O’BRIEN ATKINSON, IV v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Leahy, March 28, 2018,
AA County Charter – Anne-Arundel County Council violated their County Charter by removing healthcare insurance benefits from collective bargaining by public-safety employees
The Anne Arundel County Charter was amended in 1988 and 2002 related to collective bargaining.
The 1988 amendment (enacted as Section 811) stated that “Employees in the classified service shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representative employee organizations of their own choosing as provided by ordinance of the County Council.”
The 2002 amendment (enacted as Section 812) provided for binding arbitration to resolve disputes over “the terms and conditions of employment” related to public-safety collective-bargaining contracts.
In 2011, the county tried to bypass the “binding” nature of the arbitration by passing an ordinance allowing it to modify or decline to fund the arbitrator’s decision.
The AA-County public-safety unions challenged this ordinance and the Court of Appeals held that the ordinance bypassing binding arbitration violated the county charter.
In 2014, the Anne Arundel County Council passed an ordinance that became part of the Anne Arundel County Code stating that “health insurance benefit options, health insurance plans, and employer subsidies for retirees and survivors are not subject to collective bargaining.”
AA-County public-safety unions challenged this ordinance, stating that the AA County Charter specified that the “terms and conditions of employment” were matters for collective bargaining and that health insurance qualifies as a “terms and conditions of employment.”
Prior to trial, a judge within the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court granted judgment to AA County over the public-safety unions.
The unions then appealed.
Held: The Court of Special Appeals held that “terms and conditions of employment,” as used in the AA County Charter, is a term of art that includes healthcare insurance benefits. Therefore, it was improper to grant summary judgment against the public-safety unions. Sent back to the circuit court to hold a hearing and determine the scope of bargaining rights beyond that.
From the Case: Under Bill 85-13, all that the Appellants may “negotiate” is the percent of the County’s contribution to the lowest-cost plan that the County will offer. The bill then caps the County’s contribution to all other plans at the same dollar contribution it offers for the lowest-cost plan. Appellants have no say in choosing which plans the County will offer or how minimal the coverage will be in the lowest-cost plan— and thus no say in how much the lowest-cost plan will in fact cost. The bill grants the County Administrator the sole authority to make those decisions, leaving nothing meaningful to negotiate during the Charter-mandated collective bargaining and arbitration process. Thus, we hold that the provisions of Bill 85-13 that effectively render meaningless Appellants’ right to bargain collectively over the cost of their health insurance benefits are invalid under Charter §§ 811 and 812.
Employment Arbitration – Balancing Test – If the governing charter does not explain which issues are supposed to be submitted for arbitration, the courts must balance the interests of the employees against the interest of the governmental entity as a whole in determining which benefits are subject to collective bargaining and arbitration.
From the Case: “On the record before us, we simply cannot resolve the conflict between the parties’ competing interests.” Case to be sent back to circuit court for a hearing.