STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CITY OF WINTER HAVEN, )

)

Respondent, )

)

vs. ) PERC CASE NO. 8H-CA-753-0133

) DOAH CASE NO. 75-2049 TEAMSTER'S UNION, LOCAL No. 444, )

)

Charging Party. )

)

APPEARANCES

Gerald A. Williams, Esquire Staff Attorney

and

Jack L. McLean, Esquire Acting General Counsel

Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway - Suite 300

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Thomas J. Pilacek, Esquire BOWLES & PILACEK

131 Park Lake Street Orlando, Florida 32803

Lawrence Braisted, Esquire City Attorney

City of Winter Haven Post Office Box 2277

Winter Haven, Florida 33880

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The hearing in this proceeding, with all parties represented, was held before me in Winter Haven, Florida on March 4, 1976, on the Acting General Counsel's Complaint and Notice of Hearing dated February 17, 1976. 1/ The Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. 2/

In general, the issue raised by the pleadings was whether Respondent violated Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c) F.S. by its refusal and failure to bargain collectively with the certified bargaining agent of the public employees in good faith.

Particularly the question for decision is whether Respondent violated Section 447.50l(1)(c) by its refusal to sign a final agreement that it allegedly agreed upon with the certified bargaining agent for the public employees in the bargaining unit.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. JURISDICTION

   
   

   The Respondent, a Public Employer, has its principal place of business in the City of Winter Haven, Polk County, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of providing municipal services.

   Respondent is created directly by the Florida Constitution, a legislative body, and is administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials and/or the general electorate.

   
   

   On the foregoing facts I find that Respondent is a Public Employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2), hereinafter referred to as the Act.

   
   

2. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED

   
   

   The Charging Party is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act.

   
   

3. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

   
   

   1. Introduction

On or about May 28, 1975, the Commission issued a written certification certifying the charging party as the exclusive bargaining representative for firemen and fire engineer drivers employed by the City of Winter Haven. On or about January 27, 1975* the parties commenced collective bargaining negotiations.

On or about May 28, the parties reached impasse. On or about July

31 and August 14, the parties met with the Special Master, and on September 18, the employer approved the Special Master's report. On September 19, the City Manager, Mr. W. D. Fultz, sent a letter to the Chairman of the Commission, Curtis L. Mack, and to the Association, stating that the Respondent had accepted the Special Master's Report without any changes and that the Respondent was enclosing the contractual provisions to the union to be added to

those provisions to which the parties had tentatively agreed. Additionally, the Respondent, upon ratification by the bargaining unit, agreed to execute and adopt the agreements with approval from the City Commission. On or about September 25, the City Manager, prior to formal action by the City Commission, notified Mr. Mack and the Association that the Respondent was revoking its prior approval of the agreement submitted to the Association. The following day, September 25, the Association notified Respondent that the bargaining unit employees had ratified the contractual agreement that was sent by Respondent to the Association for ratification. On October 2, the Association attempted to sign the ratified agreement and the Respondent refused to do so. During the course of the negotiations, the Respondent was represented in collective negotiations by its agent, Paul Pothin and L. D. Woodard who, according to the pleadings, had the authority to enter into and negotiate on behalf of Respondent. The transmittal letter forwarded to PERC's Chairman stated, in pertinent part, that:

"Therefore, I have this day furnished enclosed 'Contractual Provisions' to the Union to be added to those provisions to which the parties have tentatively agreed. Subsequent to ratifi- cation by local membership, the City agrees to enter into and execute the agreement in whole. Absent such ratification, it is our intention to implement all economic improvements guaran- teed by the agreement as a sign of good faith to our employees."

The agreement transmitted from the City to the Employee Organization contained articles concerning both merit increases and salary increases. According to the evidence, the City's chief negotiator, Paul Pothin, was in agreement with the Special Master's Report until the morning of September 25. He apparently became unhappy with the report after the City became informed that a survey conducted by or on behalf of the Special Master revealed that the Respondent's firemen were making approximately 4.7 percent less than the Cities in the local operating area. With this information, Pothin contacted the City Manager who, in turn, sent a letter to the Employee Organization seeking to revoke his prior approval by letter dated September 25, 1975. The Employee Organization, on the evening of September 25, ratified the previously agreed to articles and notified the City of that action on the following day, September 26. On October 2, Messrs, Motes and Clifford Lewis, agents of the Charging Party, visited the Respondent's City Managers in an effort to sign the agreement to

no avail. When the City Manager refused to sign the contract as submitted, the Charging Party offered to submit the question in issue to the grievance procedure under the contract, which the City rejected, and state that they did not feel compelled to sign the agreement.

It is the Charging Party and the General Counsel's position that under Florida Law, the City Manager cannot unilaterally revoke a prior commission action. Citing State ex rel. McIver v. Swank, 12 So.2d 605, Ramsey v. City of Kissimmee, 19 So.2d 474, Brown v. City of St. Petersburg, 53 So.141. The Respondent, on the other hand, takes the position that it revoked this offer prior to acceptance by the union and therefore it cannot be bound by an offer that contains an error when the other party is notified of such error prior to acceptance. Accordingly, Respondent takes the position that by failing to execute the document which did not represent its intent, such act cannot be evidence of an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Florida Statutes 447.501. Therefore the Respondent urges that the Complaint be dismissed.

ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Section 447.309, F.S. states in essence that any collective bargaining agreement reached by the negotiators shall be reduced to writing and such an agreement shall be signed by the chief executive officer and bargaining agent. Additionally, Section 447.501(1)(c) states that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by refusing to sign a final agreement agreed upon with the certified bargaining agent for the public employees in the bargaining unit. These are the guiding statutes which control resolution of the issue posed in this case.

The facts here show that when the union received the certification, the parties commenced negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement and met on approximately six different negotiating meetings in an attempt to reach a full collective bargaining agreement. The parties reached impasse on a number of items and being unable to resolve the deadlock on the impasse items, the parties called in a Special Master, Dr. James J. Sherman, Professor of Industrial Relations, University of South Florida. (The Special Master's Report was received into evidence and made a part hereof by reference.) Contained in the Special Master's Report was a provision dealing with wages wherein the Special Master arrived at a figure based on a study conducted of all fire departments in the Winter Haven area. The salary contained in his recommendation was that employees covered by the

certified appropriate unit shall be paid a rate of no less than

$8,089 per year. He further recommended that the City agree to pay the employees covered by the agreement "the average salary increase" granted for cities in the "local operating area" effective October 1, 1975. Pursuant to a special commission meeting held on September 18, 1975, and approved by the City Commission of the City of Winter Haven, Florida, in regular session on October 1, 1975, the City Commission met and Commissioner George L. Harris moved for adoption of the findings, opinions, and awards of the Special Master. This act was seconded by Commissioner George L. Harwick. The Commissioners unilaterally agreed to adopt the economic benefits contained in Special Master's award provided the union did not ratify such by October 1 such that the City could implement them by the same date. Mr.

Pothin, the City's Labor Consultant, presented the findings, opinions, and awards and recommended adoption of such by the City. These recommendations were relayed to the union by letter and a copy sent to Curtis L. Mack, PERC's Chairman, and the union members voted to ratify the Special Master's Report as prepared by Mr. Pothin which contained the awards and findings of the Special Master. The ratification vote occurred on September 25. Earlier that same day, Pothin and the City Manager sent a letter to the union revoking the prior letter which indicated the City had formally approved the findings of the Special Master as embodied by the transmittal letter and contract to the union. The union advised the City of such ratifzzz ication on September 26 and on October 2, Mr. Motes, along with Clifford Lewis, visited City Hall in an attempt to obtain the City Manager's signature on the agreement. The City refused and the union attempted to invoke the grievance procedure contained in the contract whereupon the Respondent rejected stating that they did not feel compelled to sign the agreement and further, that the grievance machinery was not operative inasmuch as there was no contract containing such grievance arbitration machinery.

It is clear that parties are required to bargain in good faith for employees contained in a certified appropriate unit with the certified bargaining agent and attempt to embody such agreement in a final form and reduce it to writing when such an agreement is entered into. Section 447.501(c) F.S. The evidence here reveals that the City initially agreed to adopt the Special Master's findings and later attempted to renege on this action once it noted that the current wages for the unit employees was approximately 4.7 percent lower than those salaries recommended by the Special Master. However, in doing so, the withdrawal of the acceptance did not meet the authorization required in a commission manager form of government. Thus there was no proof that the City

Manager alone had the authority to rescind the prior action entered into by the City Commissioners as far as this record reveals. It is clear that the recommendation that the Special Master's award be adopted took place at an open meeting of the commissioners whereupon they formally agreed to adopt the Special Master's findings. There was no further evidence indicating that the City Commissioners formally rescinded this action by a special meeting or any other formal action. Nor was there any other showing of any form of ratification of the acts of the City Manager wherein he attempted to repudiate the agreement entered into by the full commission at the special commission meeting held on September 18 and formally adopted by a regular meeting held October 1, 1975. Based on the above, it is concluded that the action of the City Manager on September 18 was not authorized by the full city commission and therefore the actions taken by him were incomplete and unauthorized. See for example, Brown v. City of St. Petersburg, 153 So. 141; Ramsey v. City of Kissimmee, 190 So. 474. Accordingly the city's failure to implement the agreement submitted to the union on September 9, 1975, resulted in a refusal to bargain within the meaning of Section 447.501(a)(c). Based on the above I find that the actions of the respondent set forth above amounted to bad faith bargaining by attempting to repudiate its previously agreed to article concerning wages.

Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on the entire record in this case, I make the following:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Respondent, City of Winter Haven, is a Public Employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2) of the Act.

   
   

2. The Charging Party is an Employee Organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act.

   
   

3. On or about May 28, 1975, the Commission issued a written certification certifying the Charging Party as the exclusive bargaining representative for firemen and fire engineer drivers employed by the City of Winter Haven. On or about September 18, 1975, the Public Employer approved the Special Master's Report and that approval was relayed to the union the following day, September 19, 1975.

   
   

4. On September 25, 1975, the Association notified the employer that the unit employees had ratified the contractual agreement sent by the employer to the association for ratification. On October 2, 1975 the association unsuccessfully

attempted to obtain the employer's assent to the agreement which it had previously agreed to approve. By such acts, the Respondent refused and failed to bargain in good faith with the bargaining agent for the public employees inn the above described bargaining unit. By these acts, the Respondent is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(c) of The Act.

RECOMMENDATION

I therefore recommend that the Respondent be required to implement the provisions of the agreement to which it previously agreed to concerning wages and all other terms contained therein.

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

JAMES E. BRADWELL

Hearing Officer

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

ENDNOTES

1/ The Complaint was issued pursuant to a charge filed on September 2, 1975 (a copy of which was served on Respondent on or about October 1, 1975), by Teamster's Union Local Number 444.

2/ At the outset of the hearing, the Respondent filed Motions to Strike, Dismiss, and a Motion for a More Definite Statement with regard to Paragraph 5G of the Acting General Counsel's Complaint. The undersigned made specific rulings denying on all said motions. After the Motion for a More Definite Statement, the grounds urged in support thereof strikes at the heart of the General Counsel's Complaint and the undersigned made clear at the outset of the hearing that that issue was one to be resolved based on testimony adduced at the hearing.

* Unless otherwise noted, all dated are 1975.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Lawrence Braisted, Esquire Thomas J. Pilacek, Esquire Gerald A. Williams, Esquire Jack L. McLean, Jr., Esquire

================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION

TEAMSTERS LOCAL No. 444,

Charging Party,

Case No. 8H-CA-753-0133

and DOAH CASE NO. 75-2049

CITY OF WINTER HAVEN,

Respondent.

/

DECISION AND ORDER

Upon charges filed by the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL

#444, herein Charging Party, the Acting General Counsel of the Public Employees Relations Commission, Commission herein, issued a complaint in the above-styled case against CITY OF WINTER HAVEN, Respondent herein. 1/

Copies of the charge, 2/ Complaint, and Notice of Hearing were duly served on the Respondent and Charging Party. 3/

The Complaint alleges that the Respondent refused to sign a labor agreement which embodied the Special Master's Report which Respondent had ratified and agreed to execute, conditioned upon ratification of the same agreement by the membership of the Charging Party; and thereby violated Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c) of Chapter 447, Part II, Florida Statutes, hereafter the Act.

While Respondent did not file an answer, it, at all stages of the proceedings herein, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.

The case sub judice was tried on March 4, 1976 4/ and the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order was issued on July 6, 1976.

Oral argument was scheduled before the Commission on August 3, 1976. 5/

The Commission, having considered the record and the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, hereby affirms his rulings on motions and adopts his findings of facts and recommendations.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Jurisdiction

   
   

   The Respondent, CITY OF WINTER HAVEN, has its principal place of business in Polk County, Florida, where it is engaged in operating a municipality. Respondent is created via legislative charter as a governmental entity and is administered by individuals who are responsible public officials and/or the general electorate.

   
   

   The Commission finds that Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.

   
   

   The Charging Party, TEAMSTERS LOCAL #444, is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of all firemen and driver/engineers employed by Respondent. The Commission finds that the Charging Party is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act.

   
   

2. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices

   
   

   The parties entered into negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement on January 27, 1975, and reached impasse on or about May 28, 1975. On July 29, 1975, the Commission appointed Dr. James J. Sherman as Special Master to hold hearings for the purpose of taking testimony and gathering evidence regarding the impasse issues which separated the parties.

   
   

   On September 15, 1975, the Special Master issued his report in which he recommended that employees in the unit be made eligible to receive a 5 percent annual merit increase, that Respondent pay a minimum salary of $8,098 and increase salaries by an amount equal to the average increase paid fire personnel by employers in the local operating area. 6/

   On September 18, 1975, the City Commission of Winter Haven approved the Special Master's Report and thereafter informed the union's Chief Negotiator and the Chairman of PERC that the findings of the Special Master's Report had been adopted. The communication read:

   
   

   Therefore, I . . . have furnished the enclosed "Contractual Provisions" to the Union to be added to those provisions to which the parties have tentatively agreed. Subsequent to ratification by the local membership, the City agrees to enter into and execute the agreement in whole. Ab- sent such ratification, it is our inten- tion to unilaterally implement all economic improvements guaranteed by the agreement as a sign of good faith to our employees.

   
   

   The pertinent contractual provisions referred to in the letter above, included:

   
   

   Merit Increase

   
   

   The City agrees that employees covered by this agreement shall be eligible to receive a "merit increase" of five percent (5 percent) of their base annual salary in pay annually, provided further, such increase shall be withheld only for "just cause".

   
   

   Salaries

   
   

   1. No employees covered by this agreement shall be Paid at a rate of less than $8,098 per annum.

   2. Further, the City agrees to pay the employees covered by this agreement the "average salary increase" granted for Cities in the "local operating area", effective October 1, 1975.

      
      

      A collective bargaining agreement containing the above provisions was furnished to the Charging Party on September 19, 1975, for ratification by members of the bargaining unit and was duly approved on the evening of September 25, 1975.

      However, earlier the same day, City Manager, W. D. Fultz, had sent a letter to the Charging Party which purported to amend the City's position by withdrawing its acceptance of the Special Master's recommendation regarding wage increases. The reason alleged for such action was "a misunderstanding of the intent of the award . . . ." Nonetheless, there is no evidence in the record that would indicate that the City Commission authorized the City Manager to revoke its acceptance of the Special Master's recommendation concerning wage increases, or that they formally approved his action prior to the ratification of the agreement by the Charging Party.

      
      

      On September 26, 1975, the employee organization notified the Employer of the ratification and thereafter presented the City Manager with a copy of the collective bargaining agreement for signature. Fultz refused to sign the agreement.

      
      

      On October 14, 1975, the Charging Party notified Respondent that it was willing to submit the disputed article to binding arbitration but Respondent declined to do so.

      
      

3. Discussion, Analysis, and Findings

On the basis of the record herein, the Commission is not persuaded by Respondent's contention that the September 25, 1975, letter effectively operated to revoke the final agreement extended to the Charging Party by Respondent's City Council on September 19, 1975. It is evident that the above-referenced collective bargaining agreement was expressly authorized by the City Commission at the special legislative session convened on September 18 and that the agreement itself constituted the "legislative action" as referred to in Fla. Stat. Section 447.403(2)(c)(4). However, there is no indication that City Manager Fultz was authorized to rescind the City Commission's approval and adoption of the Special Master's Report. This Commission therefore concludes that the purported revocation of the September 19th collective bargaining agreement is ineffective, because the action was neither authorized by the City Commission prior to the transmittal of the letter to the Charging Party nor subsequently sanctioned by any formal City Commission action prior to the Charging Party's ratification of the agreement. Ramsey v. City of Kissimmee, 190 So. 141 (1939); Brown v. City of St.

Petersburg, 153 So. 141 (1933).

The facts of this case reveal that Respondent formulated what it considered to be a final labor agreement and forwarded a copy thereof to the Charging Party. As Respondent's letter of

September 19 stated, the Public Employer intended to implement the provisions of the agreement irrespective of the outcome of the ratification vote.

Subsequent to ratification by the local membership, the City agrees to enter into and execute the agreement in whole. Absent such ratification, it is our intention to unilaterally implement all economic improve- ments guaranteed by the agreement as a sign of good faith to our employees".

Nonetheless, the above-quoted language indicates that the City at least contemplated that the Charging Party would have an opportunity to ratify the contract.

Section 447.501(1)(c) of the Act defines as an unfair labor practice:

1. Refusing to bargain collectively, failing to bargain collectively in good faith, or refusing to sign a final agree- ment agreed upon with the certified bar- gaining agent for the public employees

in the bargaining unit.

That the parties approach the bargaining table in good faith is a requisite element of the collective bargaining process. Whether or not they honor agreements made during the course of negotiations is indicative of their good faith.

In H. J. Heinz v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 514, 7 LRRM 291 (1941) the

1. Supreme Court held that, after an employer and Union have reached final agreement, it is the duty of both parties to embody that agreement in a signed contract. The Court stated:

   
   

   A business man who entered into negotia- tions with another for an agreement having numerous provisions, with the reservation that he would not reduce it to writing or sign it, could hardly be thought to have bargained in good faith. This is even more so in the case of an employer who, by his refusal to honor with his signature the agreement which he has made with a labor organization, discredits the organization, impairs the bargaining process and tends

   to frustrate the aim of the statute and secure industrial peace through collective bargaining. 7 LRRM 291 at 297.

   
   

   In Union Springs Central Teachers Ass'n., 6 PERB 3074 (1973), the employee organization approved a fact finders report (analogous to the Special Master's Report in the instant case), but later attempted to repudiate the agreement, claiming that the agents of the organization had misunderstood the provisions of the report.

   PERB held:

   
   

   The fact that [the agents of Respondent] did not fully understand the agreement does not under the circumstances excuse their conduct; their misunderstanding does not obviate their agreement . . . . A party to a final col- lective bargaining agreement that is clear on its face who claims to have miscomprehended the terms to which he agreed may not reject that agreement. Even an ambiguous agreement is enforceable as it is interpreted by an arbitrator or by the courts. (Emphasis added). 6 PERB 3120 at 3122.

   
   

   In the instant case Respondent's refusal to sign the labor agreement which its labor consultant bad drafted and which it had ratified cannot be sanctioned by this Commission. The Public Employees Relations Act provides that the public employer may resolve disputed issues by means of the impasse procedures set forth in Section 447.403, Florida Statutes. However, the mere fact that once the impasse procedures have been concluded, the public employer may impose whatever contractual provisions it may deem to be in the public interest does not give that employer license to continually revisit the provisions of that labor contract, under the guise of "clarifying its intent".

   
   

   Proper exercise of the impasse machinery, requires that the public employer resolve the impasse on a date and in a manner certain. Therefore the Commission finds that Respondent, by refusing to sign the final collective bargaining agreement upon ratification by the Charging Party, engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c).

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

   The Commission, on the basis of the foregoing facts and the record as a whole, makes the following conclusions of law.

   
   

   1. The CITY OF WINTER HAVEN is a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2) of the Act.

      
      

   2. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 444 is an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act. At all times material herein, this employee organization has been, and is, the certified and exclusive representative of all firemen, driver/engineers, and fire shift captains employed by the CITY OF WINTER HAVEN. Said employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 447.307(4) of the Act.

      
      

   3. By failing and refusing to execute the final agreement which it approved and presented to the employee organization on September 18, 1975, and which the Union ratified on September 25, 1975, Respondent has refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the certified bargaining agent for the public employees in the above-stated unit, and has thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 447.501(1)(c) of the Act.

      
      

   4. By the foregoing conduct, Respondent also has interfered with, restrained, and coerced Public employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 447.301(1) and (2) of the Act, and thereby has engaged in, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a) of the Act.

THE REMEDY

The Commission, having found substantial evidence that unfair labor practices have occurred, is required by Section 447.503(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1975) to issue a cease and desist order and take such positive action as will effectuate the policies and purposes of the Act.

Having found that the CITY OF WINTER HAVEN engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) and

1. of the Act, the Commission orders that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative actions set forth below to effectuate the policies of the Act.

   We order Respondent, upon the request of TEAMSTERS LOCAL 444, the certified bargaining agent of the public employees involved herein, to sign the labor agreement it ratified on September 18, 1975, with the effective date of October 2, 1975, and give effect thereto. The Commission further orders that Respondent comply with the posting requirements hereinafter set forth in the Order.

   
   

   ORDER

   
   

   1. Pursuant to Section 447.503(4)(a) of the Act, the FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION hereby ORDERS that Respondent CITY OF WINTER HAVEN shall:

      
      

      Cease and desist from:

      
      

      1. Refusing upon request of Teamsters' Local 444, to sign and give retroactive effect as described above to the collective bargaining agreement reached with the Union.

         
         

      2. In any like or related manner refusing to bargain collectively with the above-named exclusive certified collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit described herein concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment.

         
         

      3. In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or coercing its public employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under the Act.

      
      

   2. Take such affirmative action as the Commission deems necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act:

1. Upon request, to forthwith execute the final agreement approved by Respondent on September 18, 1975, and ratified by the employee organization on September 25, 1975, and give effect thereto retroactively to October 2, 1975.

   
   

2. Post in each of Respondent's Fire Department Facilities copies of the attached Notice marked "Appendix". Copies of this Notice, provided by the PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION shall be signed by the Respondent's authorized representative prior to posting, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt in conspicuous places; including all places where Notices to Employees are customarily posted. Respondent shall maintain the posting for sixty (60) consecutive days and shall take reasonable steps to see that these Notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material.

   
   

3. Notify the Chairman in writing within twenty (20) calendar days from date of this decision as to what steps have been taken to comply with this order.

It is so ordered.

For and By Direction of the PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION

LEONARD A. CARSON CHAIRMAN

76U-23

ENDNOTES

1/ An investigation was conduced by a PERC Agent pursuant to Section 447.503(1), Florida Statutes (1975) and Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8H-4.02(a). Thereafter the Acting General Counsel issued a complaint pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code Rule 811-4.03.

2/ The charge in Case No. 8H-CA-753-0133 was filed on October 2, 1975. General Counsel served copies of all charges on Respondent October 30, 1975.

3/ Pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8H-4.02 the Complaint herein was issued and served on February 17, 1976.

4/ On February 17, 1976, the parties were notified that a hearing would be held pursuant to Section 447.503(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1975) and Fla. Admin. Code Rules 8H-4.03, 8H-4.08 and 8H-4.10.

At the hearing before a Hearing Officer from the Division of Admin. Hearings, the parties were afforded the opportunity to appear, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence.

5/ On July 20, 1976, pursuant to Section 447.503(4), Florida Statutes (1975) and Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8H-4.17, the parties were notified that the Commission would meet. At the August 3, 1976 session the parties were afforded the opportunity to appear and present oral argument in support of their respective positions.

6/ The local operating area consisted of the cities of Orlando, Tampa, Leesburg, Lakeland, Bartow, Kissimmee, Plant City, Avon Park, Dade City, and Reedy Creek Fire Control District (Disneyworld). The Master directed the parties to jointly survey these departments to determine the average increase figures.

VOTE: FOR: Chairman Curtis L. Mack, Commissioner Rose Mary Filipowicz, Commissioner M. Kalman Gitomer

AGAINST: None

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on

January 28th, 1977,

this document was filed in the office of the Public Employees Relations Commission at Tallahassee, and a copy served on each party

at its last known address by certified mail.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION

BY:

Judy R. Collins Deputy Clerk

Docket for Case No: 75-002049

Orders for Case No: 75-002049