AN INDEPENDENT CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE LABOR UNION
NMTU LAWSUIT OVER MERIT SYSTEM
NMTU v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE
On Tuesday, September 6, 2005, the day scheduled for the start of the trial, the City and NMTU reached a Settlement Agreement, the Judge approved the agreement, and the Court signed an Order setting out specific procedures for the Personnel Board and an Order dismissing the case. As a result of the agreement, the Union won most of the points in contention and the City should have a functional Merit System for the first time in many years.
For a long time, the NMTU has been challenging the City administration's neglect of its duties to maintain a "merit system" of personnel management. The City Charter, the Merit System Ordinance, and the City's Rules and Regulations all require the City to hire, promote, and discipline employees according to their abilities and performance, rather than for personal, political, or discriminatory reasons. Unfortunately, the City had persistently ignored the Union's efforts to restore "merit" to the employee relations' equation.
NMTU, et al. v. City (2nd Amended Complaint), was originally filed about two and a half years ago; it was "removed" by the City to Federal Court, but then was returned to the State District Court. The Complaint charged that the City deliberately and negligently failed to maintain a merit system by, among other things, failing to have a valid 5-person Personnel Board, failing to conduct performance evaluations, failing to refer cases to mediation, failing to properly select Hearing Officers, failing to devote sufficient personnel and resources to administer the "merit system," and failing to comply with the Open Meetings Act. Overall, the Complaint charged the City with gross neglect of its employee "civil service" system. The State district court judge was the Hon. Geraldine Rivera.
The Plaintiffs asked the City to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The City's responses to the Union's discovery requests were late, incomplete and evasive. The Judge ordered the City to "supplement" the answers, but they were only changed superficially. The City's "final answers" were evasive, uninformative, and in violation of the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure. See City's Answers and Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories; James Lewis' Answers and Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories and City's Responses and Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production of Documents
The parties agreed to break the case into two parts, with the first part to be heard by Judge Geraldine Rivera on September 6 and 7 at the Bernalillo County Courthouse (4th floor). The second part , to be held later, will be a jury trial on damages and other issues. A 2nd Amended Complaint was filed on August 22; the City's Answer to 2nd Amended Complaint was filed on August 29.
In August, 2005, former City Chief Administrative Officer James Lewis issued two new "administrative instructions." For the first time in about ten years, the City now has a plan for implementing performance evaluations. As the Union Plaintiffs had repeatedly pointed out, the City's Merit System Ordinance and the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations required performance evaluations to be done at least once a year for every "classified" City employee. The issuance of new administrative instructions last week (August 17) is one of the first positive changes in many years, not coincidentally taken right before trial of this case. The first of the new orders from the CAO relates to "non-bargaining unit" employees, mostly supervisors. The second provides for annual employee performance evaluations for all other "classified" employees.
In addition to a new performance evaluation system, the Transit employees will be entitled to a meaningful opportunity to mediate their cases before discipline is imposed. Other changes will affect the Personnel Board, which has not been properly staffed and constituted for many years. A City Audit Report, 01-125 faulted the City for neglecting selection of Board members, but that should be fixed when the new Settlement Agreement is fully implemented.
TEAMSTERS' CASE DISMISSED
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE and NMTU
In September, 2004, attorneys for the Brotherhood of Teamsters filed a lawsuit against the City of Albuquerque, seeking to invalidate the NMTU's Collective Bargaining Agreement, declare the NMTU void as a Union representing City bus and van drivers, and install the Teamsters as the sole and exclusive representative of the drivers. The dispute between the Teamsters and NMTU has been going on for over a year. For a history of the dispute and access to the letters and other documents through February, 2004, please go to the Teamsters' Dispute Page.
Although the Teamsters' legal action appeared to be in response to the City Labor Board's dismissal of the Teamsters' claim to be the drivers' representatives, their attorney did not attempt to appeal the Labor Board's decision. Nonetheless, in addition to the City and the Mayor, the Teamsters' Complaint named the members of the Labor Board as Defendants. NMTU attorney Paul Livingston filed an Unopposed Motion to Intervene in the lawsuit and filed a Response in Intervention.
The case was assigned to Second Judicial District Judge Robert Thomson; prior to a scheduled June 10, 2005, the NMTU filed a Motion to Dismiss the case. After about 20 minutes of argument, Judge Thomson took the motion to dismiss under advisement, saying he needed to consider it further. On July 16, Judge Thomson wrote a letter to counsel, stating that he had decided to dismiss the Teamster's lawsuit.
OVERTIME PAY CASES SETTLED
UTU, LOCAL 1745, et al., v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE
Settlement discussions between the City's attorneys and an employee negotiating committee in October, 2004, resulted in a settlement agreement amounting to $450,000.00 for drivers' back pay, damages and interest. For more details, please go to the FLSA Overtime Pay Page.
FINAL FLSA SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS
Signed Order Approving Settlement and Distribution
Clerk's Minutes on March 16, 2005, Hearing
Exhibit A - Payout Chart Listing Names and Amounts