BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, BALTIMORE COUNTY LODGE NO. 4
Court of Appeals, McDonald, August 25, 2016,
Public Policy – Arbitration – An arbitration decision might be void for public policy where it imposes a contract on the county prospectively that the county has not funded, but not where it merely interprets a contract that the county has already agreed to and has funds available to pay.

Baltimore County ends its nearly 9-year long fight to avoid paying health insurance it agreed to pay in an MOU with FOP4 that served as a “binding promise to retirees that the subsidy would remain at whatever level existed at their retirement [until the age of 65 or Medicare].” Or perhaps like some horror movie they intend to return once again to try to resurrect their argument.

The Court draws a contrast between “interest arbitration” and “grievance arbitration,” noting that failure to fund an interest arbitration award would likely be a valid exercise of power while failure to fund a grievance arbitration requires more than a failure to fund to qualify as void for public policy.

Interest arbitration – defined by the court as prospectively setting terms for a new contract after an impasse in negotiations.

Grievance arbitration – defined by the court as interpreting (alleged violations of) an existing contract.

Law of the Case – The Law of the Case decides issues previously decided by an appellate court unless: (1) the evidence in a subsequent trial is substantially different from what was before the court in the initial appeal; (2) a controlling authority has made a contrary decision in the interim on the law applicable to the particular issue; or (3) the original decision was clearly erroneous and adherence to it would work a manifest injustice.

Law of the Case – Enforceability – The Court’s prior decision regarding validity of the claim was also a determination that the claim was enforceable.