Relevant Judicial Decisions
Relevant Judicial Decisions
| Case Name | Decision Date | Decision | Summary |
| University of New Mexico Hospital – Sandoval Regional Medical Center (UNMH- SRMC or SRMC) v. United Health Professionals of NM, AFT, AFL-CIO (UHPNM), D-202-CV-2024-01995 (In re PELRB 109-23, 8-PELRB-2024) |
June 10, 2025 | The Hospital appealed Board Order 8-PELRB-2024, which affirmed the Hearing Examiner’s determination that the Employer, the University of New Mexico Sandoval Regional Medical Center, breached its statutory duty to bargain with the Union by refusing to bargain regarding the layoff/reduction in force (RIF) after the Union made a demand to bargain, failing to respond to the Union’s requests for information related to the RIF, and implementing unilateral changes to the duties of bargaining-unit employees without bargaining. The Court affirmed the Board, determining it did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, or contrary to law. | |
| University of New Mexico Hospital – Sandoval Regional Medical Center (UNMH- SRMC or SRMC) v. United Health Professionals of NM, AFT, AFL-CIO (UHPNM), D-202-CV-2024-10995 (In re: 111-23, 30-PELRB-2023) |
February 7, 2025 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | The Union appealed Board Order 30-PELRB-2023, and the Court affirmed the Board by dismissing the appeal. |
| Hobbs Professional Firefighters Ass’n, Local 4384 v. City of Hobbs, D-202-CV-2024-07148 (In re 303-24, 32-PELRB-2024) | January 6, 2025 | The Union appealed to the Second Judicial District a Board Order sustaining the Hearing Examiner’s finding that Captains were excluded from the bargaining unit as management employees. The Second Judicial District Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, concluding that the proper venue for the appeal is in Lea County, not Bernalillo County because the cause of action originated in Lea County, where both parties reside, the collective bargaining agreement was made and performed, and the PELRB hearing on the matter occurred. The Court rejected the argument that the cause of action originated in Bernalillo County simply because the petition was filed with the Board there. Additionally, the Court found that NMSA Section 38-3-2 supports venue in Lea County, as it mandates that actions involving municipalities must be brought in the district court of the county where the municipality is located. | |
| University of New Mexico Hospital – Sandoval Regional Medical Center (UNMH- SRMC or SRMC) v. United Health Professionals of NM, AFT, AFL-CIO (UHPNM), D-202-CV-2024-01996 (In re PELRB 110-23, 9-PELRB-2024) |
November 4, 2024 | The Hospital appealed Board Order 9-PELRB-2024, which found the Hospital in violation of the duty to bargain in good faith by failing or refusing to provide certain information upon request. The Court affirmed the Board, concluding that the Employer failed to identify error in the Board’s findings that the Union was the exclusive representative certified on January 19, 2023, and there was substantial evidence to support that determination; that the Order was not contrary to the Court’s earlier remand because the Court did not rule on certification; and the Order did not constitute re-adjudication as to whether certain layoffs were lawful, because the Board’s final order merely acknowledged that the issue had been decided in a separate administrative proceeding, i.e., PELRB 109-23, and that the same facts warranted the same conclusion although double recovery was not permitted. | |
| United Health Professionals of New Mexico, AFT, AFL-CIO v. University of New Mexico Sandoval Regional Medical Center, D-202-CV-2023-09660 (In re: PELRB 304-22, 59-PELRB-2023) | November 1, 2024 | The Hospital appealed Board Oder 59-PELRB-2023, which on remand again reversed the Hearing Examiner’s determination that “PRN” or “as needed” nurses were not “regular employees” under PEBA, after providing a rationale as previously directed in D-202-CV-2023-02118. The District Court in D-202-CV-2023-09660 again reversed the Board, rejecting its rational, and upon remand the Hearing Examiner removed the PRNs from the unit and certified the unit, which was affirmed by the Board. | |
| UNM Sandoval Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. International Association and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Case No. D-202-CV-2023-00132 (In re: IAMAW & UNM Sandoval Regional Medical Center; PELRB 303-22) | July 9, 2024 | The SRMC appealed the Board’s certification of a bargaining unit at the Center, contending that showing of interest cards signed before amendment of the University Research Park and Economic Development Act (URPEDA) to deem certain research park corporations a “public employer” for the purposes of PEBA. The Court affirmed the certification, concluding the Board did not act arbitrarily or capricious because relying on the cards did not constitute retroactive application of the URPEDA amendment; and because conducting a confidential card check was reasonable given the confidential nature of the showing of interest and that SRMC had an adequate opportunity to be heard on its objections. | |
| UHPNM v. UNMH-SRMC, D-202-CV-2023-09603 (In re PELRB 105-23, 60-PERB-2023). | June 28, 2024 | The Union appealed Board Order 60-PELRB-2023, which affirmed the Hearing Examiner’s dismissal as unproven a PPC alleging retaliation, interference and discrimination related to the discipline of a bargaining unit member. The Court affirmed the Board Order upon briefing, determining that the Board correctly applied the Wright Line burden shifting standard; and that Board’s Order was supported by substantial evidence because termination was due to unsatisfactory job performance, not Union activity, and management was unaware of the employee’s Union involvement. | |
|
United Health Professionals of New Mexico, AFT, AFL-CIO v. University of New Mexico Sandoval Regional Medical Center, D-202-CV-2023-02118 (In re: PELRB 304-22, 26-PELRB-2022, 8-PELRB-2023 and 9-PELRB-2023) |
August 14, 2023 | The Hospital appealed Board Orders 26-PELRB-2022, 8-PELRB-2023 and 9-PELRB-2023, and the Court reversed the decisions of the Board (PELRB) and remanded the matter for further proceedings, finding that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to provide a reasoned basis for its decision that per diem or “PRN” employees are “regular” employees under PEBA, and the Board’s decision lacked citations to relevant authorities, facts, or analysis. | |
| UNM Sandoval Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. United Health Professionals of New Mexico, AFT, AFL-CIO, Case No. D-202-CV-2022-07805, cert denied Case No. S-1-SC-40270 (J. O’Connell) (In re: PELRB 111-22) | August 9, 2023 | SRMC appealed the PELRB’s Order 28-PELRB-2022, in which the Board reversed the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that UNM SRMC violated § 19(B) of the PEBA but adopted the remaining conclusions that the Hospital violated §§ 19(D), (E) and (G) of the PEBA after an SRMC manager “made disparaging comments about the union in a staff meeting” and SRMC “threatened [the employee] with discipline for engaging in concerted activity” that the employer believed violated its social media policy. The District Court reversed the Board, concluding there was not substantial evidence to support the findings that Hospital conduct at a May 31, 2022 meeting constituted discrimination or other violation of the cited sections; that the Hospital’s anti-solicitation policy was presumptively valid and there was no evidence of discriminatory application to a Union representative; and that there was not substantial evidence that the Hospitals social media policy had a chilling effect on union activity. | |
| Board of Education for the Gallup-McKinley County Schools v. McKinley County Federation of United School Employees Local 3313, AFT-NM and State of New Mexico Public Employee Labor Relations Board; Case No. D-202-CV-2022-07617. (In re: PELRB 104-22) | August 8, 2023 | The School appealed Board Order 27-PELRB-2022, which ordered the School to rescind its unilateral elimination of the Instructional Coach position and reassignment of its duties outside of the bargaining unit; and ordering the School to engage in bargaining with the Union to impasse or agreement over any changes to the Instructional Coach position and duties. The District Court affirmed the Board, concluding it did not act arbitrarily or capricious in not requiring the issue to be resolved through a Petition for Clarification, or by not recusing a Board Member who was a practicing labor attorney alleged to have had negative professional interactions with the School. In general, the law presumes that those serving as administrative adjudicators act with honesty and integrity. See Jones v. NM Sate Racing Comm’n, 1983-NMSC-089, para. 13, 100 NM 434. Furthermore, the Board’s tripartite structure has a “neutral and balanced character.” See AFSCME v. Martinez, 2011-NMSC-018, para. 8, 150 NM 132. | |
| Santa Fe County v. NM Coalition of Public Safety Officers, D-101-CV-2022-00913 (In re: PELRB 133-21, 13-PELRB-2022) | June 30, 2023 | The County appealed Board Order 13-PELRB-2022, which adopted the Hearing Officer’s decision that the County violated the PEBA by imposing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate with discipline for non-compliance after declaring an impasse in negotiations. The Hearing Officer emphasized the central issue of whether the County could unilaterally impose its final offer made in response to the Union’s declaration of impasse. It was reiterated that a public employer under New Mexico’s Public Employee Bargaining Act cannot unilaterally impose its last best offer, as this constitutes a breach of good faith bargaining. On May 24, 2022, the 1st Judicial District Court reversed the Board, concluding that the Collective Bargaining Agreement showed the Union had waived its right to bargain over the emergency Policy and its effects. | |
| Luis Lopez v. City of Belen, No. A-1-CA-39109 (Appeal From the District Court of Valencia County; March 15, 2022) (not an appeal of a PELRB decision, although it was ultimately remanded to the PELRB for final resolution, In re: PELRB 113-22) | March 15, 2022 | The City appealed an Order of the Belen Labor Management Relations Board that found for the Complainant. The District Court found that the Belen Board did not have authority to issue its decision due to the lack of personal jurisdiction after the death of the Complainant, Mr. Lopez, before the Belen Board issued its decision. The NMCA reversed the District Court, “reject[ing] the City’s argument that the absence of an established procedure for substitution irrevocably deprived the Board of personal jurisdiction”; and “conclude[ing] that the Board had the means and authority to substitute a party to fulfill its function under the Ordinance”, including by looking to New Mexico civil rules of procedure for guidance. (Thereafter, the Belen Board ceased to exist and the matter was remanded to the PELRB, which issued an order granting a motion for substitution of a representative of Mr. Lopez’s estate as the real party in interest was issued June 22, 2022; the Order was not appealed because the parties reached a settlement thereafter.) | |
| AFSCME, Council 18, Local 2851 v. City of Las Vegas, New Mexico and City of Las Vegas LMRB, Case No. D-412-CV-2015-369 (J. Aragon, November 22, 2021), A-1-CA-35840 (2/4/19) (In re: PELRB 305-20) | November 22, 2021 | Court of Appeals remanded a 2015 Las Vegas Labor Management Relations Board matter back to the District Court for a whole record review to determine if there was adequate basis for the LMRB to have concluded five positions were properly excluded as supervisory; after which the District Court determined there was insufficient evidence to support their exclusion and remanded it back to the LMRB, which had since been disbanded. The PELRB assumed jurisdiction and determined to accrete the roles, which was thereafter affirmed by the District Court. | |
| State of New Mexico ex rel. UNM Sandoval Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. New Mexico Public Employee Labor Relations Board and United Health Professionals of New Mexico, AFT, AFL-CIO, No. D-202-CV-2021-06067(J. Ramczyck, October 26, 2021); A-1-CA-40178 (a Writ of Mandamus action brought in reference to PELRB Case Nos. 306-21 and 309-21) | October 26, 2021 | The Sandoval Regional Medical Center sought to dismiss a Petition for Representation through Writ of Mandamus proceedings, arguing the Center was not a public employer under the University Research Park Economic Development Act (“URPEDA”), which predated PEBA I and PEBA II, and provided in part that “A research park corporation shall not be deemed an agency, public body or other political subdivision of New Mexico, including for purposes of applying statutes and laws relating to personnel…” NMSA 1978, § 21-28-7(A) (1998). The Second Judicial District concluded the PELRB lacked jurisdiction; but the URPEDA was thereafter amended to clarify that research parks are considered public employers if they operate healthcare facilities. (Thereafter, a new Petition for Representation was received, and the Union was ultimately certified, see PELRB 304-22.) | |
| Goodenough v. CYFD et al. D-101-CV-2020-01743 (In re: PELRB 106-19, 9-PELRB-2020) | April 30, 2021 | The Union appealed the Board’s dismissal of a PPC against the CYFD for allegedly terminating a bargaining unit employee in retaliation for a prior PPC that had been summarily dismissed. The Board’s Hearing Examiner concluded that the Union failed to demonstrate that CYFD engaged in prohibited practices or retaliated against me; and the Board affirmed the decision, stating that the discipline was not a result of the employee having asserted their Weingarten rights but was for other reasons. The District Court affirmed the PELRB’s decision, and a request for review by the Court of Appeals was denied. | |
| Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18, 992 F. 3d 950 – Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 2021 (not a PELRB case – related to Janus) | March 26, 2021 | URL | Employee appealed dismissal of their federal lawsuit against the New Mexico Governor and AG, seeking retroactive relief for Union membership dues (not Agency or fair share fees) paid, under the authority of the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., which stated that non-members cannot be forced to pay union fees. The Employee also sought a declaration that the Union and Governor cannot require public employees to wait to opt out of union membership and stop dues deductions, on grounds that New Mexico’s exclusive representation statute violates the Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal because the Governor and Attorney General have Eleventh Amendment immunity and do not fall under the Ex Parte Young exception. |
| City of Rio Rancho v. AFSCME Council 18, Local 3277, CV-2019-1398 (In re: PELRB 113-18, 1-PELRB-2019) | October 28, 2019 | The City appealed the Hearing Examiner and Board determinations that the City violated the Parties’ CBA when it stopped deducting union dues from member employees based on the Supreme Court’s Janus decision, which declared mandatory agency fees for non-members to be unconstitutional. The District Court affirmed the Board’s Amended Order for a TRO and then permanent injunction enforcing the provisions of the CBA. The Board’s authority to issue injunctive relief is supported by the Public Employee Bargaining Act, which allows it to seek enforcement of its orders in court. Additionally, the City misinterpreted Janus by attempting to require reauthorization for union dues from members, as Janus explicitly pertains only to nonmembers. | |
| Communication Workers of America v. State of New Mexico (J. Butkus) (In re: 122-14) | March 15, 2019 | ||
| Bd. of Ed. for the Deming Public Schools v. NEA-Deming and State of New Mexico Public Employee Labor Relations Board; Case No. D-202-CV-2017-06276 (Consolidated with CV-2018-05580) (In re: PELRB 304-17 and 305-17, 12-PELRB-2017) | February 21, 2019 | The School appealed Board Order 12-PELRB-2017, which recognized the Union as the incumbent labor organization for Deming Public Schools. The Court affirmed the Board, concluding there was substantial evidence of continuity of representation between the Union and the School Board from 1994 to the present to support the Board’s finding. The Court also upheld the Board’s certification of a “wall-to-wall” bargaining unit under the PEBA’s grandfather clause for units established before July 1, 1999, because that provision does not refer to occupational groups but rather states that any bargaining unit established before July 1, 1991 shall continue to be recognized as appropriate. | |
| CWA v. State of New Mexico, Ct. App. No. A-1-CA-36331 (In re: PELRB 304-17 and 305-17) | February 21, 2019 | Reversing the District Court and affirming the PELRB’s conclusion that the Agency violated PEBA by unilaterally increasing the number of inspections that Labor Law Adjudicators are required to perform by 25%, because this was a unilateral change of a term and condition of employment that was subject to mandatory bargaining. | |
| Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 585 U.S. 878, 138 S.Ct. 2448, 201 L.Ed.2d 924 (2018) (not concerning a PELRB matter) | June 27, 2018 | The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public sector union security agreements requiring employees to pay Union dues violate the employees’ First Amendment rights to free speech; this overruled the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees. | |
| American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFL-CIO v. New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions, D-202-CV-2017-07924 (J. Noel) (In re: PELRB _____) | July 26, 2018 | ||
| New Mexico Coalition of Public Safety Officers Ass’n. v. City of Rio Rancho, Second Judicial District Cause No. D-202-CV-2018-01350 (In re: PELRB 307-17, 2-PELRB-2018) |
September 7, 2018 | The Union appealed a Board Order affirming the Hearing Examiner’s denial of a Petition for Severance of Police Dispatchers into a bargaining unit apart from Police Officers, because they did not constitute one of the listed occupational groups are required under the PELRB severance rule, even if they shared a clear and identifiable community of interest, which are not referenced in the severance rule. The Court affirmed the Board’s Order. | |
| AFSCME v. Dept. of Workforce Solutions, D-202-CV-2017-07924 (In re 102-17, ___) | July 26, 2018 | The Agency appealed the Board’s Order affirming the Hearing Examiner’s determination that the Agency violated PEBA by unilaterally increasing Labor Law Adjudicators’ quota of inspections from 20 to 25 without bargaining. The Court affirmed the Board, determining the Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, and the findings were supported by substantial evidence, notwithstanding a purported conflict in testimony. | |
| Adrian Alarcon v. Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education and Brad Winter, Ph.D., Superintendent of Albuquerque Public Schools, No, A-I-CA-34843 consolidated with Central Consolidated School District No.22 v. Central Consolidated Education Association, No. A-I-CA-34424. (J. Vigil) (November 30, 2017) (In re: PELRB _____) | November 30, 2017 | ||
| New Mexico Corrections Department v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFL-CIO, No. A-1-CA-34737, Certiorari Denied No. S-1-SC-36688 (J. Hanisee, September 5, 2017) (In re: PELRB 105-09; 11 PELRB 2009) | September 5, 2017 | ||
| AFSCME, Council 18 v. State of New Mexico Human Services Department and New Mexico Public Employee Labor Relations Board, D-202-CV-2016-07671 (J. Huling July 19, 2017) (In re: PELRB 309-15; 23 PELRB 2016) | July 19, 2017 | HSD appealed the Board’s determination that a petition for clarification to accrete agency attorneys into the bargaining unit was not the proper procedural mechanism to resolve a unit inclusion/exclusion question where the unit was certified as “wall to wall”, attorneys were previously treated by the Parties as being included, and the Appellant did not allege or make a showing of changed circumstances. The Court affirmed the Board, concluding its decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law because the applicable regulation provides for unit clarification only where the circumstances surrounding the creation of a bargaining unit have changed sufficiently to warrant a change in the scope and description of that unit. | |
| Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. State of New Mexico and New Mexico Public Employee Labor Relations Board, No. D-202-CV-2015-03814 (J. Butkus, March 15, 2017) (In re: PELRB No. 122-14) | March 15, 2017 | ||
| Johnny M. Trujillo v. AFSCME, Local 3973, No. D-0608-CV-2015-00250 (J. Robinson; March 13, 2017) (In re: PELRB ____) | March 13, 2017 | ||
| Northern New Mexico Federation of Educational Employees v. Northern New Mexico College Labor Management Relations Board – 2016-NMCA-036 (In re: PELRB ____) | December 14, 2015 | ||
| AFSCME, COUNCIL 18 v. Santa Fe County et. al.; Case No. D-101-CV-2014-01195 LAS V(Consolidated with D-101-CV-2014-01700) (In re: PELRB ____) | June 11, 2015 | ||
| AFSCME Council 18, AFL-CIO, Locals 1461, 2260, and 2499 v. Board of County Commissioners of Bernalillo County, _____________ (In re: PELRB ____) | March 23, 2015 | ||
| City of Albuquerque v. AFSCME, Local 1888, et al., 2015-NMCA-023, 344 P.3d 1069 (In re: PELRB ____) | December 2, 2014 | ||
| AFSCME, Council 18 v. New Mexico Corrections Department; D-202-CV-2013-01920 (In re: PELRB 311-11, 2-PELRB-2013) | May 15, 2014 | Department appealed Hearing Examiner and Board Decisions that Lieutenants are not “supervisors” as that term is defined in PEBA §4(U). The Court affirmed the Board, concluding the Hearing Examiner did not abuse their discretion or act arbitrarily or capriciously in determining, based upon federal labor authority and testimony regarding work duties, that use of independent judgment is required for an activity to qualify as a “supervisory duty” under PEBA; that the Lieutenants here did not exercise independent judgment a majority of their work time; and that the Lieutenants at issue did not effectively recommend discipline due to the multi-level disciplinary review process. | |
| Doña Ana County v. Communications Workers of America, Local 7911; CV-2013-02250 (In re: PELRB ____) | January 14, 2014 | ||
| American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 18 v. Children, Youth and Families Department, D-202-CV-2013-05070 (In re PELRB 122-12) | October 24, 2013 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | CYFD appealed Board Decision that representation rights comparable to “Weingarten Rights” exist under PEBA. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the matter not to be ripe. |
| AFSCME Council 18, on Behalf of Daniel Nogales v. City of Albuquerque, Parks and Recreation Department and the City of Albuquerque Personnel Board; CV-2013-2891 (In re: PELRB ____) | October 11, 2013 | ||
| Albuquerque Police Officers Association v. City of Albuquerque, 2013-NMCA-110 (In re: PELRB ____) | August 29, 2013 | ||
| Albuquerque Police Officer’s Association v. City of Albuquerque; Ct. App. No’s 31,606 & 31,632 (In re: PELRB ____) | August 29, 2013 | ||
| Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association, Joey Sigala, Felipe Garcia, Tom Novicki, and Matt Fisher v. City of Albuquerque, Albuquerque Police Department, and Mayor Richard Berry, 2013-NMCA-110 | August 29, 2013 | The Union and select individuals appealed from a summary judgment entered in favor of the City et al, contending that the City violated the parties’ multi-year CBA when it failed to implement the final phase of a salary increase for police officers set forth in the CBA. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, reasoning that the City’s expenditures of funds to comply with the CBA was subject to both “the specific appropriation of funds” and the “availability of funds” under PEBA § 10-7E-17(H) and LMRO § 3-2-18; and LMRO § 3-2-18, referenced in Section 2.1.1.5 of the parties’ CBA, required the City Council to “adopt a resolution” appropriating funds to cover the economic components of the contract when the CBA was approved by the City in 2008. As such, the City adopted the appropriate resolution in 2008 to cover the economic obligation for the new three-year CBA. LMRO § 3-2-18 does not prohibit the City from adopting a contract that has fiscal implications over several years. | |
| AFSCME, Council 18, AFL–CIO, CLC, v. State of New Mexico, New Mexico State Personnel Board, and Sandra K. Perez, Director of New Mexico State Personnel Board, 314 P.3d 674, (Ct. App. 2013) | August 15, 2013 | Reversing a District Court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, where the Union had alleged the State retroactively impaired their CBA by adding a definition of “shift work schedule” in its policies, to reverse the effect of a prior arbitration that defined the work in an opposite way. This was an attempt to circumvent the arbitrator’s decision and the State’s obligations under the Agreement. | |
| CWA, Local 7076 v. N.M. Public Education Dep’t. CV-2012-11595 (In re: PELRB 134-11) | August 9, 2013 | The Union appealed a Board Decision that the Union failed to make a timely demand for bargaining and therefore waived its right to bargain over a planned reduction in force. The Court reversed the Board, determining there was insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the Employer provided meaningful and timely notice of the RIF, and the Court remanded the matter back to the Board for supplemental findings. | |
| N.M. Human Services Dep’t v. AFSCME, Council 18; No. D-101-CV-2012-02176 (In re: PELRB No. 151-11) | June 14, 2013 | HSD appealed a Board Decision that it violated PEBA §17 (A) and (F) and §19(G) and (H) by removing security officers from several offices without bargaining. District Court affirmed the Board Decision, finding that the presence of security guards at the workplace is a term and condition of employment and a mandatory subject of bargaining, that there was a unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment, and that HSD did not meet its burden of showing a clear and unmistakable waiver of the Union’s right to bargain those issues. | |
| State of New Mexico v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 18, AFL-CIO, CLC, and Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, 2012-NMCA-114 (August 8, 2012); affirmed, NMSC No. 33,792 (May 30, 2013) (In re: PELRB ____) | May 30, 2013 | ||
|
City of Albuquerque v. AFSCME, City of Albuquerque v. Montoya, 2012-NMSC-007, 247 P.3d 108 (Consolidated decision for D-202-CV-2012-02239, D-202-CV-2012-02240, D-202-CV-2012-02242, D-202-CV-2012-01862, D-202-CV-2012-01856, D-202-CV-2012-01857, D-202-CV-2012-02254, D-202-CV-2012-01862, D-202-CV-2012-02246 and D-202-CV-2012-01856) (In re: PELRB 103-11, 104-11, 103-11, 105-11, 106-11,108-11, 121-10, 128-10 A, C and D, 133-11, and 101-12) |
May 1, 2013 | This case concerned 9 consolidated appeals examining whether the PELRB has jurisdiction, concurrent or otherwise, to remand PPC’s back to a grandfather local labor board under PEBA. The Court affirmed the Board in part and reversed it in part, after determining (based upon the reasoning in Deming Firefighters), that where the grandfather clause applies PEBA does not apply, and the PELRB does not have concurrent jurisdiction. Therefore, while the PPC’s were properly dismissed, the PELRB was without jurisdiction to remand them to the local board for processing. | |
| Northern New Mexico College, et al., v. PELRB and NFEE, AFT Local 4935, First Judicial Dist. CV-2012-02100 (J. Singleton) (In re: consolidated PELRB Case Nos. 123-11, 124-11, 125-11, 130-11, 136-11) | April 18, 2013 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | College appealed PELRB decision dismissing consolidated PELRB Case Nos. 123-11, 124-11, 125-11, 130-11, 136-11 but remanding any issues over which the local board may still have jurisdiction on the theory that Board could only dismiss. Union appealed the decision with regard to the appointment of the local board’s neutral member and whether it should have exercised jurisdiction over the PPCs. District Court (J. Singleton) upheld the PELRB. [That part affirming the Board’s ability to remand was subsequently reversed in __?? [if correct, add ref/link!]_____.] |
| AFSCME Council 18, AFL-CIO, CLC, AFSCME Local 1888, AFSCME Local 3022, AFSCME Local 624, and AFSCME Local 2962 v. the City of Albuquerque, 2013-NMCA-063; 304 P.3d 443 (Ct. App., 2013). | April 17, 2013 | The City appealed the District Court’s order granting injunctive relief to the Unions. The District Court had ordered the City to honor expired collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) until new CBAs were successfully negotiated pursuant to the Public Employee Bargaining Act’s (PEBA) “evergreen provision” (see NMSA Section 10-7E-18(D)). The City argued, in part, that its Labor-Management Relations Ordinance (LMRO) was entitled to grandfather status under NMSA Section 10- 7E-26(A), and therefore exempt from compliance with the PEBA’s evergreen provision. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, concluding that the City’s grandfathered collective bargaining procedures are exempt from compliance with the PEBA’s evergreen provision. The Court also concluded that PEBA defines “collective bargaining” as “the act of negotiating between a public employer and an exclusive representative for the purpose of entering into a written agreement regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment”, and that it says nothing about the relative effectiveness of the procedures adopted. See City of Deming, 2007-NMCA-069, ¶¶ 22-24, 141 N.M. 686, 160 P.3d 595, (stating that application of the grandfather clause is not dependent on an evaluation of the quality or effectiveness of the collective bargaining procedures). | |
| Luginbuhl v. City of Gallup, 2013-NMCA-053 (Ct. App. 2013) | March 11, 2013 | Concluding that a CBA provision to arbitration “any written disputes which may arise between the parties regarding disciplinary actions” is enforceable because supported by the parties mutual consideration to go to arbitration, is not void for vagueness, and provides an adequate remedy since subject to appeal. Also rejecting the argument that the arbitration provision does not apply to a non-union member who is a public employee in the bargaining unit. | |
| Horne v. Los Alamos Nat’l Sec 2013-NMSC-004 | January 31, 2013 | Concluding that an employee may waive their right to litigate issues by arbitrating discipline and failing to obtain a scope-of-arbitration ruling first from the arbitrator, to preserve the employee’s rights to litigate other factually related claims. | |
| AFSCME Council 18, AFL-CIO, CLC, AFSCME Local 1888, AFSCME Local 3022, AFSCME Local 624, and AFSCME Local 2962 v. the City of Albuquerque, 2013-NMCA-012; 293 P.3d 943 (Ct. App. 2013) | January 7, 2013 | Reiterating that PEBA does not require the Courts evaluate the effectiveness of the City’s LMRO, as established in City of Albuquerque v. Montoya. Compliance requirements under PEBA are only applicable if a public employer other than the state implements a collective bargaining system after October 1, 1991. The Court specifically rejected the argument that a binding arbitration clause is required, and it ruled that the evergreen clause does not apply to economic components under Sec. 10-7E-17(E), which subjects expenditures to the specific appropriation of funds. | |
| AFSCME, AFL-CIO, AFSCME LOCAL 3022 v. City of Albuquerque, Richard J. Berry, Mayor of City of Albuquerque, 2013-NMCA-049 | December 28, 2012 | Concluding the Union waived its right to arbitration by invoking the Court’s discretionary powers through a petition for temporary injunction. | |
| AFSCME v. City of Albuquerque 2013-NMCA-012 | October 29, 2012 | ||
| State of New Mexico v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 18, AFL-CIO, CLC, and Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, 2012-NMCA-114 (August 8, 2012); affirmed, NMSC No. 33,792 (May 30, 2013) (In re PELRB ____) | August 8, 2012 | ||
| AFSCME v. New Mexico Transportation Union & City of Albuquerque; CV 202-2011-08899 Order (In re PELRB ____) | May 23, 2012 | ||
| City of Albuquerque v. Montoya & AFSCME 2012-NMSC-007 (Re: Writ of Prohibition, related to PELRB 162-07) | March 6, 2012 | The City filed a Writ of Prohibition after the PELRB’s Director determined that the PELRB had jurisdiction because the board lost grandfathered status due to its inability to provide for a balanced neutral board, after the neutral member recused themselves from hearing another matter. The Court of Appeals had upheld that decision, but the Supreme Court reversed the COA, concluding that the City Ordinance’s procedure by which the City Council President appoints a member to the Local Board during the absence of a member does not violate the Act’s grandfather clause requirement that a local ordinance create a system of collective bargaining, by creating a non-neutral or unbalanced Board, because public officials are presumed to act properly and the City Council President does not represent either management or labor. | |
| San Juan College v. San Juan College Labor Management Relations Board 2011-NMCA-117 | October 19, 2011 | The College appealed the Local Board’s determination as to the appropriate bargaining unit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Local Board conclusion that full-time faculty on ten-month contracts, and full-time instructional staff with f100% instructional dueites, share an “overwhelming community of interest with te full-time staff on nine-month contracts but not with other full-time instructional staff that have less than 100% instructional duties.” The Court concluded the Local Board is charged with the statutory duty of designating appropriate bargaining units for collective bargaining; there is no absolute rule of law as to what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit; and courts will defer to the Board’s decision on what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit if that determination is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with the law. | |
| AFSCME v. Martinez II, Sup Ct. 33,141 (In re PELRB ____) | September 6, 2011 | ||
| AFSCME v. Martinez I 2011-NMSC-018 | May 13, 2011 | ||
| County of Los Alamos v. John Paul Martinez and Michael Dickman, and Robbie Stibbard as President of the Los Alamos Firefighters Association Local #3279, 2011-NMCA-027, 150 N.M. 326, 250 P.3d 1118. | February 7, 2011 | The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court (J. Sanchez), determining that paramedic training contracts are subjects of mandatory bargaining and that the County may not unilaterally enter into such contracts with Union members without including the Union in its negotiations. Additionally, the Court of Appeals rejected both the Union’s argument that a strict “clear and unmistakable” standard should be applied, and the County’s argument that broad waiver or “zipper” clauses satisfy the clear and unmistakable requirement language, stating that “…the answer does not call for a rigid rule, formulated without regard for the bargaining postures, past practices, and agreements of the parties for two reasons.” | |
| NM Corrections v. AFSCME and PELRB, 1st Judic. Dist, Case No. D-101-CV-2009-3458 (In re PELRB 147-08) | May 11, 2011 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | The Court affirmed the PELRB’s order, and the Hearing Examiner’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and order, that the Department violated PEBA by disciplining an employee for placing union flyers, which contained some partisan political content, in employee mail slots while off-duty. |
| NM Corrections v. AFSCME and PELRB, 1st Judic. Dist, Case No. D-101-CV-2009-3457, aff’d COA #34,737 (In re PELRB 105-09) | May 11, 2011 | The Court affirmed and adopted PELRB’s order, and the Hearing Examiner’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and order, that disparate denial of use of Department vehicles by Union stewards to travel to meetings concerning collective bargaining, violated PEBA. | |
| American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees v. Corrections Department and PELRB, D101-CV2008-03607, rev’d COA Case No. ______ (In re: 111-08) |
March 8, 2011 and August 19, 2010 |
Copy(ies) Available from the Court Clerk(s) | Court of Appeals issued notice of summary dismissal/reversal, reversing First Judic. Dist. Reversal of the Board’s reversal of the Hearing Examiner’s determination that the Department violated PEBA by transferring a bargaining unit employee in violation of a settlement agreement and retaliation for a prior grievance. On 3/8/2011, the District Court issued the COA reversal on remand, as instructed. |
| Northern Federation of Educational Employees, AFT Local 4935 v. Northern New Mexico College, D-202-CV-2010-0703 (J. Huling) | November 3, 2010 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | Affirming Local Board’s dismissal of a PPC, and refusal to submit a matter to arbitration, on grounds that the non-renewed employee was not entitled to participate in arbitration and the grievance was not arbitrable. |
| City of Albuquerque v. Juan B. Montoya and PELRB, 2010-NMCA-100 | August 12, 2010 | URL | Reversing the District Court’s summary grant of writ of prohibition against the PELRB hearing a PPC in lieu of the City’s Local Board, and holding that the ordinance establishing Appellee’s labor board is not eligible to be grandfathered pursuant to Section 10-7E-26(A) because ot neutral in composition. [Reversed in _____??] |
| Akins v. U.S. Steel Workers Local 187, 2010-NMSC-031 | June 22, 2010 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | Ruling that punitive damages should be available in suits alleging Union violation of the duty of fair representation (“DFR” claims), where the Union’s conduct is malicious, willful, reckless, wanton, fraudulent or in bad faith, and upholding jury assessment of punitive damages in the amount of $30,000.00 where the Union refused to file a grievance for what the Union knew and understood to be a racially hostile workplace |
| New Mexico Transportation Union v. City of Albuquerque, D-117-CV-2008-0369 (J. Raphaelson) | November 30, 2009 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | Concluding the City violated the duty to bargaining in good faith where it implemented new disciplinary provisions to its Substance Abuse Policy (SAP) after stating at the outset of a series of bargaining sessions that it had no intention of changing its position as to the proposed penalties for SAP violation |
| City of Albuquerque v. Juan B. Montoya, Director of the Public Employee Labor Relations Board, the Public Employee Labor Relations Board, and AFSCME Council 18 and Local 624 | August 12, 2010 | ||
| Int’l. Assoc. of Firefighters, Local 1687 v. City of Carlsbad, 147 N.M. 6, 216 P.3d 256, 2009 NMCA 97 (Ct. App. 2009) (regarding an arbitration award) | June 23, 2009 | Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to Union, granting summary judgment to the City, after concluding that provisions of PEBA stating that arbitration awards are contingent on the appropriation and availability of funds prevail over the provisions of PEBA stating arbitration awards shall be final and binding. | |
| City of Las Cruces v. Juan B. Montoya and PELRB, Supreme Court of New Mexico, Case No. 31,629 (Re: Writ of Prohibition) | March 24, 2009 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | The Court dismissed, without reasoning or analysis, a petition for writ of prohibition against the PELRB from hearing a PPC that alleged the City’s local labor ordinance, grandfathered under §26(B) of PEBA, failed to meet the requirements of that section. |
| Health Care Local 2166, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees District 1199 v. University of New Mexico Health Science Center, 2d Judic. Dist. No., Case No. CV 2007-8161 ( J. Nash) | Feb. 20, 2008 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | The Court reversed the UNM Labor Board dismissal of Cases 07-05 and 07-06, concluding that a labor relations board has jurisdiction under §19(D) of PEBA, and the equivalent section of a local resolution or ordinance modeled on PEBA, to hear PPCs alleging the retaliatory discharge of probationary employees based upon their participation in Union activities and/or in order to discourage Union membership. |
| City of Deming v. Deming Firefighters Local 4251, 2007-NMCA-069 | April 19, 2007 | URL | The Court affirmed the PELRB’s denial of grandfathered status to a provision of the City’s local labor ordinance that defined certain classes of public employees (fire fighter lieutenants and captains) as “supervisors” and therefore automatically excluded from the coverage of the local ordinance. However, the Court reversed the PELRB’s and the District Court’s denial of grandfathered status to the arbitration provision that was not final and binding. |
| Gallup-McKinley County Schools v. PELRB and McKinley County Federation of United School Employees Local 3313, Court of Appeal Case No. 26,376 (re: Writ of Mandamus/Stay of Proceedings) | June 8, 2006 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | The COA affirmed the District Court’s denial of a petition for Writ of Mandamus and Stay of Proceedings against the PELRB in D-202-CV-2005-07443 (Nov. 23, 2005, J. Campbell). “Where an appeal process is available to a litigant, mandamus is not an appropriate vehicle for challenging an administrative decision,” and the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is not proper where the only consequences alleged are “the usual delay and expense inherent in all litigation.” Citing State ex rel. Hyde Park Co., LLC v. Planning Comm’n of the City of Santa Fe, 1998-NMCA-146, ¶¶ 11 and 13, 125 NM 832. |
| Laura Chamas-Ortega v. 2d Judicial District Court, 7th Judic. Dist., Case No. CV-04-7883 (J. Kase) (In re: 1-PELRB-2004) | March 10, 2006 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | The Court Court reversed the PELRB’s determination that PEBA applied to court employees, “on the basis of grounds asserted[,] … and … the arguments and authority contained in” the Second Judicial District Court’s statement of appellate issues and reply. |
| Callahan v. NM Federation of Teachers-TVI, 2006-NMSC-010 | February 22, 2006 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | A compensatory claim against a union for breach of its statutory duty, as exclusive representative, to fairly and adequately represent a bargaining unit member does not state a prohibited practice under PEBA. Additionally, the PELRB and local boards lack authority to either award monetary damages to an aggrieved union member for a union’s breach of its duty of fair representation, or to order the Union to reinstate an employee allegedly improperly terminated as a result of the Union’s breach. Therefore such claims cannot be brought before a Labor Relations Board and must instead be filed in District Court. |
| United Steel Workers of America, Local 9424 v. City of Las Cruces, 3d Judic. Dist., Case No. CV-2003-1599 (J. Robles) | April 1, 2005 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | Ruling that the City’s refusal to provide the Union with bargaining unit members’ home addresses constituted a refusal to bargain in good faith, in violation of the local ordinance and PEBA, and ruling that City Resolution 00-136 was void as inconsistent with PEBA to the extent it forbade disclosure of the home addresses of bargaining unit employees to the Union. |
| The Regents of The University of New Mexico v. New Mexico Federation of Teachers and American Association of University Professors, 125 N.M. 401, 159 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2535, 1998 -NMSC- 20 (J. Franchini, June 23, 1998 | June 23, 1998 | The New Mexico Supreme Court concluded that to be grandfathered under § 26(A), a local ordinance must allow public employees to engage in labor organizations without denying their collective bargaining rights, and must have been enacted before October 1, 1991. The Court upheld the definitions of ‘public employee’ and ‘supervisor’ under PEBA as superior to those in grandfathered provisions. The Court also confirmed additional relevant standards for review of PELRB Decisions: when reviewing agency decisions, courts consider if the issue is a question of law, fact, or both, and may defer to the agency’s interpretation, especially regarding its expertise; the appealing party must demonstrate that the agency’s action is arbitrary, lacks substantial evidence, or exceeds the agency’s authority; NM Courts prioritize determining legislative intent from the text of the legislation itself, as there is no state-supported legislative history available; and NM Courts will use rules of statutory construction if the intent cannot be discerned from the language. | |
| Las Cruces Professional Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces (“Fire Fighters II”), 1997-NMCA-44, 123 N.M. 329. | December 16, 1996 | URL | The Court concluded that Local boards approved by the PELRB under § 10 are required to follow all procedures and provisions of the PEBA, and they therefore must follow PEBA’s definition of “supervisor” where the local ordinance’s definition of supervisor differs. The Court also confirmed the standard of appellate review for the PELRB’s decision on a claim of insufficiency of the evidence: the appellate court resolves all disputes of facts in favor of the prevailing party and indulges all reasonable inferences in support of the prevailing party; and the courts do not reweigh the evidence or substitute their own judgment for that of the PELRB. |
| Las Cruces Professional Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces (“Fire Fighters I”), 1997-NMCA-031, 123 N.M. 239 | February 19, 1997 | URL | The New Mexico Court of Appeals determined that the Las Cruces Fire Department’s no-solicitation rule violated employee rights under § 19(B), as there was no evidence that union activities would hinder firefighting efforts during non-emergency periods. It concluded that interpretations of the NLRA should guide the understanding of similar provisions in the Public Employee Bargaining Act (PEBA), especially the NRLB’s long-standing interpretations. The Court further determined that questions posed by a local board member at a hearing about compromise do not demonstrate bias if they are directed equally towards both the employer and union representatives; employees are entitled to use their non-working time, including breaks and after-hours, as they wish, despite being on company property; and it is against PEBA to create work rules aimed at interfering with employee rights, rather than serving genuine business needs. |
| City of Las Cruces v. PELRB, 1996-NMSC-24, 121 N.M. 688 | 1996 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | The Court determined that the PELRB rule providing for the confidentiality of a showing of interest in support of a petition for representation, see 11.21.1.21 NMAC, is an authorized exception “as otherwise provided by law” to the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), under § 14-2-1(F) of IPRA. The Court also confirmed that PELRB regulations have the force of law if promulgated in accordance with the statutory mandate to carry out and effectuate the purpose of PEBA. |
| The Regents of the University of New Mexico v. The American Association of University Professors, Gallup Branch Chapter and the New Mexico Federation of Teachers, 2d Judic. Dist. Cause No. CV 95-002376 (Sep. 15, 1995) | Sep. 15, 1995 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a suit for declaratory relief regarding the PELRB’s jurisdiction in matters arising in locations with a local board, until after the PELRB has rendered a decision on the PPCs pending before it. |
| AFSCME v. County of Santa Fe, 1st Judic. Dist., Case No. SF 93-2174 (Jul. 8, 1994, J. Herrera) (In re: 1 PELRB 1) | July 8, 1994 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | The Court affirmed the first PELRB’s decision dated Nov. 18, 1993 to invalidate numerous provisions of various local ordinances determined to violate PEBA, under PELRB’s authority to approve local boards under § 10. |
| Board of County Commissioners of Otero County et al. v. State of New Mexico Public Employee Labor Relations Board, Twelfth Judicial Dist. Case No. CV-93-187 (July 13, 1993, J. Leslie C. Smith) |
July 13, 1993 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | In denying a writ of mandamus, the Court confirmed the Board’s authority under § 10-7E-10 to review the content of local labor ordinances and resolutions, as part of the process of approving local boards. |
| Local 2238 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Stratton, 108 N.M. 163, 769 P.2d 76, 1989 NMSC 3 | February 2, 1989 | The Court upheld the State Personnel Office’s authority to enter into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) pursuant to agency rules, where the CBA did not “conflict with, contradict, expand or enlarge” rights provided under any existing or future state, county or municipal merit system. | |
| IBEW v. Farmington, 1965-NMSC-090, 75 N.M. 393 | 1965 | Copy Available from the Court Clerk | The Court upheld Farmington’s authority to enter into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) where there was no applicable merit system in place. |