Prince George's Cnty. Police Civilian Emps. Ass'n v. Prince George's Cnty.

• Decision Date: 22 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. 1, Sept. Term, 2015.,1, Sept. Term, 2015.
• Citation: 447 Md. 180,135 A.3d 347
• Parties: PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland on Behalf of PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

447 Md. 180

135 A.3d 347

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

v.PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland on Behalf of PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT.

No. 1, Sept. Term, 2015.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 22, 2016.

Abigail V. Carter (Bruce R. Lerner, Jacob Karabell, Bredoff & Kaiser, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC), on brief, for petitioner/cross-respondent.

Josue Pierre, Associate Co. Atty. (Jared M. McCarthy, Deputy Co. Atty., M. Andree Green, Co. Atty., Upper Marlboro, MD), on brief, for respondent/cross-petitioner.

Argued and reargued before BARBERA, C.J., BATTAGLIA,^* GREENE, ADKINS, MCDONALD, WATTS, and GLENN T. HARRELL, JR., (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

WATTS

, J.

This case raises an important issue of first impression in Maryland—namely, whether a county has the authority under the county's code to enter into a collective bargaining agreement requiring that, before a criminal investigative interview of one of the county's police civilian employees, the employee be advised of the right to have a union representative present at the interview—i.e., that the employee be advised of a Weingarten right in the collective bargaining agreement.

An employee's Weingarten right arises out of an employer-employee relationship where the employer subjects the employee to an investigatory interview. Generally, an employee's Weingarten right is the employee's right under the National Labor Relations Act “to refuse to submit without union representation to an interview [that the employee] reasonably fears may result in [the employee's] discipline[.]” Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 256, 260, 95 S.Ct. 959, 43 L.Ed.2d 171 (1975)

. Weingarten does not grant the members of the union in this case the Weingarten right, because the National Labor Relations Act does not apply to an employee of a State or local government. Here, we use the phrase “Weingarten right” to refer to the right to a union representative that is embodied in Article 8.C. of the instant collective bargaining agreement.

This case emanates from the circumstance that Prince George's County (“the County”), Respondent/Cross–Petitioner, terminated the employment of Marlon Ford (“Ford”), a member of the Prince George's County Police Civilian Employees Association (“the Association”), Petitioner/Cross–Respondent, after a criminal investigation during which Ford was questioned regarding alleged crimes and an internal affairs investigation during which Ford was questioned regarding alleged misconduct as an employee. Following Ford's termination, the Association filed a grievance on Ford's behalf, and the parties participated in arbitration. The arbitrator vacated the County's termination of employment, imposed a thirty-day suspension instead, and granted Ford back pay. The arbitrator based the arbitration award, in part, on the determination that the County had violated a collective bargaining agreement between the County and the Association because officers of the Prince George's County Police Department's Criminal Investigations Division failed to advise Ford of the right to have a representative from the Association present during the criminal investigative interview that yielded information that later formed part of the basis for his termination.

The case involves a total of four issues: (I) whether the County had the authority to enter into a collective bargaining agreement that requires a Weingarten advisement before a criminal investigative interview of one of the County's police civilian employees; (II) whether the provision in the collective bargaining agreement that mandates Weingarten advisements before investigatory interviews applies to criminal investigative interviews; (III) whether the arbitration award violates a public policy of effective law enforcement; and (IV) whether the arbitrator had the authority to award reinstatement and back pay to the employee.

We hold that, under the County's code, the County lacked the authority to enter into a collective bargaining agreement that requires a Weingarten advisement before a criminal investigative interview of one of the County's police civilian employees; thus, the arbitrator exceeded his authority by basing the arbitration award on the determination that the County had violated the collective bargaining agreement because officers of the Criminal Investigations Division failed to make a Weingarten advisement.¹

BACKGROUND

The Arbitration Award

On August 26, 2011, the County terminated the employment of Ford, who had been working in a motor pool of the Prince George's County Police Department and who was a member of the Association. In issuing an award, the arbitrator construed Article 8.C. of the collective bargaining agreement to provide that Ford was entitled to a Weingarten advisement before the criminal investigative interview.

The arbitrator found the following facts, which we summarize. Article 8.C. of the collective bargaining agreement states in pertinent part:

When an employee ... is to be the subject of an investigatory interview or other meeting [that] may result in discipline, he/she shall be informed in writing at least five (5) working days prior to the start of the interview ... of his/her right to have present, upon request, a[n Association] representative.... [I]f an immediate interview is required[,] and the designated [Association] representative is unavailable, the employee may select another [Association] representative who can be present during the investigatory interview.

Article 8.I. of the collective bargaining agreement stated in pertinent part:

The [County] will not initiate disciplinary action against an employee later than ninety (90) calendar days after the occurrence (or after the [County] was aware of the occurrence) of the alleged infraction or violation of Departmental rules or regulations or of the Personnel Law.... These time limits shall apply to alleged infractions or violations [that] affect only the [County]-employee relationship. They shall not apply to alleged violations or infractions [that] are also criminal violations nor to non-criminal violations [that] are related to an active criminal investigation.

Ford was the subject of two investigations: a criminal investigation of allegations of theft of a handgun, impersonation of a law enforcement officer, and use of law enforcement vehicles; and an internal affairs investigation of Ford's conduct as an employee. On May 15, 2011, a law enforcement officer reported that her handgun was missing. On May 16, 2011, after advising Ford of his Miranda rights² (which Ford waived in writing), but without advising Ford of his Weingarten right, officers of the Prince George's County Police Department's Criminal Investigations Division interviewed Ford. The interview took fourteen hours and lasted into the morning of May 17, 2011. With regard to the interview, the arbitrator found:

After a very brief exchange about the missing [hand]gun, the [interview] focused entirely on [Ford]'s performance of his job, especially whether [Ford] had on multiple occasions impersonated a [law enforcement] officer and had driven [law enforcement] vehicles as if he were an officer on duty, even pulling over speeding cars[ ] using [the law enforcement] vehicle's air horn.... [N]ot to characterize the [ ] interview ... as an investigatory interview that may [have] result[ed] in discipline would be unrealistic.... [T]he inquiry became [about Ford]'s behavior as an employee who, from time to time, drove, refueled[,] and maintained [law enforcement] vehicles[.³ ]

The arbitrator noted that, at the arbitration hearing, the County argued that the decision to discharge Ford was supported by Ford's own admissions.⁴

On the same day, the officers of the Criminal Investigations Division also interviewed Khari Grooms (“Grooms”), an acquaintance of Ford's. Grooms told the officers of the Criminal Investigations Division that Ford had told Grooms that he was a law enforcement officer, and had taken Grooms on multiple “ride-alongs.” The arbitrator found: “Many of Grooms'[s] assertions were denied by [Ford], but[,] ultimately[,], the [officers of the Criminal Investigations Division] believed Grooms'[s] version of events.”

On May 17, 2011, Ford was placed on administrative leave due to the ongoing criminal investigation. In a written notice dated July 6, 2011, the Prince George's County Police Department's Internal Affairs Division notified Ford of an investigation regarding whether Ford had used law enforcement vehicles without authorization for personal reasons; in the notice, the Internal Affairs Division advised Ford of his Weingarten right. On the same day, with a representative from the Association present, a member of the Internal Affairs Division interviewed Ford. On July 19, 2011, with a representative from the Association present, a member of the Internal Affairs Division performed another interview of Ford. The arbitrator found: “It would be unrealistic to claim that [the May 1617 interview by the officers of the Criminal Investigations Division] was wholly unrelated to the [Internal Affairs Division] investigation that began on July 6,” 2011.

On August 12, 2011, Ford was issued a “Notice of Intent, Proposed Disciplinary Action (Conduct Related).” On August 26, 2011, Ford was issued a “Notice of Final Disciplinary Action (Conduct Related),” which advised that he had been terminated because of nine alleged violations of State and local law. Specifically, the Notice of Final Disciplinary Action advised that Ford had been terminated for allegedly violating: Prince George's Cnty.Code (“PGCC”) § 18–160(b) (“No member of the Police Department, under any circumstances, shall make any ... intentional misrepresentation of facts.”) by making a false statement during the May 16, 2011 interview and a false statement during the July 19, 2011 interview;⁵ PGCC § 18–160(a) (“No member of the Police Department shall...