Sedillo v. Children, Youth & Families Dep't, 35,636

Sedillo, a classified juvenile corrections officer, was dismissed and elected arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) instead of appealing to the Personnel Board.
Under the CBA the union is the employee’s representative and has seven days to request a panel of arbitrators from an approved list.
Sedillo’s private counsel irrevocably selected arbitration, but the union did not request arbitrators within the seven‑day period and CYFD refused to participate in arbitration.
Sedillo asked the district court to compel arbitration or, alternatively, to allow a breach‑of‑employment‑contract claim; CYFD moved to dismiss.
The district court dismissed Sedillo’s motion, treating the seven‑day deadline as jurisdictional and imposing dismissal as the sanction.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding dismissal was too severe and remanding for the district court to fashion an appropriate remedy regarding arbitrator selection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CBA’s seven‑day union deadline to request an arbitration panel is jurisdictional such that failure to meet it requires dismissal	Sedillo argued the deadline is not jurisdictional; absence of CBA language on missed‑deadline consequences creates ambiguity and requires a remedial (not dismissal) approach	CYFD argued the seven‑day deadline is mandatory and the district court correctly dismissed for failure to meet the deadline	Court held the deadline is not a jurisdictional, unambiguous forfeiture provision; dismissal was too severe and the matter was remanded for an appropriate remedy
Whether Sedillo was required to pursue a ‘‘hybrid’’ suit against the union before proceeding against CYFD	Sedillo proceeded with arbitration selection via private counsel and did not join the union; he contends he may still compel arbitration or obtain relief despite not suing the union	CYFD relied on precedent that where the union breaches its duty the employee must bring a hybrid suit (joining the union) to proceed against the employer	Court explained Sedillo waived union representation but that failure to pursue a hybrid suit does not bar him from seeking an arbitration remedy; the issue of sanction (dismissal) was the primary error

Christmas v. Cimarron Realty Co., 648 P.2d 788 (N.M. 1982) (collective bargaining agreements are interpreted like other contracts)
Marshall v. Providence Wash. Ins. Co., 951 P.2d 76 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997) (dismissal is a severe sanction reserved for extreme circumstances)
Howse v. Roswell Indep. Sch. Dist., 188 P.3d 1253 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (employee may bring a hybrid suit joining union when union breaches duty to represent)