ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Legal Newsline) – The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland has upheld a Circuit Court for Prince George’s County ruling against an employee who was fired from the University of Maryland College Park allegedly without cause.
"(Thomas Swift) argues on appeal that, as a matter of statutory law and general principles of labor law, the collective bargaining agreement and university policies can’t coexist. We disagree and affirm," the ruling states.
According to the opinion, Thomas Swift worked in the University’s School of Architecture as a model shop supervisor. The court said Swift was classified as a regular, full-time exempt employee and a member of a union and a party to the collective bargaining agreements.
On Dec. 13, 2013, the university notified Swift and allegedly terminated him without cause, giving him six months’ notice and pay before the termination took effect, the court said.
According to the opinion, Swift filed a grievance, but the university issued a Step Two opinion and affirmed Swift’s termination.
Swift submitted his grievance to advisory arbitration and the arbitrator ruled in his favor, but the University delegated the final decision to an administrative law judge, who upheld the termination, according to the court.
The Court of Special Appeals disagreed with Swift’s argument, which stated that the collective bargaining agreement and University policies can’t co-exist.
The Court of Special Appeals cited a section of the university's employment policy entitled period of notice, which states that “an employee may be involuntarily separated and shall be provided with a defined period of notice.”
“The employee’s years of service determine the length of the notice period, which for Mr. Swift, who had six years of service, was six months,” the opinion stated. “The policy allows the university to place employees on paid administrative leave during the notice period or to assign them alternative duties or responsibilities.”
According to the court, Swift argued that the University is required to file charges before it can suspend any regular, exempt employees pending termination.
In this case, however, the court determined that notice termination isn’t discipline.
“The university didn’t pursue charges against Mr. Swift— it terminated him with notice under a separate, parallel, and valid employment policy and it was not required to follow the statutory procedures for suspension of employees under charges for removal,” the opinion stated.
Citing the memorandum of understanding for exempt employees, the Court of Special Appeals said the University "cannot institute disciplinary action without cause, but that doesn’t preclude notice termination, which affords an employee far greater notice and protection than a pure at-will termination would."
“To be sure, the counseling letter that the university sent to Mr. Swift in September 2013 indicated that the University was unhappy with his performance and that it was starting down a path toward disciplining him,” the opinion stated.
However, the court added that the agreement authorized the university "to change course and to exchange a potentially lengthy and uncertain disciplinary process for the certainty of Swift’s departure with six months of paid administrative leave."