Adams v. City of Albuquerque, 6099

• Decision Date: 21 January 1957
• Docket Number: No. 6099,6099
• Citation: 307 P.2d 792,62 N.M. 208,1957 NMSC 6
• Parties: Harry F. ADAMS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, A Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Felix ALDERETE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, A Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Frank A. CHAVEZ et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, A Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 792

307 P.2d 792

62 N.M. 208

Harry F. ADAMS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, A Municipal Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

Felix ALDERETE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, A Municipal Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

Frank A. CHAVEZ et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, A Municipal Corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6099.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 21, 1957.

Rehearing Denied March 13, 1957.

Joseph L. Smith, Henry A. Kiker, Jr., Albuquerque, for appellants.

Frank L. Horan, Malcolm W. deVesty, Paul F. Henderson, Jr., Albuquerque, for appellee.

McGHEE, Justice.

These consolidated cases were filed by plaintiffs seeking to recover from the defendant city the difference between amounts paid to them during the years 1950, 1951 and 1952 for wages as hourly rate employees of the city and the prevailing rate of such wages in the city as determined by the State Labor Commissioner.

By ordinance No. 475 (Secs. 3.301, 3.302, 1949 Municipal Code of Albuquerque) it was provided that hourly paid employees receive not less than the prevailing rates for corresponding classes of employees in private industry; that the prevailing rates to be used in calculating the wages were the prevailing wage rates determined by the State Labor Commissioner, or in absence of determination by him, those determined by the city manager.

The ordinance seems to have been promptly forgotten and ignored by the city officials and the employees, without protest, were hired for and accepted rates of pay less than those determined by the labor commissioner to be the prevailing rates for corresponding classes of employees in Albuquerque. The matter was not called to the attention of the city until some time in 1952 by a person who was attempting to organize a municipal employees' union in Albuquerque.

The city defends on various grounds, the principal ones being that the city commission was without authority to delegate the power to set wage rates, especially where the delegation is sought to be made to one not an official of the city and over whom it had no control; that the ordinance collides with Sec. 11-6-6, N.M.S.A.1953, commonly known as the Bateman Act; that the ordinance is in clear violation of the Budget Control Acts, Ch. 11, N.M.S.A.1953, and would destroy control of the city commissioners in fiscal matters and that of the State Comptroller and other state officials charged with the duty of enforcing the statutes relating to the control of budgets and expenditures of city funds.

The city does not seriously contest the power of its commission to enact a minimum wage ordinance, but says the present ordinance is invalid.

The trial court sustained the city's motion to dismiss after depositions of two accountants were taken in the Chavez case. It was agreed judgments in the other cases would follow the one in that case.

Municipal budgets must be approved by the State Tax Commission, Sec. 72-6-12, subd. 8, N.M.S.A.1953, which requires that revenue will be available to meet the expenses.

Chapter 11, N.M.S.A.1953, establishes an elaborate system of controls over the public finances of the state and its political subdivisions. The expenditures are under the constant supervision of the Comptroller, Sec. 11-1-9. It is provided monies raised by municipalities must be expended in accordance with their budgets, unless transfers are approved in writing by the Attorney General, Chief Tax Commissioner and the Comptroller acting on behalf of the State Board of Finance, Sec. 11-1-20. It is also provided a municipal budget may not be increased unless the municipality has surplus funds or the activity sought to be financed will produce the revenue needed; as in the case of budget transfers, the increase must be approved by the Comptroller, Attorney General and Chief Tax Commissioner, Sec. 11-1-21, subd. 1.

It is unlawful for the governing board of a city to disburse, expend or contract for the expenditure of more than the proportional share of the fiscal year budget during any fiscal year in which the terms of office of such officials will expire, as the number of months such officials are in office bears to the...