STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FEDERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-301

) PERC NO. 8H-RC-752-0104

BROWARD COUNTY COMMISSION, )

)

Public Employer. )

)

HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT

A hearing was held, after due notice, on the RC petition filed by the Federation of Public Employees, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) with the Public Employees Relations Commission, (hereinafter referred to as PERC) seeking to represent certain employees of the Board of County Commissioners, Broward County, Florida, (hereinafter referred to as the Employer) before a duly assigned Hearing Officer, Stephen F. Dean, Division of Administrative Hearings, on November 10 and 11, 1975, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: THEODORE P. MAVRICK, Esquire

2601 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306

For Public Employer: JOSEPH A. CALDWELL, Esquire

Muller & Mintz, P.A.

Suite 600, 100 Biscayne Boulevard, N.

Miami, Florida 33132

Based upon the Petition and the record at hearing, the Petitioner would seek to represent all the trades employees (carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc.) and trades helpers (unskilled; apprentice type positions) within the Division of Maintenance. They would exclude the Department Director, any assistant directors, and superintendents within the Division of Maintenance, Department of Central Services. The employees sought

to be represented are those who work cut of the County Courthouse, and the record indicates that the storekeepers, secretarial and clericals, and custodial personnel of the division are not sought for inclusion in the unit. P. 6, 24, Vol. I; p. 521, Vol II. The union qualified exclusion of superintendents dependent upon whether they performed managerial or confidential functions.

The Employer contended that the only appropriate unit should be a county-wide unit of unskilled and semiskilled employees (production and maintenance employees), excluding unskilled and semiskilled employees covered by preexisting collective bargaining contracts, (Transit employees represented by contract with Amalgamated Transit Workers Union, Local 1267), excluding office clerical employees, technical employees, security and protection employees (guards and parking lot attendants), airport security employees, and excluding supervisory personnel, managerial and confidential employees as defined by the Act.

ISSUES

The issues before the Hearing Officer were defined as follows:

1. Whether the Respondent is an Employee Organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447.

   
   

2. Whether the Petitioner is an Employee Organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447.

   
   

3. Whether there is a sufficient showing of interest as required for the filing of a representative election petition under Florida Statutes, Chapter 447.

   
   

4. Whether the Employee Organization is a properly registered organization within the Public Employees Relations Commission.

   
   

5. What is the appropriate unit of public employees in the cause before PERC.

The Petitioner and the Employer stipulated that the Employer is a Public Employer and Petitioner is an Employee Organization within the meaning of Chapter 447, Florida Statutes.

As to issue number 3, the PERC record reflects a sufficient showing of interest, and the Employer did not seek to show any

fraud, misrepresentation, etc. regarding the signature cards submitted by Petitioner.

Issue number 4 resulted in an admitted stipulation by the parties that the Petitioner is a registered organization.

For the purposes of this brief, only issue number 5 remains to be considered.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Employer, through witness Henry Willis, Assistant Director of Personnel, testified that the County, through its recently adopted Civil Service Career Program in September 1974 and through its Personnel Department, provided the following services countywide throughout all divisions and department, inter alia:

   
   

   1. Testing new applicants for employment.

   2. Interviewing new applicants for employment.

   3. Recommending new applicants for employment.

   4. Provides for all transfer policy.

   5. Provides for all discipline policy.

   6. Provides for all common benefits policies, such as:

      1. Common Leave policy.

      2. Common Promotion policy.

      3. Common Pay Plan.

      4. Common Insurance Plans.

      5. Common Recordkeeping (personnel files).

   7. Administers the reduction in force policy.

   8. Coordinates all inter-division and department personnel policies.

   9. Processes grievances and employee disputes.

   10. Prepares job descriptions for all County jobs, defining skills and duties for such jobs.

       
       

       In addition to the above, Mr. Willis testified that the County employs a category of employees (approximately 206 in all) referred to as CETA employees. This general description encompasses employees hired pursuant to federal grants and are paid from federal grant monies.

       
       

2. CETA employees must enjoy, pursuant to the terms of the grants, all County Civil Service benefits except that they do not take the Civil Service examination, their tenure is determined by the federal grant under which they are hired, and they have no

   bumping rights, nor can they be bumped. If a CETA employee converts to Civil Service employment, the employee must take the Civil Service examination and tenure or time of service is computed from the date the employee becomes a Civil Service employee.

   
   

3. CETA employees are employed in a variety of job categories to include jobs throughout the County. They are assigned to work alongside other Civil Service employees. CETA employees receive comparable pay, benefits, and have the same supervisors as Civil Service employees. CETA employees may also be designated, if qualified, to become a foreman or supervisor if such a position were approved as indicated below.

   
   

4. It should be noted that CETA employment is dependent upon federal grant momies which are annual grants, and that although CETA employees have the same compensation package as Civil Service employees, they do not have the degree of job security but are dependent upon continued federal grants. CETA positions have to be created and generally correspond to the entry level position within Civil Service. Because of low job security and low pay, there is a higher turnover rate with CETA employees.

   
   

5. Exhibit 1 is an organizational chart of the Broward County Government. There are seven departments under the County Administrator, and various divisions under each of these departments. The employees which Petitioner seeks to represent are all located within the maintenance division of the Department of Central Services. Exhibit 2 indicates the number and type of unskilled and semiskilled employees within the Broward County government by division. This exhibit indicates, in addition to the trades and trades helpers, all such positions with the organization of the Employer.

   
   

6. Employer's Exhibit 2 states by name and position title the unskilled and skilled employees within each of the divisions within the county. The number of such employees in each division, as follows, was extracted from Exhibit 2:

   
   

   1. Central Warehouse 5

   2. Motor Pool 3

   3. Maintenance 104

   4. Convict Camp 1

   5. Motor Vehicle Inspection 93

   6. Medical Examiner 5

   7. Lot C1earing 4

   8. Engineering Traffic 33

   9. Mosquito Control Local 12

   10. County pound 21

   11. Youth Services 16

   12. Parks and Beaches 85

   13. Water Management 11

   14. Agriculture 11

   15. Airports 44

   16. Roads and Bridges 125

   17. Utilities - Solid Waste 64

   18. Utilities - Waste Water 119

   19. Witness Liaison Program 2

   20. Mental Health Funding Agreement 13

   
   

7. The Petitioner seeks to represent 107 of the 764 unskilled and semiskilled employees of the County, or approximately 14 percent of the total number. There are a total of 41 CETA employees who are employed in unskilled or semiskilled positions, 26 of which are employed in trades or as trades helpers. Five such CETA employees are employed within the Maintenance Division.

   
   

8. As indicated in Exhibit 2 and the record, the Employer employs mechanics, painters, vehicle equipment operators, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, gardeners, stock room employees, welders, locksmiths, air conditioning employees, parking lot attendants, custodians, etc., who primarily work within their own divisions within the County structure. However, there is some exchange of services between the various departments and Divisions. As an example, the Division of Roads performs work at the airport, even though the airport employs its own road crews. Likewise, the Division of Maintenance provides service for approximately ninety-four (94) County-owned or lease buildings throughout Broward County, Florida.

   
   

9. Regarding the position of superintendents and whether they should be excluded, the record indicates that the Division of Maintenance has 160 employees, two superintendents and one director. One of the two superintendents is in charge of the mechanical trades employees and the other is in charge of the carpenters, painters, custodians, and welders. The superintendents carry out their duties through his working foreman. The superintendents have disciplinary authority and are empowered to resolve grievances, if possible, at their level. The superintendents present requests for specific equipment, tools, and personnel from which the director prepares the divisional budget. The director only has the authority to release personnel. The superintendents assign work to the various foremen for

   accomplishment. The superintendents constitute the level of administration between the director and the foreman.

   
   

10. The record reflects that Broward County, at the time of hearing, had entered into collective bargaining contracts or was in the process of doing so with County fire fighters, airport police, and the employees of the Mass Transit Division. Petitioner argued, specifically with regard to the voluntary recognition of Local 1267 representing the transit workers, that this recognition was inconsistent with the Employer's position with regard to the unit under consideration, and indicated that the Employer had already recognized a divisional unit.

    
    

11. The Employer introduced evidence and testimony that what is now the Mass Transportation Division was once a private company acquired by the County. In order to receive federal funds, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, the County executed two agreements (Exhibit 6A in 1972 and Exhibit 6B in 1975) which guaranteed no diminution of rights, specifically collective bargaining rights, as a result of the County acquisition of the private company. In 1975 when the contract expired, the County, being satisfied with the union's majority status as a result of a recent election, voluntarily recognized the union's majority status.

    
    

12. The Employer argues that the voluntary recognition of what constitutes a divisional unit in mass transit is not inconsistent with its position in regard to Petitioner's proposed unit but is distinguishable on the facts.

    
    

13. The Employer argued that the proposed unit would fragment and compartmentalize employees who share a community of interest as Civil Service or CETA employees who had virtually the same types of job classifications. Further, the Employer asserted this violates the criteria provided in Section 447.009(4), F.S.

    
    

14. The Petitioner presented testimony that the employees of the Division of Maintenance desired representation by Petitioner, and that the history of collective bargaining showed the Employer to have recognized fire fighters, police, and transit workers units.

The Petitioner indicated its desire and willingness to participate in any directed election in any unit found to be appropriate by PERC.

This report respectfully submitted this 30th day of January, 1976.

STEPHEN F. DEAN

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Theodore P. Mavrick, Esquire Counsel for the Petitioner

Joseph A. Caldwell, Esquire Counsel for the Public Employer

Chairman

Public Employees Relations Commission

Docket for Case No: 75-000301

Orders for Case No: 75-000301