N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 10 / Article 9
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 10-9-1 (2026)

Short title.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
Chapter 10, Article 9 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Personnel Act".

History: 1953 Comp., § 5-4-28, enacted by Laws 1961, ch. 240, § 1; 2009, ch. 76, § 1.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Compiler's notes. — The term "this act", referred to in this section, refers to Laws
1961, ch. 240, the provisions of which are presently compiled as 10-9-1 to 10-9-4, 10-9-
8 to 10-9-10, 10-9-12, 10-9-13 and 10-9-15 to 10-9-17 and 10-9-20 to 10-9-25 NMSA
1978.

The 2009 amendment, effective June 19, 2009, changed the reference to the act to the
Chapter and Article of NMSA 1978.

Attorney general barred from raising defenses. — Doctrine of offensive collateral
estoppel barred the attorney general from raising as defenses to an action for a
declaration of the validity of a collective bargaining agreement essentially the same
defenses to essentially the same substantive contract provisions he raised at the district
court level in a prior case involving identical subject matter. Local 2839 of AFSCME v.
Udall, 1991-NMSC-017, 111 N.M. 432, 806 P.2d 572.
Collective bargaining authority. — In New Mexico, there is an implied authority to
bargain collectively in the public sector as an incident to the express grant of authority
under the Personnel Act. Local 2238 of AFSCME v. Stratton, 1989-NMSC-003, 108
N.M. 163, 769 P.2d 76.

Application to nonexempt employees of retiree health care authority. — Although
the Retiree Health Care Act provides in Section 10-7C-7 NMSA 1978 that the retiree
health care authority's board may "employ or contract for persons to assist it . . . and
determine the duties and compensation of these employees," that authority does not
conflict with the Personnel Act and, therefore, the Personnel Act applies to nonexempt
employees of the agency. 1991 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 91-06.

Act preemptive of collective bargaining. — Where the legislature has undertaken to
act to regulate employment, such action preempts the authority of the state agency to
engage in collective bargaining, and the purpose of the Personnel Act is inconsistent
with the idea of collective bargaining. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-41 (overruling and
withdrawing 1971 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 71-96).

Rules for labor-management relations. — Even if the legislature could delegate its
power to make law concerning public sector collective bargaining, and even if it
intended to do so in this act, it failed to do so properly, and the rules for labor-
management relations promulgated by the personnel board are therefore void and a
nullity, since the Personnel Act does not mention collective bargaining, much less any
standards to guide the board in fashioning the RLMR. 1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-41,
overruled by Local 2238 of AFSCME v. Stratton, 1989-NMSC-003, 108 N.M. 163, 769
P.2d 76.

Rules constituting unlawful delegation of authority. — The rules for labor-
management relations promulgated by the personnel board unlawfully delegate the
board's authority over personnel matters that the legislature has placed with the board.
1987 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-41, overruled by Local 2238 of AFSCME v. Stratton, 1989-
NMSC-003, 108 N.M. 163, 769 P.2d 76.

State land office. — The state land office is presently subject to the Personnel Act.
1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-99.

Medical center covered by act. — The Los Lunas state hospital and training school
(now the Los Lunas medical center) is a state institution and it falls within the category
of departments covered by the Personnel Act. 1961 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 61-80.

Agencies already with merit systems. — Nothing in the Personnel Act indicates that
agencies that have adopted merit systems are thereby exempted from the operation of
the Personnel Act. 1960 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 60-229 (decided under former law).

Law reviews. — For note, "Public Labor Disputes - A Suggested Approach for New
Mexico," see 1 N.M.L. Rev. 281 (1971).
For comment, "Contemplating the Dilemma of Government as Speaker: Judicially
Identified Limits on Government Speech in the Context of Carter v. City of Las Cruces,"
see 27 N.M.L. Rev. 517 (1997).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Barreras v. State Corr. Dep't, 62 P.3d 770 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barreras v. State Corr. Dep't, 62 P.3d 770 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, §§ 10-9-1 to -25 (1961, as amended through 1999).”
Whitely v. New Mexico State Pers. Bd., 850 P.2d 1011 (N.M. 1993). · cites it 2× “The Personnel Board, an executive agency, administers the executive branch personnel system pursuant to the Personnel Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 10-9-1 to -25 (Repl.Pamp.1992).”
Stockton v. State Taxation & Revenue Dep't, 161 P.3d 905 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Nor have Taxpayers refuted the hearing officer’s finding that she is employed under the State Personnel Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 10-9-1 to -25 (1961, as amended through 1999), as opposed to being elected or appointed to office.”
Martinez v. New Mexico State Eng'r Off., 9 P.3d 657 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Finally, the SEO argues that, even applying the ADA to this case, Martinez is not entitled to relief because he is not a qualified individual with a disability, the SEO had a right to discharge a potentially violent and insubordinate employee, and no reasonable accommodation by…”
Barreras v. New Mexico Corr. Dep't, 838 P.2d 983 (N.M. 1992). · cites it 2× “On such facts, we conclude that plaintiffs were afforded sufficient procedural consideration, and that summary judgment on the due process issue was proper. V. The plaintiffs further claim that the trial court erred in failing to adjudicate their rights under the State Personnel…”
New Mexico Reg. & Licensing Dep't v. Lujan, 979 P.2d 744 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “STANDARD OF REVIEW {7} Both issues on appeal involve a determination of whether the district court should have affirmed the SPB’s decision and its adoption of the temporary hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
Selmeczki v. Nm Dept. of Corr., 129 P.3d 158 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, §§ 10-9-1 to -25 (1961, as amended through 1999).”
City of Albuquerque v. Chavez, 939 P.2d 1066 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “1982), this Court rejected an interpretation of the State Personnel Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 10-9-1 to -25 (Repl.Pamp.1995), that defines "just cause" solely in terms of whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the activity or inactivity of an employee…”
New Mexico Dep't of Health v. Ulibarri, 852 P.2d 686 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, §§ 10-9-1 to -25 (Repl.Pamp.1992).”
N.M. Educ. Ret. Bd. v. Romero, 541 P.3d 175 (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “It was the practice of DFA between 2016 and 2020, before the declaratory judgment was entered in this case, to require Board-approved salary increases to comply with the governor’s exempt salaries plan, a plan prepared annually under Section 10-9-5 of the Personnel Act, NMSA…”
Singhas v. New Mexico State High. Dep't, 902 P.2d 1077 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “We are not persuaded by these indicia of independent control when employees of the two agencies have access to another state entity to grieve personnel actions, see NMSA 1978, §§ 10-9-1 to -25 (Repl.Pamp.1992) (Personnel Act); are paid by the State from state funds, see NMSA…”
State Ex Rel. Stratton v. Roswell Indep. Schs., 806 P.2d 1085 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991). “1990) (abandonment of public office or employment); §§ 10-9-1 to -25 (Repl.Pamp. 1990) (State Personnel Act); and §§ 10-11-1 to -140 (Repl.”
Show all 43 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.