This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 AFSCME NEW MEXICO COUNCIL 18, 2 ON BEHALF OF MAXINE VELASQUEZ, 3 Petitioner-Appellant, 4 v. No. 34,430 5
EXPO NEW MEXICO, 6 Respondent-Appellee. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Nancy J. Franchini, District Judge 9 Youtz &Valdez, P.C. 10 Shane C. Youtz 11 Stephen Curtice 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellant 14 Dina Eileen Holcomb 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellee 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 HANISEE, Judge. 192 {1} The Union appeals from a district c ourt decision refusing to vacate the 1 arbitrator’s ruling in this case. We issu ed a notice of proposed summary disposition 2 proposing to affirm on July 6, 2015. The Union filed a timely memorandum in 3 opposition, which we have duly considered. We remain unpersuaded that our initial 4 proposed disposition was incorrect, and we therefore affirm the district court. 5 DISCUSSION 6
{2} As set out in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we understand the 7 relevant facts to be as follows. The arb itration took place subsequent to a reduction 8 in force (“RIF”) by Employer that resulted in the layoff of a number of Union 9 members. [DS 2-3] The arbitrator found thata violation of the collective bargaining 10 agreement (“CBA”) had occurred, due to Employer’s failure to provide the Union 11 with all of the pre-RIF information to wh ich it was entitled. However, the arbitrator 12 refused to award any affirm ative relief to the Union or its members, such as 13 reinstatement or an award of back pay. [D S 2, 5] The Union argues that the arbitrator 14 exceeded the scope of his authority by ruling that no viable alternative plan existed to 15 the RIF. As the Union acknowledges, a district court’s review of an arbitrator’s 16 decision is limited in scope; th e court cannot simply review the merits of the decision 17 and substitute its own judgment for that of the arbitrator. NMSA 1978, § 44-7A-24(a) 18 (2001); Fernandez v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona, 1993-NMSC-035, ¶ 9, 115 N.M. 193 622, 857 P.2d 22 (decided under former but similar law) (holding that a district court 1 does not have the authority to review arbitr ation awards for either factual or legal 2 errors). The Union argues, however, that th e arbitrator exceeded his powers, which is 3 one of the statutory grounds provided fo r vacation of an arbitration award. See Section 4 44-7A-24(a)(4). 5
{3} In its docketing statement, the Union argue d that the arbitrator acted outside the 6 scope of his powers because he failed to fashion an appropriate remedy for the 7 violation of the CBA and because his decisi on that no viable alternative plan existed 8 was not “based upon the facts established by the testimony and the documents present 9 in the case.” [DS 11] In our notice of pr oposed summary disposition, we proposed to 10 find that the Union was simply attacking the sufficiency of the evidence supporting 11 the arbitrator’s decision, which is not a basis to vacate an arbitration award. See § 44- 12 7A-24(a); Fernandez . We therefore proposed to find th at the arbitrator acted within 13 the scope of his powers by analyzing the ev idence presented by the parties and coming 14 to the conclusion that no monetary relief su ch as reinstatement or back pay should be 15 awarded. [RP 39] 16
{4} In its memorandum in opposition, the Union maintains its argument that the 17 arbitrator was required by the terms of the agreement to provide “appropriate relief,” 18 and the relief in this case was not appropriate because there was no basis for the 194 arbitrator to believe that no alternatives existed to the R IF. The Union argues that the 1 arbitration award was based only on the financial renderings of the Agency, and the 2 Union was prevented from providing alternatives because it lacked necessary 3 information that the Agency failed to provi de. [MIO3] The Union further claims that 4 the Arbitrator’s speculation th at alternatives were not vi able demonstrates that the 5 decision was not based on the CBA. [MIO 3] 6
{5} We disagree. As we stated in our noti ce of proposed summary disposition, there 7 was evidence presented below to support th e arbitrator’s decision. The arbitrator 8 considered the following inform ation in determining that no viable alternatives existed 9 to the RIF, and that monetary remedies s hould therefore not be awarded as a result of 10 the violation of the CBA: (1) at the time of the RIF, Employer had carried forward a 11 $1.9 million deficit from previous fiscal year s, and had incurred a current loss of $2.4 12 million; and (2) Employer attempted to cu t expenses and increase revenues in a 13 number of ways prior to the RIF, incl uding increasing ticket and parking prices, 14 eliminating 24.5 vacant pos itions, reducing overtime hours, and eliminating events 15 that were incurring deficits rather thanearning money. [RP 38] Faced with this 16 evidence, the arbitrator ruled that no alternative other than layoffs was available to 17 Employer to even partially bridge the “massive operating gap” that was facing 185 Employer. [RP 39] We therefore reject th e Union’s argument that there was no basis 1 for the arbitrator’s determination that alternatives to the RIF did not exist. 2
{6} Additionally, the Union’s argument if it had received the information in a 3 timely manner it might have been able to propose a viable alternative to the RIF is not 4 persuasive because the Union did not identify to either the arbitrator or the district 5 court what that viable alternative might have been, even after having been provided 6 with the information it sought. [MIO 3-4] Additionally, according to the arbitrator, 7 prior to the RIF the Union was given, or otherwise had access to, most of the pertinent 8 information that would have been useful informulating a viablealternative. [RP 39] 9
{7} We therefore affirm the district court’s determination that the arbitrator did not 10 exceed his powers in this case and affirm. 11
{8} IT IS SO ORDERED

. 12

13 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 14

WE CONCUR: 15

16 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 176 1 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 2