vs. ) CASE NO. 75-259
) PERC NO. 8H-RC-756-2093
Respondent. )
A representation hearing, pursuant to notice, was held in this cause on January 16, 1976, in Hallandale, Florida.
For Petitioner: Thomas F. Panza, Esquire For Respondent: Herbert B. Mintz, Esquire
The Petitioner presented three witnesses; John J. Cataldo, Captain, Hallandale Police Department; Richard C. Fox, Acting Chief of Police, Hallandale Police Department, and Frederick Sanks, Lieutenant, Hallandale Police Department. The Public Employer presented one witness, Barbara Campbell, Acting Personnel Director, with the City of Hallandale. The aforementioned witnesses testified and were questioned by counsel and by the hearing officer.
According to the petition as filed, March 21, 1975, as amended in the course of the hearing (Tr.12), the Petitioner requested recognition of a unit comprised of the following employees: All sworn police officers of the rank lieutenants and captains. The Petitioner desired to have excluded from the unit, all non sworn police officers and sworn police officers of the rank of patrolman, sergeant and detective. One further correction to the petition, which was offered by the Public Employer, and not objected to by the Petitioner, was a correction to paragraph 12 of the petition. The correction to paragraph
12 was to indicate that the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees should be listed via a local, and the International Brotherhood of Firefighters, is also via a local. In addition Police Benevolent Association is recognized as a labor organization for a different unit of police employees within the City of Hallandale.
The Employer's position on the question of the petition, is that the petition should be denied for the reasons that the captains and lieutenants have positions of managerial authority; and that the duties and relationships to one another and to the chief are such as to put them into a category of confidential employees, and finally, there would be conflicts of interest if the lieutenants and captains are certified to be represented by the Petitioner, the same labor organization that represents the employees being supervised.
The following exhibits were admitted into evidence; Exhibit 1 - by hearing officer - Notice of Hearing, without objection; Exhibit 2 - by hearing officer - Petition for Unit Recognition, with corrections as already indicated; Exhibit 3 - by hearing officer - Affidavit of Compliance for Required Showing of Interest, admitted with the Public Employer's comments that it had no knowledge of the document; Exhibit 4 - by hearing officer - Affidavit for Compliance for Registration of Employee Organization, with the Public Employer's comment that it had no knowledge of the document; Exhibit 1 - by Petitioner, letter dated March 20, 1975, from Thomas F. Panza, demanding that the Public Employer recognize the proposed unit; Exhibit 2 - by Petitioner, better dated March 26, 1975, from Joseph A. Caldwell, counsel for the Public Employer indicating Public Employer's opposition to the recognition of the proposed unit; Exhibit 3 - by Petitioner, a manual for police of the Hallandale Police Department prepared by the former Chief of Police, James R. Longo; Exhibit 1 - by the Public Employer/Respondent, classification statement for police lieutenant, denied admission because the exhibit was not sufficiently qualified, in that it was not shown that this classification statement had ever been inacted by the City of Hallandale's governing body; Exhibit 2 - by the Public Employer/Respondent, classification statement for police captains, denied admission because the exhibit was not sufficiently qualified, in that it was not shown that this classification statement had ever been inacted by the City of Hallandale's governing body; Exhibits 3 thru 8 - by the Public Employer/ Respondent, evaluation reports of certain employees, who are sworn police officers within the City of Hallandale, admitted over the objection of the Petitioner that because the exhibits were a random sample and because they had no probative value, they should not be admitted; Exhibit 9 - by the Public Employer/Respondent, Recommendation by a member of the Public Employees Relations Commission staff prepared by Joseph Laurence, concerning the unit of other sworn police officers, sworn employees within the City of Hallandale Police Department. The exhibit was objected to as being quadruple hearsay and not available in the matters contained therein and not available for cross- examination, and the objection was sustained. Copies of all exhibits offered in the course of the hearing, to include those rejected exhibits, are included with this analysis of the record.
The parties stipulated and agreed that the City of Hallandale, Florida is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447. The parties stipulated and agreed that the Broward County Police Benevolent Association is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447.
The Petitioner agreed that there was a sufficient showing of interest as required for the filing of a representation election petition, under Florida Statutes, Chapter 447. The Public Employer stated that it was without knowledge of the showing of interest.
The Petitioner agreed that the employee organization is a properly registered organization within the Public Employees Relations Commission's standards. The Public Employer indicated that it was without knowledge of the registration of the organization.
No prior history of bargaining on the part of this proposed unit or employees was shown, nor was there any evidence of a contractual bar to bargaining.
At present there is one other recognized bargaining unit pursuant to PERC certification no. 8H-RA-756-2179, which is comprised of all sworn police officers of the rank of patrolman, sergeant, and detective and it excludes all other municipal employees and any other sworn police officer of other ranks.
All legislative authority of the City of Hallandale resides with the City Commission and only the Commission has the authority to establish conditions of employment, wages and benefits. The captains and/or lieutenants of the City of Hallandale do not bargain or negotiate with labor organization representatives at the bargaining table, although they may be called upon to contribute to the formulation of the policy by way of input to management in preparation for collective bargaining negotiations with the union which represents the lessor ranks of sworn police officers. Additionally, the lieutenants and/or captains would be called upon to comply with the conditions of the agreements made in behalf of the other ranks of sworn officers under their direction.
The organizational structure of the police department in terms of rank positions, by way of the chain of command would show a chief of police, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and other ranks to include patrolmen and detectives. The unit petitioned for would include all sworn officers who are captains or lieutenants. The Public Employer is in opposition to any unit comprised sworn officers of the rank of captain and/or lieutenants. The Petitioner, in its brief to the hearing officer infers that it senses the Public Employer's opposition to be one against a unit comprised of the categories of captains and lieutenants, because captains and lieutenants are felt to be incompatible. A complete reading of the transcript, the petition and the exhibits would seem to suggest that the public Employer's opposition is against a unit determination for captains and lieutenants, whether the captains and lieutenants were in a single unit or the captains and lieutenants were in separate units of each category. The reason for this opposition is as has been stated in the Employer's post hearing brief and in the Petitioner's Exhibit 2.
Turning to the community of interest question, the record shows that all lieutenants and captains are subject to common personnel practices, along with other police officers, in that they are governed by the same personnel rules and guidelines. A statement of the operations procedures for police officers is set forth in general terms through the Petitioner's Exhibit 3, the, Manual for the Hallandale Police Department. The Public Employer/Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2 which attempt to address the job function and classifications of captains and lieutenants were rejected because those exhibits were not shown to be the official statement of the City of Hallandale, at this time. There is a common salary structure for members of the police department in accordance with a plan designed by the Public Employer. There is also a common benefit program for lieutenants and captains in addition to other police officers of the City of Hallandale, concerning holidays, sick leave, insurance and other matters. There is a common disciplinary procedure for all police officers to include lieutenants and captains, in that they fall in the civil service plan which established disciplinary procedures. The application of these procedures s set forth in the civil service plan are uniform. The grievance procedure utilized for captains and lieutenants is the same as established for other police officers and employees of the City of Hallandale. The performance grading of lieutenants and captains is done on an annual basis and covers the same subject matter. There is a common promotional plan for all sworn police officers to include lieutenants and captains.
The captains and lieutenants participate in budget matters to the extent of making budget estimates of the needs of their particular sections of the police department, to be given to the chief of police. The location of the offices of lieutenants and captains is such that these positions are in daily contact.
The captains and lieutenants are members of the Police Benevolent Association and desire to be represented by the Broward County Police Benevolent Association. According to the witnesses, police lieutenants and captains do not effectively recommend the promotion of employees, the hiring of employees, or the firing of employees. This function seems to be one which resides with the chief of police. Lieutenants and captains do make assignments of work, become involved in disciplinary problems at their level by making adjustments with the employee or ultimately recommending disciplinary action through the civil service plan, should the lieutenant's or captain's efforts fail. The Exhibits 3 thru 8 would indicate that in some instances captains evaluate lieutenants and lieutenants evaluate other ranks. These evaluations are utilized in determining matters such as wage increases.
By way of observation of the confidentiality of the lieutenants and captains, the record would show that the ranks of lieutenants and captains are the most immediate ranks below the chief of police and that the lieutenants and captains are charged with the function of the operational control of sworn police officers.
Some of the divisions over which the lieutenants and captains have charge are the patrol division, investigation division, and auxiliary service division. The activities of these divisions, in terms of function, are indicated through the Petitioner's Exhibit 3 and the testimony of the witnesses offered in behalf of the Petitioner.
DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Herbert B. Mintz, Esquire Suite 600
Thomas F. Panza, Esquire 3045 North Federal Highway
