AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) filed several prohibited practice complaints against the City of Albuquerque, alleging jurisdiction with the Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) due to the City's Labor Management Relations Board (LMRB) being non-functional for over eighteen months. The complaints were filed directly with the PELRB instead of the LMRB, which was not operating at the time due to a missing board member (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed in part and reversed in part the PELRB's administrative decision, ruling that the PELRB did not have jurisdiction over AFSCME's complaints and had no authority to remand the complaints to the LMRB (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners (AFSCME): Argued that the PELRB had jurisdiction to hear the prohibited practice complaints during the period the LMRB was not functioning and that the PELRB could remand these complaints to the LMRB once it resumed operation (paras 2, 7).
• Respondent (City of Albuquerque): Contended that it was not subject to the PELRB's jurisdiction due to its grandfather status under the Public Employee Bargaining Act (PEBA) and that the LMRB has exclusive jurisdiction over the complaints filed by AFSCME with the PELRB (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the PELRB had jurisdiction to hear prohibited practice complaints filed by AFSCME during the period the LMRB was not functioning (para 2).
• Whether the PELRB had the authority to remand the prohibited practice complaints to the LMRB once it resumed operation (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the PELRB did not have jurisdiction over AFSCME's complaints and lacked the authority to remand the complaints to the LMRB (para 21).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Michael E. Vigil, J., concurring): The Court found that the PELRB's jurisdiction is limited to matters delegated by the PEBA, which does not expressly or by implication grant the PELRB authority to hear complaints involving grandfathered public employers like the City. The Court also determined that once a public employer and its labor relations system are recognized as having grandfather status under the PEBA, and its collective bargaining system has not substantially changed after January 1, 2003, the PEBA does not apply to that employer, and thus, the PELRB lacks jurisdiction over its complaints. The Court disagreed with AFSCME's interpretation that the PEBA allows the PELRB to hear complaints if local boards under grandfathered systems are not operating. Additionally, the Court noted that complaints cannot be remanded to a tribunal if they did not originate there and that the PEBA does not grant the PELRB authority to transfer complaints to other tribunals. The decision was limited to the issue of jurisdiction under the PEBA, without addressing potential due process, equity, or other legal principles that were not raised by AFSCME (paras 15-20).