STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA STATE LODGE, )

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 76-595

) PERC NO. 8H-RC-766-2007

CITY OF VENICE, )

)

Public Employer. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A representation hearing, pursuant to notice, was held in this cause on June 15, 1976, in Venice, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Charles A. Salerno, Chairman

Legislative Committee Fraternal Order of Police Florida State Lodge

2300 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida

For Public Roger C. Benson, Esquire and Employer: Philip S. Mortensen, Esquire

Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman

10 South Adams Street Sarasota, Florida

The Petitioner presented two witnesses; Lt. George Kinder, Venice Police Department and Sgt. Charles L. Shepherd, Venice Police Department, Venice, Florida. The Public Employer presented one witness; Chief Robert J. Ferry, Venice Police Department, Venice, Florida. The aforementioned witnesses testified and were questioned by counsel and by the Hearing Officer.

According to the petition as filed, January 30, 1976, the Petitioner requested the recognition of the unit comprised of the following employees: Police Dispatchers, Police Records Clerks, Patrolmen, Police Sergeants, Police Lieutenants, and Police Captains. The petition called for the exclusion of Police Majors and the Chief of Police. In the course of the hearing, after certain testimony had been adduced and after certain evidential items had been admitted, the Petitioner offered a further refinement to its petition by stating, that its petition would call for the inclusion of Probationary Patrol Officers, and Police Records Clerks/Matrons. The Petitioner felt that the unit should exclude temporary employees, such as School Crossing Guards; part-time employees; and all civilian employees, excepting Police Records Clerks/Matrons and Police Dispatchers. After the aforementioned testimony was presented and the items of evidence admitted, the Public Employer stipulated and agreed that

Probationary Patrol Officers should be included in the unit and that temporary employees, such as School Crossing Guards, should be excluded and that part-time employees should be excluded. The Public Employer felt that all other civilian class employees should be excluded, to include Police Records Clerks/Matrons and Police Dispatchers. The Public Employer also asserts that Police Sergeants, Police Lieutenants, and Police Captains of the City of Venice Police Department should be excluded from inclusion in a unit with sworn police officers below the rank of Sergeant.

The following exhibits were admitted into evidence: Exhibit 1- by Hearing Officer, Notice of Hearing; Exhibit 2- by Hearing Officer, Petition for Unit Recognition; Exhibit 3- by Hearing Officer, Affidavit of Compliance for Required Showing of Interest; Exhibit 4- by Hearing Officer, Affidavit of Compliance of Registration of Employee Organization; Exhibit 1- by Public Employer, Manning Chart of the City of Venice Police Department prior to the hiring of the current Chief of Police, Robert J. Ferry; Exhibit 2- by Public Employer, Current Manning Chart of the City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 3- by Public Employer, job description of Patrolman in the City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 4- by Public Employer, job description of Detective in the City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 5- by the Public Employer, job description of shift commanders in the City of Venice Police Department, which includes the ranks of Lieutenant and Sergeant; Exhibit 6- by Public Employer, job description of Sergeants in the City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 7- by the Public Employer, quarterly individual officer evaluation report of the City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 8- by Public Employer, Interview Report; Exhibit 9- by Public Employer, work schedule, City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 10- by Public Employer, work schedule, City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 11- by Public Employer, officer's daily report, City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 12- by Public Employer, officer's daily report, City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 13- by Public Employer, a letter of commendation by a member of the City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 14- by Public Employer, a letter of commendation by a member of the City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 15- by Public Employer, a letter of commendation by a member of the City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 16- by the Public Employer, attendance sheet and log by member of the City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 17- by Public Employer, attendance sheet and log by a member of the City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 18- by Public Employer, Article 8 of the Rules and Regulations, City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 18A- by Public Employer, Article 2 of the Rules and Regulations of the City of Venice Police Department; Exhibit 19- by Public Employer, traffic accident report, as prepared by a patrolman in the City of Venice Police Department and approved by a shift commander; and Exhibit 20- by Public Employer, traffic accident report, as prepared by a patrolman in the City of Venice Police Department.

The parties stipulated and agreed that the City of Venice, Florida, is a public employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447. The Petitioner agreed that the Florida State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Chapter 447. The Public Employer took no position on that point.

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 Public Employer did not present any evidence to the contrary.

The Petitioner agreed that the employee organization is a properly registered organization with the Public Employees Relations Commission. The Public Employer did not present any evidence to the contrary.

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. The basic structure of the City of Venice Police Department, is as shown in Public Employer's Exhibit "2". Within the department, as the manning chart shows, there is a chief of police, who has the overall command function of the department. The Major, as shown in the manning chart, is in charge of the Detective Division but also serves as the Assistant Chief of Police. The Captain is in charge of the Patrol Division and the Service Division. The Patrol Division has as its function, the general duties of the uniform policeman. There are three shifts which operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The command of these three shifts is drawn from a pool of three Lieutenants and three Sergeants. The three shifts are similar in function, with the exception of the so-called day shift, which begins in the afternoon and ordinarily has a Lieutenant in charge as shift commander, and a Sergeant as his second in coand, who at times acts as a Road Patrol Sergeant. The five Crossing Guards work at school crossings and the seven Reserve Officers are part-time or auxiliary personnel. The Services Division has within its section, communications. The communications apparatus consists of a patrolman, who works on the day shift as a complaint officer and five Dispatchers and their radio equipment. The Dispatchers have the function of coordinating communications between the patrol units and headquarters. In addition, the Dispatchers prepare food for the prisoners who are confined in the Venice jail, and at times, serve as escort for female prisoners who are going to court. The Records Section has a Records Clerk/Matron. The Records Clerk/Matron performs the function of records keeping and acts as a Matron for female prisoners. The Detective Division has as its commander, a Lieutenant, and is involved in the criminal investigation of crimes in the City of Venice, both of adult offenders and juveniles. This section has within it, according to the manning chart, an Identification Technician.

The Chief of Police hires employees for the department with the approval of the City Administration and Mayor. He submits budget proposals from the City of Venice Police Department, based upon his assessment and the input of his subordinate employees. The Chief of Police can promote, and can suspend an officer. He meets with those officers of the rank of Sergeant or above, and in a separate meeting, with patrolmen on a regular basis. He evaluates the major and captain. The Chief personally, was responsible for formulating a set for Rules and Regulations, with input from sworn police officers of all levels, which Employer's Exhibits 18 and 18A are part of. These Rules and Regulations serve as a guideline for the members of the police department.

The captain evaluates Lieutenants and Sergeants and reviews the quarterly evaluations which are completed by Lieutenants and Sergeants in reviewing their subordinate officers.

The command by Lieutenants would extend to minor items of discipline and the right to suspend for three days with pay, subject to the review of a board appointed by the Chief of Police, which board is constituted of the Captain, one Lieutenant, one Sergeant and a Patrol Officer. The Lieutenants in charge of the Patrol Division carry out inspections, assign men on their duty shifts, and have the overall responsibility of the men in their shift without the benefit of command of superiors, while operating on a normal shift. In addition, the Lieutenants may write letters of commendation as shown in the Public Employer's

Exhibits 13-15. The Lieutenants also review and approve overtime for subordinate officers, subject to the review of the Chief. This is shown by the Public Employer's Exhibit 11.

The Sergeants in the Venice Police Department in the Patrol Division fulfill the same function as the Lieutenants in that division, with the slight modification, as mentioned before, that the Sergeants may be road patrol supervisors on the day shift which has a Lieutenant as a shift commander. It should also be indicated that the personnel that the Sergeants would be evaluating would be Patrolmen. The Sergeant in charge of the Services Division is the commander of the Dispatchers and Records Clerk/Matron.

The Patrolmen in the Venice Police Department are charged with the patrolling of the streets of that town for the purposes of detecting crime, responding to criminal acts and matters of traffic control. The Patrolmen are of two categories, Permanent and Probationary Patrolmen. Nonetheless, the patrol function is the same for both categories. Patrolmen in the ordinary course of events would perform those functions identified above and be involved in the process of evaluation of probationary employees. All Patrolmen would also give input for budget matters, suggestions at the regularly scheduled meetings, and on occasion senior patrol members would serve as shift commanders, in times when the command was shorthanded.

There is no civil service system within the City of Venice, Florida.

Matters of discipline are carried on by the intermediate command officers, to wit, Sergeants, Lieutenants and the Captain, in the normal course of events.

The Chief, the Major, and the Captain can suspend without pay. The dismissal of any police officer must be in accordance with the provisions for a trial board, as set forth in Chapter 112, Florida Statutes. At times an informal appeal of grievances has been made to the Administration or the Mayor of the City of Venice. The benefits of the sworn officers in the City of Venice Police Department, in terms of insurance and retirement are the same with the exception of gradations which are associated with the rank position. The sworn officers to include Patrolmen, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captain, the Major and the Chief are all part of the Police Retirement System. The Records Clerk/Matron has the same benefits in the retirement system as the sworn officers, but the Dispatchers are part of the general Florida Retirement system; The hiring of Probationary Police Officers within the City of Venice is pursuant to an oral interview as reflected in Public Employer's Exhibit 8. This interview is conducted by a group comprised of the Captain and four Lieutenants and carries with it a written weight of 50 percent, background 25 percent, and oral interview 25 percent. The promotions within the City of Venice Police Department are pursuant to promotional exams and board review, that board being comprised of members of police departments other than City of Venice Police Department.

Attention should be drawn to a letter of July 13, 1976, in which the Public Employer sets forth its position on the propriety of the unit in the form of a memorandum.

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

CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Charles A. Salerno, Chairman Legislative Committee, Fraternal

Order of Police Florida State Lodge

2300 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida

Roger C. Benson, Esquire Philip S. Mortensen, Esquire

JACKSON, LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN

10 South Adams Street Sarasota, Florida

Curtis Mack, Chairman

Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 300

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 76-000595

Orders for Case No: 76-000595