STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LABORER'S LOCAL UNION )

NUMBER 1306, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-237

) PERC NO. 8H-RC-753-0053 CITY OF PORT ST. JOE, FLORIDA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on June 16, 1975, at Port St. Joe, Florida. The following appearances were entered:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire

Frank & Meyer Tampa, Florida

For Respondent William J. Rish, Esquire Public Employer: Rish & Whitten

Port St. Joe, Florida

and

H. Victor Hansen, Esquire Fisher & Phillips Atlanta, Georgia

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

The Laborers' Local Union Number 1306 ("Petitioner" hereafter) has filed a petition with the Public Employees Relations Commission ("PERC" hereafter).

Petitioner is seeking to represent a unit of employees of the City of Port St. Joe, Florida ("Public Employer" hereafter). The unit described in the petition would include all Water Production, Water Treatment Plant, Sewage Department, Street Department, Sanitation Department, Parks Department and all other blue collar workers not mentioned above; and would exclude all other employees, managerial employees, supervisory employees, clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the act. The Public Employer has defined the unit as including all non-managerial employees of the City of Port St. Joe, with the exclusion of those employed by the hospital, and those employed by either the Police or Fire Department (See: Transcript 1/ pp 9-12).

The final hearing was originally scheduled to be conducted on May 12, 1975.

Upon the request of counsel for the Public employee and with consent, the

hearing was rescheduled to commence on June 16, 1975, at 9:30 A.M. (See: Hearing Officer Exhibit 2).

The purposes of the hearing were to consider and to develop a record from which PERC might consider and determine the following issues:

1. Whether the Respondent is a public Employer within the meaning of Florida statutes, Chapter 447.

   
   

2. whether the Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida statutes Chapter 447.

   
   

3. Whether there is a sufficient showing of interest as required for the filing of a Representation Election Petition under Florida statutes, Chapter 447.

   
   

4. Whether the employee organization is a properly registered organization with the Public Employees Relations Commission.

   
   

5. What is the appropriate unit of public employees in the case.

The Public Employer called Mr. Charles W. Brock, City Auditor and Clerk, City of Port St. Joe, as its only witness. Petitioner presented its evidence through cross examination of the public employer's witness. The parties were allowed an opportunity to file legal memoranda and proposed Findings of Fact. The Public Employer has filed a brief.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petition herein was filed by Petitioner with PERC on February 14, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1).

   
   

2. The hearing in this cause was, scheduled by notice dated May 23, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2).

   
   

3. The City of Port St. Joe, Florida, is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447,002(2). (Stipulation TR 6).

   
   

4. The Laborers' Local Union No. 1306 is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(10). (Stipulation, TR 6).

   
   

5. There is no contractual bar to hold an election in this case. (Stipulation, TR 6, 7).

   
   

6. There is no pertinent bargaining history which affects this matter. (Stipulation, TR 7).

   
   

7. PERC has previously concluded that the Petitioner is a duly registered employee organization (See: Hearing Officer Exhibit 3). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC.

   
   

8. PERC has previously concluded that the Petitioner filed the requisite showing of interest with its petition (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). No evidence was presented to rebut the administrative determination.

9. Petitioner and the Public Employer stipulated and agreed that all employees of the City of Port St. Joe employed at the hospital, or in the Fire and Police Departments should be excluded from any unit ultimately certified. The parties further stipulated that Mr. Brook, the City Clerk-Auditor, and Mr.

   R. F. Simon, Manager of the Waste Water Treatment Plant, should be excluded from the unit; and, that Mr. Joe Badger, the Janitor at City Hall, who is not identified in the proposed unit designations, should be included within the unit. (Stipulation TR 10, 11).

   
   

10. The City of Port St. Joe operates under a city commission form of government with a mayor and four commissioners. The, City has approximately 80 to 85 employees. The functions of government are not rigidly departmentalized in Port St. Joe. The, largest City Department is the Water and Waste Water Treatment Plant. This department is headed by a manager, Mr. R. E. Simon, who answers to the City Commission. Approximately 40 of the city's employees are in this department. The city's other two departments are more vaguely defined. There is a department concerned with parks and Cemeteries, and Water and Sewers, which employs approximately 20 persons; and a department concerned with Roads and streets, garbage and Trash Collection, and Warehouse and Garage, which employs approximately 18 - 20 persons. Each of these latter two departments is headed by the City Auditor-Clerk, Charles W. Brock. Mr. Brock answers to the City Commission. (TR 12-14, 29, 34-35). The Public Employer argued that all city employee other than those employed at the hospitals or in the Police or Fire Departments should be included within an appropriate unit. Only the manager of the Water and Waste Water Treatment Plant, and the City Auditor-Clerk would be excluded. Petitioner asserts that Supervisory employees and clerical employees should be excluded from the unit. Petitioner would exclude from the unit persons who fill the following positions: Assistant Manager of the Waste Water Treatment Plant; Work Superintendent of the Department concerned with streets and Highways, Trash and Garbage Collection, and Garage and Warehouse; Work Superintendent of the Department concerned with Water and Sewers, parks and Cemeteries; Leadmen or Chiefs at the Waste Water Treatment plant; Chief Mechanic; Chief of Instrumentation and Electric; Chief Operator; Chief of the Laboratory; Chief of Sewer Collection; The Inventory and Warehouse Clerk; and the city's seven clerical employees The Public Employer would include the persons holding these positions within the unit.

    
    

11. The present Assistant Manager of the Waste Water Treatment Plant is Curtis Lane. Mr. Lane answers directly to Mr. Simon, the Plant Manager. Mr. Lane is charged generally with carrying out the instructions of Mr. Simon, and he performs some supervisory functions based on these instructions. Mr. Lane does not have the authority to hire and fire other employees. He receives an hourly wage, and the same vacation, pension and insurance benefits as other employees receive. His hourly wage rate is higher than that of the other employees at the Waste Water Treatment plant. He wears the same uniform as the other employees. It does not appear that Mr. Lane exercises any significant budgetary role, nor that he would play any part in the collective bargaining process. (TR 14-16, 37-42).

    
    

12. The present work Superintendent of the Department concerned with Streets and Highways, Trash and Garbage, and Garage and Warehouses is Dorton Hadden. Mr. Hadden reports directly to Mr. Brock. Mr. Hadden is charged with supervising the 18 to 20 employees in his department. He receives a salary while other employees are compensated on an hourly rate. He does receive the same insurance, vacation, and pension benefits that other employees receive.

    Mr. Hadden wears the same uniform as other employees in his department. It does not appear that Mr. Hadden has any significant budgetary role, nor any

    significant role in the collective bargaining process. (TR 16-18, 31-35, 47, 49).

    
    

13. The present work Superintendent of the department concerned with Water and Sewers and Parks and Cemeteries is G. L. Scott. Mr. Scott supervises 10 to

    12 employees. He answers directly to Mr. Brock. Mr. Scott is paid a salary while all other employees of his department, except one, are paid at an hourly rate. He receives the same insurance, vacation, and pension benefits as other employees. Mr. Scott wears the same uniform as other employees in his department. It does not appear that Mr. Scott has any significant budgetary role, nor any significant role in the collective bargaining process. (TR 18-20, 42-45).

    
    

14. Other positions within the Waste Water Treatment Plant Department about which there is a dispute as to inclusions within the bargaining unit are the leadmen or chiefs at the Waste Water Treatment Plant, the Chief Mechanic, the Chief of Instrumentation and Electric, the Chief Operator, Chief of the Laboratory, and Chief of Sewer Collection. These employees are charged with supervising specific aspects of the Waste Water Treatment Plant operation Each of these employees answers to Mr. Simon. Each is compensated at an hourly rate of pay, which is generally higher than that of other employees at the plant. They wear the same uniform and have the same insurance, vacation, and pension benefits as other employees. It does not appear that these employees perform a significant budgetary role, nor play a significant role in the collective bargaining process. (TR 20-24, 59-69).

    
    

15. The Inventory and Warehouse Clerk at the Waste Water Treatment Plant is George Padgett. Mr. Padgett answers to Mr. Simon. He is charged generally with maintaining the inventory at the warehouse. He is paid on the same wage scale, and receives the same insurance, vacation, and pension benefits as other employees. He wears the same uniform as other employees. It does not appear that Mr. Padgett exercises any significant budgetary role, nor that he has any significant role to play in the collective bargaining process. (TR 24-26, 47- 49).

    
    

16. The Public Employers clerical employees are supervised either by Mr. Brock or by Mr. Simon. These employees do not work directly with other employees in the unit described in the Petition. They are paid on the same wage scale, and receive the same insurance, vacation, and pension benefits as the other employees. It does not appear that these employees play any significant budgetary role, nor that they will have any significant role in the collective bargaining process. (TR 26-29,49-56).

ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1975 in Tallahassee, Florida.

G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

ENDNOTE

1/ References to pages in the official transcript will hereafter be designated "TR" followed by the page number.

Docket for Case No: 75-000237

Orders for Case No: 75-000237