vs. ) CASE NO. 75-1931
) PERC NO. 8H-RC-756-2234 CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA, )
Respondent. )
This matter came up for hearing on the petition of the Communication Workers of America to the Public Employees Relations Commission seeking a collective bargaining unit for the Police Department of the City of Gainesville.
Larry G. Turner, Esquire Golden, Turner & Cates Post Office Box 1251
A. Bice Hope, Esquire
The petition seeks to include sworn personnel of the Gainesville Police Department in the classification of patrolman, sergeant, lieutenant and captain. The position of the Respondent, City of Gainesville, was that the only areas of dispute surrounding this petition were the classifications of employees sought to be included in the proposed unit. The city took the position that police sergeants were supervisory and should be in a supervisory unit. The city further took the position that police lieutenants and captains were managerial and not eligible to be included in a bargaining unit. At this hearing, the city submitted a petition asking for these positions to be determined as managerial and/or confidential.
Most of the testimony at this hearing was through Nolen W. Freeman, Director of Police Services of the Gainesville Police Department. The Police Department of the City of Gainesville is roughly organized under the following hierarchy. Below the chief there are two superintendents' positions; below the superintendents are four captains, one captain is in charge of the administrative division, another of the detective division, and the last in the patrol division. Below the captains are lieutenants which break down as
follows. One lieutenant is in the administrative division, one lieutenant is in charge of the crime prevention division, two lieutenants are in the detective division, six lieutenants are in the patrol division, one lieutenant heads the communications division and one lieutenant heads the processing division. In the patrol division, one lieutenant is responsible for each shift. Two sergeants are in the administrative division, two sergeants are in the crime prevention division, five sergeants are in the detective division, ten sergeants are in the patrol division.
Of the four captains in the police department, three of them are budgeted, the fourth may be eliminated in the future. Two of these captains are division commanders, one is in charge of personnel and inspection and the fourth (not budgeted) is in charge of property and evidence, building maintenance and automobile repair. The captain of personnel and inspection, Captain Brown, has a large responsibility regarding record keeping for the police department. One of his responsibilities is to make sure that the paper work is done correctly when it is submitted to the city. Captain Brown is also in charge of inspections and internal affairs.
The captains in charge of the detective and patrol divisions are directly responsible for the activities and responsibilities of these men. The detective division consists of one captain, two lieutenants, five sergeants, and
21 police officers in addition to some secretarial and clerical help. The captain in charge of the patrol division is responsible for six lieutenants, ten sergeants, 79 police officers and approximately fifteen other miscellaneous (unsworn) positions. The position of lieutenant in the Gainesville Police Department carries many different responsibilities depending upon assignment. Two lieutenants are assistants to the captain in the detective division. On is in charge of narcotics, vice and intelligence, and the other is the assistant to Captain Snowden. The six lieutenants, as mentioned earlier in the patrol division, are shift commanders, one responsible for each shift. These lieutenants have the larger number of worn officers under their command than any of the other divisions. As shift commanders also, they are the ranking police officer on duty during the off hours. The lieutenant is in charge of the crime prevention division, which consists of two sergeants, three police officers and one secretary. Also a lieutenant is in charge of the processing division and of the communications division. The crime prevention division, processing division and communications division are not operational divisions, they are service divisions and of the above three, only in the crime prevention division are there any sworn officers assigned. The other two lieutenants, those in charge of processing and communication, supervise civilian personnel.
In the detective division headed by Captain Snowden, there are six sergeants. One is assigned to narcotics and organized crime, another Sergeant Blitch, is the polygraph operator, and the others have been classified by Chief Freeman as the basic field supervisors in the detective division. They assign cases to detectives, participate in investigations of cases, and handle administrative and supervisory work within that division. In the detective division, Lieutenant Ward is in charge of general investigations, Captain Snowden handles administrative responsibilities and Lieutenant Bishop handles narcotics and organized crime investigations. Also, Sergeant Soper is in charge of the identification unit.
During this hearing, the city took the position that Sergeant Blitch, who administers the police lie detector tests, the city's position was that this made Sergeant Blitch a confidential employee. However, Sergeant Blitch testified that most of his lie detector tests are administered to applicants to
the police department who are not yet employed. He said on occasion he does administer lie detector tests to police personnel, but he tries to avoid it and this is an infrequent occurrence. He stated he tries to avoid that since he feels it is ore professional for the police department to hire an outside expert to administer such tests. When the police department does investigate complaints or possibilities of misconduct of its own police officers, any serious investigation is assigned to Captain Brown. If it was a complaint involving narcotics, it would probably be assigned to Sergeant Jones. However, it appears Captain Brown would keep an active hand in any serious investigation regarding internal security.
Other city exhibits which were introduced, mainly exhibit no. 2 and no. 4, indicate that the captain of the detective division has a secretary III and in a previous collective bargaining agreement between the city and the Communications Workers of America, it had been agreed that secretary III's were confidential employees. From this evidence, the city has made the argument that this shows a history of collective bargaining between the Communications Workers of America and the city whereby captains are impliedly managerial employees since the city has agreed that their secretaries are confidential. This hearing officer makes no comment on the merits of this argument, but notes it in this report. Further, referring to those same arguments, the city notes that the communication operator supervisor, a civilian employee underneath the lieutenant in charge of the communications division, has in this same previous bargaining agreement, been classified as supervisory. However, it should be noted that this employee, the communications operator supervisor, is not a sworn officer and does not occupy a position that the Petitioner seeks to be included in this bargaining unit. In the processing division, headed by a lieutenant, the administrative clerks had been classified as confidential according to the agreement of the CWA. The lieutenant in charge of the crime prevention division is apparently in charge of this division's operations which seem to involve public relations and the giving of courses and talks throughout the city. The lieutenants in charge of the communications division, processing division and crime prevention division work 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. shifts. Their actual job functions were not explicitly described in this hearing. They appear to be largely of a routine and almost clerical nature. Except for the crime prevention division, these lieutenants do not supervise any sworn personnel.
The patrol division commander has a secretary III, which in the city exhibit no.
4 has been designated as a confidential employee by the Communications Workers of America agreement with the city.
Hiring for the Gainesville Police Department is done by having each applicant take a competitive examination. Those who are deemed qualified are interviewed and a subjective evaluation is made as to each applicant's qualifications and suitability. After a candidate for a position with the police department successfully passes the exam, an oral interview is conducted usually in front of the chief, Captain Brown, the division commanders, a shift lieutenant, and Lieutenant Snowden, who is the training officer, interviews the applicant. After the interview, that group takes a vote. Normally, the vote is unanimous. In one case, Chief Freeman recalls he disagreed on hiring, but acceded to the will of the others. In another case, he hired the person against the will of the board.
Budgets are submitted by each division commander. This is accomplished by informally discussing what expected available funds the police department anticipates in the meeting with the division commanders and the chief. The division commanders then submit what they expect their needs will be for the next fiscal year to the chief. Naturally, all employees in each division have
an opportunity to participate in assisting with budget preparation, but the submission to the chief if merely a request by the division commanders and the chief takes the final authority in determining the final budget request on the part of the police department. The division commanders administer the expenditure of funds within their department; however, it does not appear they have much discretion since salary and equipment expenditures most likely take up the bulk of these budgets. There was no evidence presented as to any discretionary funds available to any division commander, with the exception of raises, which appear to be largely automatic.
Questions of policy are determined by the chief. The chief is now revising the department manual and in the preparation of policy determinations, the chief solicits the advice of many members of the department. Through his own testimony, Chief Freeman stated that in certain cases he even solicits the advice of a patrolman, but in all cases he retains the final authority for implementing policy decisions.
For promotion within the police department from patrolman to sergeant, the officer takes a written examination. Prior to this, there is an evaluation made by two immediate commanders and one lieutenant. Those evaluations are then submitted to the chief. From there an overall evaluation is sent to the personnel office. Only after successfully completing that function does the applicant take the examination. After successfully getting by those requirements, that applicant goes before an oral board made up of police officers and educators. Evaluations are worth 20 percent of the total score. The examination is worth 45 percent and the oral board is worth 35 percent. Out of those that successfully complete all stages, the promotions are chosen from the top three. A similar procedure exists from promotion from sergeant to lieutenant. The final promotions, however, in all cases, are made from the office of the Director of Police Services (Chief Freeman), who has the final say as to who gets promoted and who doesn't. In the case of a lieutenant being promoted to captain, the oral board consists of the city manager, the personnel director and the chief.
Patrolmen are eligible for merit increases and it its the sergeant's responsibility to make such recommendations. In approximately 2 percent of all cases, those merit increases are denied. The recommendations of the sergeant are generally followed. An evaluation form used by police sergeants in evaluating patrolmen is used to determine whether they get merit increases. In the case of suspensions and terminations, recommendations are made by the officer's immediate superior. After a recommendation is made a review board would review the matter and made a determination. However, no evidence was presented as to who had the ultimate authority, how the chief and high ranking officials of the police department participated in such proceedings, and no findings of fact can be made as to how the categories listed in this petition participate in such proceedings. In each division, particularly the investigative divisions, division commanders can assign men to different shifts. On that shift, it is up to the shift lieutenant to make determinations of who works on particular squads. With regard to transfers from one division to another, each division makes recommendations, but Chief Freeman makes the final decision. That recommendation goes through the superintendent to the chief's office.
A sergeant's responsibility with men underneath him is to assign and supervise their work and participate in the general police work. Chief Freeman testified that a sergeant spends at least half his time in non-supervisory patrol responsibilities. That indicates sergeants spend less than half their
time in active supervision and probably much less. Sergeants are responsible for the conduct of their men and occasionally must reprimand them and institute disciplinary proceedings, if necessary. Sergeants cannot suspend patrolmen.
DONE this 27th day of February, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.
KENNETH G. OERTEL, Director
Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Larry G. Turner, Esquire Goldin, Turner & Cates
P. O. Box 1251
A. Bice Hope, Esquire
P. O. Box 1307 Gainesville, Florida
1221 N.W. Fourth Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
