STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DUVAL TEACHERS UNITED, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

and ) CASE NO. 75-010

) PERC NO. 8H-RA-744-1008

DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Public Employer. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearing, by its duly designated hearing officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing on the above matter March 3, 1975, at Jacksonville, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: William II. Maness

603 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202

For Public Employer: Frederick J. Simpson

1300 City Hall

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Al Millar and Edward J. Hopkins 1241 King Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32205

For Intervenor: Lacy Mahon, Jr. and For Professional Kenneth Vickers Employees Association 315 East Adams Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

1. This hearing resulted from the Motion to Intervene filed by the Professional Employees Association (PEA) in the above docket immediately following receipt of notice of recognition by the public employer, Duval County School Board, of Duval Teachers United (DTU) as the collective bargaining representative of the designated unit. The Motion to Intervene was granted. Pursuant to Section 447.009(1), Florida Statutes, (Chapter 74-100, Laws of Florida) the only issue presented for determination is the appropriateness of the unit proposed to be certified.

   
   

2. All parties stipulated that Petitioner and Intervenor are employee organizations as defined by Section 447.002(10), Florida Statutes, and that Duval county School Board is a public employer as defined by Section 447.002(2), Florida Statutes. The hearing officer entered into the record without

   objection, Exhibit 1, recognition-certification petition; Exhibit 2, notice of hearing; and Exhibit 3, the affidavit of compliance for registration.

   
   

3. The Intervenor, PEA, has filed a petition to represent certain employees of the Duval County School Board who are included in the designated unit herein involved that was recognized by the public employer. At the instant proceeding, the Intervenor amended its protest so that it objected only to the inclusion of deans, curriculum assistants, and psychologists in the designated unit. The public employer approved the inclusion of deans, curriculum assistants, and psychologists in the designated unit proposed by the DPU and opposes a representation by PEA.

   
   

4. The Intervenor presented 7 witnesses, one of whom was offered as an adverse witness. Dave A. Cavins, Principal of Pazon Senior High School, Jacksonville, was formerly a member of the Duval County Association of Secondary School Administrators, whose group is now part of PEA. As a Member of that association, he, last year, negotiated with the Duval County School Board regarding a pay agreement. Inasmuch as principals are not requested to be included in the proposed unit, this testimony is not particularly relevant to these proceedings.

   
   

5. Barbara H. Scott, Supervisor, Early Childhood Education, Green Cove Springs, last year was a member of the Duval County Middle Management Association that subsequently merged with the PEA. She is currently vice president of the PEA. Psychologists were included in the Middle Management Association. Last year this association entered into negotiations with the Duval County School Board for salary increases, but no written agreement was executed by the parties.

   
   

6. Juanita Wilson, elementary school principal in Jacksonville, was formerly chairperson of the salary committee of an elementary school principal's unit that last year negotiated with the Duval County School Board. The negotiations led to some agreement between the negotiators but the witness does not know if the Board accepted the agreement. During these negotiations, job descriptions were not discussed. Inasmuch as principals are not requested to be included in the proposed unit, this testimony is not relevant to these proceedings.

   
   

7. Ronald J. Poppell, a curriculum assistant at a senior high school in Duval County for five years, considers his job to be more in line with administrators than with instructional personnel, as he does not perform classroom instruction. He is called upon by his principal to discuss the evaluation of teachers, but he acknowledges that the principal has sole responsibility for these evaluations. His primary duty is preparation and evaluation of curricula. The duties and responsibilities of curriculum assistants were negotiated by DTU and was based upon teachers' salary plus supplement. His work is done only with teachers as opposed to working with students. Occasionally the curriculum assistant may be called in by his principal while the latter is interviewing a teacher-applicant. Similarly, he may represent the principal at meetings the latter is unable to attend. There are approximately 40 curriculum assistants in Duval County School Board employment.

   
   

8. Theresa Hodge is a dean of girls at a secondary school in Duval County, whose duties and responsibilities are contained in Exhibit 10. Duties and responsibilities of dean of boys is shown in Exhibit 11. Deans perform no instructional duties, are primarily involved with activities and policies

   involving students, and are only tangentially concerned with teachers. They have little occasion to prepare any evaluation of a teacher. This witness was formerly a member of Duval Teachers United. Since her duties are primarily administrative as opposed to instructional, she would prefer to be represented by a bargaining unit representing only administrators.

   
   

9. Harriett Thompson is supervisor, Duval County Psychology Services, which includes 21 psychologists under her supervision. Psychologists differ from counselors principally in that the latter are assigned to specific schools, whereas the former are not so assigned; and psychologists work with individuals, while counselors generally work with groups. Exhibit 13 outlines the duties and responsibilities of psychologists, but this exhibit was defined as a truncated version, which is under revision at the present time. Psychologists were part of the middle management group last year and could reasonably fit in either DTU or PEA. Psychologists are paid on the administrative salary schedule instead of on the teacher's schedule plus supplement.

   
   

10. Herbert A. Sang, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel for the Duval County School Board, as management's representative, entered into negotiations last year with several associations representing various faculty groups in Duval County. Some of these former associations are currently affiliated with PEA. Although several avenues were explored during these negotiations, the pay schedule finally adopted for deans and curriculum assistants used the teacher's salary schedule as the base, plus a supplement.

    
    

11. The only witness appearing for DTU was Vincent Exley, its President, who was a member of the negotiating team for Duval Teachers United last year. Exhibit 15 contains the proposed bargaining unit from which negotiations were conducted. In lieu of the broad category of auxiliary personnel contained in Exhibit 15, the School Board and DTU agreed that the recognized bargaining unit would be those titles that were included in Exhibit 1. DTU has 4100 members and their union includes deans, curriculum assistants, and possibly psychologists.

    
    

12. No evidence was entered by the Duval County School Board.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

13. The sole issue for determination in this hearing is the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit. Section 447.009(4), Florida Statutes, Chapter 74-100, Laws of Florida, provides:

    
    

    1. In defining a proposed bargaining unit, the commission shall take into consideration:

       1. the principles of the efficient administration of government;

       2. the number of employee organizations with which the employer might have to negotiate;

       3. the compatibility of the unit with the joint responsibilities of the public employer and public employees to represent the public;

       4. the power of the officials of govern- ment at the level of the unit to agree or make effective recommendations to other administrative authority or legislative body with respect to matters of employment upon

          which the employees desire to negotiate;

       5. the organizational structure of the public employer;

       6. community of interest among the employees to be included in the unit, considering:

          1. the manner in which wages and other terms of employment are determined;

          2. the method by which jobs and salary classifications are determined;

          3. interdependence of jobs and interchange of employees;

          4. desires of the employees;

          5. the history of employee relations within the organization of the public employer concerning organization and negotiation;

       7. the statutory authority of the public employer to administer a classification and pay plan;

       8. such other factors and policies as the commission may prescribe by regulation or

          its decision.

          
          

          In implementing subsection (h) above, the commission by regulation 8H-300.301 provided:

          
          

          In addition to the specific unit appropri- ateness standards set forth in Section 447.009(4) of the Act, the Chairman and Commission may also consider the following criteria when resolving unit appropriateness questions:

          1. avoiding excessive fragmentation of bargaining units;

          2. the presence of possible conflict of interest of the employees in the proposed unit.

          
          

14. When the evidence presented is considered in the light of the criteria noted above, it is readily apparent that little probative evidence was adduced on any of those factors. On the other hand, the evidence that was submitted would not indicate a conflict of interest between any of those categories petitioned for inclusion in the proposed bargaining unit. None of the disputed classifications, viz. deans, curriculum assistants, or psychologists have any real supervisory functions over classroom teachers or each other so as to make it inappropriate for all of these classifications to be in this sane unit. Although there were inferences that the majority of the members in the disputed classifications preferred representation by PEA, no specific evidence of this nature was presented. These classifications comprise a very small percentage of the more than 6,000 employees in the proposed unit, as there are some 22 psychologists, 40-50 curriculum assistants, and about the same number of deans. Certainly they represent less than 5 percent of the proposed bargaining unit.

    
    

15. In addition, the testimony that counselors performed duties similar to those performed by psychologists and perforce have similar training would indicate that both of these categories would appropriately fit in the same

bargaining unit. Here the Petitioner and the Public Employer had agreed that the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate and proper. It would appear that the burden was upon the Intervenor to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the 3 classifications protested, viz. deans, curriculum assistants, and psychologists should not be included in the bargaining unit proposed by the Petitioner, DTU.

In accordance with Section 447.009(3)(a), no recommendations are submitted.

K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-0705

COPIES FURNISHED:

Al Millar, Esquire and Edward J, Hopkins, Esquire Millar, Fallin & Lally 1241 King Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32205

William H. Maness

603 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Frederick J. Simpson 1300 City Hall

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Lacy Mahon, Jr. and Kenneth Vickers

315 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Docket for Case No: 75-000010

Orders for Case No: 75-000010