The Maryland Court of Appeals last week ruled against the union representing police officers who had their retirement and health care benefits stripped by a county council despite agreeing to them during collective bargaining. The case has been progressing through the legal system since 2011.

The decision by Maryland’s highest court appears to set dangerous legal precedent, effectively rendering any contractual agreement with the state of Maryland meaningless and subject to county council discretion. The ruling upholds two decisions from lower courts and gives legal credence to the argument that “because the County Council controls the money spent by county government, it is not bound by labor contracts negotiated by the union and the County Executive.”

Background is provided by the Potomac Patch:

When the council rejected a 3.5 percent salary increase and other retirement and health benefits proposed by police in the FY 2012 budget, leaders did not violate collective bargaining law, the court decided. The union representing Montgomery officers, the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35, sued on behalf of police officers, arguing that the council did not have the authority to change the benefits package. The two sides have been battling since the 2011 contract change. Last month, a state circuit court judge ruled that County Executive Isiah Leggett and public information director Patrick Lacefield violated Maryland election law by using public money to campaign for the 2012 ballot proposition that eliminated certain collective bargaining rights for police. While that court sided with police, the judge did not award any damages to police. Both sides are appealing the ruling. The Post says Leggett, who by law negotiates collective bargaining agreements and submits them to the council for funding, in 2010 reopened the second year of an existing two-year contract with the police union as a way to trim costs. A neutral arbitrator ruled in favor of the police union’s proposal for a 3.5 percent wage hike. In May 2011, the council rejected the settlement and later passed a 2012 budget that excluded the 3.5 percent pay increase. It also changed the existing contract provisions covering police pensions, prescription drugs and group insurance.

In the first paragraph of the 19-page decision, Judge Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. quotes the TV show House of Cards:

“Proximity to power deludes some into thinking they wield it,” observed the character Francis Underwood, portrayed by Kevin Spacey, in the U.S.-version of the television series “House of Cards.” Petitioner here, the Fraternal Order of the Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35 (“FOP”), fell under such a spell in maintaining this litigation. The Police Labor Relations Act (“PLRA”) of the Montgomery County Code grants the FOP a proximity to power in requiring the County Executive to negotiate certain employee benefits with a representative of the FOP. Despite this proximity, the FOP lacks actual power under the PLRA because, as the well-known adage provides, “he who holds the purse strings rules the roost.” Under the PLRA, the County Council (the “Council”) in Montgomery County holds the purse strings (i.e., the actual power) each fiscal year when it approves the budget.

Perhaps something is wrong with today’s judicial system when judges are quoting characters from Netflix original programming as their main defense for fundamentally changing the nature of collective bargaining. We can only hope that after the next round of appeals Judge Harrell will quote Arrested Development character G.O.B. Bluth and admit, “I’ve made a huge mistake.”