2006 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-2006, Case No. 314-06 Petition for Recognition Filed by Federation of Teachers and Pecos Independent Schools |
September 10, 2006 | The Board affirmed and adopted the Hearing Examiner’s Certification of Majority Support and Incumbent status, and denied the District’s request for a stay. A stay of negotiations by the PELRB pending any appeal to District Court is not warranted under the Act; additionally, although a stay of the obligation to reduce any agreement into a contract may be appropriate, such a stay was denied here because the School District is not likely to prevail on merits and neither public policy nor the equities favor such a stay. |
|
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 | The Board dismissed all cases as settled, upon the motion of the Petitioner. |
|
5-PELRB-2006, PELRB Case No. 303-06 NEA Petition as Incumbent Labor Organization |
June 1, 2006 | The Board upheld the Hearing Examiner’s determination of majority support of an incumbent labor organization based upon a card count, rather than secret ballot election. Public employers may insist on a secret ballot election except as to incumbent unions, because a petition for certification as incumbent, by definition, does not present a question concerning representation (QCR) as to unit inclusion or exclusion, since § 10-7E-24(A) deems the grandfathered bargaining unit to still be appropriate. Accordingly, under 11.21.2.36 NMAC, the § 10-7E-24(B) demonstration of majority support is done through a card count even over the employer’s objection, unlike in normal representation cases. |
|
4-PELRB-2006, PELRB Case No. 201-06 UNM Approval of Local Labor Board Resolution |
May 31, 2006 | The Board concluded that, under 11.21.5.10 NMCA, there is good cause to grant UNM a variance from the PELRB template resolution creating a local board, to add language regarding the “allocation” or “reallocation” of funds following the template’s references to “appropriation” or “re-appropriation” of funds, since the UNM Board of Regents “allocates” funds appropriated to it by the Legislature, rather than “appropriating” its own funds. The variance, therefore, promotes statutory clarity, avoids disharmony with § 17(E) of PEBA, is consistent with legislative intent, and 2006 – Posted, summaries ready.docx places UNM on an equal footing with other governmental entities under PEBA. [NOTE: UNM no longer has a Local Board.] |
|
3-PELRB-2006, PELRB Case No. 309-05 AFT v. Gadsden Independent Schools |
May 31, 2006 | The Board adopted the Hearing Examiner’s findings and recommended decision. Under § 24(B), an employer is required to negotiate in good faith with an incumbent labor organization, prior to its demonstration of majority support (by card count), even though it is barred from reducing that agreement to writing prior to a demonstration of majority support. Otherwise, the incumbent labor organization could not meet the duties imposed on it under § 15 and § 17, as the unit’s exclusive representative. Additionally, Administrative Interns, or “principals-in-training,” are not excluded supervisors but are excluded confidential employees; Custodian Heads and other “head” employees are not excluded supervisors; Day Care Managers are excluded managers; Food Service Managers are excluded supervisors. Lastly, an employer may not remove an appointee from a local board prior to the expiration of his or her term of service under the ordinance or resolution, without a hearing and a determination of just cause under the ordinance, such as by disqualification as a result of being an employee of a labor organization or a public employer. An employer violates § 19(G) where it effectively amends a resolution without prior PELRB approval, contrary to 11.21.5.13 NMAC, by instituting a policy requirement that board appointees be “local” to the area. |
|
2-PELRB-2006, PELRB Case No. 156-05 Roybal v. CYFD |
May 12, 2006 | The Board approved and adopted the Hearing Examiner’s decision that an employee was not denied “Weingarten rights”—the right of employees to request and obtain union representation during investigatory meetings—in violation of PEBA where the purpose of the meeting was not to investigate or gather information, but rather to deliver a reprimand for previous conduct. |
|
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 | The Board affirmed and adopted the Hearing Examiner’s decision to dismiss a Decertification Petition for lack of adequacy of showing of interest under the “merger doctrine.” Under this doctrine, various CWA bargaining units based on State Departments or Agencies were merged into a single unit once covered under a single CBA, so the 30% showing of interest must be made for the entire unit as merged, and not just for the Petitioners’ individual departments. |
|
1-PELRB-2006, PELRB CASE NO. 320-05 Teamster’s Petition for Recognition |
April 13, 2006 | The Board approved and adopted the Hearing Examiner’s decision that, under § 24(B), a petition to represent certain employees will be dismissed where another union was the grandfathered exclusive representative of those employees; and § 24(B) does not impose a time limit for an incumbent union to exercise its grandfathered status. |
Revised on 01/27/2026