More News

Five labor unions representing 5,900 furloughed Prince George's County employees are suing the county government, alleging that the order for them to take 10 days of unpaid leave is unnecessary and violates labor agreements.

County lawyers are contesting the lawsuit, which seeks to overturn the furloughs, and have asked for the case to be dismissed. U.S. District Court Judge Alexander Williams Jr. is scheduled to hear motions on the case on Jan. 12.

In papers filed days after the County Council voted on the furlough plan Sept. 16, unions asked the court to rescind the order. The groups suing the government are the county lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Fire Fighters, and unions representing correctional officers, civilian police employees and sheriff's deputies.

Officials with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees have also petitioned to join the lawsuit.

Citing a $57 million shortfall, County Executive Jack B. Johnson (D) and the council ordered employees to take up to 10 days of unpaid leave before June 20. The move will save the county $20 million.

According to court documents, union leaders say the furloughs violate labor contracts that promised cost-of-living and merit raises for the next two years. Depending on the employee's position, the raises would have increased annual salaries by 5 to 8 percent.

"The employee furlough plan has reduced the annual salaries of all covered employees by 80 hours during fiscal year 2009, or approximately 3.9 percent of annual pay," wrote the union's attorney Bruce Lerner of the Washington, D.C.-based firm Bredhoff & Kaiser.

Lerner said the resulting losses were "in direct violation of the annual salaries established in the collective bargaining agreements."

In papers filed Sept. 29, county lawyer Rajeshanand Anand Kumar said the furloughs were justified, given the county's imperiled budget due to the sinking real estate market.

"The county is currently facing financial hardship," wrote Kumar, adding later, "The salary reduction imposed by the furlough plan was reasonable and less drastic than layoffs to achieve a significant public purpose."

Both attorneys declined to comment when reached.

Union leaders allege in the suit that county officials could have avoided the furloughs by dipping into other reserve funds. In addition to a 5 percent reserve of $133 million, the county had an emergency reserve of about $53 million and a surplus of about $44 million as of September.

But Kumar said the funds need to be held for emergencies. County officials are scheduled to spend portions of the reserves by the time the fiscal year ends in July 2009.

"While it is accurate that the county has reserve accounts, access to them is limited," he wrote. "Therefore the plaintiff's contention is merely a difference of opinion and nothing more than a mere prayer or request."

Kumar said the county had the right to furlough workers.

"Some deference should be afforded to legislative policy decisions," he wrote.

Email Daniel Valentine at dvalentine@gazette.net