It is declared to be the policy of this act (1) to establish minimum wage and overtime compensation standards for all workers at levels consistent with their health, efficiency and general well-being, and (2) to safeguard existing minimum wage and overtime compensation standards which are adequate to maintain the health, efficiency and general well-being of workers against the unfair competition of wage and hours standards which do not provide adequate standards of living.
History: 1953 Comp., § 59-3-20, enacted by Laws 1955, ch. 200, § 1.
Compiler's notes. — The words "this act" refer to Laws 1955, ch. 200, the unrepealed sections of which are compiled herein as 50-4-19, 50-4-21, 50-4-22, 50-4-25, 50-4-26, 50-4-28, 50-4-29 NMSA 1978.
Cross references. — For minimum wages on public works, see 13-4-11 to 13-4-17 NMSA 1978.
Act not preempted by federal law or collective bargaining agreement. — New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (Section 50-4-19 NMSA 1978 et seq.) claims brought by union workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement were not preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 and were not preempted by the remedies provided by the agreement; the claims were based on non-negotiable state law rights which could be resolved independently of the labor agreement. Self v. UPS, 1998-NMSC-046, 126 N.M. 396, 970 P.2d 582.
Minimum wage ordinance. — Minimum wage ordinance enacted by City of Santa Fe is within the power of the city to enact and is constitutional. New Mexicans for Free Enter. v. City of Santa Fe, 2006-NMCA-007, 138 N.M. 785, 126 P.3d 1149.
A home rule municipality may set a minimum wage higher than that required by the state Minimum Wage Act because of the independent powers possessed by municipalities in New Mexico and the absence of any conflict with state law. New Mexicans for Free Enter. v. City of Santa Fe, 2006-NMCA-007, 138 N.M. 785, 126 P.3d 1149.
Act permits home rule ordinances. — Municipal power to set minimum wage higher than that of Minimum Wage Act is not "expressly denied by general law" within the meaning of the home rule amendment. New Mexicans for Free Enter. v. City of Santa Fe, 2006-NMCA-007, 138 N.M. 785, 126 P.3d 1149.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.