Maryland’s highest court has struck down a contract with Maryland’s transportation department that awarded state police officers take-home vehicles, ending a controversial arrangement that critics dismissed as a ploy by union members to secure millions of dollars worth of perks. The Court of Appeals of Maryland sided with Gov. Martin O’Malley’s administration in saying that he did not violate state law by halting take-home vehicles given to police officers in exchange for not pursuing collective bargaining rights.
In essence, the court said that the deal, which was reached during the administration of former Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich did not meet collective bargaining statutes.
“In the present case, the legislature delegated to the Maryland Transportation Authority a broad array of powers but not the powers to bargain collectively,” the court said, labeling the agreement on take-home vehicles “unenforceable.”
In 2006, the police union for the Maryland Transportation Authority pressed members of the General Assembly for collective bargaining rights but ultimately withdrew the request after the transportation agency agreed to fund a three-year, $11.5 million take-home vehicle program for police officers ?– the arrangement was recorded on a one-page document.
In receiving the vehicles, the police union agreed to end requests for the bargaining bill and not push for the legislation in future years.
O’Malley came into office one year after the program began, a year in which 25 cars were delivered to cops. A reshuffled MDTA decided to stop funding the arrangement. In turn, the police union sued for breach of contract, saying that “the king has changed his mind.”
Union members argued the take-home vehicles were a valuable recruitment tool that would lead to an increased street presence of officers.
But critics called the contract both unenforceable and a violation of state procurement and collective bargaining laws. And O’Malley’s transportation authority called the deal “a contract under which one party [would] obtain compensation for using personal influence over legislators.”
In the final ruling, the panel of judges concluded that collective bargaining powers must be directly outlined under state code.
According to their opinion, “Absent express legislative authority, a government agency cannot enter into binding arbitration or binding collective bargaining agreements establishing wages, hours, pension rights or working conditions for public employees.”
Union leaders blasted the decision, saying they entered into a contract in good faith and that failing to honor it would set a dangerous precedent for future deals with public employees.
