STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ) FIREMEN AND OILERS, Number 5, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-244

) PERC CASE NO. 8H-RC-742-0014 LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY )

COMMISSIONERS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The hearing in the above styled cause came on for hearing pursuant to notice before Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on September 24, 1975 at 9:30 a.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, Main and Texas Streets in Tavares, Florida.

ISSUE

The following issues were presented by the Petitioner or arose at hearing:

1. Was a proper investigation and showing of interest made in this Petition?

   
   

2. Should Assistant Sorensen be included or excluded from the proposed unit?

   
   

3. Whether the appropriate unit should be composed solely of personnel within the Road and Bridge Department.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

The hearing was held in the Petition of International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, #5 to determine the appropriate unit for collective bargaining among employees of Lake County. Said Petition requested that all eligible employees in the Road and Bridge Department of Lake County be recognized as the appropriate unit, and requested exclusion of clerical and managerial employees.

Prior to the taking of testimony Counsel for Lake County challenged the registered status of I.B.F.O. #5 based upon a letter from the Public Employees Relations Commission to the County, and Counsel sought to introduce said letter. The letter was not admitted because it referred to "National Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers," and not "International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers".

Thereafter Counsel challenged the instant Petition on the basis that an investigation to determine a showing of interest pursuant to Rule 8H-3.16,

1. had not been conducted. The PERC file reflects and Counsel for Lake

   County in response to inquiry by the Hearing Officer, indicated that Lake County had received a request from PERC for a list of employees in the proposed unit, but that Lake County had not forwarded such a list to PERC. (See letter dated December 18, 1974, Curtis Mack to Christopher Ford, File #8H-RC-742-0014).

   Further persual of File #8H-RC-742-0014 reveals an unnumbered page headed "RE CASES FILED" with the name "Brindell" handwritten along side. Said document appears to be a check list for PERC staff used in processing an application. The first two entries indicate that the union is registered and the showing of interest was made by submittal of cards and the percentage expressed as a fraction exceeding 30 per cent.

   
   

   Although the records contained in the file indicate an appropriate showing of interest, the Hearing Officer gave the Public Employer an opportunity to present testimony relative to the number of employees with the unit indicated within the Petition.

   
   

   SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

   
   

   1. The Public Employer, preserving his objection to the failure of PERC to investigate the showing of interest, presented the following information in the form of a stipulation on the record:

      
      

      Stipulated facts:

      
      

   2. The County Road and Bridge Department (Division) 1/ is composed of Maintenance (Section) No. 1, Maintenance (Section) No. 2, Maintenance (Section) No. 3, and Prison Road Guards Section.

      
      

   3. The sections consist of the following position classifications with the number of personnel within the classification indicated: 2/

      
      

      Maintenance (Section)	No.	1
      Truck Driver III		6
      Truck Driver I		3
      Laborer		2
      Foreman		1
      Assistant Foreman		1
      		13
      Maintenance (Section)	No.	2
      Operator II		0
      Operator I		7
      Truck Driver II		3
      Truck Driver I		7
      Foreman		1
      Assistant Foreman		1
      		19
      Maintenance (Section)	No.	3
      Operator II		0
      Operator I		7
      Truck Driver II		5

      Truck Driver I 6

      Laborer 2

      Foreman 1

      Assistant Foreman 1

      22

      Prison Road Guard Section Guard Captain 1

      Foreman/Guard 2

      Guard 4

      
      

      7

      == 61

      
      

   4. The parties stipulated that the Foreman and Guard Captain should be excluded from the unit because of his supervisory functions (See T-24-27) and that all truck drivers, laborers, and operators be included together with guards. Regarding Assistant Foremen, they are apparently working personnel, designated Assistant Foremen on the classification plan, who perform duties of a Foreman in supervising work when the Foreman is absent from work. (T-32,33,34) This takes less than 25 percent of the Assistant Foreman's time.

      
      

   5. The Public Employer did not present any evidence beyond that admitted incidental to the stipulation (Exhibit 1). Thereafter the Petitioner called Mr. Van Porter, Administrative Deputy to the Clerk of Courts, on assignment to the County Commission to assist them on labor matters. The Public Employer objected to Porter being called as a witness because he was a "labor negotiator". The Hearing Officer denied the objection but cautioned the Representative of Petitioner from inquiry into the area of labor negotiations. (T-28,29)

      
      

   6. Porter was the only witness called by either party and he testified that the Road and Bridge Department (Division) came under the Public Works Department of the County which also included the Motor Vehicle Inspection Department (Division), Animal Control/Shelter Department (Division), and Landfill (Division). (T-38-46,48,49)

      
      

   7. In addition to the Public Works Department, the County also has a Mosquito Control Department, Pollution Control Department, Welfare Department, Civil Defense Department, Veterans Services Offices, Planning and Zoning Department, and County Nursing Home which are co-equal with the Public Works Department on the County's table of organizations. (T-47,48,50-59)

      
      

   8. There were employees assigned to the County's sanitary landfill operation which was operated and apparently maintained by the County. The exact duties of these personnel were not known to Porter, but the landfill was used for disposal of garbage and refuse.

      
      

   9. The Sign and Survey (Division) of the Public Works Department was responsible for construction and placement of road signs and surveying, presumably to survey roads for construction and setting up markings. Porter assumed this survey related to and survey using transits and similar instruments. Personnel in the sign shop were referred to as "sign men" and their duties included both construction and installation of signs. This Division is coequal to the Road and Bridge Division.

   10. Regarding the Motor Vehicles Inspection (Division) of the Public Works Department, this operation employed inspectors and clerical personnel. The inspectors physically inspected automobiles to determine if they met State criteria while the clerical personnel maintained the inspection records.

       
       

   11. The Animal Control/Shelter (Division) consisted of two employees, a control officer who picked up stray animals and a shelter operator who cares for the animals at the shelter. Porter was of the opinion that both employees were independent, and one did not supervise the other. (T-47,49)

       
       

   12. There were ten (10) employees in Mosquito Control Department of the County. These employees included drivers who operated the truck mounted fogging devices, a secretary to the Department Head, and "probably a couple of mechanics to maintain the equipment" (T-52) outside those assigned to the maintenance shop. (T-50-52)

       
       

   13. Welfare, Veterans Services, and Civil Defense Departments employed only clericals. (T-54,55)

       
       

   14. The Pollution Control Department consisted of five to six persons who were primarily lab technicians or clericals. (T-52-54) Planning and Zoning were similarly staffed with technically trained planners and clericals. (T-55- 56)

       
       

   15. Regarding the County Nursing Home, there were maintenance personnel assigned to the hospital whose duties included nursing aide, small maintenance and custodial functions. These persons were all classified as attendants, and Porter was unsure of the exact number, but Porter guesses between 8 and 10 attendants were employed at the home. (T-56-60)

       
       

   16. All County employees were entitled to the same fringe benefits, but all the positions had not had job descriptions prepared for them. (T-60)

       
       

   17. Foremen in the Road and Bridge Department and the Guard Captain had authority to supervise their personnel, to hire personnel and fire personnel and do all things necessary to accomplish their duties and administrate their personnel. (T-64,66)

       
       

   18. Because the Petitioner moved to amend its Petition to expand the requested unit, (T-69) but thereafter withdrew its amendment (T-22) expressing its willingness to accept a large unit if deemed appropriate (T-72); and because the testimony presented by the Petitioner was in some instances beyond the scope of the unit for which it had petitioned, the Hearing Officer extended the opportunity to continue the hearing up to three weeks to allow the county to rebut the evidence presented. (T-74,77,81) This opportunity was not accepted by the Public Employer and the record was closed. (T-81,82)

       
       

   19. It is apparent from the record that there are other truck drivers, laborers, and equipment operators employed by the County in areas outside the Road and Bridge Division. Such employees share the same benefits. It was apparent that the County sought to keep the unit in question as small as possible from the manner in which it presented its case; however, it did not present any evidence with regard to why the unit should be small or how this would assist or enhance the management of the County. Based upon Porter's testimony the Hearing Officer would consider further investigation, and if necessary, further hearing to determine whether the unit petitioned for is appropriate.

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of November, 1975.

STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

ENDNOTES

1/ The witness and counsel referred indiscriminately to all units of organization as "Departments". For the readers aid the Hearing Officer has used the term Department to refer to major governmental units made up of Divisions which in turn are composed of Sections.

2/ Data extracted from Exhibit 1.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Curtis Mack, Chairman Public Employees Relations

Commission

2005 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Messrs. Edward Draper and Eugene Heintz

5400 West Waters, B-4 Tampa, Florida 33614

Christopher C. Ford and Davie E. Cauthens, Esquires Cauthen & Robuck

101 East Maud Street Tavares, Florida

Docket for Case No: 75-000244

Orders for Case No: 75-000244