Opinion ID: 1379638
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Local's argument as to legal sufficiency

Text: The Local argues that, should we find the trial court erred on the question of collateral estoppel, we should nonetheless affirm the trial court's judgment as premised on the alternative basis for relief, namely, that the agreement does not violate the Personnel Act, board rules, or the RLMR. Because the board found that the agreement did not violate its own rules, the Local argues, we should give great deference to the board's determination. Yet, even if we do not accept the board's finding, the Local contends, by our own examination of the agreement we should find the agreement to be legally sufficient. The Local argues that provisions in the agreement pertaining to salary in actuality concern benefits or collateral compensation not excluded by the board's rules from allowable subject matter for collective-bargaining negotiation. As for the agreement's provisions pertaining to future appropriations, the Local points to RLMR 7(G) and our reading of that rule in Local 2238, where we said it is clear that collective bargaining agreements cannot commit future appropriations, [and thus rule 7(G)] can never be violated on the ground that an agreement seeks to commit funds for purposes other than those for which the legislature has appropriated the funds. 108 N.M. at 171, 769 P.2d at 84. The Local challenges the attorney general's contention that disputes over the agreement must be litigated, pointing to Article 27, Section 3(b) of the agreement, which provides that [t]he Department and the Union are governed by existing or future laws and the regulations of the appropriate authorities, including State Personnel Board rules and regulations   . Nor, in the Local's judgment, does the agreement expand the permissible scope of collective bargaining by including management employees in the bargaining unit. Article 1, Section 5 of the agreement, in the Local's estimation, properly excludes management personnel from the bargaining unit. That section states, `Management' is the Secretary of the Department and all department officials, supervisors, and other representatives of management who have been excluded from the appropriate collective bargaining unit. Finally, the Local contends that the agreement's provisions concerning leave do not conflict with the Personnel Act or board rules. In general, the Local argues that the agreement does not violate the principle discussed in Local 2238 to the effect that the board may not delegate to state agencies or employee unions the authority to enact rules or agreements on those matters expressly placed within the purview of the Board's rule-making authority, i.e., wages, hiring, termination of employment   . 108 N.M. at 169, 769 P.2d at 82. The Local construes the attorney general's challenge to the agreement as a means by which the attorney general seeks to achieve indirectly what he has not otherwise been able to achieve directly, namely, a thwarting of the collective-bargaining process in New Mexico as undertaken by public employees.