Select Hearing Examiner Decisions - Public Employee Labor Relations Board
Source: https://pelrb.nm.gov/select-hearing-examiner-decisions
Archived: 2026-04-23 17:21
Select Hearing Examiner Decisions - Public Employee Labor Relations Board
Select Hearing Examiner Decisions
Home
Decisional Law and Research Aids
Select Hearing Examiner Decisions
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
United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, and University of New Mexico Board of Regents: PELRB No. 307-20
June 16, 2021
NOTE: This decision was altered by Board Order
66-PELRB-2021
CSEC-LC Local #4994 v. Las Cruces Public Schools; PELRB No. 308-18
November 29, 2018
International Association of Firefighters, Local 1687 v. City of Carlsbad; PELRB 308-17
August 17, 2018
Teachers’ Association of Lordsburg v. Lordsburg Municipal Schools; PELRB 102-18
March 27, 2018
AFSCME, Council 18 & City of Las Vegas; PELRB No. 309-14
February 28, 2018
PELRB had no jurisdiction because local board was fully functional.
AFSCME, Council 18 v. Mesilla Valley Regional Dispatch Authority; PELRB No. 128-14
February 28, 2018
Summary Judgment in favor of the Employer on Union’s claimed violations of §§ 19 (G), 19 (H), 19 (B) and 19 (C).
N.M. Coalition of Public Safety Officers v. Santa Fe County; PELRB 118-17
November 30, 2017
State of New Mexico v. AFSCME Council 18 and CWA, Local 7076; PELRB 107-17
October 20, 2017
NMCPSO and City of Rio Rancho; PELRB 303-17 – via USPS and email
May 19, 2017
AFSCME, Local 3103 & San Miguel County; PELRB 308-16
December 7, 2016
NMCPSO v. City of Rio Rancho and the Rio Rancho Police Dep’t.; PELRB No. 113-16
September 1, 2016
Valencia County Sheriff’s Officers’ Association v. Valencia County and Valencia County Sheriff’s Dep’t; PELRB 109-16
July 5, 2016
New Mexico Coalition of Public Safety Officers on Behalf of Josh David v. Santa Fe County; PELRB 111-16
June 14, 2016
AFSCME, Council 18 v. New Mexico Department of Health; PELRB 122-15
March 9, 2016
AFSCME, Council 18 v. Santa Fe County; PELRB 121-15
January 22, 2016
Alternative Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment on union’s demand for information granted in part and denied in part; Loudermill implications.
SCEA v. Silver Consolidated School District; PELRB No. 126-15
January 19, 2016
CWA Local 7076 v. N.M. Dep’t of Health; PELRB No. 116-15
November 23, 2015
AFSCME, Council 18 v. NM Dep’t of Workforce Solutions; PELRB No. 114-15
August 24, 2015
AFSCME & Santa Fe County; PELRB 305-15
August 18, 2015
CSEC-LC v. Las Cruces Public Schools; PELRB No. 111-15
July 13, 2015
Central Consolidated Education Association v. Central Consolidated School District; PELRB No. 102-15
June 29, 2015
PPC Dismissed for failure to meet burden of proof and untimely claim.
NMCPSO v. Santa Fe County; PELRB No. 131-14
May 27, 2015
Central Consolidated Education Association v. Central Consolidated School District, PELRB No. 126-14
April 3, 2015
After a Hearing on the Merits, the Hearing Officer dismissed the Union’s Claims that the Employer violated §§19 (B), (C), (F) and (G).
AFSCME, Council 18 v. Hidalgo County; PELRB No. 130-14
February 27, 2015
Motion to Dismiss Denied.
AFT-NM v. Cuba Independent School District; PELRB No. 129-14
February 6, 2015
Union’s claimed violations of §§19 (B), (C), (F) and (G) dismissed on Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
This case was opened on 11/3/2014 alleging that termination of an employee union representative was retaliation, interference with the union and coercion in violation of PEBA § 19(A); § 19(B); § 19(C); and a violation of contract or PEBA rights in violation of § 19(G) and § 19(H). The Hearing Officer granted Summary Judgment in favor of the Employer on 2/6/2015 holding that:
The Union did not demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute requiring an evidentiary hearing on the question whether any of its employee’s union activities, taken alone or in the aggregate, created anti-union animus, nor that any anti-union animus was a motivating factor in the decision not to renew her employment contract. See § 19(D).
The Union did not demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute requiring an evidentiary hearing on the question whether the employee was treated differently than any other employee based on her union activities. See § 19(B)(3).
The Union did not demonstrate a material issue of fact that would require an evidentiary concerning whether the District interfered with, restrained or coerced the employee in the exercise of a right guaranteed pursuant to the PEBA § 19(B).
The undisputed evidence reflects significant departures by the employee from the District’s policies coupled with marginal performance followed by forewarning and progressive discipline. That evidence has not been refuted and Complainant may not rest on the mere allegations of its complaint in response to a Summary Judgment motion.
Because alleged violation of PEBA § 5 (Interference and Coercion) were not supported, the union’s § 19(G) claims were without a basis in any section of PEBA other than § 19.
Accordingly, to avoid repetitive and duplicative liability, that claim was dismissed.
The undisputed evidence demonstrated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the
employee’s termination that satisfy the contractual requirements at issue. Complainant may not rest on the mere allegations of its complaint in response to a Summary Judgment motion and so, the Union’s claim for violation of § 19(H) was dismissed.
Central Consolidated Education Association v. Central Consolidated School District, PELRB No. 127-14
November 10, 2014
AFSCME, Local 3999 v. City of Santa Fe, PELRB No. 111-14
May 30, 2014
Case deferred to Arbitration.
Case opened on 5/1/2014 alleging failure to provide information necessary for the grievance
procedure.
The Director entered a Voluntary Dismissal after Complainant withdrew the PPC as part of a
settlement agreement reviewed and approved on 7/14/2014.
IAFF Local 2378 v. City of Raton, PELRB No. 118-11 & In re: IAFF Local 2378 v. City of Raton, PELRB No. 302-11
August 30, 2012
Union’s challenge to grandfathered status upheld.
Revised on 12/08/2025
Manage Cookie Consent
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options
Manage services
Manage {vendor_count} vendors
Read more about these purposes
Preferences
{title}
{title}
{title}
Select Hearing Examiner Decisions
Home
Decisional Law and Research Aids
Select Hearing Examiner Decisions
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
United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, and University of New Mexico Board of Regents: PELRB No. 307-20
June 16, 2021
NOTE: This decision was altered by Board Order
66-PELRB-2021
CSEC-LC Local #4994 v. Las Cruces Public Schools; PELRB No. 308-18
November 29, 2018
International Association of Firefighters, Local 1687 v. City of Carlsbad; PELRB 308-17
August 17, 2018
Teachers’ Association of Lordsburg v. Lordsburg Municipal Schools; PELRB 102-18
March 27, 2018
AFSCME, Council 18 & City of Las Vegas; PELRB No. 309-14
February 28, 2018
PELRB had no jurisdiction because local board was fully functional.
AFSCME, Council 18 v. Mesilla Valley Regional Dispatch Authority; PELRB No. 128-14
February 28, 2018
Summary Judgment in favor of the Employer on Union’s claimed violations of §§ 19 (G), 19 (H), 19 (B) and 19 (C).
N.M. Coalition of Public Safety Officers v. Santa Fe County; PELRB 118-17
November 30, 2017
State of New Mexico v. AFSCME Council 18 and CWA, Local 7076; PELRB 107-17
October 20, 2017
NMCPSO and City of Rio Rancho; PELRB 303-17 – via USPS and email
May 19, 2017
AFSCME, Local 3103 & San Miguel County; PELRB 308-16
December 7, 2016
NMCPSO v. City of Rio Rancho and the Rio Rancho Police Dep’t.; PELRB No. 113-16
September 1, 2016
Valencia County Sheriff’s Officers’ Association v. Valencia County and Valencia County Sheriff’s Dep’t; PELRB 109-16
July 5, 2016
New Mexico Coalition of Public Safety Officers on Behalf of Josh David v. Santa Fe County; PELRB 111-16
June 14, 2016
AFSCME, Council 18 v. New Mexico Department of Health; PELRB 122-15
March 9, 2016
AFSCME, Council 18 v. Santa Fe County; PELRB 121-15
January 22, 2016
Alternative Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment on union’s demand for information granted in part and denied in part; Loudermill implications.
SCEA v. Silver Consolidated School District; PELRB No. 126-15
January 19, 2016
CWA Local 7076 v. N.M. Dep’t of Health; PELRB No. 116-15
November 23, 2015
AFSCME, Council 18 v. NM Dep’t of Workforce Solutions; PELRB No. 114-15
August 24, 2015
AFSCME & Santa Fe County; PELRB 305-15
August 18, 2015
CSEC-LC v. Las Cruces Public Schools; PELRB No. 111-15
July 13, 2015
Central Consolidated Education Association v. Central Consolidated School District; PELRB No. 102-15
June 29, 2015
PPC Dismissed for failure to meet burden of proof and untimely claim.
NMCPSO v. Santa Fe County; PELRB No. 131-14
May 27, 2015
Central Consolidated Education Association v. Central Consolidated School District, PELRB No. 126-14
April 3, 2015
After a Hearing on the Merits, the Hearing Officer dismissed the Union’s Claims that the Employer violated §§19 (B), (C), (F) and (G).
AFSCME, Council 18 v. Hidalgo County; PELRB No. 130-14
February 27, 2015
Motion to Dismiss Denied.
AFT-NM v. Cuba Independent School District; PELRB No. 129-14
February 6, 2015
Union’s claimed violations of §§19 (B), (C), (F) and (G) dismissed on Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
This case was opened on 11/3/2014 alleging that termination of an employee union representative was retaliation, interference with the union and coercion in violation of PEBA § 19(A); § 19(B); § 19(C); and a violation of contract or PEBA rights in violation of § 19(G) and § 19(H). The Hearing Officer granted Summary Judgment in favor of the Employer on 2/6/2015 holding that:
The Union did not demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute requiring an evidentiary hearing on the question whether any of its employee’s union activities, taken alone or in the aggregate, created anti-union animus, nor that any anti-union animus was a motivating factor in the decision not to renew her employment contract. See § 19(D).
The Union did not demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute requiring an evidentiary hearing on the question whether the employee was treated differently than any other employee based on her union activities. See § 19(B)(3).
The Union did not demonstrate a material issue of fact that would require an evidentiary concerning whether the District interfered with, restrained or coerced the employee in the exercise of a right guaranteed pursuant to the PEBA § 19(B).
The undisputed evidence reflects significant departures by the employee from the District’s policies coupled with marginal performance followed by forewarning and progressive discipline. That evidence has not been refuted and Complainant may not rest on the mere allegations of its complaint in response to a Summary Judgment motion.
Because alleged violation of PEBA § 5 (Interference and Coercion) were not supported, the union’s § 19(G) claims were without a basis in any section of PEBA other than § 19.
Accordingly, to avoid repetitive and duplicative liability, that claim was dismissed.
The undisputed evidence demonstrated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the
employee’s termination that satisfy the contractual requirements at issue. Complainant may not rest on the mere allegations of its complaint in response to a Summary Judgment motion and so, the Union’s claim for violation of § 19(H) was dismissed.
Central Consolidated Education Association v. Central Consolidated School District, PELRB No. 127-14
November 10, 2014
AFSCME, Local 3999 v. City of Santa Fe, PELRB No. 111-14
May 30, 2014
Case deferred to Arbitration.
Case opened on 5/1/2014 alleging failure to provide information necessary for the grievance
procedure.
The Director entered a Voluntary Dismissal after Complainant withdrew the PPC as part of a
settlement agreement reviewed and approved on 7/14/2014.
IAFF Local 2378 v. City of Raton, PELRB No. 118-11 & In re: IAFF Local 2378 v. City of Raton, PELRB No. 302-11
August 30, 2012
Union’s challenge to grandfathered status upheld.
Revised on 12/08/2025
Manage Cookie Consent
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options
Manage services
Manage {vendor_count} vendors
Read more about these purposes
Preferences
{title}
{title}
{title}