1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: S ep te m

be r 5, 201 7 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 4737 5 NEW MEX ICO C ORRECT IONS DE PA RTM ENT , 6 Appellant-Petitioner, 7 v. 8 AM ERIC AN FE DER ATION OF STA TE, 9 COU NTY , A ND MU NIC IPA L EM PL OYE ES, 10 COU NC IL 18, A FL -C IO, 11 Appe lle e- Re spon de nt. 12 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA NTAFE CO UN TY 13 D avi d K. Th om son , D ist ri ctJu dg e 14 Pa ula E

. G an z 15 Jennifer R. Jam es 16 De putyGe neral Counsel 17 N ewMe xic o C or

re ct ion s D ep ar

tm en t 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 fo r Appe llant1 Sh an e Y out z

2 Stephen Curtice 3 Ja m es A

. Mo nta lbano 4 Youtz & V aldez, P. C. 5 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 6 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 HAN ISEE, Judge. 3 { 1} T he S ta te of

N ewMe xi co Co rre ct ion s D ep ar tm en t ( the D ep ar

tm en t) appe al s 4 the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of the D ep ar tm en t’ s m oti on fo r re co nsi de ratio n f oll ow ing 5 the dis tr ic t cour

t’ s on-r ec or d af

fi rm an ce an d adop tio n of the P ubl ic E m plo y ee L ab or 6 Re la tio ns B oa rd ’ s ( PE L RB ) Se pte m be r 2009 or der an d the P E L RB he ar ing 7 exam iner’ s July 2009 order, both of which foun d the Depar tm ent to have com

m itted 8 a pr ohi bit ed

pr ac tic e in v iol at ionof

N MS A197 8, S ec tio n 10 -7 E -1 9( A ) (2 003) of the 9 P ub l i c E mp l o ye e B a r g a i n i n g A c t( P E B A )

. We a f f i rm. 10 BACKGRO UND 11 { 2} On Fe bruary

10, 2009, Respondent filed a p r oh i bi t e d pr a c t i c e s c om

pl a i nt ( PPC) 12 with the PE LRB against the De partm ent, alleging that the Depar tm ent had viol ated 13 Se ct ion10- 17E -1 9 by dis cr im ina tin g a ga ins t tw o of the D ep ar

tm en t’ s e m

plo y ee s, 14 Fr an k B la ir

a nd G ab e Mol ina

. T he ba sis of the P PC w as tha t Bl ai r an d M oli na , w ho 1 5 a r e a l s o u n i o n memb e r s a n do f f i c i a l s o f t h e Ame r i c a n F e d e r a t i o n o f S t a t e , C o u n t y, 16 and Municipal Em

ploy ees (A FSCME ) Lo ca l 3422 (Corr ections Off icers), had 17 requested and we re denied use of a state v ehicle to travel to and from a policy review 18 m eeting with De partm ent m anagem ent on Janu ary 26, 2 009. Blair and Molin a w ere 19 attending the m eeting in their capacity as state em ploy ee union officials (em ploy ee2

1 of fi ci al s)

. E m

plo y ee of fi ci al s are uni on o ff

ic ia ls o r ste w ar ds who are als o st at e 2 em ploy ees. Per the parties’ 2005 collective bargaining agreem ent (CBA ), em ploy ee 3 of fi ci al s are “ on p ai d sta tus ” w he n the y a tte nd “ m ee tin gs a gr ee d to by the part ie s f

or 4 pur pose s of a dm ini str at ionof

[ the CB A ]

. ” O the r D ep ar

tm e n t e m plo y ee s a tte ndi ng the 5 sa m e m ee tin g inthe ir

c ap ac ity a s m an ag em en t w er e al low ed to use a sta te ve hic le to 6 travel to and from

the m eetin g, the purpose of which w as to discuss various labor7 m anagem ent issues. A hearing on the m erits w as held before P EL RB D irector Juan 8 Mon toy a (th e he ar ing e xa m ine r) on July 1, 200 9, dur ing w hic h th e fo llo w ing f ac ts 9 w er e el ic ite d. 10 { 3} T he pur

pose of la bor -m an ag em en t m ee tin gs i s to pr ovi de the D ep ar tm en t and 11 the un io n an opport

uni ty to re sol ve iss ue s th at

a ri se in the w orkpl ac e in o rd er to 12 pr om ote ac oope rati ve rel at ion shi p be tw ee n th e pa rt ie s and e nhanc e the or de rl y 13 op e r at i on

and f un c t i on i ng o f

the De partm ent’ s facilities. Policy reviewm eetings, such 14 as the one he ld o n January 26, 2009 , a re aty pe of la bor -m an ag em en t m ee tin g th at is 15 convened when the De partm ent propos es policy changes affecting the CBA . S uch 16 m eetings are ty

pically convened bythe D e pa

r tm e nt ’ s H um an Resources Bure au Chief 17 E lon a Cr

uz , w ho i s th e D ep ar

tm en t’ s a dm ini str at or

of the CB A. When c onve ne d, 18 represe ntatives of bot h De partm ent m anagem ent and em ploy ee off

icials are required 19 to att en d p er t he CBA.3

1 { 4} Cr

uz use d astate ve hic le to at te nd suc h m ee tin gs, inc lud ing the m ee tin g on 2 January

26, 200 9. O n a

ppr oxi m at el y

adoz enoc ca sio ns from 200 5 th ro ugh 2008 , 3 Cr uz gr an te d e m

plo y ee of fic ia ls per

m iss ionto do the sa m e. I n January 200 9 C ru z 4 issued a directive to the Departm ent, disallowing use of state vehicles by em ploy ee 5 of fi ci al s. Cr uz ’ s direct iv e w as in re spon se to dir ec tio n sh e re ce ive d f ro m the S ta te 6 Pe rs onne l O ff

ic e (S PO ), w hic h ha d r ec ei ve d ale ga l op ini on ( the opi nio n) in 7 De cem ber 2008 fr om the Ge neral Service s Depar tm ent’ s (G SD ) genera l counsel that 8 co nc lud ed

that st at e lawpr ohi bit s th e use of st at e vehic le s by uni on o ff

ic ia ls and 9 stewar ds, including em ploy ee off

icials. T he opini on respond ed to a general inquiry 10 fr om S PO D ir ec tor

S an dr a Pe re z re gard ing a n is sue that ha d ari se n duri ng 11 ne got ia tio ns b etw ee n th e sta te an d diff er en t union s, inc lud ing A FS CM E , an d did no t 12 address the specific fa ctual scenario presented in this case. 13 { 5} Ac cordi ng t o G S D S e c r e t a ry A rtur o Jar a m i l l o, G S D i s t he o nl y s t a t e a ge ncy 14 w iththe auth or ity to ow n, le as e, a nd i nsur e sta te ve hic le s. G SD is al so the onl y state 15 ag en cy

w iththe author ity

to es ta bli sh r ule s and r eg ula tio ns f

or the use of

state 16 ve hic le s. S ec re tary

Jaram ill o e xpl ai ned th at unde r the N ewMe xic o A dm ini str at ive 17 Code, the general eligibil ity requirem ents f or using a state vehicle are: (1) status as 18 a state em

ploy ee, (2) possessi on of a valid driver’ s license, ( 3) com pletion of a 19 de fe nsi ve dr ivi ng c our se , a nd ( 4) the use m ust be “ in f urthe ranc e of of

fi ci al state4

1 busi ne ss. ” H e al so t es tif ie d th at the te rm “ of fi ci al state bus ine ss ” is not de fi ne d by 2 statute or regulation, and determ ination s of whether use of a vehicle is in furtherance 3 of of fi ci al state bus ine ss are m ad e on a ca se -b y -c as e bas is, ta kin g into c onsi de ratio n 4 “ the w hol e co m

ple x” of f ac ts, not j ust one part ic ular fac t. W he n a ske d w he the r, in 5 ge ne ral , the re a re ins tanc es w he re auni on o ff ic ia l’ s us e of

ave hic le w oul d be in 6 fu rt he ra nc e of of fi ci al state b us in es s, Se cret ary Ja ram il lo res po nd ed , “ I co ul d e nvi sio n 7 tha t, w he re the int er es ts of the state a nd the uni on r el at [e ] to re sol uti on o f a m atte r of 8 com m on intere st, I would argue that is in f urtherance of state busin ess.” He offer ed 9 gr ie vanc e m ee tin gs a s an e xa m ple of aty pe of la bor -m an ag em en t m ee tin g that w oul d 10 qua lif y f or use of sta te ve hic le s by

e m plo y ee of fi ci al s be ca

use suc h m ee tin gs are “ in 11 furthe ranc e of

of fi ci al state bus ine ss b ec au se it w ould be in the state ’ s in te re sts to 12 re sol ve gr ie va nc es . ” A s an e xa m ple of w ha t he w oul d not co nsi de r anappr opr ia te use 13 of astate ve hic le by

a n e m plo y ee of fi ci al , he state d th at

a m eet ing r el at ing to a 14 “ m atte r of

pur e int er

na l a dm ini strati on by the uni on” is not som ethin g he w oul d 15 co nsi de r to b e in f urthe ranc e of

of fi ci al state busine ss. S ec re tary Jaram ill o 16 em pha siz ed that det erm in at ion s m

ust be m ad e ba se d ona ll of the f ac ts— not a ny 17 part ic ular fa ct , suc h a s ho wa n e m plo y ee ’ s ti m e is c ode d—and tha t the ult im at e 18 questio n to answer in deciding whether use of a state v ehicle is authorized is whether 19 suc h us e is i n f

urthe ranc e of

of fi ci al state bus ine ss.5

1 { 6} T he he ar ing e xa m ine r co nc lud ed tha t “ [a ] sta te em plo y ee w ho is al so a

uni on 2 official of a

state bargaining uni t is on offic ial state busin ess while attending labor3 m anagem ent relations m eetings, g rievance m eetings[,] and other m eetings necessary 4 for the adm inistration of the [CB A] .” As such, he determ ined that the De partm ent had 5 co m m itt ed apr ohi bit ed pr ac tic e in viol at ionof S ec tio n 10 -7 E -1 9( A ) by

tr eatin g B la ir 6 an d M oli nadif

fe re ntl y than m an ag em en t e m

plo y ee s re ga rd ing the use of state 7 ve hic le s to a tte nd the January 200 9 po lic y

r ev ie wm ee tin g and o rd er ed the 8 D ep artm e n t t o “ c e a s e a n d d e s i s t ” f r o m s u c h p r a c t i c e . T h e P E L R B a f f i rm e d th e 9 hearing exam iner’ s decision and order. 10 { 7} The D epartm ent appealed the PE LRB’ s decision to district court, ar guin g that 11 the decision was n ot in accordance with l aw . S pecifically , the D epartm ent argued that 12 the decision conflicts with myriad s tatutes—includ ing Section 10 -7E- 19(A); N MSA 13 1978 , S ec t i o n 10-7E-6 (2003); and NewMexico’ s Tr ansportation Ser vices Ac t 14 (T SA ), NMS A 1978, §§ 15-8-1 to -11 (1994, as am ended throug h 201 3)—as we ll as 15 the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n’ s A nti -D ona tio n C lause , N

. M. Co nst

. a rt

. IX , § 14. T he 16 dis tr ic t c ourt a ff

irm ed the PE L RB ’ s orde r an d a dopt ed the f ind ing s and c onc lus ion s 17 of the hearing exam iner. In its m otion for r econsideration, the De partm ent reiterated 18 its previou s argum ents and also argued that the decision overlook ed and is in conflict 19 with various provis ions o f the N ew Mexico Tort Claim s Ac t, NMSA 1978 , §§ 41-4-16

1 t o -3 0 (1 9 7 6 , a s amen d ed t h ro u g h 2 0 1 5 ). Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d en i ed t h e D ep ar t m en t ’s 2 m oti on, a nd the D ep ar tm en t t im el y

f ile d f or aw ri t of c er tio rari und er

Ru le 12- 505 3 N MR A , w hic h th is C ourt gr an te d. 4 DISC US SION 5 { 8} The ultim ate question we m ust answer in this case is whether the PE LRB er red 6 in co nc lud ing tha t the D ep ar tm en t co m

m itt ed a pr ohi bit ed

pr ac tic e by

not a llo w ing 7 em plo y ee of fi ci al s to use a sta te ve hic le to at te nd a po lic y r ev ie wm ee tin g c al le d by 8 the D ep ar

tm en t w he n m an ag em en t em plo y ee s w er e al low ed to use astate ve hic le to 9 atte nd the sa m e m ee tin g. 10 Stand ard of R eview 11 { 9} “ Upon a grant of a petition for w rit of cer tiorari under Rule 12-505, this Court 12 co nduc ts the sa m e re vie wof a n a dm ini str at ive or de r as the dis tr ic t c ourt si tti ng i n it s 13 appellate capac ity , while at the sam e ti m e d eterm ining whether the district court erre d 14 in the first appeal.” Ci tyof A lbu que rq ue v. AFSCME Co unc il 18 e

x re l. P uc ci ni , 15 2011 -N MC A -0 21, ¶

8, 149 N

. M. 379 , 249 P

. 3d 5 10 ( al te ratio n, int erna l qu ota tio n 1 6 mar k s , a n dc i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )

. “ I n r e v i e w i n g a n a d mi n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n , we ap p l y a 17 whole-re cord standard of review .” To wn & Co untry F ood Sto res, In c. v. N.M. Re g. 18 & Licensing Dep’t , 201 2- N MC A -0 46, ¶ 8, 277 P

. 3d 4 90 ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks 19 an d c itatio n om itt ed ). “ W e ind ep en de ntl y r ev ie wthe e nti re r ec or d of the7

1 adm inist ra tive hearing to determ ine whether the [PE LRB] ’ s decision was arbitrar y 2 and capricious, not supp orted by subst antial evidence, or otherwise not in acc ordance 3 wi t h law .” P uc ci ni , 2 0 1 1

- N M C A

- 0 2 1 , ¶ 8 ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n m a rk s a n dc i t a tio n 4 om itted). “ When review ing an adm inistrative agency ’ s c onclusi ons of law, we review 5 de novo .” Id

. W e “ ap ply

ade nov o st an da rd

of r ev ie wto [a dm ini st rat iv e] r uli ngs 6 regarding statutory

construction .” Albuquerqu e B ernalill o Cty. W ater U til. Auth. v

. 7 N. M

. P ub. R eg . Co m m ’n (

ABCW UA ), 2010 -N MS C- 013, ¶ 50, 148 N

. M. 21, 229 P

. 3d 8 49 4. We “ wil l g en eral ly deferto an ag en cy ’s r e a s o n a b l e in te rp ret at io n o f it s o wn 9 am bigu ous regulatio ns, especially wher e t he subject of the regulation im plicates 10 a ge nc y

e xp e rt i se [. ] ” Id

. ¶ 51 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 11 H ow ev er , w e ar e “ not boun d by the ag en cy ’ s in te rp re ta tio n, ” an d w e m ay sub sti tut e 12 our ow n “ ind ep en de nt j udgm en t f or that of the ag en cy if

the a ge nc y ’ s in te rp re ta tio n 13 is unreasonable or unl aw ful.” Id

. (o m iss ion , int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n 14 om itted). 15 The P EBA : Inte nt and Pr ohibited Pr actices 16 { 10} The L egislature declare d the purpos e o f th e PEBA as b eing “ [(1)] to guarantee 1 7 p ub l i c e m

p l o y e e s t h e r i g h t t o o r g a n i z e a n d b ar g a i n c o l l e c t i v e l y w i t h th ei r 18 em ploy ers[;] [(2)] to promot e harm onio us and coop erative r elationshi ps between 19 publ ic e m

plo y er s and publ ic em

plo y ee s[ ;] an d [ (3 )] to pr ote ct the pub lic int er es t by8

1 en sur ing , a t a ll tim es , the or de rl y ope ratio n and f

uncti oni ng o f the state a nd i ts 2 pol iti ca l su

bdi vis ion s. ” N MS A 1978 , § 10- 7E -2 (2 003)

. Co nsi ste nt w iththe se co nd 3 and third stated pu rposes, the L egislature provided that it shall be a prohib ited 4 practice for a public em ploy er to “ discrim inate against a publi c em ploy ee w ith regard 5 to t er m s and c ondi tio ns o f em

plo ym en t be ca

use of the e m

plo y ee ’ s m em

be rs hip in a 6 la bor or ganiz at ion [. ] ” Se ct ion10- 7E -1 9( A ). T re at ing tw o si m ilarl y sit ua te d pe rs ons 7 dif fe re ntl y on t he ba sis of

a n id en tif

ia ble c ha ra ct er ist ic is the ha llm ar k of 8 di sc riminat io n. Cf

. N MS A 197 8, § 28 -1 -7 (2 004) ( de sc ri bin g an “ unl aw fu l 9 discrim inatory

practice ” u n d er the NewMexico Hum an Rights Act as being wher e 10 an em ploy er takes an em

ploy m ent action “ because of” a par ticular trait, such as race , 11 ag e, r el igi on, or

se x) ; Griego v. Olive r , 201 4- N MS C- 003, ¶ 27, 316 P. 3d 8 65 12 (e xpl ai nin g th at

un de r eq ua l pr ote ct iona na ly sis , the f ir st que sti on t o a sk i n 1 3 de t e rm i n i n g t h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i t y o f a d i s c r i m i n a t o ry s t a t e l a w i s “ w h e t h e r the 14 legislat i o n cr eates a class of sim ilarly situated ind ividu als and treats them 15 dif fe re ntl y ”) ; B urc h v

. F

oy , 195 7- N MS C-01 7, ¶ 10 , 62 N

. M. 219 , 308 P

. 2d 1 99 16 (discussin g “ the requirem ent s of legal and constitu tional classification, i.e. , e qual 17 pr ote ct ionof

the law [, ] ” ex pla ini ng tha t in or de r to be le ga l, ac la ssi fi catio n “ m ust be 18 founded u pon real differ ences of situation or cond ition , which bear a j ust and prop er 19 re la tio n to the atte m

pte d cl as sif

ic at ion , an d re as ona

bly j ust if y a dif fe re nt r ule [, ] ” an d9

1 concludin g that “ [i] f persons under the sam e circ um stances and conditi ons are treated 2 dif fe re ntl y , the re is arb itr ar

y dis cr im ina tio n, a nd n ot c la ssi fi catio n” ). U nde r Se ct ion 3 10- 7E -1 9( A ), uni on m em be rs hip is the ide nti fi ab le ch ar ac te ri sti c tha t m ay not se rv e 4 as the ba sis f

or tr eatin g an othe rw ise sim ilarl y sit ua te d publi c em

plo y ee dif

fe re ntl y 5 wit h re sp ect to th e te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f hi s o r he r em pl oym en t. 6 { 11} He re, the uncontrov erted fa cts are that the De partm ent treated state e m ploy ees 7 who w ere m em

bers of the union (Blair and Molina) differe ntly than a st ate em ploy ee 8 w ho w as not

( Cr uz ) by a llo w ing the non -unio n e m plo y ee to use astate ve hic le to 9 atte nd the sa m e D ep ar

tm en t- ca lle d m ee tin g for w hic h the unio n em plo y ee s’ r eque st 10 to u se astate ve hic le ha d bee n deni ed

. T he D ep ar tm en t has ne ve r ar gue d th at it did 11 not treat Blair an d M o l i n a d iffer ently based on their unio n status b ut inst ead offe rs 12 a variety

of possib le rea sons why

its condu ct does not vi olate Section 10-7E-19(A ). 13 W e co nsi de r ea chpr of fe re d ba sis in tur

n. 14 1. Wheth er A nti-U nion A nimus Is Req uired to Establish D iscrim inatory 15 Treatm ent Un der Sect ion 10-7E-19(A) of the PE BA 16 { 12} T he D ep ar

tm en t f ir st ar gue s th at

w e shou ld i nte rp re t S ec tio n 10 -7 E -1 9( A ) in 17 ac co rd an ce w ith how fe de ra l ca se s inte rp re t a sim ilar— but not ide nti ca l—

pr ovi sio n 18 of t he N a t i on a l L abo r R e l a t i on s A c t ( N L RA ) , 29 U

. S

. C

. § 15 8( a ) ( 3) (2015). 19 A cc or din g to the D ep ar tm en t, thi s ap pr oa ch le ad s to the c onc lus ionthat the re c an not 20 be dis cr im ina tor

y tr eatm en t w ithr eg ar d to te rm s and condit ion s of e m plo ym en t10

1 absent evidence o f an t i -union anim us or a reta liatory

m otive for taking a particular 2 ac tio n. A FS CM E poi nts out that the fe de ra l ca se s c ite d by the D ep ar

tm en t r el at e to 3 a pr ovi sio n inthe N L RAthat tra ck s S ec tio n 10 -7 E -1 9( D ) of th e PE BA , not 4 Subsec t i onA , a nd

t hato ur L e gi sl a tur e a do pt e d S ub se c t i onA a s a n a dd ition al 5 pr ote ct iona ga inst di sc rim ina tio n e ve n w he re the re is no e vid en ce of a nti -unio n 6 anim us or retaliati on against em ploy ees w ho engage in un ion activiti es. W e agre e 7 wit h AFS CME. 8 { 13} By its pl ai n langua ge , S ec tio n 10 -7 E -1 9( A ) re qui re s on ly that the 9 dis cr im ina tor

y tr eatm en t be “ be ca

use of the e m plo y ee ’ s m em

be rs hip in a la

bor 1 0 o rg an i za t i o n ” i n o rd erfo r s u ch t re at m en tt o co n s t i tu t e a p ro h i b i t ed p ra ct i ce . We 11 de cl ine to re ad

int o th e sta tut e a re qui re m en t tha t the re be e vid en ce that anti -unio n 12 anim us was the underly ing m otivatio n for a p u b lic em ploy er’ s discrim inatory 13 tr e a t m en t o f a p ub li c em pl oyee in ord er t o c on st it ut e a v io la ti on of S ect io n 1 0- 7E14 19 (A). See Starko, Inc. v. N. M. Hum an Servs. De p’t , 201 4- N MS C- 033, ¶

46, 333 P

. 3d 15 947 (“ N ewMe xic o courts hav e long hono re d [the ] sta tut or y co m m an d [that the te xt 16 of astatut e or ru le is the pr im ar y , es se nti al sour ce of

it s m eanin g] thr oughappl ic at ion 17 of the plain m eaning r ule, recognizing that when a statute c ontains language which 18 is c le ar

a nd una m

big uous, we m

ust giv e ef fe ct to tha t l an gua ge a nd r ef ra in f ro m 19 furthe r sta tut or

y int er pr et at ion

. ” (a lte ratio n, int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n11

1 om itted)). The sim

ple fact that the decision d i s cr i m inates against an em ploy ee 2 be ca use of his or he r uni on s ta tus is suf

fi ci en t t o c onst itu te dis cr im ina tio n—and a 3 p r o h ib it edpra ct ic e—u nd er Se ct io n 1 0- 7E-1 9( A). Se e id. ; N o r th e r n N

. M

. F e d

. of 4 E duc

. E m ps. v . No rth ern N

. M

. Co lle ge , 201 6- NMCA- 036, ¶ 18, 369 P

. 3d 2 2 5 (explaining that the questio n pr es en t ed by the prohibit ed practices c om plaint was 6 w h e t h e r

t h e e mp l o ym e n t

- r e l a t e dd e c i s i o n s “ w e r e mo t i v a t e db y d i s c r i mi n a t o ry or 7 re ta liator

y r ea sons ” (e m

pha sis a dde d) ). T hus, A FS CM E wa s no t r equir ed to pr ove 8 tha t the D ep ar

tm en t’ s a ct ionw as r et al ia tor y or m ot iva te d by

a nti -unio n anim

us i n 9 or de r fo r th e he ar ing e xa m ine r to c onc lud e tha t the D ep ar tm en t ha d e nga ge d ina 10 prohibi ted practice. 11 2. Wheth er t he 2005 CBA ’s Silenc e R egarding U se of a State Veh icle by 12 Em pl oye e Of

fi ci als Is D isp osi ti ve as t o W he th er S ec ti on 10- 7E -1 9( A ) Was 13 Violated 14 { 14} The D e part m e nt a l so r e l i e s on t he abs e nc e of a pr ov i si on i n t he CBA 15 es ta bli shi ng an e xpr es s r igh t of e m plo y ee of fi ci al s to use state ve hic le s to a tte nd 16 la bor -m an ag em en t m ee tin gs t o de fe nd its ac tio ns. T he D ep ar tm en t arg ue s th at

“ [t ] he 17 use of state ve hic le s do es not

f oll owf ro m the barg aine d- fo r ri ght

to be pa id f

or 18 ce rt ai n [ uni on] a ct ivi ti es, pr ec ise ly be ca use the 200 5 C BAdoe s no t a lso c onf er the 19 right to us e state vehicles.” But whether the CBAprovides a rig ht to use state 20 vehicles is sim

ply the beginni ng of the inqu iry , not the end because while parties m ay12

1 ag re e to s uppl em en t st at uto ry r igh ts unde r a co ntr ac t, the publ ic pol ic y of f re ed om to 2 co nt ract y ie ld s when a co nt ract ’s te rm s con tra ve ne ex is ti ng law. Se e A ca ci a M ut. L ife 3 In s. Co

. v. A m . G en . L ife I ns. Co

. , 1990 -N MS C- 107, ¶ 1, 111 N

. M. 106 , 802 P

. 2d 1 1 4 (“ The r ight to contract is j ealously gua rded by

[N ewMexico courts] , but if a 5 co ntr a c tu a l c l au s e c l e a r l y c o n t r a v e n e s ap o s i t i v e r u l e o f l a w , i tc a n n o tbe 6 en fo rc ed [. ] ”)

. I n othe r w or ds, the ab se nc e of a CB A pr ovi sio n all ow ing use of a sta te 7 ve hic le is m er el y ev id en ce that the part ie s di d no t r ea chabarg ai ne d- fo r ag re em en t 8 to a llo w suc h use by ri ght an d es ta bli she s nothin g m or e than the D ep ar tm en t di d no t 9 breac h t he t e rm s of

t he C B A

. I td oe s no ts om e ho we i t he r w a i ve t he g e ne ral 10 protections o f the PE BA or establish that the De partm ent did no t violate its statu tory 11 oblig ations un der Se ction 10 -7E- 19(A). 12 3. Wheth er Em ployee Off icials At tend ing a Policy Review Mee ting With the 13 D ep ar tm en t A re A ct in g In F ur th er an ce of Of fi ci al S ta te Bu sin es s 14 { 15} T he D ep ar

tm en t pri m ar ily de fe nds its dis pa rate tr eatm en t of Bl ai r an d M oli na 15 by arguing that their attendance at the policy reviewm eeting was not “ in furtherance 1 6 o f o ff i ci al s t at e b u s i n es s ” b u twa s ra t h erfo r t h e p u rp o s e o f f u rt h er i n g t h e “un i o n ’s 17 ag en da” and “ uni on b usi ne ss. ” T he D ep ar tm en t r el ie s onstate statut or y a nd 18 reg ul at ory

law— sp eci fic al ly the TSA, an d it s com pa ni on reg ul at io ns , 1.5 .3 NMAC 19 (10/28/ 1985 , a s am ended throug h 7/30 /201 5)—to supp ort its contenti on that it was 20 prohibi ted from

allowing Blair and Molina to use a state vehicle to attend the pol icy13

1 reviewm eeting. In e ffec t, the D epartm ent’ s argum ent, if correc t, w ould establish th at 2 the D ep ar

tm en t tre at ed

Bl ai r an d M oli nadiffe ren tly not “ be ca use of ” the ir uni on 3 sta tus ( a pr ohi bit ed

r ea son fo r dis cr im ina tin g a ga in st the m ) but be ca use of the ir 4 ineligib ility to drive a st ate vehi cle (a non-prohi bited reason). W e consider whether 5 t h e T SA o r 1 .5 .3 .7 NM AC p ro v i d es a s u ff i ci en tb as i s ju s t i fyi n g t h e D ep ar t m en t ’s 6 ac tio ns. 7 Ne w Mexico S tatut ory and R egulatory Law Re garding Use of State Ve hicles 8 { 16} T he T SAde fi ne s “ sta te ve hicle” as “ anauto m obi le , van, spo rt -u til ity tr uc k, 9 pic kup tr

uc k or oth er ve hic le

. . . use d by

astate a ge nc y

to tr an sp or t pa sse nge rs or 10 property [. ] ” Se cti o n 1 5 -8-3(G ). W ith respect to use of state vehicles, the T SA 11 provides th at the T ransportati o n Se rv ices D ivisio n of the GS D “ shall adopt rules 12 go ve rn in g t he us e o f ve hi cl es us edby stat e ag en ci es or b y ot he r pe rs on s . . . , 13 includi ng driver requirem ents and respons ibiliti es, [ and] under what c ircum stances 14 so m eo ne can be ass ig ne d a st at e v eh i c l e o n a pe rm an en t o r se m ip erm an en t b as is .” 15 Section 15-8-6(A) . B y GS D- prom

ulgated regulation , in order to be an “ auth o ri zed 16 driver” of a

state vehicle, one m

ust m eet four gener al criter ia: (1) be a st ate em ploy ee, 17 (2 ) hol d a va lid dr ive r’ s lic en se , (3 ) ha ve co m ple te d a def

en siv e dr ivi ng c our se , a nd 18 (4 ) be usi ng the ve hic le “ in f urthe ranc e of

of fi ci al state bus ine ss[.] ” 1. 5. 3. 7( F) (1 ) 19 NMA C.14

1 { 17} Ne ither the T SAnor regulations p rom ulgated thereunder defines or provides 2 further gu i danc e r e gar di ng w hati s m e a nt b y t he p hr a se “ i n f

ur t he r a nc e o f

o f f i c ial 3 state busin ess.” Secr etary Jaram illo acknowledged that th ere is “ no official 4 definition ” of w hat is consid ered “ official state busi n es s” and explained that GSD 5 co nsi de rs w he the r a pr opos ed use of a sta te ve hic le is “ in f urthe ranc e of

of fi ci al state 6 busi ne ss” on a

c as e- by -c as e ba sis a nd tha t the de te rm ina tio n is he av ily f ac t- dr ive n. 7 He did no t categorically reje ct t h e p ossib ility

of use of a state vehicle by em ploy ee 8 of fi ci al s, ex pla ini ng tha t w he the r use of ave hic le is ap pr opr ia te de pe nds on the ty pe 9 of m ee tin g and the f

ac ts o f ea chc as e. S ec re tary Jaram ill o di d in cl ude m ee tin gs t o 10 dis cu ss “ m atte r[s] o f co m m on i nte re st” a m ong tho se that are “ in f urthe ranc e of 11 official state busin ess” but did not af firm atively opin e that the January 2009 policy 12 re vie wm ee tin g w as aqua lif y ing m ee tin g. T he D ep ar tm en t f ai ls t o arg ue howthe 13 phr as e shou ld b e co nstru ed , ins te ad sum m ar ily c onc lud ing —w ith out

e xpl an at ionor 14 citation to authority

—that “ unio n busin ess” can never b e “ in furtherance of official 15 sta te bus i n es s” be ca

use “ uni on b usi ne ss” a nd “ sta te bus ine ss” a re inh er en tly m utu al ly 16 exclusive. Bec ause resolution of this case turns o n whether Blair and Molin a w ere 17 eligible to u se a state vehicle depending on whether they we re acting “ in furtherance 18 of off ic ia l s ta te bu si ne ss ,” we m us t fi rs t d is cern wha t i s mea n t by tha t p hr as e. See 19 Fit zh ugh v. N. M

. D ep ’t of La bor , 199 6- N MS C- 044, ¶ 22, 122 N

. M. 173 , 922 P

. 2d15

1 555 (e xpl ai nin g th at anappe llate c ourt “ m ay a lw ay s su bst itu te it s in te rp re ta tio n of the 2 la w f orth a t o f t h e a g e n c y ’ s b e c au s e i t i s t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e c o u rt s t o i n t e r p r e t t he 3 la w” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 4 { 18} When a p hrase in a regulatio n is am bigu ous and not further defined, w e “ turn 5 to the dictio nary

to ascertain its com

m on and ordi n ary

m eaning.” ABCW

UA , 201 0- 6 N MS C- 013, ¶

82. T he te rm “ furthe ranc e” m eans “ [t ] he a ct or pr oc es s of

f ac ili ta tin g 7 the pr ogr es s of

som ethin g or

of m ak ing it

m or e lik el y

to oc cur; pr om oti on o r 8 advancem ent.” B lac k’

s L awD ic tio nary790 ( 10th e d. 201 4)

. T he te rm “ of fi ci al ” 9 m eans “ [a] utho rized o r approved bya proper a utho rity .” Id

. 1259 . T he term 1 0 “ b u s i n es s ” m ea n s “ t h at wi t h wh i ch o n e i s p ri n ci p al l y an ds er i o u s l y co n ce rn ed [. ]” T he 11 R ando m H

ouse D ic tio naryof

t h eE n g l i s h L angu age 201 ( una

br idg ed e d. 197 1)

. T hus, 12 one is ac tin g “ in f

urthe ranc e of

of fi ci al state bus ine ss” w he n on e is fac il itatin g th e 13 progress of or advancing a m atter—authorized or approved b y the state—with w hich 14 the state is pr inc ipa lly an d se ri ousl y co nc er ne d. W e em

pha siz e tha t w e ex am ine the 15 fa ct s un de r thi s te st o n ac as e- by -c as e ba sis

. 16 A na lys is 17 { 19} The D epartm ent effe ct i v el y concedes that the January 2009 policy

review 18 m ee tin g in vol ve d “ of

fi ci al state bus ine ss” a s e vid en ce d by its de ci sio n to a llo wCr uz 19 to dri ve astate ve hic le to the m ee tin g. I t arg ue s, how ev er , that “ [unio n]16

1 re pr es en ta tiv es w ho a tte nd a m ee tin g onbe ha lf o f [th e uni on] a re not on s ta te 2 busi ne ss in th e sa m e se nse a s [ D ep ar tm en t] e m

plo y ee s who a tte nd the m ee tin g on 3 be ha lf of [ the D ep ar

tm en t] a s the m an ag er ia l e m plo y er . ” T he D ep ar

tm en t c ont en ds 4 tha t e m plo y ee of fi ci al s “ ha ve dif

fe re nt s ta tus a nd p ur

pose s ina tte ndi ng the m ee tin g 5 ev en if the re is a share d de sir e to r ea cha gr ee m en t. ” A cc or din g to the D ep ar tm en t, 6 em plo y ee of

fi ci al s’ pur

pose in atte ndi ng l ab or -m an ag em en t m ee tin gs i s to 7 “ ad voc at [e ] fo r th e u ni on ’s po si ti on .” W e fi nd th e Dep art m en t’s ar gum ents u nava ili ng 8 for tw o reasons: first, the r ecord contradicts the De partm ent’ s contentio ns that 9 em plo y ee of fi ci al s att en d polic y re vie w m ee tin gs only “ on beh al f of the uni on” a nd 10 ar e m er el y

“ advoc at ing f

or the uni on’ s posit ion ” at tho se m ee tin gs; a nd s ec ond, the 11 D ep ar tm en t’ s su m

m ar y c onc lus ionthat “ [u ] nio n bu sin es s is not state bus ine ss, a nd 1 2 v i c e v e r s a ” r e s t s o n af a l s e d i c h o t o my . 13 { 20} T he D e p ar

tm e n t ’ s c o n t e n t i o ntha t c or re ct ion s of

fi ce r an d A FS CM E L oc al 342 2 14 sta te w ide pr es ide nt L ee O rt eg a “ te sti fi ed tha t he att en ds [ pol ic y r ev ie w ] m ee tin gs o n 15 be ha lf of A FS CM E [] on ‘ uni on t im e’ ” is ch erry -p icke d e vid en ce that no t on ly 16 vi ol at es ou r ap pe ll at e ru le s, see Ru le 12-31 8( A )( 3) N MR A ( re qui ri ng tha t a

party 17 challenging the sufficiency of evidence “ include[] the subs tance of the ev idence 1 8 b e a r i n g o n t h e p r o p o s i t i o n ” ) , b u ti mp r o p e r l y c h a r a c t e r i z e s Or t e g a ’s t e s t i mo n y. 19 Ortega, in fact, resisted adoptin g the Depar tm ent’ s concluso ry

labeling schem e that17

1 atte m pte d to pig eo nhol e the part ie s’ int er es ts a s e vid en ce d by the f oll ow ing 2 exchange: 3 Q : A s sta te pr es ide nt [ of L oc al 342 2] , w he n y ou are w orkin g w ith 4 m an ag em en t i s it not tr ue that y ou’ re w eari ng y our A FS CM E ha t? 5 A : I’ m w eari ng m y —I ’ m tr y ing to he lp oth er pe opl e. I m ean, it ’ s no t 6 an‘ A FS CM E ’ thi ng, it ’ s no t—

. Y ou know , if y ou c anse ttl e it 7 with th e D ep ar tm en t be fo re it

ge ts t o be a n is sue , it ’ s, y ou 8 kn ow— 9 Q : A s pr es ide nt [ of A FS CM E L oc al 342 2] , a re y ou n ot f urthe ri ng the 10 ag en da of AFS CME? 11 A : I’ m

f urthe ri ng the a ge ndaof

the c or re ct ion s of

fi ce rs . 12

. . . . 13 Q: You j ust testified that y ou’r e re presenting th e corr ectio nal 14 of

fic ers . Yo u’re rep res en ti ng th em un de r th e g ui se of AFS CME, 15 tho ugh, c or re ct ? 16 A : Y eah, I gue ss, y eah. 17

. . . . 18 Q : Whe n y ou g o to m an ag em en t m ee tin gs o r pol ic y re vie w s, isn ’ t i t 19 true y ou’r e on unio n tim e? 20 A : Y es . 21 Q: You’ re not on state t im e. You’ re no t on regular wor k hou r tim e, y ou’r e 22 on unio n ti m e, c or re ct ? 23 A: W ell, w e’ re getting paid bythe state, but they call it ‘ unio n tim e’ 24 fo r tr ac kin g purp ose s.18

1 The D epar t m en t relies heavily on bot h this test im ony

and that of Cruz and Perez , 2 which sum

m arily concluded that employ ee off icials who are on “ unio n tim e” ar e 3 “ co nduc tin g un ionbus ine ss” a nd, thu s, cannot be f urthe ri ng o ff

ic ia l st at e busi ne ss. 4 H ow ev er , the D ep ar

tm en t f ai ls to cit e any au tho ri ty to suppo rt it s arg um en t tha t any 5 ac tiv ity that i s a dm ini str at ive ly c ode d a s “ uni on t im e” is cate goric al ly not “ in 6 furtherance of officia l state busin ess.” Se e In re A dopt ion of D oe , 198 4- N MS C- 024, 7 ¶ 2, 100 N

. M. 764 , 676 P

. 2d 1 329 (e xpl ai nin g th at w he re a pa rty

c ite s no auth or ity 8 to s u p p ort an argum ent, the appellate c ourts m ay assum e no such autho rity exists). 9 Furthe rm or e, the te sti m ony a nd l ab el s onw hic h th e D ep ar tm en t r el ie s fa il to a ddr es s 1 0 th e u l t i m a t e qu e s t i o n i n t h i s c a s e : w h e t h e r B l a i r a n d M o l i n a ’ s a t t e n d a n c e a t t he 11 m eeting and participation in the d i s cu ssion regar ding proposed p olicy changes 12 advanced or fa ci lit at ed the pr ogr es s ( i. e. , w as in furthe ranc e) of the D ep ar

tm en t 13 im plem enting it s propos ed policy chan ges (official state busin ess). It is to that 14 que sti on tha t w e nowtur n. 15 { 21} W e begin by

notin g that the ty

pe of m eet i n g fo r which state vehicle use was 1 6 r e qu e s t e di n t h i s c a s e wa s a p o l i c y re v i e wmee t i n g t h a twa s h e l da tas t a t e f a c i l i t y, 17 convened bym anagem ent, and attended on ly by state em ploy ees. Cruza c kn ow ledged 18 tha t un de r the CB A , suc h m ee tin gs are r equir ed to be he ld whe n m an ag em en t 19 pr opos es c ha nge s to pol ic ie s a ff ec tin g th e D ep ar

tm en t’ s f ac ili tie s inor de r to “ al low19

1 the unio n the oppo rtunity to c omm ent on [ the propos ed changes] .” Represe ntatives 2 of both m an ag em en t and the uni on are r equir ed to atte nd pe r the CB A

. A nd b ec au se 3 propos ed changes affe ct the D epartm ent’ s facilities arou nd the state—in Santa Fe, 4 L as Cr uc es, Lo s Luna s, S pr ing er , G rants , a nd R osw el l— ane m plo y ee of fi ci al f ro m 5 each f acility is required to attend and provi de inpu t. Im portantly , unt il such tim e that 6 the part ie s e ith er

a gr ee to th e propos ed

pol ic y c ha nge s or

barg ai n to im

pa sse , the 7 De partm ent cannot im

plem ent the propos ed changes. Additionally , O rtega testified 8 tha t po lic y

r ev ie wm ee tin gs p ro m ote c oope rativ e rel at ion shi ps b et w ee n la bor a nd 9 m anagem ent, that the parties “ g[e] t a lot of stuff settled” at such m eetings, and that 1 0 t h e m ee t i n g s en h an ce t h e o rd er l y o p er at i o n an dg o o dfu n ct i o n i n g o f t h e D ep ar t m en t ’s 11 fa ci lit ie s. T hus, the r ec or d in dic at es that po lic y r ev iew m eet ing s be ne fi t the 12 D ep ar tm en t i n th at the y , at the ve ry le as t, a llo wthe D ep ar

tm en t t o c om

ply w iththe 13 requirem ents of the CBAin order to be able to im plem ent propos ed policy

changes 14 an d, pe rhap s m or e si gn ifi can tl y , pro m ot e th e h arm oni ous an d c oope ra tiv e re latio nshi p 15 be twee n e m

pl oyer an d e m

pl oyees c on te m

pl at edby the PEBA. 16 { 22} Beca

use a m eeting between m anagem ent and em ploy ee officials is a required 1 7 s t ep i n t h e p ro ce s s o f impl emen t i n g o p er at i o n al ch an g es at t h e D e p a r t men t ’s 18 facilities, and because the D ep ar t m ent cannot im plem ent its propo sed changes 1 9 w i t h o u tf

i r s tc o n f e rr i n g w i t h e m

p l o y e e o f f i c i a l s , i tf o l l o w s t h a te m

p l o y e e of fi ci al s20

1 who attend policy

review m eetings are integral in facilitating the progress of m atters 2 af fe ct ing a nd of pr inc ipa l co nc er n to the St at e of N ew Me xic o, i. e. , the y a re a ct ing in 3 furtherance of officia l state busin ess. E ven assum i n g one of the outcom es of such 4 m ee tin gs i s th at

the part ie s a gr ee to m odi fy apr opos ed pol ic y ba se d onthe inp ut o f 5 em ploy ee off

icials and that the m odification “ benefits” the corre ctions officers that 6 the e m plo y ee of fi ci al s are re pr es en tin g, tha t does not ch an ge the fa ct tha t the m ee tin g 7 h as re s u l t ed i n t h e fu rt h er an ce o f o ff i ci al s t at e b u s i n es s . I n es s en ce , t h e D ep ar t m en t ’s 8 po s i t i o n i s that any

discussi on with em

ploy ee off

icials invol ving m atters that m ay 9 pr om ote the uni on’ s “ ag en da ” or that m ay res ul t in a be ne fi t t o th e uni on o r its 10 m em be rs c anne ve r be in furthe ranc e of of fi ci al state bus iness

. S uc h apos iti on i s 11 sim ply a t od ds w ithS ec tio n 10 -7 E -2 of the P E BA , w hic h e xpr es sly c ont em pla te s and 12 encourages the prom otion of “ cooperativ e relations hips b etwe en publi c em ploy ers 13 and publ ic em

ploy ees, ” i. e. , r elationshi ps wherein there exists the po ssibi lity —even 1 4 t h e p re fe re n ce

— o f mut u al b en ef i t s t o b o t h p ar t i es . We c o n cl u d e t h at t h e P ELR B’s 15 de term ina tio n th at

Bl ai r an d M oli naw er e ac tin g inf urthe ranc e of

of fi ci al state 16 busi ne ss b y

a tte ndi ng the January

200 9 polic y re vie w m ee tin g is ina cc or da nc e w ith 17 law , sup porte d by

sub stanti al ev ide nc e, an d wa s not arb itr ar y , c ap ri ci ous, or

a n a buse 18 of dis cr et ion

. W e furthe r co nc lud e tha t the P E L RB ’ s c onc om itant c onc lus ionthat the21

1 D ep ar tm en t c om

m itt ed apr ohi bit ed

pr ac tic e in v iol at ionof Se ct ion 10- 7E -1 9( A ) is 2 in acco rd an ce wi th law. 3 CON CLU SION 4 { 23} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e affi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ff irm an ce of

the 5 PE LRB’ s order. 6 { 24} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

7

____ ____ ______ __ __ __ __ __ ____ ____ _ 8 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e

9 WE CO NCUR:

10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 11 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e

12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 13 ST EP HE N G. F R EN C H, Ju dg e