STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JACKSONVILLE PORT AUTHORITY ) EMPLOYEES AND ASSOCIATES, )

)

Petitioner, )

and, )

)

JACKSONVILLE PORT AUTHORITY, ) CASE NO. 75-1550

) PERC NO. 8H-RC-753-0164

Public Employer, )

)

vs. )

) JACKSONVILLE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ) LOCAL 1048, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, )

)

Respondent. )

)

HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT, ANALYSIS OF RECORD AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The subject cause was heard before the undersigned on October 16, 1975, in Jacksonville, Florida, pursuant to an RC Petition filed by Jacksonville Port Authority Employees and Associates (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner). Jacksonville Public Employees Local #1048, A.F.S.C.M.E., AFL-CIO (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Intervenor) was permitted to intervene based on the tender of a contractual agreement which was entered into between the Intervenor and the City of Jacksonville which by its terms, included several independent agencies therein referred to collectively as the Public Employer.

APPEARANCES

For Intervenor: Ben R. Patterson, Esquire

2007 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Petitioner: Ruth J. Clark 2904 Peach Drive

Jacksonville, Florida 32216

For Public Employer: Cliff Mendoza

Post Office Box 3005 Jacksonville, Florida 32206

1. Said contract was effective May 1, 1972, thru April 30, 1973, and continued from year to year unless either party desired to terminate or change the agreement which had to be accomplished by tendering written notice to the other party within sixty (60) days prior to the effective date of termination or change. Said agreement covered several independent agencies including the Jacksonville Port Authority. The Petitioner's representative has filed a brief which has been duly considered.

2. The parties stipulated that the Intervenor is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes 447. The Intervenor refused to stipulate that the Jacksonville Port Authority is a public employer or that the Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes 447. Further the Petitioner refused to admit that the petition is supported by the requisite showing of interest and that (1) the Public Employer in this case is the City of Jacksonville and (2) that the Petitioner is improperly registered inasmuch as it has not filed the requisite financial statement according to PERC Rule 8H-6.01. The Intervenor alleges further that the Petitioner's showing of interest is tainted, based on its counsel's contention that it was fraudulently obtained. Arthur E. Ham, the Petitioner's Assistant Vice President, testified that he has served in that position since approximately June, 1975. He testified that employees are allowed to participate in the Petitioner's activities and that one of the purposes of the organization is to deal with employees' working conditions and other terms and conditions of employment. Based on such testimony, the undersigned finds that the Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447.

   
   

3. On cross examination, Intervenor's counsel put a number of questions to Messr. Ham, asking him for example which types of employees were permitted to become members of the Petitioner. His stated purpose in doing so was to determine whether or not the Petitioner was an employee organization that was dominated by management and if so, that that fact should be litigated and a record developed thereon. It is true that an Employer has no obligation to bargain with a unit consisting of persons who arguably would, if certified, constitute an inappropriate unit. However, in this instance the Intervenor seeks to show that the employee organization (the Petitioner) is an organization dominated by supervisory and/or management employees and therefore should not be certified. That position is one which must be established by the party who urges it, and the Intervenor advanced no record evidence other than the bare claim that the Petitioner was an employee organization dominated and/or assisted by management and is barren of any other credible evidence which would substantiate its claim in this regard. Based on the lack of evidence to establish this claim, the undersigned would suggest that this contention must fall for lack of proof. In support of this position that matters of this type are matters which can be litigated in a representation case, Intervenor's counsel asked the hearing officer to take official notice of a case involving Alabama Nurses Association, 218 NLRB . While that case and many others stand for the proposition that such matters can be raised and litigated during a representation case, the party urging such a position has the burden of proving it by clear and convincing evidence and no such evidence was presented in this case. Additionally, from questions put to Mrs. Clark by Intervenor's counsel, it was determined that the purpose of the Jacksonville Port Authority Employees and Associates was to represent employees for purposes of collective bargaining.

   
   

4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a group of employees which according to its RC Petition filed on June 16, 1975, is not specific with regard to detailed classifications. However, attached to said petition is a listing of employees which are referred to as confidential and managerial types, and according to the unit description, the Petitioner would exclude said employees. During the course of the hearing, the undersigned requested and was furnished a list of non-exempt classifications which the Petitioner seeks to include in the bargaining unit should it be deemed appropriate by PERC. (See Hearing Officer's Exhibit #1 which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.)

   HISTORY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

   
   

5. At the outset of the hearing, the Intervenor's counsel made a number of objections which will be hereinafter referred to and addressed to the Commission for consideration and final determination. The first motion put by Intervenor's counsel was whether or not the Petitioner's representative, Mrs. Ruth J. Clark, is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida, and if not whether or not she is a person qualified to represent the Petitioner. At no time during the course of the hearing did Mrs. Clark infer or otherwise represent that she was an attorney and she in fact testified that she was not. However, inasmuch as this Division and the Public Employees Relations Commission has previously taken the position that for purposes of hearings involving the Public Employees Relations Commission, said representatives need not be attorneys licensed to practice in this or any other state. Accordingly this motion was overruled with a notation in the record that it was made for preservation and final determination by PERC. Secondly, the Intervenor's counsel made a motion to dismiss the RC Petition which had previously been filed with PERC on October 2, 1975, on the grounds that it was not timely filed within the insulated period pursuant to and as contemplated by PERC Rule 8H-3.03. The undersigned is without authority to grant motions to dismiss, and that matter is being presented to PERC for final ruling. However, a perusal through the registration papers indicates that it was determined by the then Acting Chairman of PERC that the petition was in fact timely filed, and the authority cited for that position was PERC Rule 8H-3.19(b) of the Florida Administrative Code. Intervenor's counsel also motioned for a recess on the grounds that s120.57, Florida Statutes have not been complied with in that the 4 day notice provision was not complied with. Based on documentary evidence appearing in the file, including a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Intervene filed by Intervenor's counsel as early as August, 1975, the undersigned was of the opinion that the Intervenor had, in fact, received timely notice and the documents above referred to indicate that that was the case. Based on that, the undersigned denied this motion to recess based on an alleged failure to comply with the Notice Provisions of s120.57, Florida Statutes. Intervenor's counsel also filed a motion to dismiss based on the grounds that the Intervenor was improperly registered with PERC in that they have failed to meet the requirements of Rule 8H-6.01 which requires them to file a financial statement for the current year. The Hearing Officer took official notice of the registration number reflected on the RC Petition file herein and the registration number of the Petitioner, specifically 8H-OR-753-0065 and the administrative determination by PERC that the Petitioner was in fact properly registered with regard to its rules and regulations. Also contained in the registration materials was a letter dated June 10, 1975, indicating that the Petitioner was, in fact, properly registered. Accordingly, the motion was denied. Intervenor's counsel also made a motion to review the Petitioner's registration file which the undersigned denied because Intervenor's counsel alerted the undersigned that he had in fact previously reviewed the Petitioner's registration file and to have permitted such during the course of the hearing would have been a time-consuming process which opportunity he had earlier been afforded and in fact utilized. The undersigned also indicated to Intervenor's counsel that inasmuch as the registration of employee organizations is a matter charged to PERC and since such a determination had been made, the undersigned is without authority to second guess and re-examine registration files or to issue or modify registrations based on my examination of the particular file in question. Therefore that motion to dismiss was also denied, but is referred to the Commission for final determination as well as, of course, the other Motions to Dismiss. Intervenor's counsel also tendered a motion, the thrust of which was designed to indicate

   that Petitioner's showing of interest and its authorization cards were fraudulently obtained in that the Petitioner's name is quite similar to the official name of the Intervenor which created confusion in the minds of the persons who executed the authorization cards on behalf of the Petitioner, and further that Mrs. Clark was a director of the Board of the Intervenor while she also served as an officer with the Petitioner. No record evidence was presented to substantiate the claim that employees were fraudulently induced to execute authorization cards on behalf of the Petitioner based on the similarity of names and absent such evidence, it must be inferred that the employees are intelligent enough to discern the differences between the two names. This is especially so since no employee testified that he mistakenly executed an authorization card on behalf of the Petitioner thinking that he was doing so on the Intervenor's behalf. Granted that the names are similar, that fact standing alone is insufficient to substantiate a claim of fraudulent inducement based on similarity of names of the two employee organizations involved herein. Since no misrepresentation was presented during the course of the hearing to substantiate this claim, this motion was also denied.

   
   

   THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST

   AND ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION ISSUES

   
   

6. Intervenor's counsel requested and was permitted to examine Mrs. Clark, the Petitioner's representative. Testimony was adduced from Mrs. Clark to the effect that she held official positions with both organizations for a period of time that overlapped i.e., during June to July, 1975, at which time she resigned her position with the Intervenor. Although, as the record reflects, the name of the two employee organizations are similar, the testimony regarding the circulation of the petition indicates the correct name of the Petitioner and the petition itself also specifically indicates that the Petitioner was seeking certification of "our independent organization of the Jacksonville Port Authority I - Employees and Associates, Inc.", to be our representative. Attached to that petition is another petition which contains a statement that "... if you feel that you want our own J.P.A. collective bargaining unit, independent of the City of Jacksonville, please sign the attached petition." These documents indicate that by merely reading them, the employee executing the petition would not be misled into thinking he was executing a petition on behalf of the Intervenor. In fact, usage of the words "independent organization" and creation of "our own J.P.A. collective bargaining unit, independent of the City" indicate that the Petitioner was seeking to sever any connection whatsoever from the Intervenor.

   
   

7. Finally, Intervenor's counsel urged that the correct employer is not the Jacksonville Port Authority, but rather the City of Jacksonville and in support thereof, he requested the undersigned to take official notice of Section 4, page 137 of the City of Jacksonville's Charter. The undersigned agreed to and has taken official notice of that section of the City's Charter. In rebuttal to this position taken by the Intervenor, the Petitioner requested the undersigned to take official notice of Section 12 of the City Charter dealing with rights of new employees which in essence indicates that employees of the Port Authority shall be employed and promoted in accordance with, and under such rules and regulations as the Authority may adopt from time to time.

   
   

8. Intervenor's counsel entered into the record Petitioner's Exhibit #1 which, as previously stated, is a collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between the City of Jacksonville and the Intervenor with an effective date of May 1, 1972, extending for a period of one year with automatic renewal provision unless either party requests a desire to renegotiate or to terminate

   said agreement. Intervenor's #2 is also an agreement entered into by the same parties which expired on September 13, 1975. Intervenor's Exhibit #2 is essentially the same agreement as Exhibit #1 with an extension of the benefits contained in the previous agreement.

   
   

   THE PUBLIC EMPLOYER ISSUE

   
   

9. The threshold issue to be resolved is whether or not the Jacksonville Port Authority is the correct public employer and as such would be permitted to enter into collective negotiations for its employees, or whether or not it is merely a subsidiary of the City of Jacksonville and is without authority to enter into meaningful collective negotiations because if it be determined that the Port Authority is without authority to enter into meaningful collective bargaining, by parity of reasoning, the RC Petition would necessarily be dismissed, absent withdrawal. In resolving the issue, who is the Public Employer, the following factors are pertinent and must be examined and resolved:

   
   

   1. Who regulated and determines labor relations policies?

   2. Is there centralized or common control over labor relations policies?

   3. Are employees and/or equipment and other facilities interchanged?

   4. Is there a separate payroll?

      
      

10. As previously stated, the Intervenor takes the position that the City of Jacksonville is the correct employer whereas the Petitioner takes the position that the Port Authority is the correct Public Employer. The Jacksonville Port Authority was created in 1963, by Chapter 63-1447, Laws of Florida, and it is that act which is the source of the controversy herein. The act principally was enacted to transfer from the former City of Jacksonville to the independent Port Authority, all the docks, terminals, land, and persons employed in the former City's port operation. In 1968, with the consolidation of Duval County and the City of Jacksonville, the Port Authority was expanded by Chapter 67-1533, which transferred City Airports to the Authority and modified certain operational and budgetary practices to conform to the consolidation of the new City of Jacksonville. Pursuant to that Chapter, the Authority established a body politic incorporated, which was officially known as the Jacksonville Port Authority and was expressly authorized to exercise its jurisdiction, powers, and duties within the territorial limits of Duval County. The Authority was also empowered to employ and fix the compensation of its managing director and to manage the affairs of the Authority under its supervision and control. The Authority was empowered to employ such engineers, attorneys, certified public accountants, consultants, and employees as it may from time to time require and fix and pay their compensation. The Authority was also empowered to use any available services to governmental units through the City's Department of Central Services, but it was not required by law to do so. The creation specifically stated that such use shall be on a "voluntary and contractual basis" on the part of both the Authority and the City, and the Authority is authorized to pay the City reasonable and fair compensation for services so furnished by the City and used by the Authority. It provided that the use by the Authority of any such services furnished by the City shall not obligate the Authority except to the extent its contracts with the City not otherwise subject the Authority to any rules, regulations, or ordinances of said City of otherwise applicable to the Authority under this Act and the Chapter of said City. The Authority was also authorized to delegate to one or more persons any of its powers deemed necessary to carry out the purposes thereof. There

    were a number of employees of the municipal airports who were permitted to be transferred to the Authority and there was also a similar provision whereby City employees may be transferred vice versa without interruption in service, entitlement of civil service benefits or loss of any right or benefit of any kind whatsoever afforded them by the transferred employer. However, in order to do this, permission was necessary from the designated agent of the City and the Port Authority. The Port Authority was also empowered to employ and promote employees in accordance with and under such rules and regulations as it may adopt from time to time. (Emphasis added.) The Authority was also given express power to cooperate with other units and/or boards or other agencies dealing with matters relative to entering into contracts, leases, conveyances, and other agreements as well as with any other political subdivision, agency or instrumentality of the state and any and all federal agencies, corporations, and individuals for the purpose of carrying out stated provisions contained in the chapter which created the Authority. The Authority was also empowered to issue quarterly information reports and to issue general and funding bonds. The issuance of general obligation bonds was prohibited unless approved by a majority of votes cast in an election by qualified Duval County residents. The Authority was also given statutory authority to create a fiscal year and specific methods of financing its operations. Additionally, the Authority was given the specific power to construct, acquire, establish, approve, etc. any project such as establishing and improving harbors within the county, improving navigable waters within the county, and constructing and maintaining canals, slips, turning basins, and channels, all upon such terms and conditions as may be required by the United States of America and the State of Florida; to acquire by any project authorized by this act by grant, purchase, gift, devise, condemnation by eminent domain proceedings, exchange, or in any other manner, all property, real or personal, or any estate or interest therein upon such terms and conditions as the Authority shall be resolution fix and determine. As stated, the Authority was granted inter alia, the power to issue revenue bonds payable solely from revenues and to enter into joint agreements with steamship lines, railroads, or other transportation lines, or any common carrier, should the Authority deem it advantageous so to do; the Authority to make and enter into any and all contracts and agreements, and to do and perform all acts deemed necessary and incidental to the performance of its duties and exercise of its powers. Section 11 of Chapter 63-1447 Laws of Florida states that all employees of the City and in the municipal docks and terminal department shall become and be employees of the Authority. Senate Bill No. 1267 is an Act which amended Chapter 63-1447 as it relates to the Budget Commission Act, the retention of rights of employees who transferred from the City to the Authority or vice versa; rights of new employees and the appropriation for operating an administrative expense of the Authority by the construction, operation, maintenance, enlargement, expension, improvement or development, etc.

    Essentially what the amendments provide is that those employees who transferred and who were members of the City Pension Fund retained all rights that they had prior to such transfer. The pension fund for the transferred employees was set up in a segregated account such that it could be earmarked and tapped at any time to determine the amount of principal and interest in said fund. An examination of the above evidence reflect that the Port Authority generates its own operating revenue and expenses. The City of Jacksonville is required by Florida Statutes to pay for all capital improvements done by the Port Authority. The Authority is authorized to issue general obligation bonds within stated guidelines. Although the City Commission reviews the Port Authority's budget and approves it by ordinance, the amount of change reflected in the past has been minimal. During the hearing, there was some testimony that all wage increases which were proposed in the Port Authority's budget were matters which had to be approved by the City. That fact, standing alone, does not establish

    that the Authority is not the Public Employer. The evidence reflects that there is a separate pay and pension plan for the Port Authority employees and for those employees who transferred from the City Civil Service Division Pension Plan, such was done without loss of any vested rights. Also in 1968 when the airport was added to the Authority, all employees then employed similarly retained their same civil service rights. Of approximately 200 employees employed by the Authority, evidence reveals that approximately 30 are receiving civil service benefits while the remaining 170 uses a state pension plan, since the Port Authority was created by statute. Evidence also reveals that the Port Authority has a separate and distinct pay plan; that employees have different job classifications and wage scales and their personnel policies are created by the Port Authority and altered from time to time as it deems necessary. There is no employee interchange with the City and no common equipment or other facilities. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned would conclude that the Port Authority has enough authority over its labor relations to enable it to satisfy its bargaining obligations under Section 447, Florida Statutes. This is so, despite the fact that there was some evidence that the Port Authority's budget was a matter which had to be approved by the City Commission. In this case, there has been no showing that the Port Authority has so little discretion over the conduct of its labor relations as to negate the benefits of collective bargaining. Contrawise, the evidence established that the Port Authority, by its own contract and practice, retained a pervasive degree of control of its employment operation with respect to work performance, labor relations, and set virtually all of the basic working conditions customarily found in collective bargaining agreements. Based on this record, the undersigned suggests that the Port Authority is the correct Public Employer in this case and it is so recommended.

    
    

    THE UNIT POSITIONS

    
    

11. The Intervenor expressed the position that the unit as petitioned for is an appropriate unit while the Intervenor takes the position that the Jacksonville Port Authority is not the employer here and that it is merely a segment of the City of Jacksonville, and therefore that the employees petitioned for belong in a comprehensive unit of all non-professional City employees. The Personnel Director, Cliff Mendoza, stated that the Board of Directors of the Port Authority is ambivalent on the unit and would rely on PERC's expertise in determining what unit, if any, is appropriate to bargain with. The Intervenor took the position that it was not required to adduce evidence regarding unit positions and other classifications which would enable the Public Employees Relations Commission to determine what unit, if any, of the Port Authority is an appropriate unit, but rather its participation was limited to the presentation of evidence on the first issue, i.e., that the Port Authority is not in fact a separate public employer entitled to, or authorized to negotiate on behalf of its employees. The undersigned cautioned Intervenor's counsel that should PERC determine that the Port Authority is in fact a separate public employer, that its failure to provide evidence regarding unit appropriateness might prove to be an unwise procedure.

    
    

12. Sherron Smith, a Personnel Assistant for the Port Authority for approximately 2 years testified that she, in the course of her job duties, is assigned to assist Cliff Mendoza, the Personnel Manager, in the administration of the Port Authority's procedures and policies. She testified that there are approximately 198 employees employed at the Authority and that the classifiations listed on Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1 which is attached hereto and made a part hereof is an accurate reflection of the job classifications at the Authority with the exception of some unspecified vacancies to which she did

    not recall specifically. She testified that the pay grade for accounting clerk I's is pay grade 6; accounting clerk 2's are in grade 7 and accounting clerk 3's are in grade 9. She testified that while the accounting clerks work in different areas i.e., some handle marine work, others handle aviation while the remaining clerks handle the payroll section. The clerks within the different classifications i.e., clerk 2's are paid the same pay grade and that while their duties with respect to the type of work i.e., marine, aviation or payroll is different, they all work in the same office; they all receive the same fringe benefits; they receive overtime pay and generally all Port Authority employees are under a uniform fringe benefits schedule. There are, according to her testimony, three separate pension plans i.e., a state pension plan for regular employees and also special risks employees, a city pension plan and the Authority's own pension plan. The majority of the employees are under a city pension plan and to that extent their pension benefits are somewhat different.

    Specifically, she testified that in 1968, the airport employees were transferred to the Authority and in 1964, the municipal docks and terminals' employees were transferred from the City to the Port Authority. When they were transferred, they retained benefits in four different areas and to the extent that some of the employees were transferred, that transfer slightly altered their fringe benefits. She testified that there are presently approximately 29 to 30 employees who are transferred to other departments say for example the City of Jacksonville. She testified that there is no transfer of employees between the City and the Port Authority and that once employees elected to transfer to the Port Authority, they no longer remained employees of the City, but rather Port Authority employees. The accounting clerk's office is located in a separate location known as the Port Central Office Building.

    
    

13. She testified that there is one building maintenance employee who is paid the rate of grade 4 and his job duties consist of assisting the building superintendent in maintaining the air conditioning and heating units properly. He also maintains the lawn and the surrounding grounds. He, like all the other employees, receives the same fringe benefits and his contact with other employees is frequent in that any time problems arise with equipment, he is the person whom the affected party would contact. The initial contact is made through the building superintendent and he in turn relays the information to the building maintenance man. There is one construction inspector whose pay grade is 14 and he reports to the engineers in the engineering department. During the course of a normal day he oversees construction projects to make sure that the contractors follow the building specifications according to plan. She testified that there are approximately two cargo clerk formen whose pay grades are 11. There is one container forman whose pay grade is 11 also. During the course of the work day he oversees longshoremen laborers who load and unload ships. The container foreman reports to the superintendent at Blount Island. The longshoremen laborers are not Port Authority personnel and they are employed as needed through referrals from the Longshoremen Union's referral hall on a daily basis. The crane mechanics and electricians are employed at Blount Island where the Authority utilizes gantry cranes which load and unload containers from ships. They are responsible for the proper operation of those cranes. The crane mechanic 1's are compensated at pay grade 7 and the approximately 3 mechanic 2's are compensated at pay grade 11. To the best of her recollection there is one crane electrician 2 whose pay grade is 11. His job duties are similar to a crane mechanic with the exception that his area of expertise lie in the electrical area of the crane's operation. The witness testified that to the best of her recollection, at present the position of carpenter is vacant but that if and when one is employed, he would be paid at the rate of a pay grade 7. During a normal day they perform normal carpentry duties around the various port locations. Carpenters are employed at all three sites i.e., Blount Island, the

docks and the aviation facility. The witness also testified that when employed, carpenters are interchanged between the three sites. The cranes are located at Blount Island and employees are transferred from the crane operation which is situated on Blount Island to the marine operation. She also testified that the construction inspector transferred regularly from Blount Island to the Airport. The cargo clerk foreman never transfers from the dock facility. There is also no interchange between the crane employees who work at Blount Island and the other facility employees. There are approximately 10 custodian employees all of whom are employed at the Airport. Their pay is grade 1. There are two draftsmen who are compensated at the rate of grade 14. Their job duties consist of drawing project plans, maintaining maps and all property that is owned or acquired by the Port Authority. They perform work for all three divisions.

Their duty station is located in the main port authority building. There is one electrician 1 whose pay is grade 7 and approximately two electrician 2's whose pay is grade 11. They are divided equally between the airport and the dock facilities. There are seven equipment operators 1 and 2 and their pay grades are 7 and 11 respectively. In a normal day they drive tow motors and small equipment trucks. The equipment operator 2's usually work at the airport and they operate heavy equipment like lawn mowers and landscaping equipment. They are rarely interchanged from the dock to the aviation facility. They report respectively to the superintendent of airport maintenance or the superintendent of marine maintenance as the case may be. There are approximately 4 heating and air conditioning technician 1's whose pay is grade 7 and approximately 6 technician 2's whose pay is grade 11. They all work in the airport terminal building and are never interchanged between the marine or dock division. There is one inspector who works in the engineering division and his responsibility is to inspect projects under construction at Blount Island. His pay grade is 14.

He also oversee the construction of projects at the airport. He reports to the Director of Engineering. At the time of the hearing there was no import clerk 1's but there were approximately 6 import/export clerk 2's and one import clerk

3. Some are employed at the dock while the others work at Blount Island. There are approximately 15 laborers whose pay is grade 1. They work at both the dock and the airport. They are never interchanged between facilities. They report respectively to the superintendent of marine or aviation maintenance as the case may be. There is one leadman apprentice whose pay is grade 6 and he works at the aviation facility. He is not interchanged between the other facilities. He reports to the superintendent of aviation maintenance. The leadman in the custodian facility is paid at the rate of grade 1 and he works In aviation reporting directly to the building supervisor. The building supervisor works in the aviation terminal building and is not transferred to other facilities. The mechanic welder 1's pay grade could not be determined, based on the witness's recall. That position is presently vacant. The mechanic welder 2 is compensated at the rate of grade 11 and he reports to the superintendent of marine maintenance. In the classification of maintenance technicians 1 and 2, there are one each and their pay grades are 7 and 11 respectively. There are approximately 5 in each category and they are classified as overall craftsmen who are capable of handling any repair job that arises and they report to the maintenance supervisor at their respective facilities. They are rarely interchanged. There are approximately 10 maintenance apprentices who are compensated at a grade 4. They are primarily laborers who have progressed from the laborer stage and are now proficient in handling repair jobs. They report to the supervisor of aviation or marine maintenance as appropriate. At the time of the hearing, there was no employee in the classification of mechanic 1 but the mechanic 2 was employed at the aviation facility and was being paid at grade

1. He works in the garage facility and is responsible to the garage foreman for keeping all equipment repaired. There is one office services clerk who is compensated at pay grade 4 and he is generally utilized as a messenger and to

   maintain and distribute office supplies. His duty station is in the central office building and he reports to the personnel assistant. There is one paymaster who is compensated at the rate of pay grade 9 in the marine division. She is responsible for keeping the longshoremen's payroll current. She reports to the chief accountant who works on the docks. There is one plumber 1 and one plumber 2 who are compensated at grades 7 and 11 respectively. They are responsible for repairing all plumbing fixtures. They report to the superintendent of marine maintenance. There is one painter 1 and one painter 2 located at the marine facility. They are compensated at pay grades 7 and 11 respectively. They report to the superintendent of maintenance at their respective facilities. There are two receptionists, one each in the aviation and marine facilities and their compensation is grade 3. They handle all incoming phone calls and inquiries for visitors at each area. They are never interchanged. There are two storekeepers, one each in aviation and marine and their pay rate is grade 9. They maintain records and record stock requisitions for all incoming materials. There is one security dispatcher employed in the aviation building and he is compensated at pay grade 6. The security dispatcher reports either to a security 2 or sergeant in the aviation building. There are three utility operators; two at the airport and one at the marine division and their rate of pay is grade 11. They are responsible for maintaining the water and sewer system at the respective facilities. They report as appropriate to the superintendent of marine or aviation maintenance. They are never interchanged. The witness testified that employees between the aviation and marine facilities are rarely if ever interchanged because the aviation division is funded by a general bond fund and the aviation and marine facilities are in terms of geography, separated by a distance of approximately 15 miles. While the docks and Blount Island are both considered the marine facility they are separated by approximately 16 miles. Also in terms of geography, the three facilities are separated by a total distance of approximately 16 miles. The witness later testified that her prior statement that the fringe benefits of Port Authority employees and those employees who transferred from the City and were reportedly under that pension plan was a misleading statement because all employees receive the same fringe benefits, the same accrual of vacation, sick leave and other benefits of the Port Authority that non civil service employees have. Their rate of pay in the pension plan however is different because the Port Authority's contribution is different. On cross-examination, the witness reiterated her former testimony that employees who were transferred from the City to the Port Authority retained their rights under the old sick leave plan that the City used and that they were also guaranteed the same service raises as they had been granted customarily. She testified that City employees and Port Authority employees are to the best of her recollection receiving similar and/or identical holidays, vacation rights, annual and sick leave. The Port Authority's budget is approved by the City council management however, it is prepared by Port Authority personnel and is transferred to the City council annually merely for its approval. The witness was certain that the City council approved the budget not on a line by line basis but rather it approved the overall budget figure and the line figures were left to management. The Port Authority's director of finance prepares and presents the budget for the Jacksonville Port Authority and the director of finance completes the final budget. She recalled no situation even in times of emergencies that Port Authority employees were interchanged with the City of Jacksonville's employees. Intervenor's counsel introduced a document marked for identification as Intervenor's Exhibit 5, which is a group life insurance form utilized by all employees (apparently city wide) which according to the witness had been used and had been recommended by the insurance company. She testified that the group life insurance plan was optional among employees and for employees who did not wish to participate in that plan, they were not required to. Intervenor's

   Exhibit 6 is a group life insurance form which Personnel has distributed for employees who want to subscribe to the city wide life insurance plan underwritten by Wisconsin Life. The City and the Port Authority participate in the same group insurance plan but the enrollment payments for premiums etc. are handled separately. Petitioner's representative introduced a copy of a group insurance policy form for medical insurance which is underwritten by Aetna Life and Casualty. According to her testimony, that plan was effective October, 1975, and is only used by the Port Authority as opposed to the City of Jacksonville. She testified that the City does not contribute to the payment of either plan but that the Port Authority makes a matching contribution for its subscriber employees. See for example Petitioner's Exhibit 2 which is received into evidence and incorporated herein by reference.

   
   

   1. Bill Davis, Director of Employee Relations with the City of Jacksonville was called by Intervenor's counsel to testify. His overall responsibility involves that of directing the City in the independent agencies effort in part and more primarily for the negotiation of contracts between the various bargaining units and the resulting contract administration. He has negotiated contracts on behalf of the City of Jacksonville and the Port Authority for the years 1971, 1972 and 1973 and he negotiated a wage clause in 1974, for the Port Authority employees with the Intervenor. Annual leave, sick leave, workman's compensation and across the board pay increases for all employees are negotiated in the same manner and they all receive the same across the board wage increase. When that wage increase was negotiated, the Port Authority employees were included within the bargaining unit contained in that contract. However, he testified that the negotiation on his part had to be approved by the Mayor, the independent agencies involved as well as the City council for the City of Jacksonville. The witness was shown a copy of a document marked as Intervenor's Exhibit 3 which was an ordinance creating the director of employee relations (Ordinance 71-624-315) and that particular ordinance covers the Jacksonville Port Authority in that it makes specific reference to the Port Authority as well as other independent agencies. By charter authority that article passed by public referendum. Article 27 which existed prior to Florida Statutes 447, established the terms and conditions under which a bargaining unit would be certified and the manner in which the bargaining procedures would be carried out e.g., impasse procedures, arbitration procedures, etc. He testified that the Article covered each independent agency then in existence in the City of Jacksonville. The independent agencies are independent to the extent that they formulate their respective policy making boards for the agency's operation. He testified that the budget was subject to the City Council's review, however, he could not recall that the City Council had ever cut the Port Authorities personnel budget. He also testified that in Section 4, page 31 of the charter itself, the City Council had the authority to increase of decrease personnel expenditures for the Port Authority. The witness however, testified that Article 27 is no longer effective insofar as collective bargaining law is concerned within the City of Jacksonville. He also stated that Mr. Mendoza, who is the Port Authority's negotiating representative involves himself with the contract administration and that he (Davis) is only called in to the extent that he is instructed to do so by Mr. Mendoza. He further testified that confined within the order establishing the director of employer relations, at any point in time that he is concerned with the Port Authority employees insofar as negotiation of contracts are concerned, a designee of the Port Authority had to be a member of the bargaining team and that no final decision could be reached until that particular individual was present and granted his approval.

   2. The City takes the position that to create a separate bargaining unit for Port Authority Employees would be unduly burdensome in that it would create one further bargaining unit and employee organization to negotiate with and that it could have a "whipsawing effect" based on the creation of the excessive bargaining units. Davis has been the director of employee relations since 1970 and to the best of his recollection, he recalled no instance in which the Port Authority employees were transferred to work along side the City of Jacksonville's employees and that if that situation arose, it would only be utilized during an emergency situation. Representatives from each independent agency are always present with him at the bargaining table nor does he independently negotiate a contract and recommend it to the independent agencies for their adoption and/or approval.

      
      

   3. Intervenor's counsel then renewed his motions to dismiss on the grounds that the public employer is not present and had not been properly served. He also requested a right to file a brief in this matter which was granted by the undersigned. Petitioner's representative expressed a desire to proceed to an election in an unit larger than that which she originally petitioned for should PERC decide that a larger unit is appropriate. Both parties reserved the right to file briefs. The Intervenor has filed a brief which, as stated, has been carefully considered in preparation of this report.

      
      

   4. Based on my recommendation that the Port Authority is in fact the public employer in this case, I further recommend the following unit be found to be appropriate: All Port Authority employees occupying positions described as Accounting Clerks, Building maintenance Men, Construction Inspectors, Cargo Clerk Foremen, Container Foremen, Cargo Foremen, Crane Mechanics, Crane Electricians, Carpenters, Custodians, Draftsmen, Electricians, Equipment Operators, Heating & A/C Technicians, Inspectors, Import/Export Clerks, Laborers, Leadmen, Mechanic/Welders, Maintenance Technicians, Maintenance Apprentice, Mechanics, Office Services Clerk, Paymaster, Plumbers, Painters, Receptionist, Storekeeper, Security Dispatcher, Security Officer, Welder, Utility Operators, excluding all other employees. This recommendation is based on the fact that while in the past the City and the independent agencies have negotiated on a multi-unit type arrangement, there is nothing in the authority which created the Port Authority which indicates that it is bound to continue negotiating on a multi-unit arrangement. In fact, the specific authority which created the Port Authority indicates that it has the power and authority to create classifications and all of the other personnel policies and procedures that are traditionally inherent of an employer. Bill Davis, the City's Personnel Administrator, indicates by his own testimony that on all collective bargaining matters, his authority is no greater than that granted to him by the Director of Personnel for the various independent agencies and his input into such matters is limited by the express authority granted him by such person. He further testified that he is only made part of collective bargaining matters as it relates to the various independent agencies when specifically requested and any decisions tentatively agreed to by him are only binding when approved by the Personnel Director of that respective department or agency. The unit recommendation is based on the fact that all Port Authority employees appear to have a substantial community of interests and that their wages and other terms of employment are uniformly determined. There are similar jobs with similar classifications at the three various facilities and while the degree of interchange is minimal, all employees are seeking and tend to be beneficiaries of similar fringes and other benefits on an across the board arrangement. Granted that this procedure has perhaps resulted based on the fact that the Port Authority has negotiated with the other independent agencies along with City of Jacksonville, there is nothing in that authority which indicates that it must

continue to do so. Moreover, the statutory authority by which the Port Authority was created indicates that it has the authority to administer, classify and establish pay plans and other personnel procedures and policies which are typical of all public employers. It is based on this authority that I make this recommendation.

DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ben R. Patterson, Esquire 2007 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Ruth J. Clark 2904 Peach Drive

Jacksonville, Florida 32216

Cliff Mendoza

Post Office Box 3005 Jacksonville, Florida 32206

Curtis L. Mack, Esquire Chairman

Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300, 2003 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 75-001550

Orders for Case No: 75-001550