Baltimore County v. Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 4
96 A.3d 742
Md.2014Background
- Statutory framework: Baltimore County Employee Relations Act allows filing unfair labor practices with an independent third party designated by the Director of Human Resources (DHR).
- Issue arose from a unilateral Attendance Recognition Program in the County’s Policies and Procedures Manual, not part of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
- FOP filed an unfair labor practice complaint after the County announced termination of the monetary portion of the Attendance Recognition Program; the Director declined to refer to a third-party arbitrator.
- Circuit Court granted a writ of mandamus directing the County to designate a third-party to hear the complaint; County appealed.
- Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court; the County sought certiorari.
- This Court held that the Act’s language does not create a ministerial duty for the Director to refer every complaint to a third party, and reversed the mandamus order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act imposes a ministerial duty to designate a third party for every complaint | FOP argues the Director must designate a third party for every unfair labor practice | County argues no unconditional duty; negotiability limits referral | No; designation is not an undisputed ministerial duty |
| Whether the Attendance Recognition Program is a negotiable item subject to arbitration | FOP contends program terms are negotiable under terms/conditions of employment | County argues it is not a term/condition and not negotiated | Not a negotiable term/condition; not required to be referred |
| Whether a writ of mandamus was proper to compel designation | FOP seeks mandamus to compel designation | County contends discretion and lack of clear right to compel | Writ not proper where statute language does not create clear, indisputable duty |
| Whether the final judgment and appellate posture were properly framed | FOP argues declaratory/injunctive relief was foregone | County argues finality and mandamus relief disposed of the dispute | Judgment properly treated as final for purposes of appeal; mandamus relief vacated in favor of County |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltimore Cnty. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 4 v. Baltimore Cnty., 429 Md. 533 (2012) (arbitrability and motions to compel arbitration; arbitration policy of dispute resolution)
- Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28 (1989) (final judgment standards and mandamus applicability)
- Town of La Plata v. Faison-Rosewick, L.L.C., 434 Md. 496 (2013) (mandamus; ministerial duty standards)
- Wilson v. Simms, 380 Md. 206 (2004) (mandamus requires clear/un disputed duty; discretion bars relief)
- Gold Coast Mall v. Larmar Corp., 298 Md. 96 (1983) (arbitration/negotiation concepts in contract context)
- Montgomery County Educ. Ass’n, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery County, 311 Md. 303 (1987) (state statute for dispute resolution; third-party determiner)
- FOP v. Baltimore County (2012), 429 Md. 533 (2012) (arbitrability scope in Maryland arbitration precedents)
- MCEA v. Bd. of Ed. of Montgomery County, 311 Md. 303 (1987) (negotiability and dispute resolution under state statute)
- Hayward v. Dept. of Human Resources, 426 Md. 638 (2012) (mandamus framework and public agency duties)
- Bowen v. City of Annapolis, 402 Md. 587 (2007) (procedural errors vs. jurisdictional defects; declaratory relief)