County of Los Alamos v. Martinez, 258 P.3d 1118

County of Los Alamos sued two firefighters for breach of contract; Union intervened seeking a declaratory judgment that paramedic training contracts were void as mandatory subjects not negotiated.
Defendants participated in a voluntary paramedic training program at ENMU; County provided housing contracts with paid status, per diem, and a vehicle.
Contracts required employment as firefighter paramedics for at least two years post-training and reimbursing training expenses if not completed or if employment terminated early.
Martinez and Dickman completed training; both left County employment within months and did not reimburse any training costs.
The CBA covered wages, hours, and terms of employment but did not cover the paramedic training contracts; it included a management-rights clause and a zipper clause.
District court granted Union summary judgment declaring the contracts were mandatory-subjects of bargaining; County appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are paramedic training contracts mandatory subjects of bargaining?	County concedes it is a mandatory subject; union disputes enforceability without negotiation.	Union asserts these terms must be bargained and cannot be unilaterally imposed.	Yes: contracts are mandatory subjects; summary judgment upheld against unilateral enforcement.
Does management-rights allow unilateral entry despite mandatory-subject status?	County argues management-rights overrides bargaining obligation.	Union argues not permitted to override mandatory bargaining by contract terms.	No: management-rights cannot override mandatory bargaining and does not create enforceable exceptions here.
Does zipper clause waive the Union's right to bargain over paramedic training contracts?	County asserts broad waiver precludes further bargaining.	Union contends waiver is either unclear or insufficient to extinguish bargaining rights.	No: zipper clause does not constitute a clear and unmistakable waiver to bargain on this subject; no waiver.

NLRB v. Wooster Div. of Borg-Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342 (1958) (mandatory bargaining limits on employer actions; broad waivers require clear language)
Metro. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693 (1983) (waiver and bargaining history inform waiver analysis)
Regents of Univ. of N.M. v. N.M. Fed'n of Teachers, 125 N.M. 401 (1998) (interpret PEBA language using NLRA interpretation guidance)
Las Cruces Prof'l Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces, 123 N.M. 239 (1997) (informing interpretation of PEBA provisions and bargaining expectations)
Spectron Dev. Lab. v. Am. Hollow Boring Co., 1997-NMCA-025 (NM Court of Appeals 1997) (briefing on whether issues are preserved for appeal and summary judgment scope)
Haaland v. Baltzley, 110 N.M. 585 (1989) (binding on review of district court factual preservation in summary judgment)
Woolwine v. Furr's, Inc., 106 N.M. 492 (Ct. App. 1987) (preservation and review standards in appeal from summary judgment)