STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BREVARD COUNTY P.B.A., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-1083

) PERC NO. 8H-RC-756-2126

BREVARD COUNTY SHERIFF'S )

DEPARTMENT, )

)

Public Employer. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on June 7, 8, and 23, 1976, in Titusville, Florida.

APPEARANCES

The following appearances were entered:

For Petitioner: Joseph R. Moss, Esquire

MOSS & HOLCOMB

653 Brevard Avenue Post Office Box 1907 Cocoa, Florida 32992

For Public Phillip Nohrr, Esquire Employer: NOHRR & NOHRR

Post Office Box 369 Melbourne, Florida 32901

and

Geoffrey Dobson, Esquire

1131 Executive Center Drive, Suite 251 Tallahassee, Florida

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

On October 20, 1975, the undersigned Hearing Officer entered a "Hearing Officer's Report; Summary of the Case; and Findings of Fact" after having duly conducted a hearing in the case. A history of this case prior to that date, and Findings of Fact based upon hearings conducted in August, 1975, can be gleaned by reference to the October 20, 1975 report.

Following entry of the Hearing Officer's Report, a hearing was scheduled before the Public Employees Relations Commission ("PERC" hereafter) on December 9, 1975. The Commission apparently indicated at that time what its order would be, but a written decision was not issued until February 18, 1976. In the written decision various orders made by the undersigned during the course of the August, 1975 hearings were upheld; however, the Commission concluded that it

could not resolve the question of the appropriate bargaining unit based upon the record before it. The Commission directed:

"Pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section

Sections 8-3.18(c), 3.23(a)-(b), 8H-3.25,

the Chapter 8H-3 hearing in this case is REOPENED to take further evidence on the question of the appropriate unit or units for collective bargaining for the deputy sheriffs and support personnel employed by the Brevard County Sheriff."

The Division of Administrative Hearings was not advised of this order until April 27, 1976 when Counsel for the Brevard County P.B.A. ("Petitioner" hereafter) arranged a conference telephone call among himself, the undersigned and the Acting General Counsel of PERC. A hearing was scheduled by notice dated April 28, 1976 to be conducted on May 19, 1976. The Sheriff of Brevard County ("Public Employer" hereafter) requested a continuance and accordingly the hearing was scheduled to be conducted on June 7 and 8, 1976 by notice dated May 26, 1976. The evidentiary presentation was not completed on those dates, and the continued hearing was conducted on June 23, 1976.

Nothing in the decision rendered by PERC set out the nature of the testimony the Commission found wanting. The parties had no clear understanding of what additional testimony was desired. The bulk of the testimony offered essentially followed, and reaffirmed the testimony developed in the August, 1975 hearings.

At the hearing the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida appeared through counsel, and filed a Motion to Intervene. It is set out in the Motion that the Board of County Commissioners is a joint employer with the Sheriff of Brevard County. The Motion to Intervene was granted for the limited purpose of permitting the Board of County Commissioners to present evidence in support of their motion.

At the hearing, prior to the presentation of evidence, the Public Employer made several motions. The public Employer moved for a ruling as to the joint employer status of the Sheriff of Brevard County and the Board of County Commissioners. The Motion was denied. The Public Employer objected to having to go forward with evidence, and the objections were overruled. The public Employer moved that only one potential bargaining unit be considered in the case because the notice issued by PERC refers to "the appropriate unit" rather than to the appropriate units. The motion was denied.

The parties confirmed their positions set out in the October 20, 1975 report respecting the appropriate bargaining unit. The Petitioner's designation is set out at page 2 of the report, and the Public Employer's designation is set out at page 3. The Public Employer expressed further that lieutenants and sergeants should be excluded from any unit ultimately certified by PERC on the grounds that they are supervisory employees.

The Public Employer called the following witnesses: Katherine Poff, the Public Employer's personnel Director; James H. Garvin, the Commanding Officer of the Public Employer's Uniform Patrol Division; H. R. Rodenbaugh, the head of the Public Employer's Fifth Division - Jail personnel; Mary Kathleen Hoffman, a nurse assigned to the Public Employer's Jail Division; Liza Dubinsky, the Director of the Warrant Unit in Division Five; Harold F. Yeager, the Public

Employer's Chief Bailiff; Thomas M. Robinson, the Head of the Vice and Narcotics Section of the Public Employer's Headquarters Division; S. R. DeWitt, Jr., the Head of the Public Employers Intelligence Division; Wayne Kohout, the Commanding Officer of the Public Employer's Communication Division; Ann Pitts, the Director of Correspondence in the Public Employer's Second Division; Les Hayden, the Head of Property Control in the Public Employer's Second Division; Mary Colosimo, the Director of the Public Employer's Finance Unit; Lana Burkett, the Assistant Director of the Public Employer's Bureau of Information; and Lee S. Wilson, the Sheriff of Brevard County.

The Intervenor called the following witness: Bill Barnes, the Comptroller of Brevard County.

Exhibits presented at the hearing were numbered consecutively following the numbers given exhibits at the hearings in August, 1975. In August, 1975 Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1 - 7 and Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2 were received into evidence. In the June, 1976 hearings, Hearing Officer's Exhibits 8 - 11, and Public Employer's Exhibits 1 - 12 were received into evidence. The parties were invited to submit Post-Hearing Memoranda of Law, and Proposed Hearing Officer's Reports. Petitioner and the Public Employer have filed Memoranda of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. There have been no significant changes in the organizational structure of the Public Employer since August, 1975. The duties, responsibilities, and day-to-day activities of persons who occupy given job titles within the Public Employer have not changed in any significant respect since August, 1975. The Findings of Fact set out in the Hearing Officer's Report entered on October 20, 1975 have continued vitality, and are hereby incorporated into this report as Findings of Fact as fully as if they were set out in full herein.

   
   

2. The Sheriff of Brevard County is an officer who holds his position by virtue of Article VIII, Section 1(d) of the Constitution of the State of Florida. The duties, responsibilities, and powers of the Sheriff of Brevard County are delineated in Florida Statutes Ch. 30. There are no special statutes which alter the provisions of Ch. 30 with respect to the Sheriff of Brevard County.

   
   

3. The organizational structure of the Public Employer is accurately described in an organizational chart which was received in evidence at the hearing as Public Employer's Exhibit 8. The organization structure is set out with more detail in a personnel roster which was received in evidence as Public Employer's Exhibit 2.

   
   

4. The job descriptions of all job positions within the Public Employer were compiled and presented into evidence as Public Employer's Exhibit 5. The job descriptions accurately reflect the qualifications for each position, and the duties, responsibilities, and day-to-day activities of persons who fill the positions. The duties, responsibilities, and day-to-day activities of the employees are more fully described in the testimony of chief supervisory personnel of each division.

5 The functions of the Public Employer are divided among eleven divisions. The functions are appropriately and efficiently divided in this manner; however, there are features of the Public Employer which make generalizations difficult. A lieutenant in Division Four - Uniform Division has supervisory functions that are very different from the supervisory functions of a lieutenant in another

division. Similarly the two sergeants in Division Ten - Headquarters Squad have profound supervisory functions which will not find their equivalent with sergeants in Division Eight - Communications. In defining an appropriate collective bargaining unit, it is important to consider each job title within each division separately.

ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Joseph R. Moss, Esquire MOSS & HOLCOMB

653 Brevard Avenue Post Office Box 1907 Cocoa, Florida 32922

Phillip Nohrr, Esquire NOHRR & NOHRR

Post Office Box 369 Melbourne, Florida 32901

Geoffrey B. Dobson, Esquire 1311 Executive Center Drive Suite 251

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Curtis L. Mack, Chairman Public Employees Relations

Commission

2003 Apalachee Parkway

Suite 300

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 75-001083

Orders for Case No: 75-001083