The
union that represents 27,000 state workers filed a lawsuit
yesterday to try to force Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. to abide by
the 2 percent pay raise his predecessor negotiated for Maryland
employees just weeks before leaving
office.
The
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Council 92 alleges that Ehrlich was bound by former Gov. Parris
N. Glendening's deal with the union. Glendening signed the
contract the day before he left office in January.
The
lawsuit - filed in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court - is
expected to be the first test of how a 1999 law that guarantees
bargaining rights to state employees is implemented.
"We are
all aware that outgoing administrations do a lot of things that
bind and have a subsequent effect on the subsequent
administration," said Joel A. Smith, an attorney for the union.
"How could one assume that every
agreement or contract the governor or the Board of Public Works
makes could somehow evaporate on the morning of the next
governor's inauguration?"
At
question, say lawyers on both sides, is whether a new governor is
bound to a contract with state employees negotiated by a previous
administration, as if it were a contract to purchase highway
equipment made under similar
When he
submitted his budget to the General Assembly this year, Ehrlich
ignored the contract with the union.
The
governor, who laughed at the lawsuit yesterday, said this winter
that the state could not afford to give the 2 percent raises
because of what was then a $2 billion budget shortfall over the
next two years.
Legislative leaders also condemned Glendening then for
negotiating the $100 million worth of pay raises during a
budgetary crisis. The Assembly passed a $22.4 billion budget for
next year that did not include any raises for
state
employees, who have not had a salary increase in almost three
years.
Yesterday, Ehrlich said he was dismayed that the union is
continuing to press the issue even as his administration is
working to avoid layoffs.
"You
can't even look at it seriously," Ehrlich said. "It's really
interesting that this particular group would want to benefit some
state employees and cost others their jobs."
But the
union's lawsuit says Ehrlich had an obligation to put the
agreement in his budget so the legislature could decide whether
the state could afford the cost-of-living increases.
The
state's collective-bargaining law empowers a governor to
negotiate contracts but gives the legislature final say to
approve them - particularly when it comes to provisions that cost
money.
"That
is the process: We negotiate the contract, and then the General
Assembly has to say if the money is there," said Sallie Davies,
president of AFSCME Council 92. "But in this case, the General
Assembly has not stood in the way of our contract, the governor
has."
The
lawsuit also alleges that the state has been slow to implement
parts of the law, such as defining what constitutes an unfair
labor practice and how conflicts should be resolved.
Ehrlich, Budget Secretary James C. DiPaula, the state of Maryland
and the state Labor Relations Board are named as defendants.
Smith,
the union's attorney, said he will ask the courts to decide how
the collective-bargaining law should be implemented - not whether
the state can afford to give raises this year.
"This
is a process case," Smith said. "This is asking the court to rule
on the how of the matter, not the what of the matter."
But the
union is seeking an order requiring Ehrlich to request the money
to pay for the raises and other associated costs in either a
supplemental budget this year or in the 2005 spending plan he
will unveil in January.
Because
it is the first lawsuit since the collective bargaining became
law, Smith said he expects the issue to go before the Court of
Appeals: "What we really want the court to do is help us and help
the parties understand the
law so
we know where we are going."
Robert
A. Zarnoch, an assistant attorney general, said his office
determined that Ehrlich was not required to include money in his
budget to cover
the raises Glendening negotiated.
"Our
reading of the statute is that the governor who signs the deal
has to be the
one who does the funding," Zarnoch said. "Because Ehrlich was not the
governor who signed it, he did not have to fund it."
Smith
responded by questioning Zarnoch's credentials to speak on the matter.
"Mr. Zarnoch is not a judge," Smith said. "I know he often holds forth
with his opinions about matters, but he is not a member of the
judiciary."
But two
former governors - who noted they never had to deal with
collective
bargaining while in office - said yesterday that they do not
fault Ehrlich for
submitting a budget without pay raises.
Former
Gov. Harry R. Hughes said a governor generally feels "compelled
to abide
by a contract" but also has an "obligation" to re-examine it if
the state
can't afford it.
Former
Gov. Marvin Mandel, whom Ehrlich recently appointed to the state
university system Board of Regents, said he does not think the
union
contract is valid because it did not win legislative approval.
"I
would not see how he could be held accountable if it did not go
the
legislature for their approval," said Mandel. "You have to look
and see if you
have the money to carry out the contract."
Glendening did not return phone calls yesterday seeking comment.
Even if
Ehrlich had included the raises, the legislature most likely
would not
have agreed to it.
Although Maryland governors have tremendous sway over the budget,
the
Assembly has the right to make cuts. This year, lawmakers cut
roughly $200 million
from Ehrlich's plan.
"I
think the legislature would have cut it," said House Speaker
Michael E. Busch,
an Anne Arundel Democrat.
Zarnoch
said Ehrlich might have been able to avoid the lawsuit by
including the
raises and leaving them for the legislature to cut.