The Montgomery County police union has filed a lawsuit against the county for breaching its contract. When the County Council looked for ways to fill a $300 million gap in the budget for the fiscal year that began Friday, it cut some health and retirement benefits, a wage increase, and a tuition assistance program that was criticized as a source of waste and fraud — all of which had been agreed to in the Fraternal Order of Police’s negotiations with the county executive’s administration.
“The action of the County Council in adopting [the fiscal 2012 budget] intentionally impaired the ability of Montgomery County to perform its contracted obligations under the collective bargaining agreement,” the lawsuit reads.
The union wants the court to order the county to keep the benefits negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement and to pay legal fees and “other and further relief.”
Former union President Walt Bader — who is named as a plaintiff in the case — deferred all comments on the case to his attorney, Bill Chen, who could not be reached.
“I don’t think they have a very strong case,” said County Councilman George Leventhal, D-at large, because in similar cases, the court has ruled in the county’s favor.
County Attorney Marc Hansen declined to comment because the county has not been served with the suit so he hasn’t seen it.
Last week, the County Council and County Executive Ike Leggett received a “Notice of Claim” letter, which is a requirement before a lawsuit can be brought against the county. The letter came just before the council passed a two-tiered disability retirement program for all county employees — a program that the Fraternal Order of Police opposed.
After the letter was sent, Municipal and County Government Employees Organization President Gino Renne said the union also may sue the county. The union’s lawyers are researching its options, he said.
Both MCGEO and the Fraternal Order of Police have filed new appeals in ongoing cases brought against Leggett. The original suits were filed after Leggett did not recommend that the council fund all parts of the employment benefits packages agreed on in collective bargaining. The unions argue that was in violation of the bargaining process.
