NMTU v. City of Albuquerque, No. LB-03-31
Prohibited
Practice Complaint Over City's Failure to Bargain in Good Faith
And Interference With Collective Bargaining by Elected and Appointed Officials
On
September 19, 2003, after seven months of futile bargaining and no money on
the table, the NMTU filed
Prohibited Practice Complaint, No.
LB-03-31, asking the City Labor Board to conduct a hearing on the Union's
charge that the City had been "bargaining in bad faith" and
"interfering with the normal course of negotiations," both prohibited
labor practices. The City's first response denied everything; the
second response in answer to the complaint, is here.
The City's Labor Ordinance
required the Labor Board to schedule a hearing within five days, to be held
"as soon as possible." About three months later, the Labor
Board finally set a hearing for April, 2004. Then, at a Labor Board meeting on February 9,
2004,
the Board's Chairman, Patrick Halter, said he didn't have time to
hold the hearing, and the Board voted 2-1 to disregard the City's Labor Ordinance
and the right of the employees to be heard. The
Labor Board said that instead of the required hearing, the City and the
Union should agree on a hearing officer to hear the case. A partial transcript of the Labor Board's proceedings on February 9
reveals the City's refusal to comply with the
law, requiring it to set and hold, rather than
delegate its responsibilities to a hearing officer.
At the Labor Board's
meeting on Monday, March 1, 2004,
NMTU attorney Paul Livingston again addressed the Labor Board, this time
during its "public comments" period, and addressed some of the issues before the
Board, including the Labor Board's refusal to hold the hearings required by
law. Despite the challenge by the Teamsters, NMTU continues to lead the
City's unions in opposition to management's oppressive and illegal tactics.
At the March 1
meeting of the Labor Board, Police (APOA), Fire (IAFF), and Supervisor's (Local 3022)
unions intervened in the NMTU's
Prohibited Labor Practice
Complaint,
No. LB-03-31,. Because the City has failed to provide for pay raises
or benefits this year, as well as for the past three years, the union is
charging both that the City has "failed to bargain in good faith"
and that the City is interfering with "the normal course of collective
bargaining." This is nothing new, of course.
The NMTU
has filed a strong, 16-page response to the
Motion to Dismiss NMTU's Prohibited
Practice Complaint over the breakdown in Collective Bargaining with the
City. The bus drivers' Opposition
to the City's Motion to Dismiss is in a 16-page brief, which can be read
here. The brief includes two exhibits, a transcript of a State
District Court hearing held on August 27, 1999,
(EXHIBIT
1)and the decision in the original case, No. LB-97-18
(EXHIBIT
2).The City's
Motion to Dismiss the Union's Prohibited Practice Complaint, which the
NMTU attorney has called "untimely, inappropriate, deceitful, and wrong
as a matter of law" was filed by Assistant City Attorney Paula Forney
on February 11, 2004.
UNION'S
PROHIBITED LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT LB-03-31 (9/22/03)
Attachment
to Complaint: Hearing Transcript and Decision re: LB-97-18
City's
First Answer (9/22/03)
Union's Motion to Deem Union's
Allegations Admitted Due to Failure to Answer Complaint (10/2/03)
City's Second Answer (10/3/03)
City's Statement of Issues
(2/3/04)
City's
Motion to Dismiss Union's Complaint (2/11/04)
UNION'S
OPPOSITION TO CITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS (3/9/04)
Exhibit
1: Hearing Transcript re: LB-97-18
Exhibit
2: "Decision" of Labor Board in LB-97-18
Transcript of "status
report" at Labor Board meeting (2/9/04)
Transcribed
"Public Comments" at Labor Board meeting (3/1/04)