{ "id": 4362456, "name": "AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 18, AFL-CIO, LOCALS 1461, 2260, AND 2499, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "American Federation of State v. Board of County Commissioners", "decision_date": "2015-06-19", "docket_number": "No. 35,248; Docket No. 33,706", "first_page": "179", "last_page": "184", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "2015-NMCA-070" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "111 N.M. 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 715147 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/111/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "1990-NMCA-125", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 10" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2011-NMSC-018", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4250675 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/150/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "1997-NMCA-031", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 142263 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 24" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/123/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "456 U.S. 188", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6184756 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "196" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/456/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "941 F.2d 1339", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 11723838 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1360", "parenthetical": "quoting Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 196 (1982)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/941/1339-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 N.M. 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1588644 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/100/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "1983-NMSC-089", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 13" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 N.M. 414", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1557099 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/92/0414-01" ] }, { "cite": "1979-NMSC-005", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 7" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 P.3d 475", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2012-NMCA-044", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4188773 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 20" }, { "page": "\u00b6 23" }, { "page": "\u00b6 1" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/1/0614-01" ] }, { "cite": "2007-NMSC-044", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 3692987 ], "weight": 5, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 27" }, { "page": "\u00b6 27" }, { "page": "\u00b6 26" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/142/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "274 P.3d 108", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2012-NMSC-007", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4187930 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 11" }, { "page": "\u00b6 17" }, { "page": "\u00b6 18" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/1/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "1998-NMCA-008", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 17109 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 5" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/124/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 N.M. 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 715225 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/111/0495-01" ] }, { "cite": "1991-NMCA-013", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 49" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 P.3d 943", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2013-NMCA-012", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4191891 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/3/0265-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 779, "char_count": 14981, "ocr_confidence": 0.757, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.719567370958748e-08, "percentile": 0.29642963740357064 }, "sha256": "4a76c33101bd5f286ce7c53dc32dc91eb4aa52a9cf005a54170a05066ad3c76d", "simhash": "1:585fa4c34a80d793", "word_count": 2300 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:13:54.428467+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge", "WE CONCUR:", "JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge", "RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge" ], "parties": [ "AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 18, AFL-CIO, LOCALS 1461, 2260, AND 2499, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nFRY, Judge.\n{1} Plaintiffs, the exclusive bargaining representatives for unionized public employees of Bernalillo County, appeal the district court\u2019s order denying their request for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Board of County Commissioners of Bernalillo County. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Bernalillo County was not entitled to \u201cgrandfather\u201d status under the Public Employee Bargaining Act (PEBA), NMSA 1978, \u00a7 10-7E-26(A) (2003), and that they were therefore not required to adjudicate labor disputes before the Bernalillo County Labor-Management Relations Board (the Labor Board) because the structure in place for dispute resolution does not provide a fair tribunal for employees. Because we conclude that the County\u2019s dispute resolution procedures do not violate Plaintiffs\u2019 due process rights to a fair and impartial tribunal, we affirm.\nBACKGROUND\n{2} Section 10-7E-26(A) of the PEBA is typically referred to as the \u201cgrandfather clause,\u201d which exempts public employers who qualify from the PEB A\u2019s requirements. Section 10-7E-26(A) (\u201cA public employer other than the state that prior to October 1, 1991[,] adopted by ordinance, resolution[,] or charter amendment a system of provisions and procedures permitting employees to form, join[,] or assist a labor organization for the purpose of bargaining collectively through exclusive representatives may continue to operate under those provisions and procedures.\u201d); see also AFSCME, Council 18 v. City of Albuquerque, 2013-NMCA-012, \u00b6 10, 293 P.3d 943 (\u201c[T]he effect of grandfather clauses is to narrow, qualify, or otherwise restrain the scope of [a] statute or to remove from the statute\u2019s reach a class that would otherwise be encompassed by its language.\u201d (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Consistent with the text of the grandfather clause, our determination of whether a public employer is within the clause\u2019s purview focuses on whether \u201c(1) . .. a public employer [has in place] a system of provisions and procedures permitting employees to form, join[,] or assist a labor organization for the purpose of bargaining collectively through exclusive representatives and (2) . . . the public employer [adopted the system of procedures before] October 1, 1991.\u201d Id. \u00b6 8 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\n{3} At first glance, the County appears entitled to the protections of the grandfather clause. The Bernalillo County Labor-Management Relations Ordinances (LMRO) were enacted in 1975 with the purpose to \u201callow county employees to organize and bargain collectively with the county government.\u201d Bernalillo County, N.M., Ordinances \u00a7 2-201 (1975). Thus, having in place a system of procedures for collective bargaining well before 1991, the County appears to be a \u201cgrandfathered\u201d entity under the PEBA.\n{4} Plaintiffs\u2019 argument centers on the LMRO\u2019s dispute resolution procedures. The contested procedures for alleged violations of the LMRO\u2019s prohibited practices are found at Bernalillo County, N.M., Ordinances \u00a7 2-210 (1975). In the event there is an allegation that the County or an employee or employee organization has committed a prohibited practice violation, the Labor Board must hold a hearing. Id. \u00a7 2-210(f). Upon making its determination, the Labor Board \u201cshall request that the county commission enter an order against the party guilty of the violation.\u201d Bernalillo County, N.M., Ordinances \u00a7 2-211(a) (1975). The LMRO state that in entering the order, \u201c[t]he county commission is not bound to accept either the majority or minority report of the [Labor Board], but shall exercise independence based on the record and arguments presented before it.\u201d Id.\n{5} Plaintiffs petitioned the district court for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that these procedures were unfair to county employees. Plaintiffs sought to file employee complaints before the New Mexico Public Employee Labor Relations Board instead of the County\u2019s Labor Board. The district court denied their petition. Plaintiffs now appeal.\nDISCUSSION\nStandard of Review\n{6} We review a district court\u2019s denial of a claim for declaratory relief for abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Stratton v. Roswell Indep. Sch., 1991-NMCA-013, \u00b6 49, 111 N.M. 495, 806 P.2d 1085. \u201cAn abuse of discretion occurs when the district court\u2019s ruling is clearly against logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.\u201d Id. However, to the extent that Plaintiffs\u2019 arguments require this Court to engage in statutory construction, interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. See Morgan Keegan Mortg. Co. v. Candelaria, 1998-NMCA-008, \u00b6 5, 124 N.M. 405, 951 P.2d 1066. \u201cA grandfather clause will be construed to include no case not clearly within the purpose, letter, or express terms, of the clause.\u201d City of Albuquerque v. Montoya, 2012-NMSC-007, \u00b6 11, 274 P.3d 108 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Furthermore, \u201c[the appellate courts] review questions of constitutional law and constitutional rights, such as due process protections, de novo.\u201d N. M. Bd. of Veterinary Med. v. Riegger, 2007-NMSC-044, \u00b6 27, 142 N.M. 248, 164 P.3d 947.\nThe County\u2019s Dispute Resolution Procedures Do Not Violate Plaintiffs\u2019 Due Process Rights\n{7} Broadly stated, Plaintiffs\u2019 argument is that the County\u2019s dispute resolution procedures violate the employees\u2019 procedural due process rights to a fair and impartial tribunal because the county commission has a \u201cvested interest\u201d in the adjudication of the disputes. Plaintiffs argue that because the County does not have in place a system that facially operates to protect their collective bargaining rights, it does not have \u201ca system of provisions and procedures permitting employees to form, join[,] or assist any labor organization\u201d and is not entitled to grandfather status under Section 10-7E-26(A) of the PEBA.\n{8} On a more nuanced level, however, Plaintiffs\u2019 argument requires some parsing. We understand one prong of Plaintiffs\u2019 argument to be that because the county commission appoints the county manager, who serves in an advisory role to the county commission, the county commission effectively serves as both the legislative and executive branches of county government. Bernalillo County, N.M., Ordinances \u00a7 2-62 (1973, amended 2011), \u00a7 2-63 (1973); NMSA 1978, \u00a7 4-38-19(B) (1973). Therefore, according to Plaintiffs, it should be presumed that the county commission\u2019s interest in employment disputes \u201clie[s] in favor of managerial personnel and in conflict with the rights of employees.\u201d Second, because the county commission is not bound by any recommendations of the Labor Board in reviewing prohibited practice complaints, Plaintiffs characterize the county commission as sitting in \u201cunrestrained final judgment\u201d in regard to employee disputes. In considering these two contentions together, Plaintiffs argue that the system violates the employees\u2019 due process rights because it allows the county commission, with its interests aligned with management personnel, to be the final decision-maker on employee complaints.\n{9} \u201cThe Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from state action that leads to deprivations of liberty and property without due process of law.\u201d Los Chavez Cmty. Ass\u2019n v. Valencia Cnty., 2012-NMCA-044, \u00b6 20, 277 P.3d 475 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). \u201cProcedural due process requires a fair and impartial hearing before a trier of fact who is disinterested and free from any form of bias or predisposition regarding the outcome of the case.\u201d Riegger, 2007-NMSC-044, \u00b6 27 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). \u201cThe inquiry is not whether the [tribunal is] actually biased or prejudiced, but whether, in the natural course of events, there is an indication of a possible temptation to an average [person] sitting as a judge to try the case with bias for or against any issue presented to him.\u201d Reid v. N. M. Bd. of Exam 'rs of Optometry, 1979-NMSC-005, \u00b6 7, 92 N.M. 414, 589 P.2d 198. \u201cThese principles are equally applicable to administrative proceedings\u201d and are \u201ceven more relevant at the quasi-judicial level, where other trial-like rules of administrative proceedings are relaxed.\" Los Chavez, 2012-NMCA-044, \u00b6 23.\n{10} In considering Plaintiffs\u2019 claims of bias, we first emphasize the presumption that administrative adjudicators perform their duties with honesty and integrity. See Jones v. N. M. State Racing Comm\u2019n, 1983-NMSC-089, \u00b6 13, 100 N.M. 434, 671 P.2d 1145. That is to say that, in this context, we presume that the county commission\u2019s interest in reviewing the Labor Board\u2019s decision is to act fairly and with impartiality in making its determination. \u201cThe burden of overcoming the presumption of impartiality \u2018rests on the party making the assertion [of bias.]\u2019 \u201d Navistar Int\u2019l Transp. Corp. v. United States EPA, 941 F.2d 1339, 1360 (6th Cir. 1991) (quoting Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 196 (1982)). Furthermore, \u201cany alleged prejudice on the part of the decision[-]maker must be evident from the record and cannot be based on speculation or inference.\u201d Id.\n{11} The inherent bias or partiality of a given circumstance can often be sufficient to rebut the presumption that administrative adjudicators will properly perform their duties. For example, in Los Chavez, the fact that a board member of the Valencia County Commission was a first cousin to an applicant for a zoning change required the board member to recuse herself. 2012-NMCA-044, \u00b6 1. Although the presumption of bias between close relatives is constitutionally recognized in regard to judges, this Court saw no reason not to extend that presumption to administrative adjudicators. Id. \u00b6 23. Likewise, in Riegger, the Court held that the board\u2019s imposition of costs against a losing licensee for the hearing officer\u2019s time and the cost of the hearing room violated due process. 2007-NMSC-044, \u00b6 26. The Court stated that there was a reasonable probability, even absent evidence of actual bias or partiality, that the imposition of these costs could give a hearing officer the incentive to rule against the licensee in order to be fully compensated for his services. Id. \u00b6 30. Importantly, in both of these cases, there was some fact or circumstance that established a personal interest that could improperly influence the administrative adjudicator\u2019s ability to impartially decide the case. See Las Cruces Prof\u2019l Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces, 1997-NMCA-031, \u00b6 24, 123 N.M. 239, 938 P.2d 1384 (recognizing that \u201c[ojne who stands to gain or lose by a decision either way has an interest that may disqualify\u201d (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). In the present case, Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence suggesting the type of personal interest mentioned in Los Chavez and Riegger.\n{12} Plaintiffs rely on AFSCME v. Martinez, 2011-NMSC-018, 150 N.M. 132, 257 P.3d 952, to support their argument that the county commission\u2019s interests favor management personnel. In Martinez, our Supreme Court held, in relevant part, that allowing the governor to remove board members of the Public Employee Labor-Relations Board (PELRB) \u201cat any time and for any reason\u201d would be a violation of due process. Id. \u00b6 10. The Court emphasized that the PELRB directly adjudicates disputes involving the governor and her appointees and, therefore, the governor \u201cexerts subtle coercive influence over the PELRB.\u201d Id. \u00b6\u00b6 10-11.Thus, because the PELRB is \u201cempowered to make decisions that may adversely affect the executive branch,\u201d it would be a violation of due process \u201cif [the Court] conclude[d] that the members of the PELRB serve[d] at the pleasure of the [g]overn or.\u201d Id. \u00b6 11. Plaintiffs analogize the present case to the Martinez decision by arguing that the county commission\u2019s de facto exercise of executive power is similar to the governor\u2019s \u201cundue influence\u201d over the PELRB.\n{13} We are unpersuaded by Plaintiffs\u2019 argument. Although we remain mindful that the lines between governmental bodies at the county level are not as stark as those at other levels of government, Board of County Commissioners v. Padilla, 1990-NMCA-125, \u00b6 10, 111 N.M. 278, 804 P.2d 1097, we disagree with Plaintiffs\u2019 characterization of the county commission as effectively serving in a dual legislative/executive role such that its interest should be presumed to be in favor of management personnel. In Montoya, our Supreme Court rejected a similar presumption regarding the president of the Albuquerque City Council because the city\u2019s ordinances did not define the president\u2019s role as a managerial position and the ordinances referred to the city council as the \u201clegislative body of the city.\u201d 2012-NMSC-007, \u00b6 17 (internal quotaton marks and citation omitted). While the structure of Bernalillo County government differs in many respects from the City of Albuquerque\u2019s structure noted in Montoya, one important area of overlap is that the county commission, like the Albuquerque City Council, does not directly administer personnel management. See id. \u00b6 18; \u00a7 4-38-19(B); Bernalillo County, N.M., Ordinances \u00a7 2-98. Consistent with the county manager\u2019s oversight of county personnel, it is the county manager, like the mayor under Albuquerque\u2019s system, who selects the \u201cmanagement\u201d member of the Labor Board. Bernalillo County, N.M., Ordinances \u00a7 2-98(a), (b)(3); \u00a7 2-214(2) (1975); Montoya, 2012-NMSC-007, \u00b6 18. We therefore disagree with Plaintiffs that the level of oversight the county commission exercises over the county manager indicates an interest sufficient to presume that the county commission is biased in favor of management personnel.\n{14} In the absence of evidence establishing the reason why the county commission would be inclined to favor management personnel over employees, Plaintiffs have not met their burden to rebut the presumption that the county commission impartially performs its duties in reviewing employee complaints. Accordingly, we conclude that the County\u2019s dispute resolution procedures do not violate Plaintiffs\u2019 due process rights to a fair and impartial tribunal.\nCONCLUSION\n{15} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court.\n{16} IT IS SO ORDERED.\nCYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge\nWE CONCUR:\nJONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge\nRODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge", "type": "majority", "author": "FRY, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Youtz & Valdez, P.C.", "Shane C. Youtz", "Stephen Curtice", "James A. Montalbano", "Albuquerque, NM", "for Appellants", "Bernalillo County Legal Department", "Randy M. Autio, County Attorney", "Michael I. Garcia, Assistant County Attorney, Sr.", "Albuquerque, NM", "for Appellee" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Certiorari Granted, June 19, 2015,\nNo. 35,248\nIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO\nOpinion Number: 2015-NMCA-070\nFiling Date: March 23, 2015\nDocket No. 33,706\nAMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 18, AFL-CIO, LOCALS 1461, 2260, AND 2499, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.\nYoutz & Valdez, P.C.\nShane C. Youtz\nStephen Curtice\nJames A. Montalbano\nAlbuquerque, NM\nfor Appellants\nBernalillo County Legal Department\nRandy M. Autio, County Attorney\nMichael I. Garcia, Assistant County Attorney, Sr.\nAlbuquerque, NM\nfor Appellee" }, "file_name": "0179-01", "first_page_order": 195, "last_page_order": 200 }