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 case arose from a collective bargaining impasse between the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees District No. 1199 New Mexico (the Union) and the Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico (the University), acting for its hospital. The parties failed to reach an agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement after mediation, leading to final-offer arbitration under the New Mexico Public Employee Bargaining Act (PEBA) and the University of New Mexico Labor Management Relations Resolution (LMRR). The arbitrator selected the Union's offer, which included a $500 ratification bonus for employees, but the University challenged the award, claiming the arbitrator exceeded his authority and that the bonus violated public policy (paras 1-16).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The district court vacated the arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction, engaged in misconduct, exceeded his authority, and that the $500 bonus violated public policy (paras 2, 17).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Union): Argued that the arbitrator acted within his authority under the PEBA and LMRR, and that the $500 bonus was lawful and did not violate public policy. The Union contended that the arbitrator had discretion to allow modifications to the parties' offers during arbitration and that the bonus was part of the employees' compensation package (paras 19-20, 36-37).
- Appellee (University): Asserted that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by allowing modifications to the parties' offers during arbitration, undermining the purpose of final-offer arbitration. The University also argued that the $500 bonus violated Article IV, Section 27, and Article IX, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution, as it constituted retroactive pay and a gift of public funds (paras 21, 39-40).
Legal Issues
- Did the arbitrator exceed his authority or engage in misconduct by allowing modifications to the parties' offers during arbitration?
- Did the $500 ratification bonus violate public policy under Article IV, Section 27, and Article IX, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to vacate the arbitration award (para 41).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Wechsler and Vigil JJ. concurring):
Arbitrator's Authority and Misconduct: The court held that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the PEBA and LMRR by allowing modifications to the parties' offers during arbitration. The PEBA and LMRR require the arbitrator to select one of the parties' last, best offers made before arbitration, and do not permit the arbitrator to act as a mediator or facilitate further negotiations during arbitration. This process undermined the purpose of final-offer arbitration, which is to encourage good-faith bargaining and finality before arbitration begins (paras 22-33).
Public Policy and the Bonus: The court determined that the $500 ratification bonus violated public policy under Article IV, Section 27, and Article IX, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution. The bonus constituted retroactive pay for work already performed and a gift of public funds, which are prohibited under these constitutional provisions. The court rejected the Union's argument that the bonus was part of the employees' compensation package for future work (paras 34-40).
Conclusion: The court affirmed the district court's decision to vacate the arbitration award on the grounds that the arbitrator exceeded his authority, engaged in misconduct, and that the bonus provision violated public policy (para 41).