Leaders of the Harford County Deputy Sheriff's Union are working to secure enough signatures on a petition that would put a charter amendment before the voters in the November election to give the union both collective bargaining rights and permit binding arbitration to resolve any contract disputes with the county.
According to union leaders, this effort is aimed at better pay and better benefits. The union, which is affiliated with the International Association of Police Unions, has about 300 members on the law enforcement side of the Sheriff's Office, but it does not have a contract with the county regarding pay, employment benefits and retirement benefits for deputies.
"There is no such thing as a contract right now with the county," Mike Montalvo, who became the union president June 30, told Aegis reporter David Anderson. "Ultimately, that's what we would be looking for down the road with regard to workplace issues with the county."
Montalvo said the union can negotiate with the sheriff regarding workplace conditions, but the sheriff does not have control over the budget regarding pay or benefits which depend on funding from the county executive and county council.
To achieve its goal, the union wants to get the charter amendment authorizing collective bargaining and binding arbitration on the November ballot and will need at least 10,000 signatures of registered Harford voters by Aug. 8.
Here's what Chapter 38 of the Harford County Code, which has been on the books since 1975, states in part: "County employees shall have the right to form, join, assist and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation of all matters of employee relations..."
We'll assume for argument's sake that the deputies are county employees, recognizing there are some conflicting legal issues on this point.
The office of sheriff was created by the state constitution, centuries before Harford County adopted home rule in 1972. The deputies are exactly what that means, deputy sheriffs hired by the sheriff and serving at the sheriff's pleasure. The money to pay them, however, comes from the county. Any liabilities caused by the sheriff or sheriff's employees are also the responsibility of the county, or so courts have ruled.
There's no question in our minds that the deputy sheriff's union should be recognized by the county and the sheriff for collective bargaining purposes. These employees should have the same rights as the other county employees, the employees of the local public school system and most State of Maryland employees. (An exception is community college employees, an issue before the Maryland General Assembly the past few years but not yet resolved.)
While we agree with giving the deputies the right to bargain collectively, we cannot support the union's current methods to obtain this right, nor can we support its desire to have binding arbitration.
In our view, amendments to the County Charter, whether initiated by county elected officials or, more rarely, via ballot initiative petition, should occur sparingly, if at all. The charter does not address unions or other employee organizations or collective bargaining. All those activities are addressed in the county code.
To allow one union to be recognized via a charter amendment is not how the deputies union should be recognized. It should be done by the regular legislative process, as has been with unions. Specifically, that means the county executive and the county council should get involved, pass a county law giving the deputies union the same bargaining rights as other public employees unions and be done with it.
With that in mind, the county's existing personnel laws do not permit binding arbitration, nor should they. Recognized employee organizations/unions and the county can submit a bargaining impasse to a third party arbitrator for resolution; however, the law is quite clear that the arbitrator's opinion is not binding on either party.
Ultimately, the county executive and county council should and do have the final authority in labor contract disputes because only they control the money to fund any such contracts. The elected officials are put there to represent the interests of the taxpayers, first and foremost. They are directly accountable to the voters, professional arbiters are not even remotely so.