Update
Just before going to press, Voices of Laurel learned of yet another twist in the DPW push for unionization. Just days before the contract was to go into effect on July 1st, city-appointed Labor Commissioner Leonard Lucci informed all parties of a petition to decertify the collective bargaining agreement. Lucci confirmed in a phone call that the 30 percent of contract signees required by the Labor Code had petitioned him to hold a vote, which he scheduled for July 16th. If the vote passes: UCFW will no longer represent Laurel’s DPW; the collective bargaining agreement signed in June would be null and void; and a two-year period must pass before any other attempts to unionize could be started. Similarly, if the vote fails, no more petitions to dissolve the agreement could occur for at least two years and the CBA would remain intact.
In response, UCFW alleged that city officials were spreading falsehoods about the provisions of the contract, which caused some of those who had signed on to the union to rethink their choice. Supposedly, DPW workers had been told—incorrectly, per UCFW—that the contract would require longer work days, among other things.
A saga that played out in Laurel City Council meetings over the past 18 months came to a somewhat awkward ending for the city administration and the Laurel Department of Public Works on June 10. At a public meeting on that date, the Council voted 4-0, with mayoral concurrence, to adopt Resolution 3-2024, approving a 3-year contract between the city and DPW. The vote and signing seemed almost anti-climactic after much discourse, some of it heated, as two disparate accounts emerged over what went on in the bargaining sessions.
Although many of their “asks” were not granted in the contract, the DPW workers who signed onto the union celebrated what they considered an overall win: they are now officially represented by MCGEO UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers) Local 1994, headquartered in Gaithersburg. City officials expressed support for DPW workers and pledged to abide by the union contract, which covers the period of July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2027.
Rocky Beginnings in 2023
On February 27, 2023, the Joseph R. Robison Laurel Municipal Center was filled with DPW workers wearing yellow shirts. One by one, they expressed to the City Council a desire to unionize and engage in collective bargaining. They had chosen that date to appear because it coincided with the Council’s vote to approve the third 3-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for Laurel’s Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 11, which unionized in 2017. All five Council members and then-Mayor Craig Moe expressed support for unions and pledged to work toward a good solution for DPW; some voiced surprise at what they called an unexpected development. Moe noted that certain processes would have to occur and promised to “see that they got done.” Those processes, as reportedly explained to MCGEO, included changing city laws to allow for a DPW union, amending the city’s charter, and drafting a DPW-specific labor code.
Three months later, on May 22, 2023, the Council unanimously approved a resolution allowing DPW to unionize and negotiate a CBA. But what had happened in between caused a rift in the Council and set the stage for a year-long airing of grievances and conflicting claims. On several occasions, DPW and UCFW personnel publicly questioned why the city was taking so long to sign a resolution. City officials responded that going through the “proper process” takes time. Twice during the May 22 Council discussion, then-Councilman Keith Sydnor criticized fellow Councilmen Martin Mitchell and Carl DeWalt for not informing the Mayor and other Council members of DPW’s desire to unionize when they first learned about it in December 2022. The question of “Who knew about it and when?” was clearly a point of contention, as Moe also mentioned it upon his concurrence: “The first time I heard about this is when it came up on [February] 27th. Everyone supported this; no one was opposed to anything.” He characterized things as having moved “very quickly, for a charter resolution” and cautioned against unrealistic timeline expectations because of “so many other things going on.” Moe also advised, “Everyone take a deep breath; we all have opinions, but there has been no issue. If you want to speed up the process next time, follow the right way to do it—start with the City Administrator and Mayor’s office.” Union representatives later criticized this statement, noting that “Employees don’t normally ask their employers for permission to form a union.”
Over the ensuing months, the city was indeed caught up with “many other things,” including an often controversial election campaign that resulted in a new Mayor and three new Council members. In that span, several pertinent things happened under the outgoing administration: Laurel Police successfully negotiated a salary adjustment over each of the next 3 years for a total raise of 23% by 2026; DPW workers were provided new uniforms (a safety issue that had been raised at public hearings); and DPW workers were given one-time raises ranging around 15% for most employees, which the city termed a parity adjustment. Those actions later were called out by several union representatives and DPW supporters as preemptive moves by the city to discourage DPW from organizing and as potential leverage during collective bargaining.
In the Fall of 2023, the city announced that it had hired the law firm of Jackson Lewis to represent city interests during CBA talks. While it’s not unusual for municipalities to hire legal representation in these situations, DPW advocates were quick to point out that Jackson Lewis has a national reputation as a “union-busting” firm. That term is used without qualification in numerous news items, including posts by the legal services guild Law360; Jackson Lewis itself uses the term “union avoidance” on its website. Union representatives say that, by hiring Jackson Lewis, the city sent a clear sign that it wanted to eliminate the union as a bargaining agent.
Negotiators Reach Early Agreements, but City Declares Impasse on Wage Issues
(Note: For ease of reading, the terms “city” and “union” are used to refer to the two collective bargaining sides. The city was represented by two lawyers from Jackson Lewis, City Administrator Christian Pulley, and a handful of other city officials. The union was represented by MCGEO Senior Representatives John Barry and John Kilker, as well as five DPW employees. That number was gradually reduced to two after one member was promoted out of his unit, one was fired, and another resigned after sustaining an on-site injury.)
On December 14, 2023, the union and the city met to discuss ground rules and introduce team members. This meeting would later be a subject of contention. The union maintains that the meeting did not qualify as a bargaining session since no negotiations about the contract occurred, and since the team members had not yet been certified. According to the union, nonfinancial proposals were sent on January 8, 2024 and bargaining rules were signed on January 11, which the union considers the start of actual negotiations. Later, in an April 3 press release, Mayor Sydnor referred to the December 2023 meeting as “the first meeting of negotiations.”
Bargaining discussions on January 11, 18, and 25 focused on issues related to work conditions. The union says the meetings lasted just two hours each, in part because DPW management allegedly authorized only one hour a week for member representatives; the union paid those members for the additional time. The workers’ top nonfinancial issues included health and safety, improved working conditions, and a grievance process allowing them to appeal disciplinary actions. Agreements were reached on those items.
But when negotiations moved on to financial issues, the union claims, the city suddenly pushed for an agreement by February 1. Although the deadline was later moved to February 15, a total of just 15 hours of discussions had occurred by then, according to a union representative, who calls the deadline “absurd, particularly when a first contract is being negotiated.” The representative adds that the time crunch left little opportunity for the union to discuss options prior to meetings. He sees it as a tactic to “force snap decisions to be made at the table.”
The union says it submitted its initial wage proposal on February 2, asking for a 6% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) and a 3.5% step increase. It claims that the city responded with a proposal of the status quo of a 2.5% COLA and 2.5% step increase and “refused to budge,” rejecting any further union proposals. The last session was on February 15, after just 6 hours of bargaining on wages had occurred, and reportedly ended abruptly with the city shutting down bargaining by saying the two sides were at an impasse. Believing that an agreement could still be negotiated, the union says it offered to meet on February 22 to discuss existing agreements and possibly find a way forward. The city responded with an official declaration of impasse, citing Labor Code 13, Section 13(b), titled “Impasse Procedure.”
Union representatives say they were stunned by that development, particularly since the cited labor code subsection allows for an impasse to be declared if disputes still exist “by January 1 of the year following the year in which negotiations were initiated,” which the union interpreted as January 1 of 2025. They realized that the city considered the December 2024 meeting as the start of negotiations—which Mayor Sydnor’s April 3 press release confirmed—resulting in a schedule that allowed for just six negotiating sessions. The union says that this does not meet the “reasonable period of negotiations” the code states must occur before impasse can be declared.
Feeling there was no other recourse, the union filed an Unfair Labor Practice against the city for bad-faith bargaining. The union alleges that the city asked Labor Commissioner Len Lucchi to dismiss the ULP, but he did not; instead, he recommended initiating an investigation. However, the union’s request for an investigation allegedly went unanswered, and it ultimately did not pursue the matter upon learning two things: the union would be required to pay $15,000 for the investigation, and the Commissioner’s decision could ultimately by overturned by the Mayor, based on the authority written into the code.
Instead, the city scheduled an impasse hearing before the City Council, as called for by the labor code. Under the code—which, the union often points out, was written by the city—the Council is authorized to accept either party’s proposals or to initiate a mediation process in hopes of reaching agreement. At the April 1 closed-door impasse session, the Council accepted all the city’s financial proposals and rejected all those of the union. Therefore, the contract put forth to the DPW workers listed an annual 2.5% COLA and 2.5% step increase—the city’s one and only proposal and the same amount already granted city employees for years.
Union representatives criticized the labor code for essentially denying the union the ability to take disputes to a third party. They say they have urged the city to change that aspect of the code, feeling that without neutral third-party oversight the city has no incentive to ever bargain wages fairly. They also criticize derogatory comments allegedly made by one Council member—as confirmed by another source who attended the impasse hearing—recommending that instead of focusing on wage increases DPW workers should become “less greedy” and work on personal budgeting and even higher education as routes to better pay.
Despite the rough proceedings, union representatives call the outcome a “mostly happy ending” for the DPW workers. Upon presentation of the CBA to DPW workers, a required “clear majority” opted to sign it, with others later following suit. City Administrator Pulley presented Referendum 3-2024 at the June 10 City Council meeting with a recommendation that it be accepted. Following the unanimous vote to do so, the CBA was signed by MCGEO and city leadership. MCGEO’s John Barry later commented that, while the DPW signatories were disappointed over the wages issue, they are nonetheless “relieved” to be part of UFCW 1994 moving forward and hope for more favorable outcomes in the next contract.
“We Stand With DPW” Group Pledges Continued Support
As word spread through Laurel about how the bargaining sessions had transpired, a citizens’ DPW advocacy group formed. Longtime Laurel resident Georgena Ifill organized an initial meeting in early May at the Laurel Boys and Girls Club. Two UFCW 1994 representatives were present as guests. An official from the Service Employees International Union also was present and took part in the discussion, as did a few people personally familiar with the city’s handling of the situation. (Note: The names of most attendees have been suppressed at their request, for fear of retribution.)
Addressing the group, Ifill noted that since an agreement had already been reached, the group should focus on offering continued support for DPW workers. “My goal is to make sure they’re treated more fairly next time around,” she said. Dubbing themselves “We Stand with DPW,” the group brainstormed ideas for signs and t-shirts, settling on the slogan “Stop Talking Trash: Support DPW Workers” to reflect their beliefs that city officials are not being honest about the negotiating process. The group later treated DPW workers to ice cream during DPW Appreciation Week in late May.
At the meeting, attendees heard the union’s perspective on the negotiations, with added insight from participants familiar with the city’s side. Attendees expressed dismay upon hearing union assertions that typical back-and-forth negotiations had not occurred, and that the city had offered no serious counterproposals. Some pointed out that the impasse could have been mediated cost-free by using resources available at the county or federal levels.
An attendee with direct knowledge of the FOP contract questioned why the city had agreed to the FOP’s demands for a 23% raise over 3 years “with no issue and without any [outside] law firm being involved.” Another person noted that, even with the “appeasement raise” given to DPW in FY2024, most DPW salaries still do not qualify as a living wage, based on both county and national definitions. Multiple attendees wondered how much the city paid Jackson Lewis for representation and how it was funded. One person had researched the firm and speculated that costs could have already surpassed $100,000. Ifill noted that she was submitting a Freedom of Information Act request pertaining to the city’s legal expenses.
Sparks Fly at Council Meetings, But Resolution and Contract Become Official
At both the May 28 and June 10 City Council meetings, We Stand with DPW members spoke before the Council. Some simply expressed their support for DPW and thanked those who helped achieve a contract. Resident Cynthia Cronan Wood expressed her admiration for DPW workers amid the conditions they put up with, telling the Council, “these men do your dirty work.” She criticized the city for not engaging in actual bargaining and asked, “Which one of you would do their job fulltime for what you pay them?”
Former Councilman Martin Mitchell called the bargaining process “not fair to the employees,” noting that DPW workers who signed the contract had done so at an overall pay cut, since higher wages were not granted and they will now also pay monthly union fees. At both sessions, Ifill criticized the money being spent on outside legal assistance, asked if any other firms had been considered, and remarked that the Mayor’s praise for the recently approved “fiscally responsible 2025 budget” came about “by denying DPW.”
MCGEO’s John Barry pledged “unwavering support” to ensure the contract is upheld and to reach an even better outcome for the next contract. He cited living wage, retirement benefits, and healthcare coverage as topics for future bargaining sessions. Barry said, “We’re gonna follow the contract and we expect you to follow the contract. This is just the beginning and we’re going to make sure it’s a real beginning.”
UFCW Local 1994 President Geno Renne congratulated both the city and DPW for reaching their first labor agreement. He then characterized the negotiations as “a little testy” and expressed hope that future ones would not be as adversarial. “It amazed me that there was so much resistance to bargaining in good faith; that’s my professional opinion after having done this for 40-some years. We’re looking forward to a good partnership with this city administration. But the nature of that relationship is totally up to you.”
Both Mayor Keith Sydnor and City Administrator Christian Pulley echoed a commitment to adhere to the contract and move forward in the best interests of DPW workers and Laurel’s citizens. Mayor Sydnor closed out the June 10 session with the following statement, portions of which he repeated to WUSA Channel 9 during an interview immediately following the meeting:
“A lot of things have been said tonight, a lot of things that [aren’t] true, but we can’t control what people say when they come up here and speak for their three minutes. We do know a contract was negotiated between the city and the DPW UFCW, and the workers ratified that contract. That’s how it is in America, when you negotiate things and the union [ratifies] the contract. I’m looking forward to a relationship, that we can continue to work together. Our job is to protect the people of the city and also the workers of the city as well. The city is in no way trying to harm the DPW workers; we’d never do anything like that, that’s not our motto. I want to move forward. Let’s work together on any disputes. My door is open all the time. I ask that the citizens just give us some air and let us do our jobs; we are going to protect the city and the workers.”
Voices of Laurel reached out twice to the Mayor’s office seeking their account of the CBA negotiations. Just before press time, Mayor Sydnor responded with the following statement:
“I am please[d] to announce the City Council passed Resolution No. 3- 2024. A Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of Laurel, Maryland for the purpose of approving an agreement between the City of Laurel and United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1994 on June 10, 2024, and I concurred. We are looking forward to working with UFCW Local 1994. The collective bargaining agreement goes into effect from July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2027.”
Diane Mezzanotte is a staff writer and member of the Board of Directors for The Laurel History Boys. In addition to covering Laurel city municipal news, she also reports on all things from South Laurel.
Comments