I have previously written about the Supreme Court ordering N.M. Governor Susana Martinez to reinstate several members of the Public Employee Labor Relations Board. I have also written about AFSCME, AFT and other Unions threatening to sue the Governor again for having replaced one reinstated members upon expiration of his latest term. Finally, however, the Governor appears to have "won" one before the Supreme Court.
As readers will recall, the Clovis Police Officers' Association had recommended the new member, Mr. Roger "Bart" Bartosiewicz, to the Governor. AFSCME, AFT et al's objection was based on the fact they they did not make that recommendation, and were not consulted.
As readers will recall, the Clovis Police Officers' Association had recommended the new member, Mr. Roger "Bart" Bartosiewicz, to the Governor. AFSCME, AFT et al's objection was based on the fact they they did not make that recommendation, and were not consulted.
At that time and in the weeks following, many practitioners and interested parties have remarked to me that the Supreme Court was sure to declare Member Boyd's replacement by Member "Bart" illegal, in light of the Court's ruling in the original AFSCME v. Governor Martinez, 2011-NMSC-018 decision.
In a surprising turn, however, today's news reports that the Supreme Court has denied the extraordinary writ against the Republican Governor, stating that the proper course is for the Unions to proceed via District Court to challenge the new appointment.
It will be interesting to see if a case is filed in District Court and, if so, how that court handles it. As evident in my posting on the AFSCME v. Governor Martinez ruling, I saw several problems with that decision. In any event, this situation was quite different than the prior case, since Member Boyd's term had expired, and the Member Bart appears to have been "recommended by organized labor representatives actively involved in representing public employees," as required under statute. See PEBA, Sec. 10-7E-8(a).
The main point of contention--whether the union was involved in representing state employees-- does not appear to be required under the plain language of the statute. However, there may well be room for debate as to what the Legislature intended when it specified that "representatives," rather than a representative, make the recommendation.
It will be interesting to see if a case is filed in District Court and, if so, how that court handles it. As evident in my posting on the AFSCME v. Governor Martinez ruling, I saw several problems with that decision. In any event, this situation was quite different than the prior case, since Member Boyd's term had expired, and the Member Bart appears to have been "recommended by organized labor representatives actively involved in representing public employees," as required under statute. See PEBA, Sec. 10-7E-8(a).
The main point of contention--whether the union was involved in representing state employees-- does not appear to be required under the plain language of the statute. However, there may well be room for debate as to what the Legislature intended when it specified that "representatives," rather than a representative, make the recommendation.
If you are interested in neutral services such as arbitration, mediation or contract ALJ services, in labor/employment or other areas of the law, please contact Pilar Vaile, P.C. at (505) 247-0802, or info@pilarvailepc.com.
