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 claimant, a voting machine technician employed by the County of Bernalillo, was cited for DWI and careless driving while off duty in March 1988. He pleaded nolo contendere to the DWI charge, resulting in a deferred sentence, while the careless driving charge was dismissed. Based on erroneous information that his driver's license was revoked, the county restricted him from driving county vehicles, suspended him for two days, and transferred him to a non-driving custodial position. When the error regarding his license revocation was discovered, the claimant sought reinstatement to his former position, which the county denied (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- County of Bernalillo Personnel Board: Reinstated the claimant to his former driving position and granted him back pay effective February 1, 1989.
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Reversed the personnel board's decision, denying reinstatement and back pay.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Claimant): Argued that the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governed his employment terms and conflicted with the county's safety policy. He contended that the personnel board's decision to reinstate him was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by substantial evidence (paras 1, 5, 7).
- Respondent (County): Asserted that the safety policy governed the claimant's employment and required a six-month suspension for a DWI conviction. The county argued that the personnel board's decision to reinstate the claimant was not supported by substantial evidence and violated the safety policy (paras 8, 12).
Legal Issues
- Whether the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) or the county's safety policy governed the claimant's employment terms (para 5).
- Whether the personnel board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or abused its discretion in reinstating the claimant to his former driving position (para 7).
- Whether the personnel board's decision was supported by substantial evidence (para 12).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, reversing the personnel board's decision to reinstate the claimant and grant him back pay (para 15).
Reasons
Per Flores J. (Black and Hartz JJ. concurring):
- The claimant failed to raise the argument regarding the CBA's precedence over the safety policy during the personnel board hearing. As a result, this issue could not be considered on appeal (para 6).
- The personnel board's decision to reinstate the claimant was inconsistent with the safety policy, which prohibits employees with a DWI conviction within three years from being assigned to driving positions. The claimant's reinstatement within one year of his DWI conviction violated this policy (paras 13-14).
- The personnel board's findings that the claimant's driving record was "clear" were insufficient to override the safety policy's explicit restrictions. The board's decision was deemed an abuse of discretion (paras 12-14).
Special Concurrence by Hartz J.:
- Agreed with the majority that the claimant failed to preserve the argument regarding the CBA's precedence. Emphasized that the other issues raised by the claimant were contingent on this argument and did not require further consideration (para 17).