The Village of Hatch Police Officers Association in New Mexico filed a prohibited practice complaint after the Village unilaterally terminated its take-home vehicle (THV) program in September 2025. The program, implemented through a 2020 resolution and general order, allowed officers to take police vehicles home, extending eligibility up to 45 miles from the Village. Although the collective bargaining agreement was silent on THVs, the program had been in place for approximately five years and was widely used by officers, providing both financial and safety benefits. The Village ended the program immediately, without notice or bargaining, citing cost concerns and asserting that the policy was a temporary COVID-era measure.
The New Mexico Public Employee Labor Relations Board sustained the Union’s claim, finding a per se violation of the duty to bargain under the Public Employee Bargaining Act. The Board explained that an employer violates its duty to bargain by making unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment, regardless of intent or business justification.
The central issue was whether the THV program constituted a binding past practice. The Board concluded that it did. The 2020 resolution and general order established a clear and consistently applied program that remained in effect for several years, creating a reasonable expectation among officers that the benefit would continue. The Board rejected the Village’s argument that the program was merely discretionary or temporary, finding that the written policy “passed, approved and adopted” by the Village Trustees modified earlier policy and governed officer use of take-home vehicles.
The Board further held that the THV program was a mandatory subject of bargaining. It provided a significant personal benefit to employees, including reduced commuting costs and safety advantages, and affected working conditions. The fact that the program involved Village-owned property did not remove it from the scope of bargaining.
Because the program was a binding past practice and a mandatory subject of bargaining, the Village could not eliminate it unilaterally. The Board rejected the Village’s reliance on cost concerns and managerial discretion, emphasizing that such considerations must be addressed through bargaining, not unilateral action.
The Board ordered the Village to cease and desist, reinstate the THV program, and make affected employees whole by reimbursing mileage expenses with interest.
Village of Hatch Police Officers Ass’n v. Village of Hatch, PELRB No. 128-25, 2026 WL 1031973 (N.M. Pub. Emp. Lab. Rels. Bd. Mar. 19, 2026).