STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ORANGE COUNTY P.B.A., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

and ) CASE NO. 75-055

) PERC CASE NO. 8H-RC-756-2009 CITY OF ORLANDO, AIRPORT )

SECURITY, )

)

Public 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 April 2, 1975, at Orlando, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Public Employer: Norman F. Burke

Van Den Berg, Gay & Burke, P.A.

16 South Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 793 Orlando, Florida 32802

For Petitioner: Dale E. Anstine

Post Office Box 2547 Orlando, Florida 32802

By this petition, Orange County Police Benevolent Association (Petitioner) seeks a Certificate of Representation as the exclusive bargaining agent for airport security guards at the two Orlando airports, Herndon and Orlando Jetport. The primary purpose of this hearing was to establish the facts upon which to determine the appropriate bargaining unit.

Exhibit 1, the Petition; Exhibit 2, Affidavit of Compliance or Registration of Employee Organization; and Exhibit 3, Affidavit of Compliance for Required Showing of Interest were admitted into evidence without objection. The parties stipulated that petitioner is an employee organization and that the City of Orlando is a public employer as defined by Section 447.002, Florida Statutes.

The public employer stipulated that all airport security guards which consist of 4 sergeants and 17 patrolmen should be included in the approved bargaining unit, but that other airport employees in both the operations division and the facilities division should also be included in the appropriate unit. Petitioner opposes the inclusion of any airport employees other than security guards and further joins with the City in stipulating that those airport employees listed on Exhibit 24 should be excluded from the approved bargaining unit. Accordingly, the dispute regarding the appropriateness of the bargaining unit is limited to whether or not those employees, other than

security officers, listed on Exhibit 4 should be included in the appropriate unit.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The airport security officers are principally involved in enforcing parking regulations and directing traffic at the airport. Although they carry basically the same equipment as do Orlando City police officers, they wear blue shirts and the Orlando police wear brown shirts. Further, the Orlando police are civil service, and the airport guards are not. There was some testimony that the security officers are not sworn officers, and do not have the peace officer's powers of arrest; however, those so testifying demonstrated less than a full understanding of the meaning of arrest. These security officers are sworn in by the mayor of the city, are issued badges, guns, handcuffs, nightsticks, mace, radios, etc.; and Exhibit 51, General Rules for Airport Security Officers contains a section on arrest and provides that arrests shall be made in the manner provided for peace officers. Accordingly, it seems clear, despite the apparent opinion of the Orlando police department to the contrary, that airport security officers are peace officers within the meaning of the Florida Statutes.

   
   

2. Several witnesses testified to numerous interfaces between the security officers and other airport employees such as directing traffic while emergency road, or other, repairs are being made; providing security when a gate must be kept open for repairs; and assisting in turning off valves, placing or removing barricades when emergency conditions require.

   
   

3. The Operations Technician exercises certain authority over security officers during emergencies or at nighttime when other supervisory personnel are off duty. The exercise of this authority is normally through the duty security sergeant.

   
   

4. Airport security officers stand duties on 8 hour shifts as do Operations Technicians and Communications clerks. No testimony was presented that maintenance personnel stand similar shifts, but, it would be presumed that if not actually on duty during the 24 hour day, certainly some of these employees are on immediate call during the period normally regarded as other than normal working hours.

   
   

5. Security Officers are paid on a biweekly schedule as are some other airport personnel; most maintenance employees are paid on a weekly basis. The pay scales of security officers and other airport employees proposed to be included in the appropriate bargaining unit are comparable. Some of these employees have a higher pay grade and others a lower pay grade than that of the security officers. There is little, if any, interchange in jobs or duties between security officers and maintenance personnel; nor is there interchange of jobs between electricians and plumbers, for example, within the Maintenance Division.

   
   

6. The City and County (Orange) have approved the formation of an airport authority to operate both Herndon Airports and Orlando Jetport, and await legislative approval from the State. When approved and established, the authority will be the public employer for all airport employees.

   
   

7. In a separate representation hearing, Laborer's International Union, Local 517, in a proceeding involving so called blue collar workers employed by

   the City of Orlando, has disclaimed any interest in including airport employees in their proposed unit.

   
   

8. Disputes have arisen in the past regarding inspecting and servicing vehicles used by security officers, and the City takes the position that if security officers and maintenance personnel are not in the same bargaining unit a greater likelihood of jurisdictional disputes exists.

   
   

9. The City takes the position that having fewer unions with which to bargain will simplify or reduce the problems associated therewith and permit more efficient administration. Such benefit would perhaps be more significant when, and if, the airport authority is created. Concrete facts to support this position could not be presented since there is no history of collective bargaining at the City airports; however, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that reaching bargaining agreements with two unions would be easier than reaching agreements with three.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

10. The factors to be considered in determining an appropriate bargaining unit are listed in Section 449.009(4), Florida Statutes as follows:

    
    

    1. The principles of efficient admini- stration of government;

    2. The number of employee organizations with which the employer might have to nego- tiate;

    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 government at the level of the unit to agree or make effective recommendations to other admini- strative authority or legislative body with respect to matters of employment upon which

       the employee desires 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 regulations or by its decisions; provided that no unit shall be

       established or approved for purposes of collective bargaining which includes both professional and nonprofessional employees unless a majority of each group votes for inclusion in such unit.

       
       

11. The above factors generally favor inclusion of the employees shown on Exhibit 4 into one bargaining unit. The factors which would militate against their conclusion would be the compatibility of the unit with the joint responsibilities to represent the public and the community of interest among the employees to be included. The former appears to be the rationale upon which "guards" are specifically excluded from units under the National Labor Relations Act, i.e., to insure that during strikes or labor unrest the employer would have available a guard force to protect persons or property. McDonnall Aircraft Corp. 109 NLRB 967, 34 LRRM 1489 (1954). Since the Florida Constitution prohibits public employees from striking this reason for precluding security guards from joining unions is less compelling. Chapter 447, Florida Statutes, does not provide for exclusion of guards from bargaining units.

    
    

12. With respect to community of interest provision, the issue is more clouded. Those security officers who testified opined that only security personnel should be in the approved bargaining unit because their training, duties, and authority are different than maintenance personnel. However, as noted above the same can be said of electricians and plumbers. Unless the latter two trades are inappropriately included in a bargaining unit there appears to be no inherent disability that would preclude joining those personnel listed in Exhibit 24 into an approved bargaining unit.

    
    

13. No personnel included on Exhibit 24 other than security officers testified in these proceedings. Accordingly, the desires of these other personnel to be represented by petitioner is not known.

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

ENTERED this 6th day of June, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida.

K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer

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

COPIES FURNISHED:

Norman F. Burke, Esquire

Van Den Berg, Gay & Burke, P.A.

P.O. Box 793

Orlando, Florida 32802

Dale E. Anstine, Esquire

P.O. Box 2547

Orlando, Florida 32802

Docket for Case No: 75-000055

Orders for Case No: 75-000055