2023 New Mexico Statutes › Chapter 10 - Public Officers and Employees › Article 9 - Personnel › Section 10-9-1 - Short title.

Chapter 10, Article 9 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Personnel Act".
History:
1953 Comp., § 5-4-28, enacted by Laws 1961, ch. 240, § 1; 2009, ch. 76, § 1.
ANNOTATIONS
Compiler's notes.
— The term "this act", referred to in this section, refers to Laws 1961, ch. 240, the provisions of which are presently compiled as 10-9-1 to 10-9-4, 10-9-8 to 10-9-10, 10-9-12, 10-9-13 and 10-9-15 to 10-9-17 and 10-9-20 to 10-9-25 NMSA 1978.
The 2009 amendment,
effective June 19, 2009, changed the reference to the act to the Chapter and Article of NMSA 1978.
Attorney general barred from raising defenses.
— Doctrine of offensive collateral estoppel barred the attorney general from raising as defenses to an action for a declaration of the validity of a collective bargaining agreement essentially the same defenses to essentially the same substantive contract provisions he raised at the district court level in a prior case involving identical subject matter.
Local 2839 of AFSCME v. Udall
, 1991-NMSC-017, 111 N.M. 432, 806 P.2d 572.
Collective bargaining authority.
— In New Mexico, there is an implied authority to bargain collectively in the public sector as an incident to the express grant of authority under the Personnel Act.
Local 2238 of AFSCME v. Stratton
, 1989-NMSC-003, 108 N.M. 163, 769 P.2d 76.
Application to nonexempt employees of retiree health care authority.
— Although the Retiree Health Care Act provides in Section 10-7C-7 NMSA 1978 that the retiree health care authority's board may "employ or contract for persons to assist it . . . and determine the duties and compensation of these employees," that authority does not conflict with the Personnel Act and, therefore, the Personnel Act applies to nonexempt employees of the agency. 1991 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 91-06.
Act preemptive of collective bargaining.
— Where the legislature has undertaken to act to regulate employment, such action preempts the authority of the state agency to engage in collective bargaining, and the purpose of the Personnel Act is inconsistent with the idea of collective bargaining. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-41 (overruling and withdrawing 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 71-96).
Rules for labor-management relations.
— Even if the legislature could delegate its power to make law concerning public sector collective bargaining, and even if it intended to do so in this act, it failed to do so properly, and the rules for labor-management relations promulgated by the personnel board are therefore void and a nullity, since the Personnel Act does not mention collective bargaining, much less any standards to guide the board in fashioning the RLMR. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-41,
overruled by
Local 2238 of AFSCME v. Stratton
, 1989-NMSC-003, 108 N.M. 163, 769 P.2d 76.
Rules constituting unlawful delegation of authority.
— The rules for labor-management relations promulgated by the personnel board unlawfully delegate the board's authority over personnel matters that the legislature has placed with the board. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-41,
overruled by
Local 2238 of AFSCME v. Stratton
, 1989-NMSC-003, 108 N.M. 163, 769 P.2d 76.
State land office.
— The state land office is presently subject to the Personnel Act. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-99.
Medical center covered by act.
— The Los Lunas state hospital and training school (now the Los Lunas medical center) is a state institution and it falls within the category of departments covered by the Personnel Act. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-80.
Agencies already with merit systems.
— Nothing in the Personnel Act indicates that agencies that have adopted merit systems are thereby exempted from the operation of the Personnel Act. 1960 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 60-229 (decided under former law).
Law reviews.
— For note, "Public Labor Disputes - A Suggested Approach for New Mexico," see 1 N.M.L. Rev. 281 (1971).
For comment, "Contemplating the Dilemma of Government as Speaker: Judicially Identified Limits on Government Speech in the Context of Carter v. City of Las Cruces," see 27 N.M.L. Rev. 517 (1997).