City of Albuquerque v. Montoya, 274 P.3d 108

AFSCME complained of alleged discrimination by the City in hiring; a deadlock occurred on the Local Board after a neutral member recused; the City sought appointment of a neutral third member under City Ordinance 3-2-15(D); the City Council President appointed interim members; PELRB asserted jurisdiction based on grandfathering; the Court of Appeals held the City ordinance was not grandfathered and that PELRB had jurisdiction.
The grandfather clause (NMSA 10-7E-26(A)) requires a pre-1991 system of bargaining to be preserved; the City Ordinance had pre-1991 roots but its interim-appointment provision raised questions about neutrality and the “representative character” of the Local Board.
The district court initially paused PELRB proceedings, ruling the City Ordinance was grandfathered; the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the interim-appointment provision violated the Act’s balance requirement.
The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the City Ordinance’s interim-appointment mechanism fits within the grandfather clause and does not undermine the Act’s balance and neutrality requirements.
The Court ultimately held that the City Council President’s interim-appointment provision aligns with the grandfather clause’s scope because it preserves collective bargaining structure without violating the Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the City Ordinance’s interim-appointment provision fit grandfathering under the Act?	Montoya argues the provision disrupts balance and is not grandfathered.	City contends the provision preserves bargaining and falls within grandfathered system.	Yes; the provision is grandfathered.
Is the City Council President a “managerial” or “labor” actor for purposes of the Act?	Montoya asserts President is managerial, undermining neutrality.	City contends President is not in management or labor capacity.	No; President is not management or labor, thus not violating the Act.
Does the City Ordinance's meaning of collective bargaining conflict with the Act’s definition?	AFSCME/PELRB argued the process strips bargaining character.	City maintains ordinance satisfies the Act’s bargaining concept.	No; ordinance aligns with the Act’s definition of collective bargaining.
Should the PELRB have jurisdiction given grandfathering?	City sought to overturn PELRB jurisdiction based on grandfathering.	Objecting party argued PELRB jurisdiction remained if grandfathered.	Rejected; court remands for other issues; PELRB jurisdiction not upheld as sole result.
What is the proper disposition on remand after holding the ordinance grandfathered?	N/A	N/A	Remand to Court of Appeals for remaining issues.

Regents of the Univ. of N.M. v. N.M. Fed'n of Teachers, 125 N.M. 401, 962 P.2d 1236 (1998) (grandfather clause interpretation; statutory construction principles)
City of Deming v. Deming Firefighters Local 4521, 141 N.M. 686, 160 P.3d 595 (2007) (grandfather clause applicability and pre-1991 system)
Marbob Energy Corp. v. N.M. Oil Conservation Comm'n, 146 N.M. 24, 206 P.3d 135 (2009) (statutory interpretation and grandfather clause framework)
Ruiz v. Vigil-Giron, 145 N.M. 280, 196 P.3d 1286 (2008) (presumption of proper performance of duties by public officials)
2007-NMCA-069; Deming Firefighters Local 4521, 141 N.M. 686, 160 P.3d 595 (2007) (grandfather clause application to local bargaining bodies)
City of Albuquerque v. Montoya, 148 N.M. 930, 242 P.3d 497 (2010) (Court of Appeals held ordinance not grandfathered under 10-7E-26(A))