Am. Fed'n of State v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Bernalillo Cnty.

Citation373 P.3d 989,2016 NMSC 017
Decision Date23 May 2016
Docket NumberNo. S–1–SC–35248.,S–1–SC–35248.
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico
PartiesAMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, County & Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFL–CIO, Locals 1461, 2260 and 2499, Plaintiffs–Petitioners, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Defendant–Respondent.

Youtz & Valdez, P.C., Shane C. Youtz, Stephen Curtice, James A. Montalbano, Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioners.

Office of the County Attorney, Randy M. Autio, Michael I. Garcia, Albuquerque, NM, for Respondent.

OPINION

NAKAMURA

, Justice.

{1} Petitioners, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 18, AFL–CIO, Locals 1461, 2260 and 2499 (AFSCME), brought a declaratory-judgment action challenging the grandfather status of Respondent's, Board of County Commissioners of Bernalillo County (County Commission), local labor relations board. The merits of AFSCME's claims were considered and rejected by both the district court and the Court of Appeals. We focus on the statutory jurisdictional prerequisites of New Mexico's Declaratory Judgment Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 44–6–1

to –15 (1975), and hold that AFSCME failed to satisfy those prerequisites. AFSCME's claims are not ripe, and AFSCME failed to assert an injury-in-fact. Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate AFSCME's declaratory-judgment action. We remand to the district court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. As the Court of Appeals also lacked jurisdiction, its opinion is vacated.

I. BACKGROUND

{2} AFSCME is the exclusive bargaining representative under the Public Employee Bargaining Act (PEBA), NMSA 1978, §§ 10–7E–1

to–26 (2003, as amended through 2005), for unionized public employees in Bernalillo County. The County Commission is the public employer of unionized public employees in Bernalillo County under the PEBA.

{3} In 1975, the County Commission enacted Labor–Management Relations Ordinances (LMROs) for the purpose of allowing “county employees to organize and bargain collectively with the county government.” Bernalillo County, N.M., Ordinances, ch.2, art. III, div.5, § 2–201 (1975). By these ordinances, the County Commission established a labor relations board (the County Labor Board) to adjudicate workplace disputes between the County Commission and its employees. See Bernalillo County, N.M., Ordinances, ch.2, art. III, div.5, § 2–210(f) (1975) (stating that [a]ny allegation that a prohibited practice has been committed will be submitted to the [County Labor Board] and describing the procedures the County Labor Board shall follow); Bernalillo County, N.M., Ordinances, ch.2, art. III, div.5, § 2–214 (1975) (establishing and defining the function and membership of the County Labor Board as well as the process for appointment of its members and their term lengths).

{4} The County Labor Board functions as the local equivalent of the Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) and derives legal status from Section 10–7E–26(A), a provision of the PEBA this Court has previously referred to as the “grandfather clause.” See Regents of Univ. of N.M. v. N.M. Fed'n of Teachers, 1998–NMSC–020, ¶ 8, 125 N.M. 401, 962 P.2d 1236

. Section 10–7E–26(A) is “a special provision for those public employers that, prior to October 1, 1991, had already voluntarily adopted a collective-bargaining system and had successfully negotiated collective-bargaining agreements with their employees.” Regents of Univ. of N.M., 1998–NMSC–020, ¶ 8, 125 N.M. 401, 962 P.2d 1236. The provision permits “those public employers to continue to operate under their pre-existing provisions and procedures.” Id.

{5} In July of 2013, AFSCME filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and permanent injunctive relief in the Second Judicial District Court under New Mexico's Declaratory Judgment Act. At the heart of this complaint were two allegations: first, AFSCME contended that the County Commission had engaged in a prohibited practice by allegedly refusing to engage in labor negotiations in April and May of 2013 even though a collective bargaining agreement between the parties purportedly required the County Commission to do so. Second, AFSCME alleged that four employees at the Bernalillo County Juvenile Detention Center had been wrongly designated as supervisors, and that these employees were entitled to be accreted into the bargaining unit.

{6} AFSCME acknowledged that these claims would typically be heard by the County Labor Board; however, AFSCME argued that it should not be required to proceed in front of that entity but should be permitted to file its claims with the PELRB because the LMROs deprive it and its members of due process. AFSCME offered the following argument to support this contention. While the LMROs designate the neutral County Labor Board as the initial adjudicator of prohibited-practice complaints, Bernalillo County, N.M., Ordinances, ch.2, art. III, div.5, Section 2–211(a) (1975) of the LMROs designates the County Commission as the final arbiter of any “violations” identified by the County Labor Board, and states that the County Commission is not bound by the County Labor Board's findings and conclusions but is empowered to engage in independent review of the evidence and arguments. Id. According to AFSCME, the County Commission is self-evidently biased because it is the employer and is, therefore, necessarily opposed to employee interests. AFSCME claims that requiring it to proceed before a biased adjudicator violates its and its members' due process rights. Accordingly, AFSCME concludes that the County Labor Board is not entitled to grandfather status under Section 10–7E–26(A). In its answer to AFSCME's complaint, the County Commission denied having engaged in any unlawful conduct and claimed, as an affirmative defense, that AFSCME's action is not ripe and, therefore, should be dismissed.

{7} The parties stipulated that the district court could decide AFSCME's declaratory-judgment action on briefs only, and a briefing schedule was issued. AFSCME's brief restated and clarified the arguments laid out in its complaint. The County Commission's response brief focused on what it described as AFSCME's central error: AFSCME failed to provide any evidence to support the contention that the County Commission is biased, and, therefore, AFSCME's contention that the LMROs are not entitled to grandfather status fails. The County Commission argued that, in New Mexico, it is presumed that public officials properly perform their duties, see City of Albuquerque v. Montoya, 2012–NMSC–007, ¶ 20, 274 P.3d 108

, and AFSCME wrongly presumes the opposite. AFSCME's claims also fail to acknowledge, the County Commission noted, that the County Commission has a significant interest in ensuring harmonious relations with its employees. Finally, the County Commission argued that AFSCME failed to identify any harm resulting from the alleged bias and, for this reason, contended that AFSCME's claims were not ripe for review.

{8} The district court entered an opinion and order in which it addressed the merits of the parties' dispute, rejected AFSCME's argument that the County Labor Board was not entitled to grandfather status, and dismissed AFSCME's complaint. The district court characterized AFSCME's claim that the County Commission was self-evidently biased against employees as unsupported by facts or law. The Court of Appeals also reached the merits of the dispute and affirmed. Am. Fed'n of State v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Bernalillo Cty., 2015–NMCA–070, ¶¶ 14–15, 352 P.3d 682

, cert. granted, 2015–NMCERT–006, 367 P.3d 852 (No. 35,248, June 19, 2015). In attempting to articulate what precisely AFSCME found objectionable about the LMROs, the Court of Appeals was required to carefully parse AFSCME's arguments and engage in guesswork. Id. ¶¶ 7–8. The lower courts' reactions to AFSCME's arguments are entirely understandable. As we clarify in the discussion below, AFSCME's claims are speculative and contingent.

{9} We granted certiorari, exercising our jurisdiction under Article VI, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution

and NMSA 1978, Section 34–5–14(B) (1972). After careful review of the briefs and consideration of the parties' presentations at oral argument, it is clear that the operative question in this case is whether AFSCME satisfied statutory jurisdictional prerequisites to bring suit under New Mexico's Declaratory Judgment Act.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

{10} The standard of review for jurisdictional issues is de novo. Smith v. City of Santa Fe, 2007–NMSC–055, ¶ 10, 142 N.M. 786, 171 P.3d 300

.

B. Declaratory–Judgment Actions

{11} The Declaratory Judgment Act (the Act), §§ 44–6–1

to–15, grants jurisdiction to the district courts to determine questions of the construction or validity of local laws and municipal ordinances. Smith, 2007–NMSC–055, ¶ 14, 142 N.M. 786, 171 P.3d 300. Section 44–6–4 states, in pertinent part, that [a]ny person ... whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, [or] municipal ordinance ... may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the ... statute, [or] ordinance ... and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.” Given the specific nature of AFSCME's claim—that the LMROs violate AFSCME's due process rights and, thus, the LMROs are not entitled to grandfather status—it appears Section 44–6–4 was the provision under which AFSCME should have proceeded.

{12} In its complaint, AFSCME relied on another provision of the Act, Section 44–6–13. This provision deals with the circumstances under which “the State of New Mexico, or any official thereof, may be sued and declaratory judgment entered ...” Id. We have addressed this provision in the context of waiver of state sovereign immunity and concluded that the provision “permits parties to sue the state when the state's consent to be sued otherwise exists.” Gill v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd., 2004–NMSC–016, ¶ 11, 135 N.M. 472, 90...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Phx. Funding, LLC v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • January 26, 2017
    ...jurisdiction. See Am. Fed. of State, Cty. & Mun. Emps. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Bernalillo Cty. (AFSCME ), 2016–NMSC–017, ¶¶ 14–15, 373 P.3d 989 ; Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Johnston , 2016–NMSC–013, ¶¶ 10–12, 369 P.3d 1046. Unlike in the federal courts, the requirement of a plaintif......
  • Citizens for Fair Rates & the Env't v. N.M. Pub. Regulation Comm'n
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • January 10, 2022
    ...Act); see also Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Bernalillo Cnty. (AFSCME ), 2016-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 9, 17, 34, 373 P.3d 989 (requiring a party bringing a declaratory judgment action to satisfy the "jurisdictional prerequisites" of ripeness and standing). However, ......
  • Phillips v. State ex rel. Dep't of Taxation & Revenue (In re Estate of McElveny)
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • June 30, 2017
    ...Administrative Law Treatise , § 15.2, at 1219-20; cf. Am. Fed'n of State v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Bernalillo Cty. , 2016–NMSC–017, ¶ 14, 373 P.3d 989 ("If a statute creates a right and provides that only a specific class of persons may petition for judicial review of an alleged violation, ......
  • State v. Farrington
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • October 19, 2020
    ...constitutional argument. See Am. Fed'n of State, Cty. & Mun. Emps. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Bernalillo Cty. , 2016-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 26, 29, 373 P.3d 989 (finding a party's concession on an issue sufficiently dispositive of the issue).2 Dry-firing is squeezing the trigger of an unloaded firearm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT