O’BRIEN ATKINSON, IV, et al. v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND

Employment law — Collective bargaining — Legislative authority

This is the second case in recent years in which public safety employees in Anne Arundel County have challenged the County Council’s legislative restriction on collective bargaining. See Atkinson v. Anne Arundel Cty., 428 Md. 723 (2012) [hereinafter “Atkinson I”]. The Charter for Anne Arundel County (“Charter”) grants public safety employees the right to bargain collectively and submit to binding arbitration any resulting labor disputes concerning the “terms and conditions of employment.” In 2014, the Anne Arundel County Council (“County Council” or “Council”) adopted Bill 85-13. Certain provisions of the Bill, enacted as § 6-1-308(b)(2)-(4) and (i)(4)-(6) of the Anne Arundel County Code (“Code”), exclude employee health insurance benefit options and health insurance plans from collective bargaining and arbitration.

After the County Administrator, relying on the new law, declined to negotiate employee health insurance benefit options and plans, aggrieved members of the public safety unions affected by Bill No. 85-13 (“Appellants”)2 filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County against Anne Arundel County (“County” or “Appellee”). Appellants alleged that the County Council exceeded its legislative authority in enacting Bill 85-13. The County filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment, asserting that the County Council’s passage of Bill 85-13 was a lawful exercise of its legislative powers. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. After a hearing, the circuit court denied Appellants’ motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the County. Appellants noted a timely appeal to this Court on June 24, 2016, and shortly after, petitioned for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. By order dated September 29, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied Appellants’ petition and the County’s conditional cross-petition.

Appellants ask us to consider whether laws enacted pursuant to Bill 85-13 that prohibit collective bargaining and arbitration over employee health insurance benefit options and plans violate the form and structure of the County’s annual budget and appropriation process established under Charter Article VIII, §§ 811 and 812.3 Appellants also ask whether the circuit court erred when, rather than apply the plain meaning of the phrase “terms and conditions of employment” contained in Charter § 812, it deferred to the County Council to define the scope of the law.

Read the opinion