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

• Two employees of the Los Alamos County Fire Department, who were also members of the Los Alamos Firefighters Association Local

Procedural History

• District Court of Los Alamos County: Denied the County's motion for summary judgment and granted the Union's cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that paramedic training contracts were subjects of mandatory bargaining and could not be unilaterally entered into by the County without negotiation with the Union (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• County: Argued that the paramedic training contracts were not subjects of mandatory bargaining and that the management-rights clause allowed the County to negotiate these contracts without Union involvement. Additionally, contended that a balancing of interests should favor the County's management rights and that the Union had waived its bargaining rights under the CBA's zipper clause (paras 9, 17-18, 20).
• Union: Asserted that the paramedic training contracts were mandatory subjects of bargaining and, therefore, not enforceable without negotiation. The Union also argued that the County's reliance on the management-rights and zipper clauses did not override the obligation to engage in collective bargaining over the contracts (paras 11, 19, 21).

Legal Issues

• Whether the paramedic training contracts contained terms and conditions of employment that are subjects of mandatory bargaining.
• Whether the County's management-rights authority allowed it to negotiate paramedic training contracts without Union involvement.
• Whether a balancing of interests should favor the County's management rights.
• Whether the Union waived its right to bargain under the zipper clause of the CBA (paras 9, 13, 17, 20).

Disposition

• The district court's decision to deny the County's motion for summary judgment and grant the Union's cross-motion for summary judgment was affirmed (para 28).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring): The court held that the paramedic training contracts were indeed subjects of mandatory bargaining. The County had conceded this point for the purposes of the motion, and the court declined to address the County's new argument on appeal that the contracts were not mandatory subjects of bargaining. The court also found no clear and unmistakable waiver by the Union to bargain over the paramedic training contracts. The management-rights and zipper clauses in the CBA did not override the obligation to engage in collective bargaining over these contracts. The court emphasized that mandatory subjects of bargaining require negotiation and cannot be unilaterally decided by the employer. The County's arguments regarding a balancing test and the management-rights provision were not preserved for appeal, and the court did not address them. The court concluded that the Union did not waive its right to bargain under the zipper clause, as there was no evidence of a clear and unmistakable waiver (paras 10-27).