As used in the Personnel Act:
A. "director" means the personnel director;
B. "board" means the personnel board;
C. "service" means the state personnel service created by the Personnel Act, and
includes all positions covered by the Personnel Act;
D. "position" means any state office, job, or position of employment;
E. "employer" means any authority having power to fill positions, in an agency;
F. "agency" means any state department, bureau, division, branch or administrative
group which is under the same employer;
G. "class" means a group of positions similar enough in powers and responsibilities
that they can be covered by the same qualifications and rate of pay;
H. "test" means a test of the qualifications, fitness and ability, and includes tests that
are written, oral, physical or in the form of a demonstration of skill or any combination
thereof;
I. "employee" means a person in a position in the service who has completed his
probationary period; and
J. "probationer" means a person in a position in the service who is still in the
probationary period for that position.
History: 1953 Comp., § 5-4-30, enacted by Laws 1961, ch. 240, § 3.
ANNOTATIONS
Probationer. — Worker who had not completed the probationary period upon reentry
into the classified service was not an "employee" within the meaning of Section 10-9-3
NMSA 1978 thus not entitled to appeal rights. Clark v. N.M. Children, Youth & Families
Dep't, 1999-NMCA-114, 128 N.M. 18, 988 P.2d 888.
Employer. — The regulation and licensing department was an employer within the
definition found in the State Personnel Act (10-9-3E NMSA 1978) since it, not the New
Mexico real estate commission (NMREC), hired the employee, employee's title fell
under the department, employee's hiring was approved by the superintendent of the
department, and the power to control the administration of NMREC necessarily includes
the hiring and firing of its employees. N.M. Regulation & Licensing Dep't v. Lujan, 1999-
NMCA-059, 127 N.M. 233, 979 P.2d 744.
Effect on person contemplated by 28-15-1 NMSA 1978. — If a person contemplated
by 28-15-1 NMSA 1978 has gained the status of an "employee" as that term is defined
by this section and the personnel board rules, he will have additional rights under the
state personnel board rules that a "probationer" would not. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-
108.
Employees not entitled to participate. — Since the employees of an intercommunity
gas association worked for a corporation controlled by three separate municipalities
rather than for the state itself, such employees were not entitled to participate under the
provisions of the State Personnel Act. 1966 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 66-07.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 81A C.J.S. States § 86.
Notes of Decisions
Clark v. New Mexico Child., 1999-NMCA-114, 988 P.2d 888.
· cites it 6× “The Board voted to adopt the hearing officer’s decision and order and entered a final order, determining that Worker was not an “employee” with a right of appeal, as defined by the Act, under NMSA 1978, § 10-9-3(1) (1961).”
New Mexico Reg. & Licensing Dep't v. Lujan, 1999-NMCA-059, 979 P.2d 744.
· cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 10-9-3(E) (1961) (stating that “ ‘employer’ means any authority having power to fill positions, in an agency”).”
Janet v. Marshall, 2013-NMCA-037, 3 N.M. 558.
· cites it 2× “]” NMSA 1978, § 10-9-3(E) (1961). More distinctly, Lujan dealt solely with the question of whether the worker who had been dismissed should be considered an employee of the state Regulation and Licensing Department or of the state Real Estate Commission.”
Landau v. New Mex. Attorney Gen. Off., 446 P.3d 1229 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “{27} In this case, Appellants have the burden of proving that they were employees as defined by the Personnel Act, Section 10-9-3(I), and held positions covered by the Act.”
JaNet v. Marshall, 2013-NMCA-037.
· cites it 2× “]” NMSA 1978, § 10-9-3(E) (1961). More distinctly, Lujan dealt solely with the question of whether the worker who had been dismissed should be considered an employee of the state Regulation and Licensing Department or of the state Real Estate Commission.”
Landau v. N.M. Att’y Gen., No. A-1-CA-36344 (N.M. Ct. App. May 14, 2019).
· cites it 2× “{27} In this case, Appellants have the burden of proving that they were employees as defined by the Personnel Act, Section 10-9-3(I), and held positions covered by the Act.”
New Mexico Dep't of Workforce Solutions v. Perez, 2014-NMCA-035, 5 N.M. 619.
· cites it 3× “Sections 10-9-3 (C),-4(N). Nothing in the record indicates that the personnel board has determined that the position of director is one of policymaking, and the parties do not argue one way or the other in that regard.”
N.M. Stat. § 10-9-3(1): 1 case
Clark v. New Mexico Child., 1999-NMCA-114, 988 P.2d 888.
“The Board voted to adopt the hearing officer’s decision and order and entered a final order, determining that Worker was not an “employee” with a right of appeal, as defined by the Act, under NMSA 1978, § 10-9-3(1) (1961).”
N.M. Stat. § 10-9-3(A): 3 cases
New Mexico Dep't of Workforce Solutions v. Perez, 2014-NMCA-035, 5 N.M. 619.
“Sections 10-9-3 (C),-4(N). Nothing in the record indicates that the personnel board has determined that the position of director is one of policymaking, and the parties do not argue one way or the other in that regard.”
N.M. Stat. § 10-9-3(C): 2 cases
N.M. Stat. § 10-9-3(E): 3 cases
Janet v. Marshall, 2013-NMCA-037, 3 N.M. 558.
“]” NMSA 1978, § 10-9-3(E) (1961). More distinctly, Lujan dealt solely with the question of whether the worker who had been dismissed should be considered an employee of the state Regulation and Licensing Department or of the state Real Estate Commission.”
JaNet v. Marshall, 2013-NMCA-037.
“]” NMSA 1978, § 10-9-3(E) (1961). More distinctly, Lujan dealt solely with the question of whether the worker who had been dismissed should be considered an employee of the state Regulation and Licensing Department or of the state Real Estate Commission.”
N.M. Stat. § 10-9-3(I): 3 cases
Landau v. New Mex. Attorney Gen. Off., 446 P.3d 1229 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019).
“{27} In this case, Appellants have the burden of proving that they were employees as defined by the Personnel Act, Section 10-9-3(I), and held positions covered by the Act.”
Landau v. N.M. Att’y Gen., No. A-1-CA-36344 (N.M. Ct. App. May 14, 2019).
“{27} In this case, Appellants have the burden of proving that they were employees as defined by the Personnel Act, Section 10-9-3(I), and held positions covered by the Act.”
N.M. Stat. § 10-9-3(J): 1 case
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.