STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FEDERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-242

) PERC NO. 8H-RC-753-0060

THE CITY OF OAKLAND PARK, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A representation hearing pursuant to notice was held in this cause on September 9, 1975, in Oakland Park. Theodore P. Mavrick, Esquire, appeared in behalf of the Petitioner, Federation of Public Employees and Herbert B. Mintz, Esquire, appeared on behalf of the Respondent, City of Oakland Park. The Petitioner presented three witnesses; Walter J. Browne, Business Representative for the Federation of Public Employees, John Stunson, City Manager of Oakland Park, Florida, and Jerome Alfono, Employee of Sanitation Division, Department of Public Works, City of Oakland Park. The Respondent presented one witness; John Stunson, City Manager of Oakland Park, Florida. The aforementioned witnesses testified and were questioned by counsel and by the hearing officer.

1. According to the petition as filed, February 28, 1975, the petitioner requested the recognition of a unit comprised of the following employees: maintenance garage and sanitation department excluding superintendent of sanitation, foreman of sanitation department; superintendent of maintenance garage, dispatcher of maintenance garage, records clerk of sanitation department, secretary for both sanitation department and maintenance garage. (See Exhibit 2) In the course of the hearing it was indicated that the Petitioner also desired to exclude temporary employees under the Comprehensive Employment Training Act, commonly known as CETA (TR 123). Without considering the excluded categories the unit sought by the Petitioner includes 32 employees;

   26 of those employees being in the sanitation division and 6 of the employees being in the garage division (TR 137, 138).

   
   

2. The Respondent's position is that an appropriate unit for recognition, which would cover the employees petitioned for, would be a unit comprised of all governmental employees of all departments of the city, excluding managerial, confidential, police, fire, public safety and temporary employees such as CETA. (TR 239). The Respondent has approximately 250 employees, which are classified employees, by that, meaning under civil service rules (TR 246). If certain categories of employees are excluded such as department heads, deputy assistant to department heads, CETA employees, managerial, confidential, and personnel, there would remain approximately 200 persons, according to the Respondent's statement. Eighty of the remaining 200 employees are employed by police and fire departments. There then remains 120 employees, of which approximately 60 employees work in the public works department which is divided into divisions which are garage, sanitation, streets, building maintenance, waste water, and water (TR 139). This breakdown of the public works department is a statement of

   the authorized departmental structure and is different than the actual structure. These differences will be discussed later in this analysis.

   
   

3. The following exhibits were admitted into evidence: Exhibit 1 - by hearing officer, Notice of Hearing, without objection; Exhibit 2 - by hearing officer, Petition for Unit Recognition, over objection and stated reservations of the Respondent, as ensue (A) the unit description in paragraph 4 is inappropriate, (B) the Respondent reserves comment on paragraph 13 of the petition, (C) Respondent is without knowledge of the contents and matters as set forth in paragraph 10 of the Petition, (D) that the Petitioner, in his comments contained in paragraph 15 is in error because the Respondent does not recognize or have any relationship with any labor organization representing police. The Petitioner's counsel pointed out that the petition was forwarded to the Commission, containing as attachment a letter of October 22, 1974, from John Stunson, City Manager of Oakland Park, Florida, this letter was incorporated as part of Exhibit 2. The Petitioner's counsel also mentioned a list of employees which had been attached to the petition when filed with the commission however, this document was not in the hearing officer's file. Finally it was indicated, in response to Respondent's inquiry about the Petitioner's affiliation with District #1, Pacific Coast District, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO, also known as M.E.B.A., that this deletion in paragraph 15 of the petition had been corrected through a telephone conversation with PERC and that an authorization had been received to allow the change in the petition (TR 8); Exhibit 3 - by hearing officer, Affidavit of Compliance For Required Showing of Interest, admitted over objections by the Respondent, as ensue (A) the Respondent is without knowledge of the document, (B) that PERC should require full disclosure of the name and affiliation of any labor organization in the showing of interest, (C) that the affiliated party to wit, District #1, Pacific Coast District, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO, condoned strikes, (D) Respondent's counsel also indicated that he hadn't looked at the cards which showed the interest because they had not been provided to him by his client. The Petitioner noted that he deemed the Respondent's comments to be irrelevant and not germain or material; Exhibit 4 - by hearing officer, Affidavit of Compliance for Registration of Employee Organization, over objection by the Respondent as ensue, those objections being as indicated by the Respondent in addressing Exhibit 3. Counsel for the Petitioner noted that the objection should have been entered before and that the affiliations requirement does not make it necessary to include the affiliated party as part of the legal name of the Petitioner; Exhibit 5 - by Petitioner, letter of June 28, 1974, from Theodore P. Maverick to John Stunson, without objection; Exhibit 6 - letter dated July 6, 1974, from John Stunson to Theodore P. Maverick, without objection; Exhibit 7 - by Petitioner, letter dated October 8, 1974, from Theodore P. Maverick to John Stunson, without objection; Exhibit 8 - by Petitioner, letter dated January 17, 1975, from Walter J. Brown to John Stunson, without objection; Exhibit 9 - by Respondent, letter dated December 30, 1974 from Jim Simone to John Stunson, without objection; Exhibit 10 - by Respondent, letter dated January 17, 1975, from John Stunson to Jim Simone, without objection; Exhibit 11 - by Respondent, letter dated February 28, 1975, from Elbert E. Wrains to Mary A. Keene, without objection; Exhibit 12A - by Respondent, a city manning chart, over objection by the Petitioner as to the accuracy and relevancy; Exhibit 13 - by Respondent, Ordinance on Civil Service Rules with attachments, over objections by Petitioner to matters in the documents which do not properly pertain to proceedings under Chapter 447, Florida Statutes; Exhibit 14 - by Respondent, positions and salary ranges, without objection; Exhibit 15 - by Respondent, job title and department employee chart, without objection; Exhibit 16 - by Respondent, Charter Provisions, without objections.

4. Additionally the Respondent tried to enter an Exhibit identified as number 12, which was objected to and sustained; however, a copy of this Exhibit which was identified at the hearing is forwarded with the undersigned report, and certain matters set forth in that chart have been allowed in testimony in the course of the hearing. Respondent attempted to have admitted an Exhibit marked as number 17 for identification and the Petitioner's objection to the document was sustained; however, this Exhibit, as identified, will be included with the hearing officer's report to the Commission.

   
   

5. The parties stipulated and agreed that the City of Oakland Park, Florida, is a public employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447.

   
   

6. The Petitioner agreed that the Federation of Public Employees was an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447, but the Respondent refused to stipulate and agree that the Petitioner was an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447, for reasons set forth in discussing Exhibit 3 above.

   
   

7. The Petitioner agreed that there was a sufficient showing of interest as required for the filing of a Representation Election Petition, under Florida Statutes, Chapter 447. The Respondent refused to stipulate to the inquiry, as to the sufficient showing of interest as required for the filing for a Representation Election Petition under Florida Statutes, Chapter 447, for reasons as set forth in the Respondent's remarks about Exhibit 3 above.

   
   

8. The Petitioner agreed that the employee organization is a properly registered organization with the Public Employees Relations Commission. Respondent refused to stipulate that the subject employee organization is a properly registered organization with the Public Employees Relations Commission, for reasons as set forth in the Respondent's remarks about Exhibit 3 above.

   
   

9. No prior history of bargaining on the part of this proposed unit or employees was shown, nor was there any evidence of a contractual bar to bargaining, beyond the comments offered by the witness Walter J. Browne, who is the business representative for the Petitioner. Mr. Brown testified that the people in the proposed bargaining unit had originally been members of his labor group before and that they were trying to organize them again (TR 64, 65).

   
   

10. There are basically two types of departments within the city government, service departments and administrative departments. In terms of function the service departments include public safety, parks and recreation, utilities, and public works. These departments were described as being departments that rendered direct service to the public and are therefore called service or line departments. The other departments are administrative in nature and serve a supporting function for the service departments and are therefore called administrative departments. Most of the service departments are located in the same geographical area, with the exception being the water treatment plant.

    
    

11. Mr. Stunson, the City Manager, explained the general function of the departments as follows: the personnel department administers personnel policies and handles fringe benefits for the employees of the city. Hiring for any department is initiated through the personnel office, and in addition the personnel office certifies payrolls and works with supervisory personnel on matters pertaining to civil service rules (TR 267, 268).

12. The parks and recreation department, provides recreational sports for the citizens and assist in keeping certain areas of the city clean, to include mowing the grass; collecting trash for public areas; to include swale areas, vacant lots, and median strips (TR 288-290).

    
    

13. The public works department is portrayed in Exhibit 12 and includes a garage, streets division, and sanitation division. Exhibit 12 also shows a utilities department which has within its functions a waste water treatment plant and a water division. This structure represents the actual structure of these divisions at the time of the hearing; however, this structure is not official, although funding has been approved, because an ordinance must be passed following a public hearing to formalize the arrangement depicted in Exhibit 12, concerning this department and the public works department. Technically these different divisions alluded to continue to fall under one department, the public works department, as depicted in Exhibit 12A. In Exhibit 12A the public works ,department shows a sanitation division, garage division, a waste water division, and a water division. Although there is a difference in structure between the functional circumstance of these five divisions and the official depiction of the five divisions as shown in Exhibit 12A, the job being performed is equivalent, particularly as it relates to the line employees within these five divisions. To elaborate, at the time Exhibit 12A was in operation a quasi city engineer had been transferred into the position of the director of the public works department and had serving under him two assistant directors of public works. At present the former assistant directors of public works have become respectively, directors of the utilities department and public works department as contemplated in Exhibit 12. The quasi engineer has become an engineer planner and the city has hired a professional engineer to fill the position of city engineer.

    
    

14. Within the public works department there is a sanitation division which is part of the unit sought by the Petitioner. This division collects households and commercial, trash and garbage.

    
    

15. Also within the department of public works is the maintenance garage division. Its function is to keep city vehicles of all types ..in working order, to include as examples, fire trucks, load-alls, 2-1/2 ton trucks, pickups, police cars (TR 294).

    
    

16. The streets division is part of the public works and it collects trash from public areas (TR 291), maintains the streets (TR 297, 298), and performs sanitation or cleaning functions at certain canals within the city and collects trash and garbage from the streets (TR 298).

    
    

17. The water division formally of public works and now of the utilities department handles new or additional construction and repairs and handles water service connections (TR 275, 276).

    
    

18. Under Exhibit 12A there is shown a function referred to under the finance department as being central services. It was indicated that this function has been substituted for by other arrangements (TR 300). At present part of that function, such as operation of the telephone system has gone back into the finance department proper and the maintenance type function has become a division under the department of public works, and is called the maintenance division (TR 301). This is a building maintenance division.

19. The finance department accounts for all funds flowing through the city and collects fees, handles water and sewer collection funds and is involved with financial matters of other governmental departments such as payroll (TR 272- 274). The building department handles matters pertaining to building and zoning law (TR 270-272). The function of the municipal court is as described on page

    281 of the transcript, as is the function of the library. The engineering and planning department is as described on page 274 thru 279 of the transcript. Furthermore the position of the city clerk is described on page 279 and 280 of the transcript.

    
    

20. There are certain civilian employees within the public safety department and it is not clear whether or not those persons are contemplated as being a part of the alternative unit proposed by the Respondent. Testimony referring to the function of those civilian employees is found in the transcript on pages 284 thru 288. The nature of these employees is secretarial and clerical, auxiliary patrolman and school guards. The sworn police officers and sworn public safety officers, including firemen, are excluded from the alternative unit of the Respondent and not contemplated by the Petitioner's proposed unit. In addition it should be noted, although the city does not have an existing contract with any other labor organization there was an expired contract with the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1779 which had not been certified by the Commission (TR 202).

    
    

21. Considering the more specific description of the job functions of those employees working with the sanitation division, other than the superintendent and foreman who have been requested for exclusion, testimony was offered by the, city manager, Mr. Stunson. The equipment serviceman, range 15, has as its function the upgrading and maintaining of the commercial refuse containers and there is one man fulfilling that function (TR 303, 304). The refuse service operator 5, range 14, operates a vehicle known as a Load-All which is a vehicle with a compaction ratio, which accepts commercial garbage at the location of pick up. It will also accept household trash, and then haul these matters to the incinerator for disposal (TR 304, 305). In it, there are seven job slots, of which six are filled and the seventh man is acting as dispatcher for the public works department pending reclassification, and this dispatcher reclassification is before the civil service board (TR 304-308). The impression of the testimony by Mr. Stunson was that the slot held by the employee acting as a dispatcher but titled as a refuse service operator 4, range 14, would be filled by a new employee when the dispatcher position was formally approved by the civil service board (TR 308). There is shown on the Exhibit 12 a position known as labor 1, range 8, which is described by Mr. Stunson as being a refuse serviceman, range 8. This is a labor type position acting as a fill-in for other personnel within sanitation and also working with containers in the commercial service (TR 308, 309). There were (4) employees filling this position at the time of the hearing (TR 309). The crew leader 4, range 13, is a single individual who is the supervisor over those persons involved in residential pickup in the sanitation division (TR 310, 311). A refuse service operator 4, range 12, drives a vehicle known as an EVO, which has a limited compaction ratio and has as its purpose the pick up of household garbage. There are (4) individuals filling that position (TR 311, 312). The refuse service operator 3, range 11, drives a jeep type vehicle which has a train of containers utilized to pick up curb side trash and there are (4) of these employees (TR 312, 314). The refuse service operator 2, range 10, is an assistant to the refuse service operator 4, range 12, and there are 4 individuals filling that position (TR 312). Finally the refuse service operator 1, range 9, is an assistant to the refuse service operator 3, range 2. There are budgeted for the future 2 positions, but there were at the time of the hearing (4) employees

    filling the job position (TR 313-315). The testimony was offered in the course of the hearing about a position known as crew leader 5. It was indicated that this particular position is not within the current budget (TR 311). Excluding the crew leader 5 position, testified about in the course of the hearing, and the other excluded categories within that division, there were (29) employees filling positions within that division at the time of the hearing to include (1) refuse service operator 5, range 14, who was acting as dispatcher for the public works department and including the (2) refuse service operator 1's, range 9, who are no longer appropriated in the budget. If the latter two categories are not considered, then the total number of employees in the sanitation division which would be considered in the proposed unit becomes (26).

    
    

22. Within the garage division there is a garage superintendent and there is contemplated a position known as a mechanic 2, range 18, in which a mechanic 1, range 17, would be reclassified and provided some supervision within the garage division (TR 204, 295). Mechanic 1's are basically the same as a mechanic in private enterprise. He does everything from changing points and plugs to replacement of transmissions or break linings. At the time of the hearing there were (5) mechanic 1's, range 17, but it is contemplated that one of these mechanics would become the mechanic 2, range 18, if reclassification was achieved (TR 294-296). There is one welder who works with the sanitation equipment by putting it back in repair (TR 295). At one time there was a paint and body man, but this individual is no longer budged for and no one was in the position at the time of the hearing (TR 297). Consequently at present, excluding the superintendent, there are (6) employees in the garage division who could be considered as part of the Petitioner's proposed bargaining unit.

    
    

23. In discussing the interdependence of some of the different divisions of the Respondent, city, Mr. Stunson indicated that for example the sanitation department if not dependent on the waste water division for the most part; however, that sanitation men will have to help the waste water division in the future at the waste water treatment plant. That the streets division picks up trash and the sanitation transports that trash and the like function transpires between the sanitation division and the parks division. The building maintenance division makes minor modifications at the sanitation working area and the sanitation division cleans the building for the building maintenance division. The garage division services vehicles for all other divisions. In terms of transfers of personnel, there are occasional transfers on the basis of job listings within the city government which would allow promotions for employees within the government unit. The day to day transfer of government personnel is somewhat limited although management level employees are instructed that this may be done at the departmental level. Permanent transfers are made by the city manager. There is some transfer of personnel in terms of basic skills between certain divisions within public works but not on a routine basis. There has been no exchange between the garage division and other divisions as a matter of daily routine. Later in the course of the testimony by Mr. Stunson, indicated the interchangeability of the job classifications which require things such as basic skills, to wit, the ability to drive and operate equipment; however, this is on the basis of having to make the necessary adjustments to do the job.

    
    

24. Job openings and testing for those job vacancies is done throughout all departments where there are persons of similar basic skills (TR 320, 321).

    
    

25. The city's charter, Article 4, Section 2, vested in the city council the authority to fix compensation for all employees via a classified service and compensation plan; and the charter, Article 4, Section 5, establishes the city

    manager as the administrative head of government, (see Exhibit 16). The charter further establishes at Article 6, a civil service system administered by a personnel director; and provides at Section 2, for employment based on merit and fitness determined by a competitive examination; provides compensation on a uniform basis for positions having similar duties and responsibilities. This applies to classified service which includes all positions except for limited exempt categories as indicated in Exhibit 16, Article 6, Sections 4 and 5. For all classified employees the civil service rules, Exhibit 13, provide various uniform benefits, standards, procedures, rights and prohibitions for example:

    at rule 11 there is a provision for uniform benefits covering hours of work, legal holidays, vacation leave, sick leave with pay, payment for unused sick leave, personal leave, leave with pay, leave without pay, and employee performance ratings, rule 11 also discusses grievance procedures.

    
    

26. Rule 12 provides uniform standards and procedures governing matters of resignation, layoff, discharge, discipline, standard penalties, demotion for inability to perform duties and suspension.

    
    

27. Compensation is covered under Rule 6 and it provides a uniform system for the formulation and administration of a pay plan with systematic advancement, longevity, promotions, overtime, etc. Furthermore, in accordance with Charter and civil service requirements the Respondent has established pay ranges, based upon skill levels (TR 258); and within the pay ranges can be found jobs for various departments of government, see Exhibit 14 (TR 315).

    
    

28. In discussing certain positions deemed to be confidential in nature, testimony was offered to the effect that those secretaries who work for the city manager, engineering and planning department and police department are deemed to be confidential (TR 391, 392). These positions are shown on Exhibit 15.

    
    

29. The Respondent feels that certain classes of employees are managerial and these employees are shown on Exhibit 15. The building official is the department director (TR 393). The finance director is in charge of the employees within his department and the assistant finance director fills in, in his absence (TR 393). Personnel technician is discussed in this capacity (TR

393) and the city clerk is indicated as being a department head (TR 393). Library director and assistant library director act as department heads or fill in, in the absence of the department hear (TR 393). All superintendents, accord to Mr. Stunson, sit in from time to time as department heads (TR 393) In actuality there exists a utilities director and a public works director and they are identified as being department heads (TR 393). The foremen in sanitation, streets, waste water treatment, and building maintenance have been excluded by prior agreement. The engineer is a professional man (TR 394). Those personnel under the department of public safety were not included in Petitioner's proposed unit or in the alternative unit offered by the Respondent, therefore their supervisory personnel are not considered in this part of the analysis.

DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Theodore P. Mavrick, Esquire 2601 East Oakland Park Blvd. Suite 205

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

Herbert B. Mintz, Esquire Suite 600

100 Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami, Florida 33132

Curtis L. Mack, Esquire

Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 105, 2005 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 75-000242

Orders for Case No: 75-000242