A. Any interested person may appeal any determination, finding or action of the director made pursuant to the Public Works Minimum Wage Act [13-4-10 to 13-4-17 NMSA 1978] to the labor and industrial commission sitting as the appeals board by filing notice of the appeal with the director within fifteen days after the determination has been issued or notice of the finding or action has been given as provided in the Public Works Minimum Wage Act.
B. The labor and industrial commission, sitting as the appeals board, shall adopt rules as it deems necessary for the prompt disposition of appeals. A copy of the rules shall be filed with the librarian of the supreme court law library.
C. The appeals board, within ten days after the filing of the appeal, shall set the matter for an oral hearing within thirty days and, following the hearing, shall enter a decision within ten days after the close of the hearing and promptly mail copies of the decision to the parties.
D. Decisions of the appeals board may be appealed pursuant to the provisions of Section 39-3-1.1 NMSA 1978.
History: 1953 Comp., § 6-6-8.1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 304, § 5; 1991, ch. 224, § 5; 1998, ch. 55, § 25; 1999, ch. 265, § 25; 2009, ch. 206, § 9.
ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For State Rules Act, see Chapter 14, Article 4 NMSA 1978.
The 2009 amendment, effective July 1, 2009, in Subsection A, after "director", deleted "of the labor and industrial division of the labor department".
The 1999 amendment, effective July 1, 1999, substituted "Section 39-3-1.1" for "Section 12-8A-1" in Subsection D.
The 1998 amendment, effective September 1, 1998, in Subsection B, deleted "such" preceding "rules" and "and regulations" following "rules" in two places, inserted "law"; in Subsection C, substituted "the" for "such" and rewrote Subsection D.
The 1991 amendment, effective July 1, 1991, substituted "director of the labor and industrial division of the labor department" for "state labor commissioner" in Subsections A and D; substituted "director" for "commissioner" in Subsection A; and deleted "state" preceding "labor" in Subsections A and B.
Administrative dismissal of untimely appeal. — Where the director of the labor relations division determined that the Public Works Minimum Wage Act applied to two projects that were undertaken by the board of regents, the foundation and the contractor as the builders; on December 6, 2011, the secretary of the workforce solutions department issued a letter reversing the director's determination; in the letter, the secretary named withdrew the directors' certifications, referred to ongoing settlement negotiations between the builders and the director, and stated that no further actions would be taken on those matters; the letter was sent only to the foundation; petitioners were aware of the contents of the secretary's letter on December 26, 2011 when the foundation forwarded the letter to petitioners; petitioners filed an appeal of the secretary's determination on February 3, 2012; the commission determined that the appeal was not timely; the secretary did not violate the act by issuing a determination; and the content of the secretary's letter was sufficient notice to prompt petitioners to inquire into the letter's effect, the commission's dismissal of the appeal was not arbitrary or capricious, was supported by substantial evidence, and was in accordance with the law. Garcia v. Bd. of Regents, 2014-NMCA-083.
An illegal provision in a contract may be severed if it is non-essential to an otherwise valid contract. — Where plaintiffs, a class of workers who provided various electrical services on a construction project in which defendants were involved, sued defendants for statutory minimum wage violations, including violation of the Public Works Minimum Wage Act (PWMWA), entered into a settlement agreement with defendants, a condition of which was in violation of federal law regarding income tax and social security withholding for back wages, severance of the non-essential, illegal provision and enforcement of the agreement was the appropriate remedy, because where the purpose and subject matter of a contract are legal, but the contract contains an illegal provision, the general rule is that a court may enforce the valid portions of a contract in favor of a party who has not engaged in serious misconduct if the illegal term is not an essential part of the agreed exchange. Garcia v. UNM Bd. of Regents, 2016-NMCA-052, cert. denied.
Scope of review. — The review by the district court is confined to the record of the proceedings before the labor and industrial commission, and the findings of fact of the commission are binding upon the district court when supported by substantial evidence and supreme court review is confined to the same record. City of Albuquerque v. State Labor & Indus. Comm'n, 1970-NMSC-037, 81 N.M. 288, 466 P.2d 565.