Prince George's County v. Prince George's County Police Civilian Employees Ass'n
98 A.3d 1094
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- PCEA and Prince George’s County share a CBA governing wages, hours, and terms for civilian police employees.
- An arbitrator sustained a PCEA grievance challenging Ford’s termination, finding lack of just cause based on a lengthy evidentiary record.
- The County sought to vacate the award in circuit court, arguing the arbitrator exceeded authority and violated public policy.
- The circuit court denied vacation and the County timely appealed, challenging the arbitrator’s de novo review and the Weingarten-related holding.
- The court of appeals reverses, vacates the arbitrator’s decision, and remands for rehearing, holding the arbitrator exceeded authority on Weingarten/Public-Policy grounds.
- Public policy authorities from Illinois and New York are used to argue that Weingarten rights do not apply in criminal investigations when public safety interests are implicated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the arbitrator exceed authority by evaluating facts to find no just cause? | PCEA argues the arbitrator had de novo authority to hear and decide just cause. | County argues arbitrator served as a limited, quasi-appellate reviewer and must apply an objective standard. | No; arbitrator had de novo authority to weigh facts and apply the contract language. |
| Does requiring Weingarten rights in a criminal investigation violate public policy? | PCEA argues the arbitrator correctly applied Article 8 § C to grant Weingarten rights. | County asserts expansion of Weingarten rights interferes with law-enforcement duties. | Yes; public policy supports limiting Weingarten rights in criminal investigations to preserve effective policing. |
| Should the award be vacated and remanded for rehearing due to the fourth component (Weingarten ruling) being severable? | PCEA seeks affirmation and enforcement of the award. | County contends the entire award is tainted and should be vacated. | Vacate the award; remand for rehearing, with limited judicial review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burchett v. Marsh, 58 U.S. 344 (U.S. 1854) (arbitration deference and finality of decision)
- Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cnty. v. Prince George’s Cnty. Educators’ Ass’n, Inc., 309 Md. 85 (Md. 1987) (arbitration awards generally not vacated for errors of fact)
- Amalgamated Transit Union, Div. 1300 v. Mass Transit Admin., 305 Md. 380 (Md. 1986) (arbitrator may fashion an award consistent with the contract)
- Local 453, Int’l Union of Elec., Radio & Machine Workers v. Otis Elevator Co., 314 F.2d 25 (2d Cir. 1963) (arbiter’s deference when parties bargain for final, binding decision)
- Amalgamated Transit Union, 305 Md. at 388-390, 305 Md. 380 (Md. 1986) (deference to arbitrator’s broad discretion to craft appropriate remedy)
- City of New York v. Uniformed Fire Officers Ass’n, Local 854, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 263 A.D.2d 3 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999) (Weingarten rights not triggered in criminal investigations)
- Illinois State Police v. Fraternal Order of Police Troopers Lodge No. 41, 256 Ill.Dec. 424, 751 N.E.2d 1261 (Ill. App. 2001) (expansion of Weingarten rights interferes with law enforcement)
- City of New York v. Uniformed Fire Officers Ass’n, Local 854, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 263 A.D.2d 3 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999) (public policy limits on arbitration in criminal investigations)