89 A.3d 1093
Md.2014Background
- The FOP (Fraternal Order of Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35) and the County Executive negotiated a reopener to a two-year CBA covering FY2011–FY2012; an impasse neutral awarded a 3.5% conditioned wage increase for FY12 and left other FY11 terms to continue into FY12.
- The County Executive submitted the amended terms to the County Council as part of the FY12 budget; OMB warned that fully funding the CBA would cost nearly $4 million more than the Executive’s recommended budget.
- On May 9, 2011, the Council passed a resolution indicating intent to refuse full funding for several CBA provisions (retirement, health/dental/vision/prescription, life and long-term disability insurance), triggering the PLRA’s re‑negotiation window.
- The County Executive and FOP met with Council representatives but did not reach a re‑negotiated agreement and did not initiate the PLRA impasse procedures; by May 18 the parties reported no agreement, and the Council adopted an FY12 budget that altered the listed benefits.
- The FOP sued in state court claiming the Council unlawfully changed terms of the pre‑existing CBA and violated the PLRA (and state constitutional rights); the trial court and Court of Special Appeals upheld the Council, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the Council unilaterally change terms of a pre-existing CBA by refusing to fund provisions? | FOP: Council may refuse funding but cannot redefine or change CBA terms; any reduction must occur through collective bargaining and binding arbitration. | County/Council: Council has annual budget authority to fund or refuse to fund CBA provisions and, if parties fail to present an acceptable re‑negotiated agreement, the Council may determine funding cuts. | Held: Council may change fiscally‑based terms when parties fail to re‑negotiate an agreement acceptable to the Council; Council’s budgetary role permits these changes. |
| Does MCC § 33-80(i) automatically eliminate conditional benefits when Council refuses funding? | FOP: §33-80(i) mandates the CBA itself provide for automatic reduction; it does not authorize the Council to unilaterally enact reductions. | County/Council: The Council’s refusal to appropriate funds effectively accomplishes the reduction; the Council must act to complete the budget process. | Held: §33-80(i) requires CBA language providing for reductions; subsection (i) and (j) were inapplicable to these provisions, but the Council nonetheless may act to determine funding when parties fail to submit an acceptable replacement. |
| Did the Council prematurely and unilaterally terminate the nine‑day re‑negotiation period in violation of the PLRA? | FOP: A May 16 e‑mail from the Council ended negotiations two days before the nine‑day period expired, frustrating re‑negotiation. | County/Council: No premature termination; FOP did not preserve the argument below and the record lacks evidence of unilateral termination. | Held: The record is insufficient to show unilateral premature termination; the Council’s role is limited to presenting views, and it did not improperly terminate negotiations. |
| Were the FOP’s due‑process/constitutional claims reached? | FOP: Council’s action violated Articles 19 and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. | County/Council: Constitutional claims depend on the PLRA interpretation. | Held: Court did not reach the constitutional question because it rejected the FOP’s statutory interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- 120 W. Fayette v. Baltimore, 413 Md. 309 (2010) (principle that local ordinances and charters are construed like statutes)
- Atkinson v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 428 Md. 723 (2012) (appellate review of ordinance construction is de novo)
- Fraternal Order of Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35 v. Montgomery County, Maryland, 212 Md. App. 230 (2013) (appellate decision affirming trial court that Council acted within PLRA)
- Fraternal Order of Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35 v. Montgomery County Executive, 210 Md. App. 117 (2013) (Court of Special Appeals decision addressing related PLRA issues)