STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DADE COUNTY LIFEGUARD ASSOCIATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-1763

) PERC NO. 8H-RC-752-0149

METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter was brought up for hearing before the undersigned hearing officer on December 10, 1975, in Miami, Florida. The Dade County Lifeguard Association has petitioned the Public Employees Relations Commission to be recognized as a separate bargaining unit under Chapter 447.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Rex Ryland, Jr., Esquire

3099 Oak Avenue

Coconut Grove, Florida 33133

For Respondent: Alan J. Kan, Esquire

Assistant County Attorney Dade County, Florida

1626 Dade County Courthouse Miami, Florida

1. There was no dispute that the petitioners were public employees and that Dade County was a public employer. The issues at this hearing were only whether the Dade County lifeguards should be recognized as a separate bargaining unit. The Petitioner seeks to represent 52 employees of Dade County, all lifeguards, 40 are full-time and 12 are part-time. The basic contention that has been made by the lifeguards is that they have specialized needs and do specialized work and, therefore, should be recognized in their own bargaining unit. There can be no question that the occupation of lifeguard does require considerable skill, involves considerable risk and often requires efforts of a heroic proportion to safeguard life and property. Lifeguards must pass strenuous physical tests to qualify for employment, have a great public safety responsibility at the county beaches, and must keep themselves physically able to withstand the rigors of lifesaving.

   
   

2. On the other hand, all county employees have their jobs to do and each group of county employees could make the same argument that different or distinctive functions require separate recognition. Presently Dade County, which employs 21,000 people, has 10 collective bargaining agreements in effect, which covers 15,000 of these employees. The county has naturally expressed a fear of excessive fragmentation of bargaining units should this petition be granted. The lifeguards that testified on behalf of the petitioner also

expressed dissatisfaction with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 1363, which represents a group of county employees including the petitioners here under an existing collective bargaining agreement with Dade County. This agreement was introduced as county exhibit no. l. The lifeguards, although they are already a member of this bargaining unit, have stated that their present experience has been that representation by this local has been inadequate to meet their needs. Certainly if the petitioner here feels that the labor organization now representing them is doing an inadequate job, there are other methods such as charges of unfair labor practice, which could be brought to change this situation without resorting to an independent bargaining unit. So far, the lifeguard have not attempted any other recourse, except to petition for their own bargaining unit. There appears to be a disparity in pay between Dade County lifeguards and those of other municipalities in this geographic region. While these facts may support the need for better representation of lifeguards at collective bargaining sessions with Dade County, those facts do not necessarily support the proposition that the lifeguards should have separate recognition.

Done this 11th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

KENNETH G. OERTEL, Director

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32034

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Rex Ryland, Jr., Esquire 3099 Oak Avenue

Coconut Grove, Florida 33131 Attorney for Petitioner

Alan J. Kan, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Dade County, Florida

1626 Dade County Courthouse Miami, Florida

Docket for Case No: 75-001763

Orders for Case No: 75-001763