Meeting Minutes and Agendas

Meeting Date Agenda Minutes
November 5, 2018 Agenda  
October 18, 2018 Meeting postponed until November 5, 2018  
October 2, 2018 Agenda Minutes
September 18, 2018 Agenda Minutes
September 4, 2018 Agenda Minutes
July 10, 2018 Agenda Minutes
May 1, 2018 Agenda Minutes
March 6, 2018 Agenda Minutes
February 6, 2018 Agenda Minutes
January 9, 2018 Agenda Minutes
November 14, 2017 Agenda Minutes
September 12, 2017 Agenda Minutes
August 1, 2017 Agenda Minutes
June 6, 2017 Agenda Minutes
April 25, 2017 Agenda Minutes
February 7, 2017 Agenda Minutes
January 10, 2017 Agenda Minutes

Summaries of Significant Arbitrations¹

As of 4/22/14

  1. DOÑA ANA COUNTY and CWA, FMCS Case 13-51332-1, Aug. 27, 2013.
    Click here for complete decision
    • A. FMCS Arbitrator Ira Epstein found that the last best offer (LBO) of CWA was the more appropriate. Management posited that because the union's last, best offer included the existing agreement's provisions for paying 1/2 time for union members to attend bargaining sessions, the arbitrator must reject its offer as illegal on the ground that paying union member employees to attend bargaining sessions violated the Anti-Donations clause of the New Mexico State Constitution. The union contested that claim asserting that the payments are not a gift or contribution as contemplated by the Anti-Donation clause.
    • B. The arbitrator declined to decide whether payments to employees engaged in negotiations constitutes a felony in violation of § 30-23-2 NMSA as beyond the scope of an arbitrator's authority. In the absence of a determination of illegality, the effect of Article 51 (Savings Clause) of the contract is that only the particular section of the proposal would be rendered illegal, not the entire proposal.
    • C. Also finding that management's proposal made "sweeping changes" to current procedures governing discipline, grievances and arbitration that "carve grave inroads into the traditional definition of the grievance and arbitration procedure." He rejected a proposed indemnification clause management sought to add to a Fair Share Article, changes to sick leave and vacation leave accrual rates and sick leave conversion payouts and other changes to the status quo proposed by management. He adopted the union's application of the "just cause" standard being applied to employee Performance Assistance Plans.
    • D. The Decision was appealed to the Third Judicial District Court as case No. D-307-CV-201302250. J. Martin upheld the arbitrator's decision on Sept. 27, 2013 and the Decision was not appealed further.

  2. AFSCME and STATE, Nov. 17, 2009
    Click here for complete decision
    • A. Arbitrator Carl C. Bosland, Esq. concluded arbitrations under Section 10-9-18(H) of the State Personnel Act follow the negotiated arbitration procedures provided for under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), not the pre-hearing or hearing procedures provided for under the State Personnel Act or State Personnel Board Regulations, other than Section 10-9-18(A), (C) and (D) (providing, respectively, for a right of public appeal within 30 days; that technical rules of evidence shall not apply; and that a record shall be made of the hearing, and costs of the transcripts on appeal may be assessed by the court to the losing party on any appeal).

  3. AFSCME AND SPO, FMCS Case 09-50667, Jun. 15, 2009
    Click here for complete decision
    • A. FMCS Arbitrator Alvin L. Goldman concluded the State violated the Jan 1, 2006-Dec. 31, 2008 AFSCME/State CBA by implementing the legislature's 2.4% and 0.5% "average" raises as an across-the-board raise for all employees covered under the State Personnel Act, rather than by providing bargaining unit members their larger negotiated raises.
    • B. Article 12 of the three-year CBA provided for two types of pay increases each fiscal year, subject to satisfactory performance. For fiscal year 2009 (Jul. 1, 2008 – Jun. 30, 2009), these provisions included:
      1. a requirement that the Governor recommend a "general salary increase": of 2% of the midpoint of an employee's pay band, effective the first full pay period following July 1, 2008; and
      2. a requirement, "subject to legislative appropriation," to pay "bargaining unit members … within band salary increases" that varied from 1-4% based on the amount they earned, effective the first full pay period following January 1, 2008.
    • C. For fiscal year 2009, the legislature appropriated $12,833,000 to provide for "average" salary increases for Personnel Act employees of 2.4 and 0.5 percent. SPO estimated $15,541,200 was need to fund the increases provide for by CBA if given to all Personnel Act employees, but about half of those employees were not covered by one of the three State CBAs.3 Thus, only approximately $8 million would be needed to fund the negotiated salary raise for all bargaining unit employees. Moreover, providing the raise to bargaining unit members as negotiated would still provide for an "average" increase of 2.4 and 0.5 increase for all Personnel Act employees, as required under the appropriation legislation.
    • D. The SPO Director testified it was her understanding the fiscal year 2009 appropriation would not permit any categories of personnel with satisfactory performance to be excluded from the pay increase. However, she offered no reference to statutory language, legislative history, or judicial authority in support of that contention. In contrast, PEBA gives unions authority to negotiate only for those bargaining units they are certified to represent, not for all State employees.
    • E. As a remedy, the Arbitrator directed SPO to calculate and provide backpay and readjustment of salaries for bargaining unit members, in fiscal year 2010 if permitted by the working of the 2010 fiscal year budget allocation legislation and, if not, starting fiscal year 2011.

  4. STATE AND CWA, Sep. 25, 2009
    Click here for complete decision
    • A. In an essentially identical arbitration, Private Arbitrator John A. Criswell concluded the State violated Article 27 of the Jan. 1, 2006-Dec. 31, 2008 CWA/State CBA by implementing the legislature's "2.5$ average raise" as an across-the-board raise for all employees covered under the State Personnel Act, rather than by providing bargaining unit members their negotiated raises.
    • B. The Arbitrator rejected as "totally unreasonable and bordering on sophistry" the State's argument that it met its obligation concerning the 2% raise upon issuance of the Governor's recommendation.
    • C. The Arbitrator also rejected the State's arguments that it was required to make across the board pay raises. To the extent the State argued it was required to do so by the language of the appropriation legislation itself, that understanding was belied by the use of the word "average." Moreover, the State presented no evidence indicating it was otherwise under any legal obligation to pay unrepresented employees the same salary increases as provided for in the CBAs. Although the State may elect to do so, it can do so only after satisfying its obligations under the CBA
    • D. As a remedy, the Arbitrator directed the State to provide, within 30 calendar days, a written accounting to the Union indicating the pay raises that should have been received had the fiscal year 2009 raises been properly implemented. Thereafter, the parties would confer and if they could not reach an agreement, they would file supplemental statements with the Arbitrator within 90 days of the award.

  5. CYFD and AFSCME, FMCS Case #070110-52739-8, Jan. 8, 2008
    Click here for complete decision
    • A. FMCS Arbitrator Rex H. Wiant concluded the State did not violate the CBA in implementing the closure of the Boys Springer School. It worked and negotiated extensively with the Union to implement the closure, and to find new positions for the affected bargaining unit members. Additionally, the State was not required to negotiate over the use of job placement screening and tests concerning physical and psychological fitness, and criminal records. Ultimately, over 95% of the affected employees were placed in new positions and no one was denied a new position due to the disputed screening and testing.
    • B. The Union's basic position during arbitration essentially amounted to a plea to prohibit the State from closing the Boys School at all, while the State clearly had the authority under State law and the CBA to take close the facility, just as it had clear authority under the CBA to determine job qualifications.
    • C. The Union requested PELRB review of the arbitration award pursuant to NMAC11.21.3.22(C). Thereafter, the hearing examiner dismissed the PELRB PPC (which had previously been deferred in favor of arbitration), upon conclusion that issues raised by the PPC were fairly presented to and fairly considered by the arbitrator, and the award was both consistent with the act and sufficient to remedy the violation found. See AFSCME v. CYFD, PELRB Case 134-06, letter decision dated Feb. 19, 2008.

¹ NOTE that this list does not presume or pretend to be exhaustive. The Agency only learns of and/or acquires copies of arbitration awards upon notice from and/or service by the parties.

The schedule was as follows:

Compa-ratio less than 85%4.0% salary increase
Compa-ratio of 85% - 93.99%3.5% salary increase
Compa-ratio of 94% - 104.99%2.0% salary increase
Compa-ratio of 105% or greater1.0% salary increase

Compa-ratios are determined by dividing the employee's rate of pay by the rate of pay of the midpoint of the employee's pay band. Thus, the purpose and intention of this provision, as found by both Arbitrators was to give larger increases to the lowest paid bargaining unit members, and smaller increases to the highest paid bargaining members.

AFSCME, CWA and the Fraternal Order of Police all had identical pay raise provisions in their State CBAs.