(a) Except as otherwise provided in Subsections (b) and (c), a party to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding may waive or the parties may vary the effect of the requirements of the Uniform Arbitration Act [44-7A-1 NMSA 1978] to the extent permitted by law.

(b) Before a controversy arises that is subject to an agreement to arbitrate, a party to the agreement may not:

(1) waive or agree to vary the effect of the requirements of Section 6(a), 7(a), 9, 18(a), 18(b), 27 or 29 [44-7A-6, 44-7A-7, 44-7A-9, 44-7A-18, 44-7A-27 or 44-7A-29 NMSA 1978];

(2) agree to unreasonably restrict the right under Section 10 [44-7A-10 NMSA 1978] to notice of the initiation of an arbitration proceeding;

(3) agree to unreasonably restrict the right under Section 12 [44-7A-12 NMSA 1978] to disclosure of any facts by a neutral arbitrator; or

(4) waive the right under Section 17 [44-7A-17 NMSA 1978] of a party to an agreement to arbitrate to be represented by a lawyer at any proceeding or hearing under the Uniform Arbitration Act, but an employer and a labor organization may waive the right to representation by a lawyer in a labor arbitration.

(c) A party to an agreement to arbitrate or arbitration proceeding may not waive or the parties may not vary the effect of the requirements of this section or Section 3(a), 8, 15, 19, 21(d) or (e), 23, 24, 25, 26(a) or (b), 30, 31, 32 or 33 [44-7A-3, 44-7A-15, 44-7A-19, 44-7A-21, 44-7A-23, 44-7A-24, 44-7A-25, 44-7A-26, 44-7A-30, 44-7A-31, 44-7A-32, or 44-7A-33 NMSA 1978].

History: Laws 2001, ch. 227, § 4.

Compiler's note. — Laws 2002, ch. 227, § 33 repealed the former Uniform Arbitration Act, Sections 44-7-1 to 44-7-22 NMSA 1978, enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 168, §23. The Uniform Arbitration Act compiled as 44-7A-1 to 44-7A-32 NMSA 1978 was enacted effective July 1, 2001.

Waiver by invoking judicial discretion. — Where the union filed an action in district court to enjoin the municipality from closing a drug treatment program and laying off bargaining unit employees on the grounds that the municipality failed to follow the procedures for layoffs contained in the collective bargaining agreement; at the hearing in district court, the union pursued the issue of layoffs within its request for injunctive relief and through the testimony of its witnesses and the district court dealt with the merits of whether the municipality violated the layoff procedures; when the district court refused to enjoin the municipality from laying off bargaining unit members, the union filed a motion to compel arbitration on the issue of layoffs; the union did not assert its right to arbitration during the three months of litigation and for two months thereafter; and the union told the district court that arbitration was not an adequate remedy, because the union invoked the discretion of the district court and the judicial machinery by raising the issue of whether the municipality followed the collective bargaining agreement as to layoffs and caused the municipality to rely on and be prejudiced by the union's decision to litigate the layoffs, the union waived its right to arbitrate the issue of layoffs. AFSCME v. City of Albuquerque, 2013-NMCA-049, 299 P.3d 441, cert. granted, 2013-NMCERT-004.

Agreement defines scope of jurisdiction of arbitration. — Parties contracting to resolve disputes by arbitration are bound by their agreement. The terms of the agreement define the scope of the jurisdiction, conditions, limitations and restrictions on the matters to be arbitrated. Christmas v. Cimarron Realty Co., 1982-NMSC-079, 98 N.M. 330, 648 P.2d 788.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Enforcement of arbitration agreement contained in construction contract by or against nonsignatory, 100 A.L.R.5th 481.