STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
NORTHWEST FLORIDA POLICE ) BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
and ) CASE NO. 75-015
)
CITY OF PANAMA CITY, )
)
Employer. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing on the above matter on April 8 & 9, 1975, in Panama City, Florida
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Ben R. Patterson
2007 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: John Edward Alley
Alley, Alley & Blue, Chartered 2412 South Dixie Highway
Post Office Box 450547 Miami, Florida 33145
By this petition, Northwest Florida Police Benevolent Association, Inc. seeks a Certificate of Representation as the exclusive bargaining agent for patrolmen and sergeants on the Panama City Police Force. The primary purpose of this hearing was to obtain evidence necessary to establish the appropriate bargaining unit; however, the public employer, City of Panama City, used considerably more time attacking the adequacy and sufficiency of the petition, the requisite showing of interest, and the registration of petition, than in presenting probative evidence relative to the appropriate bargaining unit. The city would stipulate neither that it was a public employer nor that petitioner was an employee organization as defined by Section 447.002, Florida Statutes. Upon questioning, the attorney for the City acknowledged that Panama City is a municipal corporation, has authority to levy and collect taxes, and that salaries of city employees, including those members of petitioner are paid from these public funds. The President of the petitioning association testified that Northwest Florida Police Benevolent Association is a subsidiary of Florida Police Benevolent Association and that petitioner desires to represent all sworn officers on the Panama City Police Force in future bargaining on wages and working conditions. Accordingly, I find that the City is a public employer and the petitioner is an employee organization as defined by the Act.
Exhibit 1, The Original Petition, Exhibit 2, Affidavit of Compliance for Required Showing of Interest, Exhibit 3, Affidavit of Compliance for Registration of Employee Organization, and Exhibit 4, Notice of Hearing were received into evidence despite City's objection to Exhibit 2 and 3 on grounds of hearsay, failure to show personal knowledge and lack of showing of when executed.
Exhibit 5, Subpoena Duces Tecum was admitted as a copy of the subpoena served upon Panama City, City Manager Mize who apparently upon advice of counsel, absented himself from his office in the City Hall, one floor below the room in which the hearing was held, and from the hearing. No motion to quash the subpoena was made orally or in writing at the hearing yet Mr. Mize remained absent for the expressed reason that the attorney representing the city had not had a prior opportunity to go over the material subpoenaed. Since this witness remained unavailable to testify during the two days the hearing was in process, on the second day the hearing office permitted the attorney for the petitioner to submit a proffer of the testimony Mr. Mize would have given had the subpoena been honored.
Exhibit 6, Motion to Quash Hearing and/or Notice of Hearing, and Exhibit 7, Motion to Dismiss were offered and admitted into evidence. No evidence was produced to prove most of the allegations contained in these motions, and these motions are replete with bare unsupported assertations. For example, paragraph 8 of Exhibit 6 contains the allegation that the hearing officer is not qualified under the Administrative Procedure Act, Section 120.65(2), Florida Statutes provides:
"No person may be employed by The Division as a full time hearing officer unless he has been a member of the Florida Bar in good standing for the proceeding three years.
The hearing officer who presided at the hearing has been a member of the Florida Bar in good standing since his admission in 1952.
Exhibit 7 contains similar unsupported allegations. Ruling on those two motions was deferred at the hearing. Following a review of the evidence adduced, both of those motions are found to be without evidentiary support, are without merit, and are hereby DENIED.
Exhibit 8 purports to be an answer to Petition. Inasmuch as representation hearings are non-adversary in nature, the purpose of this exhibit is not fully understood as it appears to contain affirmative defenses, repeats the motions contained in Exhibit 6 and 7, and reiterates a request for the petition to be dismissed.
Exhibit 15 is a pre-hearing Motion to Dismiss Petition and Exhibit 16 is a memorandum in support of such motion. Reference is made to these exhibits principally to highlight the inordinate amount of time expended on issues other than what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit.
Exhibit 17 was a motion filed by PERC to quash subpoenas for the Chairman and two PERC employees. This motion was granted by the Hearing Officer on the ground that personal service was not made upon the Chairman and since all of PERC's files were in the hearing room and made available to the parties by the Hearing Officer, it was considered unreasonable to require these employees to travel some 100 miles to give testimony contained in the files. It is the
understanding of the hearing officer that the former practice of PERC to issue signed subpoenas in blank has been discontinued; if so, this problem will not recur.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Little real dispute arose regarding the appropriateness of the bargaining unit. All parties conceded without formal stipulation that patrolmen were appropriately included in the bargaining unit, and that Captains and above in rank should be excluded from such a bargaining unit. The City purported to take the position that an appropriate bargaining unit would contain firemen, street and parks department personnel, as well as many other city employees not managerial or confidential. No real evidence to support the community of interest requirement for such a bargaining unit was presented as such evidence that was presented tended only to show that occasionally police and firemen are called to the same scene each to perform its designated function. Similarly various other City employees require the assistance of the police in directing traffic while these employees make needed repairs to streets, traffic or street lighting, etc.
Accordingly, the only real issue was whether Lieutenants and Sergeants should be in the appropriate bargaining unit. All Panama City Police personnel below assistant chief, except for those in the Detective Division, punch the time clock, work a 40 hour week, and are paid on an hourly basis. The police department is divided into three divisions, viz., Patrol Division, Traffic Division, and Detective Division. The Traffic Division is comprised of one lieutenant, one sergeant, four patrolmen, two meter maids and two male patrolmen in the meter division, and 9 school crossing guards. In this division only the school crossing guards and meter maids are not sworn officers.
The Detective Division is comprised of one detective lieutenant, two detective sergeants, three detective patrolmen and an identification officer of the rank of patrolman. All are sworn officers.
The Patrol Division is the largest division of the Panama City police department, and is broken down into three shifts. Shift A works from 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., is composed of one captain or lieutenant, two sergeants, eight patrolmen and one radio operator. Shift B works the 3:00,P.M. to 11:00 P.M. shift, is composed of one captain or lieutenant, two sergeants, ten patrolmen and one radio operator. Shift C works from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. and composed of one captain or lieutenant, two sergeants, ten patrolmen, and a radio operator. Finally, there is a tactical group composed of seven patrolmen which split their day between shifts B and C to supplement the patrolmen on those shifts. All except the radio operators are sworn personnel. Since all work a basic 40 hour work week, and the patrol maintains a 24 hour per day schedule, each individual is off duty two days each week.
Captains and lieutenants are shift commanders in the patrol division. As such, they are responsible for assigning personnel to the various shifts and supervise the overall operation of the shift. They generally remain at police department headquarters from where they can move patrolmen as needed to meet emergencies. Captains and lieutenants can temporarily suspend men under them from duty if the situation warrants, they prepare efficiency reports for men under the them, and, for disciplinary action beyond what they have the power to award, they have the power to make effective recommendations.
Sergeants exercise direct supervision over the men under them. They prepare efficiency reports for these men, they have the authority to temporarily suspend a man from duty if the situation warrants and, during the absence of the shift commander, the sergeant is in command of the shift. Throughout the Panama City police department all sergeants have basically the same authority regardless of which division they are in. The same is true of other ranks and grades.
Being organized on a para-military lines, the authority passes down the line; and requests generally come up the line of authority until the approving or granting authority is reached. For example, if a patrolman has a request or grievance, he first goes to his sergeant for help. If the solution is beyond the authority of the sergeant, he passes the request to the next senior officer in the chain of command. By the same token, routine leave requests would go to the sergeant for approval before passing to the granting authority.
It would appear that police officers, by the very nature of their duties to enforce the laws, should not be in the same bargaining unit with other city employees because the community of interest requirement is lacking. Additionally, the Police Standards Board created by Section 23.061 et seq., Florida Statutes, which establishes certain standards and requirements for police officers, provides for monetary supplements to salary as additional qualifications are achieved, and generally operates to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement personnel throughout the state, further tends to limit any community of interest between law enforcement personnel and other city or government employees. Only those employees of the Panama City Police Department who are sworn officers come under the qualification requirements of the Police Standards Board. Thus, dispatchers, meter maids, radio operators (may be same as dispatcher) school crossing guards, cooks, and other such personnel do not have the same community of interest as do sworn personnel.
In accordance with Section 447.09, Florida Statutes, no recommendations are submitted.
ENTERED this 15th day of August, 1975 in Tallahassee, Florida.
K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
COPIES FURNISHED:
Ben R. Patterson, Esquire 2007 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
John Edward Alley
Alley, Alley & Blue, Chartered 2412 South Dixie Highway
Post Office Box 450547 Miami, Florida 33145
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 15, 1975 | Recommended Order (hearing held April 8 & 9, 1975). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 15, 1975 | Recommended Order | No Recommended Order. Hearing establishes the duties and units proposed for collective bargaining for Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) review. |
