181 A.3d 834
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- Anne Arundel County Charter §§ 811–812 (adopted/ amended by voters) grant public safety employees the right to collective bargaining and require the County to provide by ordinance for binding arbitration of labor disputes concerning “terms and conditions of employment.”
- The County enacted Bill 85-13 (2014), revising County Code § 6-1-308 to centralize health benefits administration with the Personnel Officer and to limit collective bargaining to the employer subsidy (a flat subsidy tied to the lowest-cost plan) while excluding plan options and design from bargaining.
- Public safety unions (Appellants) sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing Bill 85-13 unlawfully removed health insurance plan design/options from the Charter-mandated bargaining/arbitration process; the circuit court granted summary judgment to the County.
- Appellants appealed; the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reviewed whether Charter §§ 811–812 require bargaining/arbitration over health insurance benefits and whether courts or the County Council determine the scope of “terms and conditions of employment.”
- The court held (1) §§ 811–812 create a two-step process—collective bargaining then binding arbitration—over “terms and conditions of employment”; (2) that phrase is a term of art that includes health insurance benefits; and (3) provisions of Bill 85-13 that render bargaining over healthcare subsidy effectively meaningless are invalid. The case was remanded for further fact development and application of a balancing test to define the precise scope of negotiable issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Charter §§ 811–812 require bargaining and arbitration over "terms and conditions of employment" as a two-step process | Atkinson: §§ 811 and 812 together create mandatory collective bargaining and, if impasse, binding arbitration over terms and conditions of employment | County: § 812 only instructs arbitrators to consider terms and conditions; it does not compel bargaining over them | Held: §§ 811–812 impose a two-step process—collective bargaining followed by binding arbitration over terms and conditions of employment |
| Whether courts or the County Council decide scope of "terms and conditions of employment" | Atkinson: courts may decide arbitrability and scope; the phrase is a justiciable issue | County: defining scope is legislative and properly left to County Council | Held: Justiciable—trial courts may decide; the circuit court erred in deferring entirely to the Council |
| Whether "terms and conditions of employment" includes health insurance benefits | Atkinson: the phrase is a term of art in labor law that includes health insurance, subsidies, plan design | County: the phrase can be limited by Council to budgetary/cost issues only | Held: The phrase includes health insurance benefits (supported by NLRA, state law, and precedent) |
| Whether Bill 85-13 validly limits bargaining to a subsidy tied to the lowest-cost plan | Atkinson: the bill leaves nothing meaningful to bargain because Personnel Officer and Council choose plans and lowest-cost benchmark | County: limiting bargaining to subsidy and costs is within Council’s legislative authority | Held: Provisions that make bargaining de minimis (only a flat subsidy tied to County-selected lowest-cost plan) are invalid under Charter §§ 811–812; remand to define proper scope and apply balancing test |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ghajari, 346 Md. 101 (discussing when later, specific provisions displace or refine general ones)
- Atkinson v. Anne Arundel Cty., 428 Md. 723 (Court of Appeals decision addressing Charter § 812 and limits on Council’s power to abrogate binding arbitration)
- Save Our Streets v. Mitchell, 357 Md. 237 (analysis of when charter amendments are impermissibly legislative—focus on degree of council discretion retained)
- Firefighters II (Baltimore City Firefighters Local 743), 136 Md. App. 512 (holding courts decide arbitrability and that charter term "terms and conditions of employment" can encompass parity/benefits)
- Montgomery Cty. Ed. Ass’n v. Bd. of Ed. of Montgomery Cty., 311 Md. 303 (balancing test to determine negotiability of matters affecting employer policy vs employee interests)
- Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 287 Md. 595 (charter material vs. legislative material distinction)
- Griffith v. Wakefield, 298 Md. 381 (charter amendment invalid where it prescribes detailed legislative scheme)
- Smallwood (Bd. of Sup’rs of Elections of Anne Arundel Cty.), 327 Md. 220 (permissible charter limits that do not enact detailed legislation)
- Ford Motor Co. v. N.L.R.B., 441 U.S. 488 (explaining NLRA delegation of scope of bargaining subjects and recognizing "other terms and conditions of employment")