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 police officers, a Black male and a Hispanic female, alleged that their union, the Albuquerque Police Officers Association (APOA), breached its duty of fair representation by excluding them from a settlement related to a flawed promotional process. The union had filed a prohibited practices complaint (PPC) against the City of Albuquerque after discovering that ineligible candidates were allowed to participate in the promotion process, but it only secured settlements for four Anglo male officers. The plaintiffs claimed this exclusion caused them career and financial harm (paras 1-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the APOA, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the union acted arbitrarily, fraudulently, or in bad faith (paras 1, 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Plaintiffs): Argued that the APOA breached its duty of fair representation by arbitrarily excluding them from the settlement despite representing all affected members in the PPC. They contended that they were not required to individually request assistance from the union to benefit from the PPC and that the union’s actions were discriminatory and in bad faith (paras 1, 3, 6-7, 13).
- Appellee (APOA): Claimed it was unaware of the plaintiffs’ complaints because they did not come forward to request assistance. The union argued that its actions were not arbitrary and that its bylaws required members to notify the union of unfair labor practices to receive representation (paras 9, 12).
Legal Issues
- Did the APOA breach its duty of fair representation by excluding the plaintiffs from the settlement of the PPC?
- Were the plaintiffs required to individually request assistance from the union to benefit from the PPC?
- Was the district court correct in granting summary judgment in favor of the APOA?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for a jury to determine whether the APOA breached its duty of fair representation (paras 16-17).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Sutin C.J. and Kennedy J. concurring):
The court held that the APOA, as the exclusive bargaining agent, owed a duty of fair representation to all members of the bargaining unit, including the plaintiffs. This duty required the union to act without arbitrariness, discrimination, or bad faith. The court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the union’s exclusion of the plaintiffs from the settlement was arbitrary or discriminatory. Specifically, the union had filed the PPC on behalf of all affected members but excluded the plaintiffs without a clear explanation, despite evidence that other members had benefited without individually requesting assistance (paras 6-8, 13).
The court also rejected the APOA’s argument that the plaintiffs were required to come forward under union bylaws, noting that the plaintiffs presented evidence disputing the applicability of the bylaw to PPCs. The court emphasized that the union’s discretion in handling grievances is not unlimited and that unexplained inaction that prejudices members may constitute a breach of duty (paras 8, 12-14).
Finally, the court determined that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the issues of whether the union’s actions were arbitrary and whether the plaintiffs were precluded from recovery under the bylaws were questions of fact for a jury to decide (paras 9-14).