2009 Orders

Shiprock New Mexico Southwestern Desert Landscape

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	The Board affirmed and adopted the Hearing Examiner’s findings and recommended decision that the Department violated Sections 19(A) and 19(D) of PEBA “by not allowing state employees who are union officials, presidents and stewards, use of Department automobiles to attend labor-management relations meetings” when “State employees in management positions attend these meetings by use of state owned automobiles.”
10-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 147-08 ASFCME Council 18, Complainant, v. NM Dept. of Corrections, Respondent	September 16, 2009	The Board affirmed and adopted the Hearing Examiner’s findings and recommended decision that PEBA “does not allow a public employer to reprimand a bargaining unit employee for distributing union flyers to union members, while off duty, by placing the flyers in the employee mail slots.”
9-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 103-09 IAFF Local 2362, Complainant, v. City of Las Cruces, Respondent	July 6, 2009	When a PELRB litigant is collaterally estopped from pursuing his or her PPC due to a previously rendered State Personnel Board (SPB) decision, that SPB decision shall only apply to that specific case, and shall not preclude the PELRB from reaching a different conclusion in a subsequent case involving similar facts. A PELRB hearing examiner is collaterally estopped from reviewing for compliance with PEBA another agency’s decision, in a matter based on essentially the same facts and issues, when the elements of collateral estoppel are met. The PELRB is collaterally estopped from reviewing another agencies’ decision for compliance with PEBA when the PELRB matter and the other agency’s matters concern the same parties, or parties in privity, and the two 2009 – Posted, summaries ready.docx cases concern the same ultimate issue of fact that was actually litigated and necessarily determined in the other forum.
8-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case. No. 101-09 CWA Local 7911, Complainant, v. County of Socorro, Respondent	July 6, 2009	PEBA’s “evergreen clause”, which states that expired contracts continue in full force and effect in the event of impasse until replaced by a subsequent written agreement, prevents an employer from implementing its last, best and final offer after impasse, as may be done under case law interpreting the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Section 18(D) language, “[i]n the event impasse continues after the expiration of a contract” does not require that impasse be declared prior to the contract’s expiration, for the contract to continue in effect. Under Section 18(D), the Board cannot and does not require that a salary increase be granted or maintained by the employer after impasse.
7-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 140-07 Communications Workers of America, Complainant, v. New Mexico Environment Department, Respondent	July 6, 2009	The Board reversed on collateral estoppel grounds the Hearing Examiner’s recommended decision that the State breached the State/CWA CBA 45-day 2009 – Posted, summaries ready.docx Communications Workers of America, Complainant, v. New Mexico Environment Department, Respondent limitations period to initiate discipline for cause provision, because a State Personnel Board ALJ rendered a final personnel decision interpreting the same CBA provision decision before the PELRB Hearing Examiner did. The Board clarified that “the Board’s decision here does not preclude the Board, in a case involving similar facts, from reaching a different conclusion than the State Personnel Board Issued here.”
6-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 321-08 IAFF Local 4366, Petitioner, vs. Santa Fe County, Respondent	May 7, 2009	The Board reversed the Hearing Examiner’s conclusion that Battalion Captains did not spend a majority of their time engaged in work requiring the exercise of independent judgment, with the result that Santa Fe County Fire Department Battalion Captains may not be accreted into the existing bargaining unit because they are supervisory and possibly managerial employees.
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	The Board responded to a question certified to it by the Hearing Examiner, concerning “confidential employee” under PEBA as follows: “A “confidential” employee as defined in the [PEBA] and in the Board’s regulations, concerns employees whose work duties are related to the formulation, determination and effectualion of a public employer’s employment, collective bargaining or labor relations activities”, rather than to other, non-labor or-employment related activities.
4-PELRB-2009, PELRB Case No. 149-08 NMCPSO-CWA Local 7911 v. City of Rio Rancho Police Department	April 6, 2009	The Board adopted the Hearing Examiner’s findings and recommended conclusion that the Rio Rancho Police Lieutenants meet PEBA’s definition of “supervisor” and so are excluded from its coverage.
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	Denying without explanation Respondent’s motion to disqualify the designated Hearing Examiner on grounds of alleged bias.
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	Denying without explanation Respondent’s motion to disqualify the designated Hearing Examiner on grounds of alleged bias.
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	Denying without explanation Respondent’s motion to disqualify the designated Hearing Examiner on grounds of alleged bias, after the Hearing Examiner denied the same motion. The Hearing Examiner forwarded the matter for interlocutory appeal because it presented a novel question, but had denied the motion under the standards of United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., 96 NM 155, 247 (1980) (disqualifying bias must be personal not judicial, meaning it must “stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his [or her] participation in the case”), and Reid v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry, 92 NM 414, 416 (1979) (prohibiting actual personal and the appearance of impropriety).

PELRB Orders

Revised on 01/27/2026