STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
WINTER PARK PROFESSIONAL FIRE ) FIGHTERS LOCAL #1598, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 75-146
) PERC NO. 8H-RC-756-1016
CITY OF WINTER PARK, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A hearing was held in the above styled cause on May 29, 1975, May 30, 1975, June 11, 1975 and June 12, 1975, at Orange County Courthouse, Grand Jury Room, Orlando, Florida, before Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Department of Administration, Division of Administrative Hearings.
An RC Petition by Winter Park Professional Fire Fighters Local 1598 (hereinafter called Petitioner) was filed with PERC on or about February 5, 1975, for a unit composed of all full-time fire fighters of the City of Winter Park excluding the Chief. The Public Employees Relations Commission referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a hearing which was held pursuant to notice on May 29, 30, and June 11, 12, 1975 before the undersigned Hearing Officer.
Based upon the Public Employees Relations Commission's file, the testimony and exhibits presented the Hearing Officer would make the following observations regarding the Petition and the proposed unit:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties agreed that the City of Winter Park or the City Commission was the Public Employer as defined by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes.
The Public Employees Relations Commission's file contains the affidavit of Pat Hill attesting to the fact that the Winter Park Professional Fire Fighters Local #1598 was a duly registered employee organization as of the date of hearing. This affidavit was executed on May 2, 1975.
The Petition recites that recognition of Petitioner was requested on January 16, 1975.
The Public Employer has not responded to the request for recognition.
The Winter Park Fire Department is composed of full-time and volunteer fire fighters. The Petitioner seeks to represent only full-time fire fighters, of which there are approximately 38, and would seek to represent all fire fighters in the Department except the chief.
The Winter Park Fire Department is composed of the chief, fire inspector (fire marshall), three captains, three lieutenants, one mechanic, various engineers and fire fighters.
There are two fire stations, Station 1 and Station 2, each station having three shifts. Station 1 is commanded by a captain and Station 2 is commanded by a lieutenant who reports to the captain who also is the shift commander. It should be noted, however, that the captain would not respond to a fire in Station 2's area, therefore, generally, a lieutenant would not work on a fire scene for the captain.
Each shift has approximately eleven men, including the captain and lieutenant, assigned, and there are approximately 6-5 at Station 1 and 4-5 at Station 2.
The Mechanic is a fully qualified fire fighter and the Chief feels that this dual capability makes him more valuable to the Department.
The Fire Inspector (Fire Marshall) is a special staff officer who inspects building plans for compliance with fire safety codes, assist in operational planning, and directs the activities of fire safety inspectors assigned to him.
The Deputy Chief acts as the second in command of the Department, assistant to the Fire Chief, and coordinates and directly supervises the shift captains. He would respond to any fire alarm in Area 1 or 2 which was other than a minor fire, and command the fire scene, except those to which the Chief responded. It was apparent that the Fire Chief was the major policy maker, but the Deputy Chief was the "detail man" charged with developing and executing major polices determined by the Chief. The Deputy Chief prepared the Standing Operating Procedures (SOP's), letters of change to the SOP's, and other letters of direction received from the Chief. Although the Chief would consult with the Deputy Chief on budgetary, personnel, and planning matters, the Chief retained the authority to determine policy. The Deputy Chief was authorized to exercise his discretion in implementing these polices particularly those related to personnel; assignments, transfers, and approval of leaves.
The Mechanic is assigned to maintain and repair all the department's trucks and pumps. The Chief testified that the Mechanic had and needed knowledge of regular gasoline engines, diesel engines, and pumps. The Chief further testified that the Mechanic's position was held by a man who had been an engineer with the Department, who had the requisite skills, and the Chief had promoted him to provide him additional compensation in order that he would take the job. The Mechanic spends almost all of his 40-hour week in the performance of mechanic's duties, but as a qualified fire fighter he is qualified to perform fire fighting duties if necessary. In actuality the Mechanic does not fight fires, but has the capability if required. The Mechanic schedules his own work and reports to the Deputy Chief. He is on call when not on duty. He is assisted as required by other firemen if additional physical strength is necessary to perform a specific task. The status of the current mechanic is apparently in flux, and the Chief has referred to a study committee of firemen and officers the problem of to what rank and seniority the individual should revert. The Mechanic is not required to be a fire fighter.
It was apparent from the Chief's testimony regarding various major policy decisions that he consulted with fire department personnel who would be effected by a proposed policy either by means of a group meeting, study
committee or similar decision making process. Such input was obtained from personnel not so much on the basis of rank in the Department but rather on the issue involved and who it affected. The Chief was dependent upon his special staff members, i.e., the Deputy Chief and Fire Marshall, for special plans and operational advice, however, the pattern for decision making did not restrict input solely to officer personnel.
The company officers provide budgetary information by preparing lists of their stations' and shifts' projected equipment, consumable, and capital outlay needs in the upcoming fiscal year. Based upon this data the Chief and Deputy Chief prepare the budget for submission to the City Manager. Items requested by company officers are reviewed by the Chief and Deputy Chief and are generally approved if they are not too expensive and appear to be justifiable. The Chief indicated that he gave careful consideration to such requests, pointing out an expensive hose dryer purchased at the request of Station 2's officers and a coffee maker needed and requested by Lt. Legarde, the latter being a direct authorization purchase from current funding.
The company officers were responsible for the assignment of duties of subordinate personnel at their station on their shift both on equipment and station work details. Because of the limited numbers of personnel assigned at the stations, the company officers participated in clean up details including the handling of the light clean up duties.
The company officers had only limited authority to grant leaves. Company officers would not have authority to suspend personnel except under those circumstances in which the individual would pose a hazard to himself and others such as an employee reporting to work drunk. Disciplinary cases would be referred through the Deputy Chief to the Chief for final action with appeal rights to the civil service board. The authority to grant regular leave similarly would necessitate approval by the Deputy Chief. The company officers forward the request to the Deputy Chief and explain the basis for the request. According to the testimony, officers would not generally present a recommendation regarding approval to the Deputy Chief. Company officers do have authority to grant temporary exchanges of duty although this would be reported as a courtesy to the Deputy Chief.
Company officers do evaluate personnel and these evaluations would be a considerable but not determinative factor in promotion. It would be one of several things which a panel of fire officers from surrounding communities would consider in evaluating an employee's eligibility for promotion. The Chief indicated that although by law he could select from the several highest individuals recommended, he had established a policy that he would promote the highest recommended.
Merit increases were authorized and dependent upon evaluations, however, because of nonavailability of funds, merit increases had not been paid for some time and no one could foresee their payment.
The relationship of company officers on the table of organization would indicate that the Lieutenant at Station 2 was subordinate to the Captain at Station 1. However the Captain is more closely under the supervision of the Deputy Chief. The conduit for information is through the chain of command, however, any person who was not present or otherwise reasonably available would be skipped.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing it would appear that the Chief, Deputy Chief, and Fire Inspector should be excluded from the bargaining unit on the basis that they have a special staff relationship with the Chief advising him on matters related to the operation of the Fire Department. Fire fighters of the grade of engineers and below should be within any unit found appropriate by the Public Employees Relations Commission. The Mechanic and the company officers would be considered the pivotal group.
With regard to the Mechanic, the position per se does not require that the incumbent be a qualified fire fighter. The hours, responsibilities, and position within the organization differ from a regular lieutenant or a fire fighter generally. The Chief indicated that the promotion to lieutenant was to increase the compensation to the incumbent, who was already an engineer. The rank, therefore, is more a factor of pay than line function. The Mechanic does not exercise any line authority over subordinate personnel and at a fire scene would be primarily available to service equipment. There does not appear to be any special staff relationship between the Mechanic and the Chief such as one would find with the Deputy Chief and Fire Marshall however, the Mechanic's community of interest is not the same as a fire fighter. Even when the incumbent has dual qualifications, as in the present case, they lack the same community of interest unless the incumbent reverts back to regular fire fighting duties.
Regarding the lieutenants and captains there is record evidence which would indicate that they do not set policy or have a special relationship to the Chief which allows them to influence policy decisions. They definitely exercise supervision over the personnel assigned to them, assigning their station house keeping and firefighting duties, evaluating them, and directing their everyday work activities. Although their direct disciplinary authority is restricted, they are in a line position upon which they can recommend dismissal during and after probation, transfer and mete out similar disciplinary measures. Although the Chief or Deputy Chief may be in command of the fire scene, it is the company officer who directly leads the firefighting team even though the situation might require him to pull hose, use a fire ax, or hold and direct a nozzle. Testimony indicates that company officers have performed their official duties in the past even though at least two of the officers were members and officers of the union and administered an existing contract under the old firefighting bargaining act. In that regard, the Chief's testimony indicated that he had not differentiated between these officers bringing a grievance to bin as a union representative or as a company officer bringing up a matter related to one of his men. It should be noted, however, that if captains and lieutenants were included in the unit, this would leave only the Chief and Deputy Chief, who work 40-hour shifts, in line management positions to oversee approximately 33 - 35 employees. This would stretch their span of effective control and they are dependent upon the company officers to insure that departmental policy is followed. This situation could be remedied to some degree by inclusion of captains in the management- supervisory hierarchy and excluding lieutenants. However, there appears to be little actual difference between the authority granted captains and lieutenants within their own stations. If lieutenants and captains were included there would be eight manager-supervisors to oversee the remaining thirty fire fighters. While this ratio may seem out of proportion, the fact that there are two work locations and three shifts cannot be overlooked.
If the lieutenants and captains were excluded from the fire fighters group because of their supervisory function, there would be only six of them to
form another bargaining unit in the event they elect to unionize which could lead to excessive unit fragmentation. If included in the proposed bargaining unit, lieutenants and captains would be in an unusual position as supervisors and as leaders of the union, historically having participated in administration of the contract.
The Hearing Officer would suggest that the Public Employees Relations Commission should consider exclusion solely on the basis of the lack of sufficient manager-supervisors, and the potential conflict which their inclusion could generate. If it were decided to include the company officers in the unit, consideration should be given to restrict them from participation in administration of the contract.
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of January, 1976.
STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
(904) 488-9675
COPIES FURNISHED:
JOSEPH EGAN, Esquire
Hamilton, Douglas and Bennett, P.A. Metcalf Building
100 South Orange Avenue Suite 309
Orlando, Florida
CHARLES R. FAWSETT, Esquire
100 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida
Chairman
Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 105, 2005 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 05, 1976 | Recommended Order (hearing held May 29, 30, June 11 and 12, 1975). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 03, 1976 | Recommended Order | Fact finding hearing to establish a record for Public Employee Relaitons Commission (PERC) review concerning the duties and units to be represented. |
NATIONAL HEALTHCORP, L.P. vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 75-000146 (1975)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs O. SCOTT STOUTAMIRE, 75-000146 (1975)
NATIONAL HEALTHCORP vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 75-000146 (1975)
ELLIOTT HENDRY, JR. vs. CREATIVE MAINTENANCE ENTERPRISES, INC., 75-000146 (1975)
PCH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, 75-000146 (1975)
