Loading...
It shall be the responsibility of every employee organization not to:
(a) Interfere with, restrain or coerce an employee in the exercise of the rights assured by this article;
(b) Attempt to induce the county to coerce an employee in the exercise of the rights under this article;
(c) Coerce, attempt to coerce, or discipline, fine, or take other economic sanction against an employee member of an employee organization as punishment or reprisal, or for the purpose of hindering or impeding work performance or the discharge of duties owed as an employee of the county;
(d) Call or engage in a strike, work stoppage, or slowdown, picket the county in connection with a strike, work stoppage, or slowdown in a county-employee dispute, or condone any such activity by failing to take affirmative action to prevent or stop it;
(e) Discriminate against an employee with regard to the terms or conditions of membership because of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, national origin, ancestry, or marital status, as defined in Chapter 27.
(1977 L.M.C., ch. 27, § 1; 1986 L.M.C., ch. 70, § 2; 2019 L.M.C., ch. 26, § 1.)
Note-Formerly, § 33-73.
Editor’s note—2019 L.M.C., ch. 26, § 2, states: This Act is known as the “Montgomery County CROWN (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair) Act.”
(a) The county executive shall provide as a part of the annual recommended operating budget for the county government sufficient funds to implement the cost-of-living adjustment required by this section. The council shall accord one of the highest priorities to the full funding of the cost-of-living adjustment, shall fund fully the seventy-five (75) percent of Consumer Price Index cost-of-living adjustment unless reasons are given for not doing so, and shall make a finding in the budget resolution as to the extent to which full funding is achieved. Unless otherwise provided in the approved budget resolution which includes a finding that implementation of the full amount of the adjustment would necessitate substantial layoffs of personnel or result in other widespread hardship to county government employees, the chief administrative officer shall adjust the uniform salary plan for all classified employees of the county government beginning the first pay period on or after July 1 of each year by an amount not less than seventy-five (75) percent of the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA), as published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, although pay grades 1 through 4 of the uniform salary plan to which minimum wage and certain seasonal employees are assigned will be adjusted by changes in the minimum wage rates and salary surveys to determine the competitiveness of such salaries. The percentage change shall be based on the latest published index for the calendar year preceding the fiscal year in which the adjustment is to be paid.
The chief administrative officer may adjust the uniform salary plan in excess of the base percentage of seventy-five (75) percent, provided funds are available and approved by the county council for such purpose.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions in (a) above, for fiscal year 1984 only, the following salary controls shall apply:
(1) The chief administrative officer shall adjust the salary maxima in effect as of June 30, 1983 for grades 5 through 37 by the full cost-of-living granted by the county council.
(2) The salary maxima for grades 38, 39 and 40 shall be sixty-eight thousand dollars ($68,000.00), sixty-nine thousand dollars ($69,000.00) and seventy thousand dollars ($70,000.00), respectively.
(3) The salary for all merit employees will be adjusted by the full cost-of-living granted by the county council to the extent that such salary adjustment does not exceed the maximum of the employee’s grade.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to an employee of the police department, as defined in section 33-76 of this chapter, who is represented by a certified employee organization pursuant to the provisions of article V, title "Police Labor Relations," of this chapter.
(d) This section is automatically repealed upon certification that the county merit system employees in the units established under article VII are represented for the purpose of collective bargaining under article VII of this chapter. (1979 L.M.C., ch. 39, § 2; 1981 L.M.C., ch. 45, § 1; 1982 L.M.C., ch. 47, § 1; 1982 L.M.C., ch. 53, § 2; 1983 L.M.C., ch. 40, § 1; 1986 L.M.C., ch. 70, § 2; 2018 L.M.C., ch. 3, §1.)
Notes
| [Note] | ---------- Collective bargaining. (a) It is the policy of Montgomery County that all County employees should have a multi-tier service- connected disability retirement system which includes a: (1) partial incapacity service-connected disability retirement benefit for any injury or illness that prevents an employee from continuing in the employee’s current position but does not prevent the employee from engaging in other substantial gainful employment; and (2) total incapacity service-connected disability retirement benefit for any injury or illness that prevents an employee from engaging in any other substantial gainful employment. (b) It is also the policy of the County that disability benefits are a mandatory subject of collective bargaining with each appropriate certified employee representative. (c) Notwithstanding any County law to the contrary, the County Executive may separately negotiate the terms of an appropriate multi-tier service-connected disability retirement system with the certified employee representative for the police bargaining unit and the certified representative for the OPT and SLT bargaining units, in each case not later than March 1, 2012. If in either case the parties are unable to reach agreement on an appropriate multi-tier system, the parties may submit this issue for resolution through the applicable impasse procedures under the County’s police labor relations law and the County collective bargaining law as a separate matter, not part of or linked to any other collective bargaining procedure. The impasse neutral for the police bargaining unit and the mediator/arbitrator for the OPT and SLT bargaining units must choose the final offer of either party after considering equally the following factors: (1) service-connected disability retirement systems for similar employees of other public employers in the Washington Metropolitan Area and in Maryland; (2) best practices for service-connected disability retirement systems for similar employees in the United States; (3) the interest and welfare of the public; and (4) the long-term ability of the employer to finance a disability retirement system, and the effect of the cost of the system on the normal standard of public services provided by the employer. (d) The Executive must submit the results of any collective bargaining process regarding this issue to the Council for legislative action not later than April 1, 2012. Article V, sections 33-75 through 33-85, was added by § 3 of 1982 L.M.C., ch. 53, enacted Apr. 6, 1982, effective July 16, 1982. Section 2 of 1982 L.M.C., ch. 58, changed the effective date to the date on which ch. 53 became law. Charter reference-Collective bargaining for police, § 510. |
It is the public policy of this county, pursuant to charter section 510, enacted as a result of citizen initiative, and purpose of this article to promote a harmonious, peaceful and cooperative relationship between the county government and its police employees and to protect the public by assuring, at all times, the responsive, orderly and efficient operation of the police department. Since unresolved disputes in the police service are injurious to the public and to police employees as well, adequate means should be provided for preventing such unresolved disputes and for resolving them when they occur. To that end, it is in the public interest that police employees have the opportunity to bargain collectively over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment through a representative of their choice or to refrain therefrom; and that any collective bargaining between the county government and a representative of those police employees be done in good faith with no interference with the orderly process of government and furthermore, that agreements reached through collective bargaining be implemented.
It is also recognized, however, that police employee organizations and the county government each possess substantial means by which they may initiate actions regarding the wages, hours and working conditions of employees. Consequently, in order to preserve an appropriate balance between labor and management in the police service, the council hereby declares that once a representative has been voluntarily selected, collective bargaining shall be utilized in place of, but not in addition to, existing means of initiating governmental action as to those subjects which are defined as appropriate for collective bargaining in this article. (1982 L.M.C., ch. 53, § 3.)
Editor’s note—Sections 33-75, 33-76, 33-80, and 33-81 are cited, and Sections 33-80(h) and 33-84(a) are quoted, in Fraternal Order of Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35, Inc., v. Montgomery County, 212 Md. App. 230, 66 A.3d 1183 (2013), affirmed, 437 Md. 618, 89 A.3d 1093 (2014).
Sections 33-75 through 33-85 and Sections 33-101 through 33-112 are cited, and Section 33-80 is quoted, in Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35 v. Montgomery County, 436 Md. 1, 80 A.3d 686 (2013).
Sections 33-81 and 33-83 are cited and quoted, and Sections 33-75, 33-76, 33-77, 33-78, 33-79, 33-80, 33-82, 33-84 & 33-85 are cited in Fraternal Order of Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35, Inc., v. Montgomery County Executive, 210 Md. App. 117, 62 A.3d 238 (2013). The Court interpreted Section 33-80 regarding collective bargaining agreements and the funding of future County budgets.
Section 33-75 is cited in Mayor and City Council for Ocean City v. Bunting, 168 Md. App. 134, 895 A.2d 1068 (2006).
See County Attorney Opinion dated 3/12/09 explaining the Inspector General’s authority to investigate an ongoing personnel matter as part of the goal of detecting and deterring fraud, waste and abuse. See County Attorney Opinion dated 9/2/03 analyzing that, although permitted under personnel and collective bargaining principles, a grant program to cover closing costs for public safety employees would be taxable income to the employees receiving the benefit.
Loading...