Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Sector Labor Arbitration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union advocates, labor groups push binding arbitration bill as universities and system oppose
Summary
Delegate Lewis told the Appropriations Committee House Bill 159 would introduce binding interest arbitration as a method to resolve impasses in state employee contract negotiations, pairing statutory changes with a constitutional amendment.
Delegate Lewis presented House Bill 159, the Arbitration Reform for State Employees Act of 2025, to the Appropriations Committee. The sponsor said the bill combines a constitutional amendment and statutory changes to permit binding interest arbitration to resolve contract impasses between the state (including higher education) and represented employees. As drafted, parties would agree on an arbitrator by July 15, conclude negotiations by September 30, declare impasse by October 1 if no agreement exists, and receive a final arbitral determination by December 15.
Union leaders and public‑sector labor advocates gave extensive testimony in favor. Denise Gilmore of AFSCME Council 3 said many Maryland counties and transit agencies already use binding arbitration and that “there has been no widespread crisis where it's been implemented.” Cher Shevick (AFSCME Council 3 secretary‑treasurer) and other union witnesses described prolonged, costly negotiations and said binding arbitration would add deadlines and a credible impasse mechanism. Michael McMillan (Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1300) described binding arbitration’s successful track record at the Maryland Transit Administration. Donna Edwards (Maryland State and DC AFL‑CIO) and Christopher Connell (SEIU Local 500) also supported the bill, saying it would improve timeliness and reduce outside legal costs.
Opponents included representatives of the University System of Maryland and several universities. Sherry Rojas (USM director of labor) testified that the consolidated USM negotiations had resulted in an 80‑page agreement without fact finding and argued the current fact‑finding process worked. USM and university HR leaders, including Sally Reed (University of Baltimore) and Aretha Lambert Jones (University of Maryland College Park), warned that binding awards could impose unfunded obligations on campuses, potentially forcing tuition or fee adjustments and diverting funds from institutional priorities. They proposed alternatives and urged excluding USM from the bill or adding strict limitations similar to large research universities elsewhere.
Legal counsel and other witnesses discussed procedural details: an earlier arbitrator selection makes the official ready to resolve an impasse without participating in every session; arbitrators must consider the employer’s financial ability to meet costs “without the premise” that the employer may raise taxes or fees. Sponsors said the bill would not limit the General Assembly’s constitutional budget power, citing an opinion from the Attorney General.
Committee members pressed proponents and opponents on the bill’s balance, fiscal consequences for smaller institutions, and whether binding arbitration would reduce legal costs and negotiation time. Supporters argued it would. Opponents warned of unintended fiscal consequences. No committee vote was recorded in the hearing transcript provided.
