302 P.3d 751
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- David Luginbuhl, a City of Gallup police officer, worked from October 27, 2007 until his termination on June 8, 2011.
- He did not join the Gallup Police Officers Association (Union) or pay dues, though he remained in the bargaining unit covered by a CBA.
- The City recognized the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative for regular full-time non-probationary officers and sergeants within the GPD.
- The CBA in effect from November 2008 to November 2011 included a four-step grievance process culminating in arbitration for disputes arising from disciplinary actions.
- Luginbuhl initiated the first three grievance steps but elected not to arbitrate, and filed a petition in district court seeking injunctive relief to block arbitration.
- The district court denied injunctive relief, and on appeal the court held arbitration under the CBA and PEBA was proper and accessible, with exhaustion through the grievance process required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Luginbuhl is subject to PEBA arbitration | Luginbuhl contends non-union status exempts him from arbitration. | City argues PEBA and the CBA apply to all in the bargaining unit. | He is bound; PEBA and CBA apply to all bargaining unit members. |
| Arbitration clause sufficiency—consideration | Arbitration lacks consideration. | CBA arbitration is supported by mutual consideration. | Arbitration clause is supported by adequate consideration. |
| Arbitration clause vagueness | Clause is vague and overly broad regarding arbitrable grievances. | Clause clearly covers any written dispute arising from disciplinary actions within the four-step process. | Clause is not vague; it covers disputes subject to binding arbitration. |
| Adequacy of remedy at law | Arbitration deprives him of the right to go to court. | Arbitration provides an adequate remedy with appellate review. | Arbitration provides an adequate and complete remedy, with court review on appeal. |
| Non-preservation of tort claims | NMTCA tort claim should be addressed in court alongside arbitration. | Courts should not resolve unpreserved tort claim issues in this petition. | Tort Claims Act issue not preserved for review; not properly before the Court. |
Key Cases Cited
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court-1960) (arb. policy supports arbitration in labor disputes)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (Supreme Court-1986) (presumption of arbitrability and coverage in contracts)
- Christmas v. Cimarron Realty Co., 98 N.M. 330 (N.M. 1982) (plain meaning of arbitration clause; broad interpretation favored)
- Durham v. Guest, 2009-NMSC-007 (N.M. Supreme Court-2009) (state policy favoring arbitration in dispute resolution)
- Clay v. N.M. Title Loans, Inc., 2012-NMCA-102 (N.M. Court of Appeals-2012) (arbitration favored; doubts resolved in favor of coverage)
- Jones v. Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, 72 N.M. 322, 383 P.2d 571 (N.M. 1963) (arbitration coverage in unionized bargaining contexts)
- Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192 (Supreme Court-1944) (union representation includes all unit employees)
- Bhd. of Ry. and Steamship Clerks v. Fla. East Coast Ry. Co., 384 U.S. 238 (Supreme Court-1966) (unions represent all employees in designated craft regardless of membership)