STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

UBC, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL )

Number 1765, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

and ) DOAH NO. 75-1793

) PERC NO. 8H-RC-756-0224

CITY OF CASSELBERRY. )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to Section 447.307(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and 8H-3.16, Florida Administrative Code, a public hearing was held by the undersigned Hearing Officer in the above matter on January 28, 1976, at Casselberry, Florida.

Notice of hearing was issued to the parties on December 10, 1975, in accordance with Rule 8H-3.17.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Bill M. Wilson

Business Representative

333 Oakridge Road Pinecastle Branch Orlando, Florida 32807

For Respondent: Kenneth W. McIntosh, City Attorney &

Ned N. Julian, Jr, Assistant City Attorney Post Office Box 1330

Sanford, Florida 32771

By Petition to PERC, dated October 8, 1975, Petitioner seeks a Certificate of Representation as the exclusive bargaining agent for employees of the "Public Works and Utilities", with the exclusion of "manager, supervisors, clerks, etc."

The parties stipulated that the correct name of the Petitioner is that which appears on the Petition filed in the case, and that the Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of the Public Employees Relations Act.

The parties also stipulated that the Respondent is the City of Casselberry, and that it comes within the definition of Section 447.203(2) of the Act.

The parties stipulated that by letter of September 23, 1975, Petitioner requested recognition as bargaining agent for the employees in the proposed unit and that the Respondent declined recognition by letter of October 7, 1975.

The petition was admitted into evidence without objection (Exhibit 1).

Although the formal documents consisting of Affidavit of Compliance for Registration of Employee Organization and Affidavit of Compliance for Required

Showing of Interest were not available at the time of the hearing, the Hearing Officer announced that they would be incorporated into the record as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively, and there was no objection to this procedure. The Respondent, however, reserved the right to have PERC reconsider the Required Showing of Interest prior to its determination in this matter due to the fact that by stipulation the parties agreed that a number of personnel properly should be excluded from the proposed unit.

The issue to be considered at the hearing was the appropriate bargaining unit of public employees under the provisions of Section 447.307, F.S. and PERC Rule 8H-3.01, F.A.C.

During the course of the hearing, the City Manager and the Director of Utilities testified for the Respondent. The Petitioner called the Mayor of Casselberry as a witness.

Upon inquiry by the hearing Officer, the Respondent stated its position that it desired one bargaining unit to represent all eligible city employees other than those in the police and fire departments, in order to reduce the time and cost in bargaining sessions each year and to avoid undesirable and unnecessary fragmentation of units. Further, it was asserted that certification of the proposed unit would adversely affect city efficiency in dealing with a proliferation of bargaining units.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Public Works Department consists of fourteen employees including a superintendent, eight maintenance men - two of whom are CETA personnel, one equipment operator, two mechanics, one lead man, and one operator foreman who supervises the equipment operator. The parties stipulated that all of these employees properly should be included in the proposed bargaining unit except the superintendent, the two CETA employees, and the operator foreman.

   
   

2. The Utilities Department has thirty employees, including a director, a finance director, two field supervisors, four sewer plant operators, two sewer plant operator trainees, two utilities servicemen, one mechanic, one mechanic's helper, three clerk typists, a bookkeeper, a records clerk, two accounting clerks, a pipelayer, two secretaries, two meter readers, a customer representative, an inventory clerk-meter repairman, a construction superintendent and an equipment operator. The parties stipulated that the director, finance director, the two field supervisors, the three clerk-typists, bookkeeper, records clerk, two accounting clerks, two secretaries, customer representative, inventory clerk - meter repairman, and construction superintendent properly should be excluded from the proposed unit and that all of the remaining employees properly could be included except for the two meter readers.

   
   

3. Thus of a total of 44 employees in the two departments, it was agreed that 20 should be excluded and 24 included, leaving only two employee positions, the meter readers, in dispute.

   
   

4. A meter reader does routine field work in reading water meters and recording water consumption. He makes special readings as required, checks to see that meters are functioning properly and reports any defects, clears mud debris and other matter from meter cases, repairs clock leaks, raises boxes and installs new meters. He also checks to determine the consistency of meter readings and reports unusual cases, prepares diagrams showing locations of

   meters in relation to newly-built houses, and performs related work as required. He has no supervisory responsibilities, and works under the supervision of the customer service representative. (Composite Exhibit 5).

   
   

5. The City of Casselberry has a City Council, Mayor, City Manager, and Civil Service Commission. The city employs approximately 110 persons including the city manager. Most of these employees are in the fire department, police department, public works department, and utilities department. The total employees include three part-time employees and five CETA employees (Exhibit 8). Other than the employees who are included in the proposed bargaining unit, there are few other eligible city employees who would not be included in fire or police department bargaining units. The City has a unified classification plan and personnel regulations that govern hiring, firing, salaries, work hours, vacations, leaves of absence, grievances, discipline and the like. The plan is implemented by the appropriation of funds therefor by the city council. All employees of the city fall into one of 35 grades which each contains six steps. The city council approves a yearly budget in the fall which approves pay scales for the various classifications of employees (Exhibit 7, Testimony of Mr. Juliano).

   
   

   DISCUSSION

   
   

6. As to the inclusion of the meter readers in the proposed bargaining unit, it is the contention of the Respondent that these individuals are nothing more than clerical employees and therefore should not be included in a unit which consists primarily of operation and maintenance employees who engage in trades and crafts. Although the functions of the meter readers are routine in nature and relate primarily to record keeping, their work is in the field and, in all probability, they would have a greater community of interest with other field workers of the departments in question than with clerical employees who remain in the offices. In any event, the objection of the Respondent is not considered determinative, absent some indication of a conflict of interest or other meaningful impediment.

   
   

7. The Respondent is understandably concerned as to the impact that fragmentation of its employee force by a number of separate bargaining units would have on the efficiency and economy of operation in the administration of city affairs. There is no question that a proliferation of units can impose an additional burden on government and serve to effect significant changes in unified personnel regulations and policies, and classification and pay plans. Certainly, the use of such unified methods i easier and cheaper for the city and to some extent can provide higher employee morale and fairer results in personnel actions. Interchange of employees is simplified if all are classified and paid alike.

   
   

8. On the other hand, when taking into consideration the relatively small total number of city employees, and the few employees who would qualify for possible inclusion in other bargaining units, it appears that the Respondent's fear of excessive fragmentation is excessive. This is not a case of forming a bargaining unit from one trade or one craft or one class of employees, such as bus drivers or electricians. The proposed unit would include a variety of employees such as equipment operators, mechanics, pipe layers, sewer plant operators, etc. It therefore does not appear that the proposed unit would involve a narrow, single category of personnel, nor is it believed that certification of the proposed unit would lead to excessive fragmentation of bargaining units, as contemplated under Rule 8H-3.31, F.A.C.

9. In accordance with Section 447.307(3)(a), F.S., no recommendations are submitted.

DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

THOMAS C. OLDHAM

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Bill M. Wilson

Business Representative

333 Oakridge Road Pinecastle Branch Orlando, Florida 32807

Kenneth W. McIntosh City Attorney and Ned N. Julian, Jr.

Assistant City Attorney Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, Florida 32771

Docket for Case No: 75-001793

Orders for Case No: 75-001793