8-PELRB-2014, PELRB 303-14 |
June 3, 2014 | |
|
9-PELRB-2014, PELRB No. 310-13 |
June 3, 2014 | |
|
10-PELRB-2014, PELRB No. 110-13 |
June 3, 2014 | |
|
7-PELRB-2014, PELRB No’s. 313-13; 314-13; 315-13 and 316-13 consolidated |
April 18, 2014 | |
|
2-PELRB-2014, PELRB No. 318-13 |
April 15, 2014 | |
|
3-PELRB-2014, PELRB No. 317-13 |
April 15, 2014 | |
|
4-PELRB-2014, PELRB No. 134-11 |
April 15, 2014 | |
|
5-PELRB-2014, PELRB No. 301-14 |
April 15, 2014 | |
|
6-PELRB-2014, PELRB No. 319-13 |
April 15, 2014 | |
|
1-PELRB-2014, PELRB No. 311-13 |
January 21, 2014 |
2013 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 |
| 28-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 134-11 CWA Local 7076 v. New Mexico Public Education Department |
December 13, 2013 | |
| 29-PELRB-2013, PELRB Case No: 306-13 New Mexico Coalition of Public Safety Officers, AFSCME, Council 18 and Santa Fe County |
December 13, 2013 | |
| 30-PELRB-2013, PELRB Case No: 306-13 New Mexico Coalition of Public Safety Officers, AFSCME, Council 18 and Santa Fe County |
December 13, 2013 | |
| 31-PELRB-2013, PELRB 202-13 In re: Ruidoso Public Schools |
December 13, 2013 | |
| 27-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 101-13 Central Consolidated School Association – CCEA v. Central Consolidated School District |
October 11, 2013 | |
| 22-PELRB-2013, PELRB 107-13 National Education Association – Alamogordo v. Alamogordo Public Schools |
September 16, 2013 | |
| 23-PELRB-2013, PELRB Case No. 307-13 AFSCME Council 18, AFL-CIO v. City of Belen Police Department |
September 16, 2013 | |
| 24-PELRB-2013, PELRB Case No: 306-13 New Mexico Coalition of Public Safety Officers and Santa Fe County |
September 16, 2013 | |
| 25-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 301-13 Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local 492 v. Curry County Detention Center |
September 16, 2013 | |
| 26-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 304-13 McKinley County Federation of United School Employees and Gallup-McKinley County Schools |
September 16, 2013 | |
| 21-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 108-13 National Education Association – West Las Vegas (NEA-WLA) v. West Las Vegas School District |
August 19, 2013 | |
| 18-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 302-13 Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local 492 v. North Central Solid Waste Authority |
June 20, 2013 | |
| 19-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 302-11 Raton Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 2378 v. City of Raton |
June 20, 2013 | |
| 14-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 106-13 NEA-NM v. West Las Vegas School District and Gene Parsons |
June 19, 2013 | |
| 15-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 101-12 AFSCME Council 18 v. The State of New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department |
June 19, 2013 | |
| 16-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 116-12 AFSCME Council 18 v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department |
June 19, 2013 | |
| 17-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 305-13 Socorro Consolidated School District v. Socorro School Employees’ Association (SSEA), Local 3878 |
June 19, 2013 | |
| 12-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 302-13 Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local 492 v. North Central Solid Waste Authority |
May 29, 2013 | |
| 10-PELRB-2013, PELRB 122-12 AFSCME, Council 18 v. New Mexico Childen, Youth and Families Department |
May 15, 2013 | |
| 11-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 200-13 Hidalgo County Ordinance No. 97-12 |
May 15, 2013 | |
| 13-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 304-13 McKinley County Federation of United School Employees and Gallup-McKinley County Schools |
May 15, 2013 | |
| 9-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 401-13 Amendment of Rules NMAC 11.21.2.8, Commencement of Case and NMAC 11.21.3.17, Briefs |
April 23, 2013 | |
| 6-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 303-13 AFSCME Council 18 v. Hidalgo County |
April 22, 2013 | |
| 7-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 303-13 AFSCME Council 18 v. Hidalgo County |
April 22, 2013 | |
| 8-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 313-12 NEA-Loving v. Loving Municipal School District |
April 22, 2013 | |
| 3-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 118-11 Raton Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 2378 v. City of Raton |
February 21, 2013 | |
| 4-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 113-12 AFSCME, Council 18 v. New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department |
February 21, 2013 | |
| 5-PELRB-2013, PELRB NO. 124-12 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFL-CIO v. State of New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department |
February 21, 2013 | |
| 1-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 144-09 AFSCME, Council 18 v. State of New Mexico |
January 23, 2013 | |
| 2-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 311-11 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 18, AFL-CIO v. New Mexico Corrections Department |
January 23, 2013 | |
| 20-PELRB-2013, PELRB No. 310-11 Teacher’s Association of Lordsburg v. Lordsburg Municipal School District |
October 8, 2011 |
2012 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 |
|
78-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 304-12 |
December 5, 2012 | |
|
77-PELRB-2012, PELRB 311-12 |
November 26, 2012 | |
|
76-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 134-11 |
November 26, 2012 | |
|
75-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 113-12 |
November 26, 2012 | |
|
74-PELRB-2012, PELRB 311-12 |
October 24, 2012 | |
|
73-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 310-12 |
October 24, 2012 | |
|
72-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 309-12 |
October 24, 2012 | |
|
71-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 307-12 |
October 24, 2012 | |
|
70-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 304-12 |
October 24, 2012 | |
|
69-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 309-12 |
September 9, 2012 | |
|
68-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 308-12 |
September 9, 2012 | |
|
67-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 307-12 |
September 9, 2012 | |
|
66-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 306-12 |
September 9, 2012 | |
|
65-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 114-12 |
September 9, 2012 | |
|
64-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 111-12 |
September 9, 2012 | |
|
63-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 109-12 |
September 9, 2012 | |
|
62-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 106-12 |
September 9, 2012 | |
|
60-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 311-11 |
July 13, 2012 | |
|
59-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 151-11 |
July 13, 2012 | |
|
58-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 301-11 |
July 13, 2012 | |
|
57-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 137-09 |
July 13, 2012 | |
|
56-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 108-12 |
July 13, 2012 | |
|
55-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 104-12 |
July 13, 2012 | |
|
54-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 103-12 |
July 13, 2012 | |
|
61-PELRB-2012, PELRB No.’s 123~11, 124-11, 125-11, 130-11, 136-11, and 138-11 |
July 2, 2012 | |
|
53-PELRB-2012, PELRB NO. 139-11 |
June 6, 2012 | |
|
52-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 146-11 |
June 6, 2012 | |
|
51-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 302-12 |
June 6, 2012 | |
|
50-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 303-12 |
June 6, 2012 | |
|
44-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 101-12 |
May 10, 2012 | |
|
45-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 134-11 |
May 10, 2012 | |
|
49-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 304-12 |
May 10, 2012 | |
|
48-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 145-11 |
May 10, 2012 | |
|
47-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 145-11 |
May 10, 2012 | |
|
46-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 134-11 |
May 10, 2012 | |
|
34-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 114-10 |
May 6, 2012 | |
|
35-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 147-11 |
May 6, 2012 | |
|
36-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 135-11 |
May 6, 2012 | |
|
37-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 156-12 |
May 6, 2012 | |
|
38-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 105-12 |
May 6, 2012 | |
|
39-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 102-12 |
May 6, 2012 | |
|
40-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 315-09 |
May 6, 2012 | |
|
41-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 311-10 |
May 6, 2012 | |
|
42-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 101-12 |
May 6, 2012 | |
|
43-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 313-11 |
May 6, 2012 | |
|
21-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 301-12 |
March 19, 2012 | |
|
22-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 309-10 |
March 19, 2012 | |
|
23-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 314-10 |
March 19, 2012 | |
|
24-PELRB-2012, PELRB 315-11 |
March 19, 2012 | |
|
25-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 145-09 |
March 19, 2012 | |
|
26-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 151-11 |
March 19, 2012 | |
|
27-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 152-11 |
March 19, 2012 | |
|
28-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 155-11 |
March 19, 2012 | |
|
29-PELRB-2012, PELRB NO. 139-11 |
March 19, 2012 | |
|
30-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 115-10 |
March 19, 2012 | |
|
31-PELRB-2012, PELRB No.’s 146-11 |
March 19, 2012 | |
|
32-PELRB-2012, PELRB No.’s 154-11 |
March 19, 2012 | |
|
33-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 144-09 |
March 19, 2012 | |
|
18-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 103-11, 104-11, and 105-11 |
February 22, 2012 | |
|
19-PELRB-2012, PELRB 106-11 and 108-11 |
February 22, 2012 | |
|
20-PELRB-2012, PELRB 107-11 |
February 22, 2012 | |
|
11-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 308-11 |
February 9, 2012 | |
|
12-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 106-09 |
February 8, 2012 | |
|
13-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 128-10 (8) |
February 8, 2012 | |
|
14-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 126-11 |
February 8, 2012 | |
|
15-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 133-11 |
February 8, 2012 | |
|
16-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 121-10 |
February 8, 2012 | |
|
17-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 128-10 (A), 128-10 (C) and 128-10 (D) |
February 8, 2012 | |
|
1-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 315-10 |
January 22, 2012 | |
|
2-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 119-11 |
January 22, 2012 | |
|
3-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 142-11 |
January 22, 2012 | |
|
4-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 127-10 |
January 22, 2012 | |
|
5-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 123-09 |
January 22, 2012 | |
|
6-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 126-11 |
January 22, 2012 | |
|
7-PELRB-2012, PELRB NO. 132-11 |
January 22, 2012 | |
|
8-PELRB-2012, PELRB NO.’s 139-11 and 311-11 |
January 22, 2012 | |
|
9-PELRB-2012, PELRB NO.’s 139-11 and 311-11 |
January 22, 2012 | |
|
10-PELRB-2012, PELRB No. 303-11 |
January 22, 2012 |
2011 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 |
|
8-PELRB-2011, PELRB No. 315-10 Lake Arthur-NEA v. Lake Arthur Municipal Schools |
January 22, 2012 | |
|
10-PELRB-2011, PELRB No. 128-11 Santa Fe County Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 4366 v. County of Santa Fe |
January 2, 2012 | |
|
13-PELRB-2011, PELRB No. 144-11 New Mexico Motor Transportation Employee’s Association (MTD) and The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) |
January 2, 2012 | |
|
9-PELRB-2011, PELRB NO. 137-11 Mora Federation of School Employees v. Mora School District |
December 19, 2011 | |
|
12-PELRB-2011, PELRB No. 303-11, PELRB No. 304-11 NEA-NM v. Central Consolidated School District No. 22 |
December 13, 2011 | |
|
6-PELRB-2011, PELRB No. 123-10, PELRB No. 117-10, PELRB No. 317-09 American Federation of Teachers of New Mexico v. NM CYFD |
November 14, 2011 | |
|
7-PELRB-2011, Case No. 309-11 AFSCME, Council 18 v. Valencia County Detention Department |
October 18, 2011 | |
|
11-PELRB-2011, PELRB CASE NO. 147-11 AFSCME, Council 18 v. NM Public Regulation Commission |
October 14, 2011 | |
|
5-PELRB-2011, PELRB No. 310-11 Teacher’s Association of Lordsburg v. Lordsburg Municipal School District |
October 8, 2011 | |
|
4-PELRB-2011, PELRB No. 114-10 NEA-NM v. Española Public Schools |
September 27, 2011 | |
|
3-PELRB-2011, PELRB Case No. 120-11 Gonzales v. A.P.S. |
May 27, 2011 | |
|
2-PELRB-2011, Case No. 122-11 Dulce Federation of United School Employees Local 4519, AFT-NM, AFL-CIO v. Dulce Independent School District #21 and AFT-NM v. Dulce Independent School District #21 |
May 25, 2011 | |
|
1-PELRB-2011, Case No. 112-11 AFSCME, Council 18 v. NM Public Regulation Commission |
April 28, 2011 |
2010-2004 Orders
2010 Board 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 |
|
AFT-NM v. C.Y.F.D. |
November 15, 2010 | |
|
10-PELRB-2010, PELRB Case No. 136-09 AFSCME, Council 18 v. NM Corrections Department |
October 12, 2010 | |
|
9-PELRB-2010, PELRB Case No. 111-10 AFSCME, Council 18 v. State of New Mexico Adult Protective Services Division |
October 12, 2010 | |
|
8-PELRB-2010, PELRB Case No. 142-09 AFSCME, Council 18 v. NM Regulation and Licensing Department |
October 12, 2010 | |
|
AFSCME, Council 18 and San Miguel County |
July 9, 2010 | |
|
6-PELRB-2010, Docket no. 139-09 AFSCME, Council 18 v. NM Regulation and Licensing Department |
June 25, 2010 | |
|
1-PELRB-2010, Docket no. 139-09 AFSCME, Council 18 v. NM Regulation and Licensing Department |
June 25, 2010 | |
|
3-PELRB-2010, PELRB CASE NO. 144-09 AFSCME, Council 18 v. State of New Mexico |
March 2, 2010 | |
|
2-PELRB-2010, PELRB CASE NO. 111-09 AFSCME, Council 18 v. NM Corrections Department |
February 22, 2010 | |
|
Alamogordo Public Schools Resolution |
January 19, 2010 |
2009 Board 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 |
|
11-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 105-09 ASFCME Local 3422, Complainant, v. NM Dept. of Corrections, Respondent |
September 16, 2009 | |
|
10-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 147-08 ASFCME Council 18, Complainant, v. NM Dept. of Corrections, Respondent |
September 16, 2009 | |
|
9-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 103-09 IAFF Local 2362, Complainant, v. City of Las Cruces, Respondent |
July 6, 2009 | |
|
8-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case. No. 101-09 CWA Local 7911, Complainant, v. County of Socorro, Respondent |
July 6, 2009 | |
|
7-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 140-07 Communications Workers of America, Complainant, v. New Mexico Environment Department, Respondent |
July 6, 2009 | |
|
6-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 321-08 IAFF Local 4366, Petitioner, vs. Santa Fe County, Respondent |
May 7, 2009 | |
|
5-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 301-09 Communications Workers of America, Local 7076, Petitioner, vs. Workers’ Compensation Administration, Respondent, and State Personnel Office, Intervenor |
April 6, 2009 | |
|
4-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 149-08 NMCPSO-CWA Local 7911 v. City of Rio Rancho Police Department |
April 6, 2009 | |
|
3-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 149-08 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 18 and AFL-CIO v. New Mexico Corrections Department |
April 6, 2009 | |
|
2-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 148-08 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 18 and AFL-CIO v. New Mexico Corrections Department |
April 6, 2009 | |
|
1-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 136-08 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFL-CIO, and Paul Sangalli v. New Mexico Corrections Department |
April 6, 2009 |
2008 Board 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 |
|
2-PELRB-2008, PELRB Case No. 308-07 Silver City Professional Firefighters IAFF Local 2430 v. Town of Silver City |
May 2, 2008 | |
|
1-PELRB-2008, PELRB Case No. 168-06 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 18 v. Department of Health |
January 31, 2008 |
2007 Board 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 |
|
7-PELRB-2007, PELRB Case No. 164-06 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 18 v. State of New Mexico |
December 13, 2007 | |
|
5-PELRB-2007, PELRB Case No. 129-07 SSEA, Local #3878 v. Socorro Consolidated School District |
December 13, 2007 | |
|
4-PELRB-2007, PELRB Case No. 106-07 AFSCME Council 18 v. New Mexico Department of Corrections |
December 13, 2007 | |
|
6-PELRB-2007, PELRB Case No. 168-06 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 18 v. Department of Health |
December 3, 2007 | |
|
1-PELRB-2007, PELRB Case No. 149-06 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFL-CIO v. State of New Mexico, Department of Labor |
October 15, 2007 | |
|
2-PELRB-2007, PELRB Case No. 325-06 Santa Fe Police Officers Association v. City of Santa Fe |
October 14, 2007 | |
|
3-PELRB-2007, PELRB Case No. 103-07 McKinley County Federation of United School Employees, AFT Local 3313 v. Gallup-McKinley County School District and Gallup-McKinley County School District Labor Management Relations Board |
May 29, 2007 |
2006 Board 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 |
|
1A-PELRB-2006, Case No. 315-05, Case No. 316-05 In the Matter of Romero, et al., and CWA Local 7076 and In the Matter of Bruce Walker and Loretta Gonzales and State Employee Alliance-Communications Workers of America, Local 7076 |
November 21, 2008 | |
|
7-PELRB-2006, Case No. 314-06 Petition for Recognition Filed by Federation of Teachers and Pecos Independent Schools |
September 10, 2006 | |
|
6-PELRB-2006, PELRB Cases # 106-04, 124-04, 137-04, 315-04, and 306-06. UNMH and NUHHCE Dist.1199-Prior Cases Withdrawal |
June 16, 2006 | |
|
5-PELRB-2006, PELRB Case No. 303-06 NEA Petition as Incumbent Labor Organization |
June 1, 2006 | |
|
4-PELRB-2006, PELRB Case No. 201-06 UNM Approval of Local Labor Board Resolution |
May 31, 2006 | |
|
3-PELRB-2006, PELRB Case No. 309-05 AFT v. Gadsden Independent Schools |
May 31, 2006 | |
|
2-PELRB-2006, PELRB Case No. 156-05 Roybal v. CYFD |
May 12, 2006 | |
|
1-PELRB-2006, PELRB CASE NO. 320-05 Teamster’s Petition for Recognition |
April 13, 2006 |
2005 Board 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 |
|
3-PELRB-2005, Case Nos. 106-04 & 315-04 NUHHCE Dist. 1199 v. UNMH |
July 22, 2005 | |
|
2-PELRB-2005, PELRB Case. No. 136-04 AFSCME v. NMSU |
June 22, 2005 | |
|
1-PELRB-2005, Case Nos. 102-04 & 309-04 City of Deming and Deming Firefighters Local 4251 |
March 31, 2005 |
2004 Board 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 |
|
1-PELRB-2004, PELRB Case No. 103-04 Chama Ortega v. 2nd Judicial District Court |
November 9, 2004 |
Revised on 12/08/2025
