Union members have filed a motion to force the state to comply with an arbitrator's decision that it calculate and award back pay to 10,000 employees.

The motion filed by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 18, alleges the state isn't abiding by the award and opinion filed in June.

"We're seeking ... payment on wages increases promised by the state that were agreed to in a written contract and not paid," attorney Shane Youtz said Tuesday.

At the same time, the state has filed a motion to vacate the decision by the arbitrator, saying he abused his authority by ordering the retroactive pay increase.

Union members had negotiated a contract with the state that employees would get varying raises starting Jan. 1 of this year, based on salary and subject to satisfactory performance. The agreement was subject to legislative appropriation.

The negotiated amount called for raises ranging from 1 percent to 3.5 percent, depending on a given employee's "compa-ratio," or compensation ratio, which is an employee's salary divided by the midpoint salary of the job's pay range.

However, the state gave employees a 2.9 percent increase across the board, effective July 1, 2008. The increases were meant to equalize pay between veteran employees and newer hires, union officials have said.

State Personnel Office director Sandra Perez in a statement Tuesday said she couldn't comment on the union's motion because the state hadn't had time to review it.

"On Aug. 19, 2009, the State of New Mexico filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award entered on June 15, 2009 because the state believes that arbitrator exceeded his powers and committed a gross error of fact or law by finding that the state violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement and abused his authority by ordering the state to appropriate funds in FY 2011 and to grant a retroactive pay increase to state employees," she wrote.

It's unclear how much back pay might be owed.

According to the opinion and award, the Legislature appropriated $19.1 million for salary increases, and specified that $12.8 million would be used for 2.4 percent pay increases. A separate allocation set aside up to $500,000 for an additional half-percent salary increase.

The 1.5 to 3 percent compa-ratio Kristie Jones 8/25/09 again increase would have cost $2.7 million, according to information in the opinion and award from a State Personnel Office official.

The opinion and award also says that if the 2010 fiscal year budget permits, the State Personnel Office "shall adjust the 2010 salary base mid-points of bargaining unit personnel to the level they would be at had they been raised two percent in fiscal year 2009. In addition, the fiscal year 2010 pay levels of bargaining unit personnel shall be adjusted to reflect what they would be if they had received in fiscal year 2009 the compa-ratio percentages set forth" in the collective bargaining agreement.

If that can't be done in the 2010 fiscal year, the adjustments should be made in 2011, the opinion and award states.

It also states that in 2010 if possible, or in 2011 if not, "bargaining unit employees shall be paid the difference between what they were paid in fiscal year 2009 and what they would have been paid had their pay been raised by increasing by two percent the salary base mid-points and had their pay levels been adjusted by increases based on the compa-ratio percentages set forth" in the collective bargaining agreement."

"The arbitrator's decision is binding and no legal principle precludes or prohibits the state from immediate compliance," Youtz wrote in the filing.

Any large payout to employees could put a strain on the state's budget, as revenues are projected to fall $400 million short of covering current spending.

Arcy Baca, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 477, said the state should have paid when it said it would.

"I understand the state is under financial crisis now, but last year the Legislature fully funded the raises but the administration decided to go outside the contract they had negotiated with the union," he said.

Contact Kate Nash at 986-3036 or knash@sfnewmexican.com. Read her blog at www.greenchilechatter.com.