Judges: KENNETH G. OERTEL
Agency: Public Employee Relations Commission
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 1977
Summary: Successful challenge to Respondent's denial of wage hikes/benefits to its members. Unfair Labor Pactice against workers who were a unit for collective bargaining.
76-0018STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
TOWN OF PALM BEACH ASSOCIATION, ) NUMBER 1866, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 76-018
) PERC NO. 8H-CA-756-1146
TOWN OF PALM BEACH, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A hearing on this matter was conducted on the 13th day of February, 1976, at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm Beach, Florida. The charging party had filed unfair labor practice charges against the Town of Palm Beach and a complaint from the Public Employees Relations Commission issued on January 20, 1976.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Rodney Smith, Esquire
Staff Attorney General Counsel
Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300, 2003 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Mike S. Buckner, Esquire
Burns, Middleton, Farrell & Faust
205 Worth Avenue
Palm Beach, Florida 33480
and
Robert K. Drummond, Esquire Foley and Lardiner
777 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
The complaint charged that the Respondent, a public employer, had granted substantial new wage and salary benefits to its employees, but denied said benefits to non-managerial personnel in those departments which sought to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining and to all employees that instituted legal action against the respondent on labor union matters. Further, the complaint charges the Town of Palm Beach has denied and continues to deny to the charging party any of the above mentioned benefits. The complaint ultimately states that the acts of the Town of Palm Beach consisted of unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (b) and Section 447.201, F.S. At the hearing on this matter, the parties announced that substantial stipulations of fact had been reached and certain documents were
admitted without objection. These stipulations of fact were read into the record and the documents were received by this hearing officer.
By virtue of the stipulations and exhibits submitted in this case, the facts were not in dispute. The charging party seeks to become the certified bargaining agent for the Respondent's emergency medical service personnel. On January 17, 1975, the charging party filed with the Public Employees Relations Commission a petition for a representation election. On January 17, l975,;.the Respondent met to consider the 1975 wage and salary plan. On January 27, 1975, the personnel committee met and recommended, among other things, that the new wage and salary benefits should not be applied to departments or personnel seeking to be represented in collective bargaining agreements. The town council adopted, on February 11, 1975, effective October 1, 1975, the personnel manual which specifically denied the above mentioned pay increases to town employees seeking to be represented by employee organizations. The charging party was aware of the town council's action on February 11, 1975, adopting the 1975 wage and salary plan, but did not consider this to be a final action. In any case the charges in this case were filed with the Public Employees Relations Commission by the charging party on October 15, 1975.
The Town of Palm Beach has filed a Motion to Dismiss the above charges. The bulk of the Town of Palm Beach's argument and brief are directed to the first ground contained in this motion that the charge to the Public Employees Relations Commission by the firefighters was not filed within the time required by law in that the six months' statute of limitations pursuant to Section 447.501(4)(c) bars any remedy in this matter. That section states: "No notice of hearing shall be issued based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the commission . . . .
While this statutory section might be a bar to this action for other types of charges, such is not the case under these facts. The Town of Palm Beach has clearly denied wage and salary benefits to union employees which it has granted to other employees. It continues to do so and its activity is not a prior but a continuing course of conduct. Therefore, the charges relate to the present situation vis a vis the charging party and the Town of Palm Beach.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Town of Palm Beach is clearly guilty of an unfair labor practice since Respondent failed to advance any legitimate or other lawful basis to explain why the wage plan failed to include employees that the charging party seeks to represent in collective bargaining matters. No possible motivation can be seen in denying wage and salary benefits to the charging party except to interfere with the collective bargaining process and harass, intimidate and discourage union membership. The town manager himself, Mr. George Frost, has indicated a highly antagonistic attitude toward labor unions. He was quoted in the February 5, 1976, issue of the Palm Beach Daily News as stating: "I associate the criminal element with international unions. We don't need that kind of thing going on that occur in international unions--such as murders."
It is the finding of this hearing officer that the above denial of benefits to the charging party was an obvious, patent and purposeful attempt at interfering with, discouraging and harassing the charging party for pursuing its rights under Chapter 447, F.S. It is, therefore, Recommended that the Town of Palm Beach retroactively restore to each affected employee those wage and salary benefits granted to all other town employees under the personnel manual for
1975-76 adopted by the Town of Palm Beach on October 1, 1975, with interest at the lawful rate. It is further recommended that the city manager post an
appropriate notice to all employees of the Town of Palm Beach upon the order of the Public Employees Relations Commission admitting to said violation, apologizing for said violation, notifying all employees that wages and benefits will be restored retroactively to affected employees and notifying said employees that such violations will not occur in the future.
DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.
KENNETH G. OERTEL, Director
Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
(904) 488-9675
COPIES FURNISHED:
Mike S. Buckner, Esquire
Burns, Middleton, Farrell & Faust
205 Worth Avenue
Palm Beach, Florida 33480
Robert K. Drummond, Esquire Foley and Lardiner
777 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Rodney Smith, Esquire Staff Attorney
Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300, 2003 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Docket for Case No: 76-000018
Orders for Case No: 76-000018
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
Jun. 03, 1977 |
Agency Final Order
|
|
|
Mar. 29, 1976 |
Recommended Order
|
Successful challenge to Respondent's denial of wage hikes/benefits to its members. Unfair Labor Pactice against workers who were a unit for collective bargaining.
|
