Alderete v. City of Albuquerque ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.
    Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum
    opinions.   Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain
    computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of
    Appeals and does not include the filing date.
    1        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
    2   MARIO ALDERETE, DONALD
    3   MEDINA, JESSE SERNA, GEORGE
    4   ALLEN WYLER, JERONIMO
    5   RIVERA, GILBERT KOZLOWSKI,
    6   RICHARD BARROS, JOSEPH
    7   TAFOYA, ANGELO GALLEGOS,
    8   MIKE FARIAS,
    9          Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    10 and                                                                   Nos. 33,151; 33,380;
    11                                                                       33,714 (consolidated)
    12 SAM BEATTY,
    13          Plaintiff-Appellant,
    14 v.
    15 CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE,
    16          Defendant-Appellee,
    17 and
    18 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
    19 STATE, COUNTY, AND
    20 MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 3022,
    21          Defendant-Appellee.
    1 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
    2 Beatrice Brickhouse, District Judge
    3 The Gilpin Law Firm, LLC
    4 Donald Gilpin
    5 Albuquerque, NM
    6 for Appellants
    7   David Tourek, City Attorney
    8   Rebecca E. Wardlaw, Assistant City Attorney
    9   Samantha M. Hults, Assistant City Attorney
    10   Stevie D. Nichols, Assistant City Attorney
    11   Melissa M. Kountz, Assistant City Attorney
    12   Marie Legrand Miller, Assistant City Attorney
    13   Kellie J. Garcia, Assistant City Attorney
    14 for Appellee City of Albuquerque
    15   Youtz & Valdez, P.C.
    16   Shane Youtz
    17   Stephen Curtice
    18   James A. Montalbano
    19 for Appellee AFSCME
    20                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
    21 VIGIL, Judge.
    22   {1}   Plaintiffs are City of Albuquerque (the City) Solid Waste Management
    23 Department (SWMD) employees who filed a breach of contract claim against the City,
    24 and a breach of duty of fair representation against their union, the American
    25 Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3022 (AFSCME). The
    2
    1 district court granted summary judgment to the City and AFSCME, and Plaintiffs
    2 appeal. We affirm.
    3 BACKGROUND
    4   {2}   This is a memorandum opinion; as such, we only recite the facts as necessary
    5 for resolution of the issues. Plaintiffs all occupy M-series, grade 14 (M14), step 2
    6 positions under the City’s Personnel Rules and Regulations (PRRs). Plaintiffs contend
    7 that the City violated the PRRs and the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with
    8 AFSCME by not placing all M14 level employees in the same step classification, and
    9 that AFSCME wrongly refused to file a grievance to inquire why all M14 employees
    10 do not occupy the same step classification. Plaintiff Samuel Beatty also alleges that
    11 the City violated its agreement to maintain his pay and step 3 classification upon his
    12 transfer into the SWMD.
    13   {3}   In three separate orders, resulting in three appeals, which we have consolidated,
    14 the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and AFSCME on
    15 these claims.
    16 DISCUSSION
    17   {4}   “An appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment presents a
    18 question of law and is reviewed de novo.” Montgomery v. Lomos Altos, Inc., 2007-
    19 NMSC-002, ¶ 16, 
    141 N.M. 21
    , 
    150 P.3d 971
    . We review the whole record to
    3
    1 determine whether any evidence puts a material fact in issue. Pharmaseal Labs., Inc.
    2 v. Goffe, 
    1977-NMSC-071
    , ¶ 18, 
    90 N.M. 753
    , 
    568 P.2d 589
    . Having read the record,
    3 the parties’ briefs, and held oral argument, we agree with the district court’s grant of
    4 summary judgment. Briefly we address our holding to affirm.
    5 No Breach of Implied Employment Contract
    6   {5}   To prevail on a breach of contract claim, Plaintiffs are required to prove a valid
    7 contract, breach of the contract, and damages. See Constr. Contracting & Mgmt., Inc.
    8 v. McConnell, 
    1991-NMSC-066
    , ¶ 10, 
    112 N.M. 371
    , 
    815 P.2d 1161
    . It is undisputed
    9 that Plaintiffs and the City have an implied employment contract through the PRRs.
    10 See Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc., 
    1989-NMSC-024
    , ¶ 7, 
    108 N.M. 424
    , 
    773 P.2d 11
     1231 (“Under New Mexico law, a personnel manual gives rise to an implied contract
    12 if it controlled the employer-employee relationship and an employee could reasonably
    13 expect his employer to conform to the procedures it outlined.”). However, it is also
    14 an undisputed fact that the City has properly classified and pays each Plaintiff in
    15 accordance with the PRRs. Two essential elements of Plaintiffs’ breach of contract
    16 claim are therefore absent, breach of the contract and damages. Nevertheless,
    17 Plaintiffs contend that because another City employee identified as Juan Jojola, who
    18 is not a plaintiff, allegedly was classified as a M14, step 3 employee contrary to
    19 certain written procedural requirements of the PRRs, Plaintiffs are entitled to pursue
    4
    1 a breach of contract claim. The Court is not aware of any authority to support
    2 Plaintiffs’ contention. Plaintiffs do not present any authority supporting this argument,
    3 and we do not consider propositions that are unsupported by citation to authority. ITT
    4 Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 
    1998-NMCA-078
    , ¶ 10, 
    125 N.M. 5
     244, 
    959 P.2d 969
    ; see also In re Adoption of Doe, 
    1984-NMSC-024
    , ¶ 2, 
    100 N.M. 6
     764, 
    676 P.2d 1329
     (stating that where a party cites no authority to support an
    7 argument, we may assume no such authority exists). Summary judgment was properly
    8 granted on the breach of contract claim.
    9 No Breach of Beatty’s Transfer Agreement
    10   {6}   The City agreed to transfer Plaintiff Beatty to the SWMD M14 position and
    11 maintain his pay and “step 3” classification. Beatty argues that the City breached its
    12 contract by subsequently reclassifying him to “step 2” and by reducing his pay. Due
    13 to subsequent collective bargaining agreements in accordance with the law after
    14 Beatty’s transfer, he was properly reclassified as a “step 2,” but maintained his same
    15 “step 3” pay rate. In 2010, pursuant to another collective bargaining agreement, all of
    16 the City’s employees had their pay reduced, including Beatty. The undisputed facts
    17 establish that the City continued to maintain Beatty’s proper level of “step 3” pay after
    18 his transfer, and that the change in Beatty’s classification and pay rate was in
    5
    1 accordance with the CBA and independent of his transfer. Summary judgment was
    2 proper on this claim as well.
    3 No Breach of AFSCME’s Duty of Fair Representation
    4   {7}   The City’s breach of its CBA with AFSCME is essential to Plaintiffs’ claim that
    5 AFSCME breached its duty of fair representation. Akins v. United Steelworkers of
    6 Am., 
    2010-NMSC-031
    , ¶ 11, 
    148 N.M. 442
    , 
    237 P.3d 744
     (setting forth elements of
    7 a duty of fair representation claim). However, Plaintiffs failed to present material
    8 issues of fact that they are not paid in accordance with the PRRs or the CBA, and
    9 summary judgment was properly granted in favor of AFSCME.
    10 CONCLUSION
    11   {8}   The orders of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the City
    12 and AFSCME are affirmed.
    13   {9}   IT IS SO ORDERED.
    14                                                ______________________________
    15                                                MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge
    16 I CONCUR:
    17 ___________________________________
    18 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
    19 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (specially concurring).
    6
    1 VANZI, Judge (specially concurring).
    2   {10}   I concur in the result. I write separately because I believe the parties are entitled
    3 to a more detailed explanation as to the reasons for our affirmance.
    4                                             __________________________________
    5                                             LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 33,151 33,380 33,714

Filed Date: 2/23/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021