AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (the Union) filed a prohibited practice complaint against the State of New Mexico (the State), alleging violations of the Public Employee Bargaining Act (PEBA). The complaint centered on the State's practice regarding the compensation of bargaining unit employees for time spent preparing for and participating in grievance meetings. Historically, such employees were paid for this time, subject to supervisor approval. The State altered this practice, prompting the Union's complaint (paras 1-7).

Procedural History

• Public Employee Labor Relations Board’s Executive Director as hearing officer: Found the State violated PEBA sections 10-7E-19(B) and (F), but the Board adopted these findings with an exception for 10-7E-19(F) (para 1).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the Board's decision regarding no violation of Section 10-7E-19(F) and reversed the Board's decision on a violation of Section 10-7E-19(B) (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Union: Argued the State violated PEBA by unilaterally altering a binding past practice regarding compensation for time spent on grievance meetings without bargaining, constituting a violation of sections 10-7E-19(A), (B), (D), (F), and (G) (para 7).
• State: Contended there was no binding past practice that required bargaining before changes could be made and, even if there was, the Union failed to request bargaining on the issue (para 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether a binding past practice existed that constituted a mandatory subject of bargaining (para 12).
• Whether the State’s notice to the Union regarding the change in past practice constituted a fait accompli, thereby precluding a finding that the Union’s failure to request bargaining served as a waiver of its right to bargain (para 12).

Disposition

• The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (para 25).

Reasons

• The court found that a past practice of compensating bargaining unit employees for time spent preparing for and participating in grievance meetings was established and needed to be considered in the context of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The court also determined that the CBA was ambiguous regarding the grant of "union time" for such activities. The court instructed the Board to determine whether the CBA's zipper clause eliminated the past practice and, if not, whether the State's actions constituted a fait accompli based on the State's intent, thereby excusing the Union from requesting bargaining (paras 14-24).