Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

UNITED FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF ST. PETERSBURG JUNIOR COLLEGE vs. ST. PETERSBURG JUNIOR COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 76-000669 (1976)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 76-000669 Visitors: 11
Judges: DIANE D. TREMOR
Agency: Public Employee Relations Commission
Latest Update: Jun. 28, 1990
Summary: Dispute over proper representative for collective bargaining. No Recommended Order because hearing was a Relations Commission hearing only.
76-0669.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


UNITED FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF ) ST. PETERSBURG JUNIOR COLLEGE, ) FTP/NEA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 76-669

) PERC NO. 8H-RC-764-4044 ST. PETERSBURG JUNIOR COLLEGE )

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, )

)

Public Employer, )

)

vs. )

) ST. PETERSBURG JUNIOR COLLEGE ) TEACHER FEDERATION, FEA/UNITED, ) AFT, AFL-CIO, )

)

Intervenor. )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Diane D. Tremor, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, commencing at 10:00 A.M. on July 1, 1976, in Courtroom B, Judicial Building, 545 First Avenue North, in St. Petersburg, Florida.


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: Mr. John J. Chamblee, Jr., Esquire

Frank and Meyer, P.A.

341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33608


For Public Mr. James M. Blue, Esquire Employer: Smith, Young & Blue, P.A.

Suite 218, Lennar Center 8700 North Kendall Drive Miami, Florida 33176


For Intervenor: Mr. Gerrard L. Pagels, Esquire

222 Amherst Avenue Sarasota, Florida 33580


By a representation petition filed with the Public Employees Relations Commission, petitioner herein, United Faculty Association of St. Petersburg Junior College, FTP/NEA, seeks a certificate of representation as the exclusive bargaining agent of certain employees of St. Petersburg Junior College. The St. Petersburg Junior College Teacher Federation, FEA/United, AFT, AFL-CIO, moved to

intervene in the certification proceeding, and the motion was granted by Chairman Curtis L. Mack on June 7, 1976.


At a prehearing conference with all parties present, the parties stipulated that St. Petersburg Junior College is a public employer within the meaning of

    1. Section 447.203(2), that there has been no previous bargaining history between the two unions and the public employer and that there is presently no contract between the public employer and any other labor organization.


      Admitted into evidence at the hearing were the following documents:


      1. the representation petition of the United Faculty Association of St. Petersburg Junior College,, FTP/NEA;


      2. the notice of representation hearing;


      3. the PERC affidavit of compliance for registration of United Faculty;


      4. the PERC affidavit of compliance for the required showing of interest of United Faculty;


      5. the motion to intervene by St. Petersburg Junior College Teacher Federation; FEA/United, AFT, AFL-CIO;


      6. The PERC order granting the Teacher Federation's motion to intervene;


      7. the PERC affidavit of compliance for registration of Teacher Federation; and


      8. the PERC affidavit of compliance for the required showing of interest of Teacher Federation. While there was no objection to the receipt of these documents into the record, the public employer stated its reservation to exhibits 3 and 7 -- the affidavits of registration of the petitioner and the intervenor. The employer would not agree that the two unions were properly registered labor organizations.


The public employer was permitted to file with the hearing officer an application for determination of managerial and confidential status for the position titles attached to the application as Exhibit A. In support of said application, it was agreed that the' public employer would submit to the hearing officer on or before August 6, 1976, affidavits and/or documentary evidence concerning the positions delineated in Exhibit A. Inasmuch as the positions listed in Exhibit A were those sought by both petitioner and the intervenor to be excluded from an appropriate bargaining unit, the unions had no objection to the filing of the application and the submission of affidavits in support thereof. The unions' primary concern was the possible delay in the certification proceedings resulting from such a status determination.


The petition filed with PERC by United Faculty described the unit claimed to be appropriate as including all certified full-time instructional employees and excluding the president, assistants to the president, registrars, directors, deans, associate deans, coordinators, admissions counselors, personnel officers, comptrollers and placement counselors. The undersigned hearing officer permitted petitioner, without objection from the employer, to amend its description of the claimed appropriate unit so as to include all full-time instructional personnel, including librarians and guidance counselors. Also, petitioner deleted from the exclusions the position of "placement counselors."

The public employer then announced that it has "no true problems" with the amended bargaining unit as defined by petitioner, provided that the managerial designations were made in the course of this proceeding. The petitioner and the intervenor stipulated that the positions described in Exhibit A attached to the application for managerial and confidential status should be excluded from the unit and therefore they had no interest or position with respect to the outcome of the employer's application except, as noted above, insofar as it causes a delay in the election. Because the petitioner and the intervenor agreed that the positions which were the subject of the employer's application should be excluded from the unit, they waived the right to cross-examine those witnesses producing affidavits in support of the application. Prior to closing the hearing, the petitioner and the intervenor stated their willingness to enter into a consent election agreement since there was no dispute as to the description of a proposed appropriate unit. The public employer stated its unwillingness to do so.


On August 6, 1976, the hearing officer timely received from the public employer the affidavit of Carl Fraze with exhibits B and C (Exhibit A is that exhibit attached to the application) and the affidavit of Carl M. Kuttler, Jr., with exhibits D and E. The brief of the employer in support of its application was timely received on August 20, 1976.


In accordance with F.S. Section 447.307(3)(a) and F.A.C. Rule 8H-3.23, no recommendation's are included.


Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.


DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675


COPIES FURNISHED:


Mr. Curtis Mack Chairman

Public Employees Relations Commission

Suite 300

2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida


Mr. John J. Chamblee, Jr., Esquire Frank and Meyer, P.A.

341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33608


Mr. James M. Blue, Esquire Smith, Young & Blue, P.A. Suite 218, Lennar Center 8700 N. Kendall Drive Miami, Florida 33176

Mr. Gerrard L. Pagels

222 Amherst Avenue Sarasota, Florida 33580


Docket for Case No: 76-000669
Issue Date Proceedings
Jun. 28, 1990 Final Order filed.
Aug. 25, 1976 Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 76-000669
Issue Date Document Summary
Feb. 22, 1977 Agency Final Order
Aug. 25, 1976 Recommended Order Dispute over proper representative for collective bargaining. No Recommended Order because hearing was a Relations Commission hearing only.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer