Labor board recommends Santa Fe repay furloughed union workers $521K

Jul. 9—The city of Santa Fe should repay hundreds of employees improperly furloughed during the coronavirus pandemic, an arbitrator with the state Public Employees Labor Relations Board recommended Wednesday.

Thomas J. Griego, a hearing officer with the labor board, recommended the city repay $521,231 for lost wages and accruals to members of the local chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and a handful of employees with the Buckman Direct Diversion, months after the union successfully argued the furloughs were carried out in violation of its contract.

AFSCME Local 3999 Vice President Gil Martinez said it's a "good thing" the hearing officer found in the union's favor, but he expects the city to appeal the recommendation, prolonging the time it will take for union members to receive back pay.

"It's another win for us, and it gets us close," Martinez said. "At some point, we will get the money. How many appeals can you go?"

According to a report on Griego's recommendation, he based it on the 1985 ruling in Alamogordo Public School District v. Jennings and the 1982 case Barreras v. State. Both cases found public employees who were economically harmed should be put in the position they would have been in had the harm not occurred.

According to the report, the city argued damages should be limited to those incurred during the 14-day period between the time it should have provided notice about the furloughs and when it actually notified workers. Griego found, however, the economic damage extended past that 14-day period.

The report also found projected budget shortfalls used as a basis for the furloughs were "highly inaccurate."

During a December hearing, Finance Director McCoy testified the city's gross receipts tax revenue would fall by 40 percent to 50 percent, while the actual impact was a 19 percent drop.

City spokesman Dave Herndon wrote in an email the city's legal team is reviewing the recommendation and weighing options, including an appeal.

"The City believes its decision to furlough employees, in light of the declared public health emergency and fiscal crisis, was in compliance with the parties' collective bargaining agreement," Herndon wrote.

Martinez said he believes the city is attempting to "kick the can down the road" until after the municipal election in November. He added union members intend to start a letter-writing campaign to city councilors, urging the city not to file an appeal.

"People are still hurting," Martinez said. "The city is acting like it's not a big deal. It's a huge deal. People are behind on their electric bills, their utilities. People are still playing catch-up."

The recommendation comes more than a year after AFSCME Local 3999 filed a complaint over the furlough plan, stating the city did not properly notify the union under the terms of its contract. In September, the board found in favor of the union, ruling the city had violated the contract by failing to provide adequate notice of an upcoming furlough. The board declined to order financial compensation, however.

The union appealed that decision, and in January, the board reversed it, finding the city is liable for lost wages.

But neither side could come to an agreement on the cost.

In March, the city and the union met before the labor board to iron out the number, but once again they could not agree on how much was owed to workers.

The city estimated the union was owed about $450,000 total, or an average of about $810 for the 559 eligible employees. Union estimates put the cost as high as $1 million, but union officials said they were missing documents to solidify the claim.

Martinez said Thursday the original estimate included all city employees who were furloughed, not just union members.