UNION NO. 1221, )
vs. ) CASE NO. 75-059
) PERC NO. 8H-744-2004 SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, )
Respondent. )
A representation hearing pursuant to notice was held in this cause on April 23, 1975, and May 2, 1975, in Clearwater, Florida, before the undersigned hearing officer. Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., Esquire, appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, and B. Edwin Johnson, Esquire, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. The following witnesses were presented: Mr. E. R. Draper, International Representative for the Petitioner; Mr. Paul A. Soper, Personnel Supervisor within the Division of Services, Pinellas County School Board; Mr. Thomas A. Dillon, Director, Personnel Systems and Records, Pinellas County School Board; Dr. Gus Sakkis, Superintendent of Schools, Pinellas County.
Petitioners are seeking a separate unit of all eligible employees employed in the Maintenance, Transportation and Plant Operations Sections of the Institutional Services Department of the Division of Services, Pinellas County School Board, excluding all other non-instructional employees, instructional employees, clerical employees and managerial employees, as set forth in the Petition.
Exhibit 2 - Affidavit of Compliance for Registration of Employee Organization.
Exhibit 3 - Affidavit of Compliance for Required Showing of Interest. Exhibit 4 - Notice and Order of Continuance.
Exhibit 5 - Organization Structure for Pinellas County Schools. Exhibit 6 - Typical School Organization.
Exhibit 7 - Community of Interest Chart. Exhibit 8A - List of Job Classification Titles. Exhibit 8B - List of Classification Titles.
Substitute Exhibit 9 - Corrected list of Alleged Supervisory Job Classifications.
Exhibit 10 - Comparative Chart of Authority of Certain Job Classifications. Exhibit 11 - Excerpts from Minutes of Supporting Services Coordinating
Council.
Exhibit 12 - Constitution of Supporting Services Personnel Coordinating Council.
Exhibit 13 - Plant Operations Personnel Allocation Schedule. Exhibit 14 - Employee Turnover Chart.
Exhibit 15 - List of Names of Employees. Composite Exhibit 16 - Job Descriptions.
Exhibit 17 - Employee Appraisal Report Supporting Services. Composite Exhibit 18 - Organizational Chart for Sections Within
Institutional Services Department.
Exhibit 18A - Institutional Services Department. Exhibit 18B - Food Service Section.
Exhibit 18C - Maintenance Section Exhibit 18D - Plant Operations Section Exhibit 18E - Transportation Section Exhibit 18F - Warehousing Section
At the outset of the hearing the Respondent presented a Motion to Dismiss, setting forth six grounds in it's support. Grounds 1 - 4 and 6 are concerned with compliance by the Petitioner with the required showing of interest, the authorization cards and Petitioner's alleged failure to file a Request For Recognition. Ground 5 alleges that the Notice of Hearing failed to contain a statement of legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing
is to be held and a reference to the particular section of the statute and rules involved, as required by Rule 8H-3.17, F.A.C. In connection with this last allegation, it should be noted that Respondent was present at time of hearing, prepared to proceed with the hearing, and at no point did Respondent deny having actual notice. The latter allegation goes merely to the technical sufficiency of the notice. The hearing officer took the foregoing motions under advisement and hereby transmits them to the Public Employees Relations Commission for decision.
In questioning the sufficiency of the authorization cards in their Motion to Dismiss, counsel for the Respondent said that they had no specific proffer on the validity of the authorization cards. Because of PERC's handling of the matter, Petitioner claimed to have had no opportunity to review the cards to determine their sufficiency and timeliness. In support of their motion, Respondent presented Exhibit 14, which purports to show the turnover rate within the Maintenance, Transportation and Plant Operations Sections of the Institutional Services Department of the Pinellas County School System. Exhibit
14 shows that there is a high annual turnover rate. Respondent's purpose in presenting this exhibit was to indicate the probability that a substantial proportion of the authorization cards are signed by individuals not employed by the Respondent at the time of hearing. The Respondent argued that the showing of interest must be made through employees employed at the time of hearing and not at the time the authorization cards were filed. In addition, Respondent presented Exhibit 15, which contains a list of those persons employed in the positions sought to be represented by the Petitioner. This list is dated as of March 19, 1975. Respondent requested that PERC compare Exhibit 15 to the authorization cards filed by Petitioner, to determine how many of the signators of the authorization cards remain employed by Respondent.
Also in connection with the Motion to Dismiss, Mr. E.R. Draper testified than he hand-delivered the Petition to PERC on December 16, 1974. He further testified that, at that time, he delivered to PERC upwards of 450 authorization cards. Thereafter, he received a letter from PERC requesting an alphabetized list of the cards, which list he subsequently furnished to PERC. Also, additional authorization cards were subsequently filed with PERC. He testified that all of the cards were dated within six months of the filing of the Petition.
The authorization cards contained in the PERC file were classified according to date by the hearing officer as follows:
Total Number Undated and Unpostmarked Cards -
Undated but Postmarked Cards: | 51 |
(a) Postmarked Prior to July 1, 1974 - | 93 |
(b) Postmarked from July 1, 1974, to and including December 16, 1974 - |
3 |
(c) Postmarked from December 17, 1974, to and including December 31, 1974 - |
1 |
(d) Postmarked from January 1, 1974, to date of hearing - |
0 |
Dated Cards: (a) Dated Prior to July 1, 1974 - |
0 |
(b) Dated from July 1, 1974, to and including December 16, 1974 - |
397 |
Dated from December 17, 1974, to and including December 31, 1974 - 1
Dated from January 1, 1975, to date of hearing - 52
No evidence was presented setting forth either, the total employee population of the Institutional Services Department, nor a breakdown of employee population by section within the Institutional Services Department, except as shown on Exhibit 14. Exhibit 14 shows total population for the Maintenance, Plant Operations and Transportation Sections, as of December, 1974, to be 1,297 persons. Representation was made by counsel that the unit sought by Petitioner would include approximately 1,000 employees and that the unit sought by the Respondent would include from 1800-2500 employees.
The parties stipulated and agreed that Petitioner is an employee organization and Respondent is a public employer as defined by Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. It was further stipulated and agreed that there is no contractual bar to bargaining. The parties stipulated that Petitioner is properly registered with the Public Employee Relations Commission. The Respondent questioned Exhibit No. 3, Affidavit of Compliance for Required Showing of Interest, but presented no evidence except as stated above, in support of said objection.
The units of organization with which this hearing is concerned are set forth on Exhibit 5 and Composite Exhibit 18. The parent unit is the Institutional Services Department of the Division of Services of the Pinellas County School System. As shown by Exhibit 18A, there are five sections within the Division of Services, these being, Food Services, Maintenance, Plant Operations, Transportation, and rehousing. The Petitioner seeks, generally, all those blue collar workers within the Maintenance Plant Operations and Transportation Sections. In the event such a unit is not approved by PERC, the Petitioner states that, as an alternative, it would seek, in general, all blue collar workers in the three requested sections, plus, those in the Food Services Section and Warehousing Section. In addition to the five defined sections, there are, also, within the Division of Services, clerical personnel, security personnel, and instructional personnel, including paraprofessionals and teacher aides. The Petitioner seeks to exclude from any unit, all clerical personnel, instructional personnel and security personnel. The Respondent argues that the appropriate unit would be comprised of all personnel in the Division of Services with the exclusion of those in a supervisory or managerial status. The parties stipulate that the Director of each Section and his secretary should be excluded as managerial and confidential employees.
The following is a list of job classifications, by section, which both parties agree should be included in any unit:
Maintenance Section Automotive Equipment Operator Automotive Mechanic I, II Automotive Service Mechanic Cabinet Maker
Cafeteria Equipment Technician I, II Carpenter I, II
Cement Finisher/Plasterer
Clock and Bell Technician I, II Electrician I, II
Electronics Technician I, II Furniture Refinisher
Heating and A/C Mechanic I, II Heavy Equipment Operator Locksmith
Machinist Maintenance Worker
Office Machine Technician I, II Paint/Body Mechanic I, II Painter I, II
Plumber I, II Roofer I, II
Sheet Metal Mechanic I, II Station Attendant
Tool Room Operator Trades Helper Upholsterer/Glazier Welder
(The job descriptions of the above jobs are set forth in Exhibit 16A.)
Plant Operations
Carpet Maintenance Technician General Maintenance Technician I, II Grounds Keeper I, II
Plant Operator Pool Technician
(The job descriptions of the above jobs are set forth in Exhibit 16B.)
Transportation
Automotive Mechanic I, II Bus Driver
Paint/Body Mechanic I, II Station Attendant
(The Job descriptions for the above jobs are set forth in Exhibit 16C.)
Petitioner and Respondent apparently agree that if PERC expands the unit to include the Food Services and Warehousing Sections, the job descriptions listed below would be appropriate for inclusion within the unit.
Food Services
Food Service Worker I, II, III
(The Job descriptions for Food Service Worker II and III are contained in Exhibit 16D.
The job description for Food Service Worker I is included in the submittal by Respondent dated May 8, 1975.)
Warehousing
Inventory Control Clerk I, II Mail Courier I, II
Stock Clerk I, II, III Truck Driver I, II
(The job descriptions for the above jobs, with the exception of Mail Courier I and II, are set forth in Exhibit 16E.)
Both parties agree that the following jobs, for which a description may be found in Exhibit 16F, should be excluded from any unit as being managerial in nature:
Transportation
Bus Route Supervisor Food Services
Food Service Manager I, II, III
In addition to the agreed upon inclusions listed above, the Respondent asserts that the unit should also include the following positions.
Security Security Guard Instructional Paraprofessional Teacher Aide Clerical
Clerk Specialist I, II Clerk Typist I, II Dispatcher
File Clerk Library Aide
School Bookkeeper I, II Secretary I, II
(The Job descriptions for the above Jobs were not submitted into evidence.)
The following listed positions are in dispute with the Petitioner claiming they should be included in any appropriate unit and the Respondent claiming they should be excluded as managerial:
Automotive Parts Foreman Carpet Maintenance Foreman Deputy Chief of Security
Head Plant Operator I, II, III Inventory Control Coordinator Labor Foreman
Maintenance Unit Supervisor Night Foreman I, II
Plant Foreman
Plant Operations Supervisor Trades Foreman Transportation Coordinator Warehouse Foreman
Warehouse Supervisor
(Job descriptions for most of the above positions are contained in Exhibit 16F, except that the job description of Warehouse Foreman is contained in Exhibit 16E. No job
descriptions have been introduced into evidence for Deputy Chief of Security, Head Plant Operator I, II, III, Inventory Control Coordinator, and Transportation Coordinator.)
According to Dr. Sakis, Superintendent of Schools, the school system is organized around three basic functions. One function is the development of curriculum and teaching methodologies. The employees involved in that function are not involved in this hearing. The second function is that of the delivery of education. This function is performed primarily by the teachers, who also
are not involved in this proceeding. The third function is that of the Division of Services and deals with logistics. That is, providing the services such as building maintenance, transportation, clerical help, etc., that allows the other two functions to perform. It is the people involved in performing this third basic function who are involved in this proceeding. Within that context, all of the employees falling within the Institutional Services Department of the Division of Services perform the same function, which is, logistical support of the school system.
Within the Institutional Services Department, there appear to be two primary groups of employees. One group consists of those employees belonging to the five defined sections and the other group consists of those employees within the security, instructional and clerical areas as set forth above. There are certain common factors between these two groups which are indicated by blocks 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, and 17 of Exhibit 7. In general terms, however, the nature of the work of these two groups differs. The work done by those employees of the defined sections is generally blue collar in nature, while the work done by those security, instructional and clerical personnel is generally white collar in nature.
The work done by the clerical personnel is identical to the work one by any clerk or secretary in any office organization. The security personnel are concerned with the physical security of the school premises throughout the Pinellas County School System, including fire security. It is their task to enforce, in cooperation with the proper law enforcement authorities, the rules of the School Board. The security personnel are not armed. Security personnel provide security for the school system 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The instructional personnel consist of the paraprofessionals and teacher aides. A paraprofessional is a person who has at least two years of college, but is not certified as a teacher. The duties of a paraprofessional include aiding the teacher in the educational process in the classroom. The Paraprofessional may teach, but only under the direct supervision of the teacher and with materials that have been provided by the teacher. A teacher aide must have at least a high school diploma and an aide's duties include helping in preparation of materials, keeping records, setting up demonstrations, etc. There are no teaching duties involved on the part of a teacher aide. Instructional personnel are assigned to a school with their supervisors falling within the school organization as opposed to the Institutional Services Department organization.
The Food Service section of the Division of Services maintains the lunch program of the school system and has personnel assigned to schools as well as to central facilities for the processing and delivery of food. The Warehousing Section maintains the warehousing and storage facilities for the school system.
All employees under the Institutional Services Department are served by the same personnel office. Many of the employees of the Institutional Services Department, though members of different sections, perform their duties in common buildings or at common locations. For example, the High Point facility consists of several buildings which are shared by the different sections within the Institutional Services Department.
Many of the employees within the Institutional Services Department do not work within the organizational structure of their particular section. For example, many of the employees of the Plant Operations Section work within the organizational structure of a particular school, as do many of the employees of the Food Services Section. Further, there is no specific organizational
structure for the clerical personnel. All clerical personnel are assigned to defined entities, each with its own organization. The same is true for all instructional personnel and is true in part for security personnel.
Dr. Sakis testified that to include in a unit only those personnel sought by the Petitioner, would fragment the employees and result in a chaotic situation within the school system. He testified that such fragmentation would be inefficient and would make it extremely difficult to engage in effective bargaining with several different units. He noted that the school system is totally tax dependent and that with a fragmented system you would have several units, as well as, perhaps, some unorganized employees competing for the same dollar. He felt that because the system is tax dependent there is a money restriction not common to private industry, as it relates to collective bargaining. At present, there are three general salary schedules, one for Administrative Personnel, one for Teacher Personnel, and one for Division of Services Personnel. If the Petitioner were allowed the unit it seeks, according to Dr. Sakis, it is likely that the number of salary schedules would be increased, as would the number of benefit systems for personnel. This would result in increased expenses for the school system and taxpayer. Further, Dr. Sakis felt that there would be jurisdictional disputes between union and non- union personnel, were a unit to be allowed within the Division of Services, which did not included all personnel of the Division of Services.
The following information was presented concerning the listed jobs in addition to that contained in the job descriptions in Exhibit 16F.
Automotive Parts Foreman - This employee is located in the Warehousing Section and has stock clerks under his supervision. This employee is not responsible for the adjustment of grievances, this responsibility remaining with a higher level supervisor.
Head Plant Operator I, II, III - The difference in the numerical classification is that the higher number serves a larger school. The witness was unable to give an approximation of the number of persons normally in a crew of a Head Plant Operator I, II, or III. Groundskeepers would be in the crew of a Head Plant Operator. Exhibit 13 is a staffing model indicating the crew under a Head Plant Operator. In the hiring of Plant Operators, the Head Plant Operator would normally interview the prospective employee. In being hired, the prospective Head Plant Operator would normally be interviewed by the principal of the school in which he was to work. No job description was introduced concerning Head Plant Operator I, II, or III.
Labor Foreman - The employee normally supervises up to a dozen employees. A Labor Foreman will not normally supervise members of skilled trade. This employee spends a large proportion of his time actually engaged in work, as opposed to supervision. The Labor Foreman reports to the maintenance supervisor. A Labor Foreman can request additional personnel, but has no authority to assign himself additional personnel. He may request additional equipment but has no authority to issue it to himself.
Maintenance Unit Supervisor - This employee supervises Labor Foremen and assigns responsibilities to Labor Foremen and crews.
Night Foreman I and II - The responsibilities of these employees are set forth in part by the staffing model contained in Exhibit 13.
Plant Foreman - The responsibilities of this employee are set forth, in part, by the staffing model contained in Exhibit 13.
Warehouse Foreman - A Warehouse Foreman is supervised by a Warehouse Supervisor.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of August, 1975.
CHRIS H. BENTLEY
Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida
Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., Esquire
B. Edwin Johnson, Esquire 960 East Druid Road Clearwater, Florida
