STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FIRE FIGHTERS OF BOCA RATON, ) IAFF LOCAL NO. 1560, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 76-597

) PERC NO. 8H-RC-766-1014

CITY OF BOCA RATON, )

)

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 16, 1976, at Boca Raton, Florida. The following appearances were entered:

APPEARANCES

For Public James C. Crossland, Esquire Employer: Muller & Mintz

100 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 600 Miami, Florida 33132

For Petitioner: Richard F. Krooss, President

Fire Fighters of Boca Raton, No. 1560 Post Office Box 565

Boca Raton, Florida 33432 SUMMARY OF THE CASE

The Fire Fighters of Boca Raton, Local No. 1560 ("Petitioner" hereafter) filed a petition with the Public Employees Relations Commission ("PERC" hereafter) on February 11, 1976. Petitioner is seeking to represent a unit of employees of the City of Boca Raton, Florida ("Public Employer" hereafter). The unit described in the petition would include the Fire Department Dispatchers and Alarm Operators. At the hearing Petitioner asserted that it would prefer that these employees be included in a unit of Fire Fighters previously certified by PERC in PERC Case No. 8H-RA-756-1091. The separate unit defined in the petition is in effect the Petitioner's second choice. At the hearing the Public Employer asserted that these employees should be included in a city-wide "white collar" unit, or alternatively in the city-wide "blue collar" unit previously certified by PERC in PERC Case No. 8H-RA-753-0108. The Public Employer contends that the bargaining unit described in the petition would result in excessive fragmentation, and for further reasons set out in the record and in the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Public Employer with PERC (See: Public Employer's Exhibit 1), contends that the unit set out in the petition is inappropriate.

The final hearing was scheduled to be conducted by notice dated May 3, 1976. The purposes of the hearing were to consider and to develop a record from which PERC might consider and determine the following issues:

1. Whether the City of Boca Raton is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Ch. 447.

   
   

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

   
   

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

   
   

4. Whether the employee organization is properly registered with the Public Employees Relations Commission.

   
   

5. The appropriate unit of public employees in the case.

The Public Employer called the following witnesses: John Withrow, the Chief of the Public Employer's Fire Department; and Frank D. Schuyler, the Director of Employee Relations for the Public Employer. The Petitioner called the following witnesses: Robert Fosson, a Lieutenant in the Public Employer's Fire Department; Alan Rulison, a Communications Dispatcher employed in the Public Employer's Fire Department; and Ken Bailes, a Fire Fighter employed in the Public Employer's Fire Department. Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1 - 4, Public Employer's Exhibits 1 - 15, and Petitioner's Exhibits 1 - 9 were received into evidence at the hearing. The Petitioner has filed a Post-Hearing Memorandum of Law. The Public Employer has filed a Post-Hearing Memorandum of Law, and a Proposed Hearing Officer's Report.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The petition herein was filed by the Petitioner with PERC on February 11, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1).

   
   

2. The hearing in this case was scheduled by notice dated May 3, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2).

   
   

3. The City of Boca Raton is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(2). (Stipulation, Transcript of Record */ , Page 6).

   
   

4. The Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(10). (Stipulation, TR 6, 7).

   
   

5. The Petitioner has requested recognition as the bargaining agent of employees set out in the petition, and the Public Employer has denied the request. (Stipulation, TR 7).

   
   

6. There is no contractual bar to holding an election in this case, and there is no pertinent collective bargaining history which affects the issues in this case. (Stipulation, TR 7, 8).

   
   

7. PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner is a duly registered employee organization. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC.

8. PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner filed the requisite showing of interest with its petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. The Public Employer contends that the unit described in the petition is inappropriate, and that the Petitioner has made no appropriate showing of interest with respect to any appropriate collective bargaining unit.

   
   

9. The Public Employer's Fire Department is divided into five divisions. The employees in the proposed collective bargaining unit all work under the Administrative Division, and are supervised by an assistant chief. The other divisions are the Training Division, Operations Division, Staff and Line Support Division, and Fire Prevention Division. The Public Employer operates four fire stations. Station No. One is the Department's headquarters. Fire fighters and emergency medical personnel are housed at headquarters as are all communications personnel, including the persons in the proposed collective bargaining unit. None of the persons in the proposed unit are stationed at the Public Employer's other fire stations.

   
   

10. Dispatchers and Alarm Operators are supervised either by the Assistant Chief in charge of the Administrative Division, or by the company officer in- charge of the shift at the headquarters station. Dispatchers are not certified fire fighters, and they do not perform the duties of certified fire fighters. Fire fighters work what is called a twenty-four-hour-on, forty-eight-hour-off shift. Dispatchers work an eight-hour shift which revolves so that one or more dispatchers are continuously on duty. Dispatchers and fire fighters have a different pension plan, and different employee benefits. Fire fighters make a larger contribution to theirs pension plan than do dispatchers, and are covered by their plan from the first day of employment. Dispatchers are not covered until after the passage of six months. The City provides hazardous duty insurance for fire fighters, but not for dispatchers. Dispatchers have a six- months probationary period. Fire fighters have a one-year probationary period. Although dispatchers do not perform the work of fire fighters, fire fighters are trained to serve as dispatchers, and do frequently perform the dispatchers' functions. The dispatchers and fire fighters work closely together. There are occasional social functions attended by fire fighters and dispatchers which no other city employees attend.

    
    

11. Dispatchers receive the same basic employment benefits that are received by clerical employees of the Public Employer. They have the same pension plan, vacation and sick leave policies, and they serve the same probationary period. Dispatchers and clerical employees receive similar salaries. The only promotions available to dispatchers within the City of Boca Raton would be to clerical positions with a higher pay grade. There are no promotions available within the Fire Department. Dispatchers do not perform typing, filing, and other general clerical duties. Their function is not, however, unique to the City. The Police Department also employs dispatchers, and police and fire dispatchers have the same job description. (Public Employer's Exhibit 7).

    
    

12. The Public Employer is presently engaged in collective bargaining with three employee organizations representing three certified bargaining units. There is a unit of "blue collar" employees, a unit of sworn police officers, and a unit of certified fire fighters.

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:

James C. Crossland, Esquire Muller & Mintz, P. A.

Suite 600, One Hundred Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33132

Richard F. Krooss, President

Fire Fighters of Boca Raton, No. 1560 Post Office Box 565

Boca Raton, Florida 33432

Curtis L. Mack, Chairman

Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300 - 2003 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32304

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION

FIREFIGHTERS OF BOCA RATON, IAFF LOCAL #1560,

Petitioner,

and CASE NO. 8H-RC-766-1014

DOAH CASE NO. 76-597

CITY OF BOCA RATON,

Respondent.

/

ORDER

Richard F. Krooss, Boca Raton, representative for petitioner.

James C. Crosland, of Muller, Mintz, Kornreich, Caldwell and Casey, P.A., Miami, attorney for respondent.

On February 11, 1976, the FIREFIGHTERS OF BOCA RATON, IAFF LOCAL #1560,

Petitioner hereinafter, filed a Petition for Certification pursuant to Section 447.307(2), Florida Statutes (1975), and Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8H-3.02.

A Hearing Officer from the Department of Administration, Division of Administrative Hearings held a public hearing on June 16, 1976, in Boca Raton, Florida, to take evidence on the appropriate unit question. 1/ On August 3, 1976, the Hearing Officer issued a Hearing Officer's Report. The Petitioner and the CITY OF BOCA RATON, Respondent hereinafter, each filed a brief in support of their positions in accordance with Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8H-3.23.

The Commission has considered the record and the Hearing Officer's Report in light of the Petitioner's and the Respondent's briefs and adopts the Hearing Officer's summary of the evidence as findings of fact. 2/

Petitioner is properly registered and has met the showing of interest requirement pursuant to Chapter 447, Part II, Florida Statutes (1975), the Act herein, and Commission rules and regulations.

The parties stipulated that Respondent is the public employer and Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of Sections 447.203(2) and (10), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1976), respectively. Further, the parties stipulated there was no contractual bar and no pertinent collective bargaining history which would effect the issues in the case sub judice. 3/

Petitioner proposes a unit comprised of Fire Department dispatchers and alarm operators with the exclusion of chief, deputy chief, assistant chiefs, fire marshal and clerical personnel. The proposed unit consists of four (4) employees. Dispatchers and alarm operators are under one classification, Communications Dispatcher, and their functions are one and the same. (Hereinafter dispatchers will be used to denote both dispatchers and alarm operators.)

Of the four fire stations operated by Respondent, dispatchers are only stationed at Station No. 1 which is the Fire Department's headquarters.

Dispatchers are not certified firefighters nor do they perform the duties of firefighters. Dispatchers work a forty hour work week. The firefighters normally work the standard schedule of twenty-four hours on and forty-eight hours off. But there are some firefighters--a lieutenant, two firefighters from the Inspection Division and the fire mechanic--who work a forty hour work week. All other City Employees, except police personnel, work a forty hour work week.

Dispatchers are hired through the City's Personnel Department as civilians, but are interviewed by the Fire Chief prior to their hiring. Once they are hired, dispatchers (as are clericals) are on a six-month probationary period, while firefighters have a one-year probationary period. They receive training about and are tested concerning streets and reference locations, as are firefighters. During fire operations, they have set functions to perform.

Although dispatchers do not perform the duties of firefighters, the firefighters are trained to serve as dispatchers, and do frequently perform the dispatchers' functions. When no dispatchers are on duty, the firefighters function as relief personnel.

The company officer of headquarters, as well as the assistant chief of the Administration Division, supervise dispatchers. Evaluations of dispatchers are completed by the assistant chief. Unless a dispatcher becomes a firefighter, there are no promotional opportunities for dispatchers within the Fire Department. However, even though dispatchers do not perform typing, filing, and other general clerical duties, the only promotions available within the City would be to clerical positions with a higher pay grade.

Fringe benefits for dispatchers are similar or identical to those for all employees of Respondent, with the exclusion of sworn police officers and certified firefighters. As with all employees of Respondent, excluding sworn police officers and certified firefighters, dispatchers are covered by Respondent's general pension plan. Dispatchers and clerical employees of Respondent are granted the same annual and sick leave benefits.

The Fire Department dispatchers' functions are not unique. The Police Department also employs dispatchers, and dispatchers of both departments have the same job description. (The Public Works Department also has dispatchers but they are trained differently because their duties are different from the dispatchers in the Police and Fire Departments.) No Police or Public Works Department dispatchers have ever transferred to the Fire Department, or vice versa.

Respondent contends that approval of the proposed unit would constitute fragmentation which is contrary to the policies of the Act and Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8H-3.31 and that the dispatchers should be included in a broader City-wide unit. Respondent further contends that, since Petitioner has not submitted a proper showing of interest for the broader unit, the instant petition should be dismissed.

The Commission finds Respondent's rationale persuasive. Dispatchers share similar terms and conditions of employment with other employees of Respondent, excluding firefighters and sworn police personnel. Briefly, dispatchers and other employees of Respondent work a forty hour work week and have the same general pension plan. In addition, dispatchers and clericals have a six-month probationary period and are granted the same annual and sick leave; and the only promotional position for dispatchers is to a clerical position. Even though dispatchers are an integral part of the Fire Department operation, share common supervision and evaluation procedures with firefighters, have special training and duties not shared by other employees of Respondent, and have no interchange with other employees of Respondent with similar jobs, these factors are not held to be controlling. Dispatchers share a community of interest with the clerical employees of Respondent.

Petitioner is attempting to carve a small group of employees from a large group of employees who should be included in one larger, more comprehensive unit. Petitioner is thereby requesting the Commission to approve a unit which would cause undue fragmentation, contrary to Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8H-3.31.

Therefore, the Commission finds Petitioner's unit inappropriate.

The reasonable alternatives remaining would be to include the dispatchers in the certified firefighter unit, to include the dispatchers in a unit of clerical employees, thereby expanding the Petition, or to dismiss the Petition.

The inclusion of the dispatchers in the certified firefighter unit was foreclosed by the Commission in Firefighters of Boca Raton and City of Boca Raton, Case No. 8H-RA-756-1091, PERC Order No. 75C-459 (September 17, 1975). In

Firefighters of Boca Raton, supra, although dispatchers were included in the firefighter unit recognized by Respondent, dispatchers were excluded from the firefighter unit finally approved by the Commission.

Since Petitioner does not have sufficient showing of interest to support a City-wide unit of white-collar employees and has not indicated a desire to expand its Petition comprising such a unit, Petitioner's Petition is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION LEONARD A. CARSON, CHAIRMAN

ROSE MARY W. FILIPOWICZ, COMMISSIONER

M. KALMAN GITOMER, COMMISSIONER For And By Direction Of The

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION

LEONARD A. CARSON CHAIRMAN

77E-375

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on June 30, 1977,

this document was filed in the office of the Public Employees Relations Commission at Tallahassee, and a copy served on each party at its

last known address.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION

BY: A. M. Parker Clerk Editor

TITLE

ENDNOTES

1/ On May 3, 1976, the parties were given notification that a hearing would be held pursuant to Section 447.307(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1975), and Fla. Admin. Code Rules 8H-3.16 and 8H-3.17. On June 16, 1976, the hearing was conducted by a Hearing Officer from the Department of Administration, Division of Administrative Hearings. At the hearing, all parties were given the opportunity to appear and present evidence.

2/ The parties were duly noticed that the Commission would hear oral argument on the issues presented by this case pursuant to Section 447.307(3)(a), Fla.

Stat. (1975), and Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8H-3.25. On November 29, 1976, a proceeding was held before the Public Employees Relations Commission, and all parties were given the opportunity to appear and present oral argument.

3/ Presently, Respondent is collectively bargaining with three certified bargaining units--a unit of blue collar employees, a unit of sworn police officers, and a unit of certified firefighters.

Docket for Case No: 76-000597

Orders for Case No: 76-000597