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 Las Cruces Professional Fire Fighters and International Association of Fire Fighters, Local No. 2362, sought certification of a collective bargaining unit that included lieutenants, drivers/operators, firefighters, and inspectors. The City of Las Cruces argued that lieutenants were supervisors under the Las Cruces Municipal Code (LCMC) and therefore prohibited from joining labor organizations. The Las Cruces Labor Management Relations Board determined that lieutenants were not supervisors and could be included in the bargaining unit (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Las Cruces Labor Management Relations Board: Held that lieutenants were not supervisors under the LCMC and could be included in the bargaining unit (para 2).
- District Court of Doña Ana County: Affirmed the Board's decision, finding it was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion and was supported by substantial evidence (paras 3 and 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (City of Las Cruces and Fire Chief): Argued that lieutenants were supervisors under the LCMC definition and thus prohibited from joining labor organizations. They contended the Board applied an incorrect standard and that its decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence (paras 2-3, 6, and 8).
- Appellees (Union): Asserted that lieutenants were not supervisors under the LCMC and should be included in the bargaining unit. They also argued that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over the case (paras 2, 4, and 5).
Legal Issues
- Whether lieutenants are supervisors under the Las Cruces Municipal Code and thus prohibited from joining labor organizations (para 5).
- Whether the Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence (para 6).
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal (para 4).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Board's determination that lieutenants were not supervisors was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious (paras 13 and 15).
- The motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction was denied (para 4).
Reasons
Per Alarid J. (Flores and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
- The Court found that the Board properly considered the definition of "supervisor" under the LCMC and the Public Employee Bargaining Act, including the exclusionary language that clarified supervisory roles (paras 8-9).
- The Board was not limited to a narrow interpretation of the LCMC and could consider other provisions of the ordinance to determine whether lieutenants were supervisors (para 10).
- The Board's decision was based on a full hearing, evidence, and testimony, and its findings were supported by substantial evidence. The district court's whole record review confirmed this conclusion (paras 11-12).
- The appellate court's role was to ensure the Board's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The Court found no such issues and affirmed the decision (paras 11-13).
- The City's argument regarding alleged bias by a Board member was not preserved at the district court level and was therefore not considered on appeal (para 14).