STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JACKSONVILLE ASSOCIATION OF ) FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1834, )
)
Charging Party, )
)
and ) CASE NO. 77-425
) PERC NO. 8H-CA-1194
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
This case is presented on the joint stipulations of fact entered into by the respective parties, which is attached and made a part of this recommended order. The memorandum briefs of the parties in support of their positions are hereby forwarded to the Public Employees Relations Commission for its consideration.
APPEARANCES
For the Charging Party: Rodney W. Smith, Esquire
Law Office of Smith and Johnson Post Office Box 508 Gainesville, Florida 32602
For the Respondent: Robert G. Brown, Esquire
Assistant Counsel
Office of General Counsel City of Jacksonville
1300 City Hall
Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ISSUES
Whether or not the action of the Respondent on October 15, 1976, of discontinuing the dues-deductions from the biweekly paychecks of the captains and lieutenants employed by the Respondent, constituted an interference with the rights of those employees in violation of 447.501(1)(a) , F.S.
Whether or not the action of the Respondent on October 15, 1976,of discontinuing the dues-deductions from the biweekly paychecks of the captains and lieutenants employed by the Respondent, constituted a unilateral change during the bargaining process in violation of 447.501(1)(c) , F.S.
Whether or not the action of the Respondent on October 15, 1976, of discontinuing the dues-deductions from the biweekly paychecks of the captains and lieutenants employed by the Respondent, constituted a specific refusal to comply with the provisions of 447.3O3, F.S.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following quoted provisions of the joint stipulations of fact entered into by the parties, as attached to this recommended order, constitutes the underlying evidential facts to be considered by the undersigned in deliberating the charges in this case. The exhibits mentioned in the quoted provision may be found as a part of the attached joint stipulations of fact and exhibits, which have been made a part of the record herein. The quotation is as follows:
JOINT STIPULATIONS OF FACT
The charge herein attached as cumulative exhibit #1 was filed by the Charging party on October 21, 1976 and a copy was simultaneously served on Respondent. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Rule 8H-4.03 a copy of the charge is hereby attached.
The trial and presentment of the above-captioned cause was assigned to Rodney W. Smith, attorney for the Charging Party on or about February 25, 1977.
Respondent is a public employer within the meaning of F.S. 447.203(2) and has its principal place of business in the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida where it is engaged in the business of operating a consolidated municipal government. Respondent is created directly by the legislature of the State of Florida so as to constitute a consolidated government administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials and/or the general electorate.
Charging Party is now and has been at all times material herein an employee organization within the meaning of 447.203(l0) of the Act.
On March 4, 1976 Respondent filed a PETITION FOR CERTIORARI with the opinion that said petition would stay the "proposed CERTIFICATION ORDER by the Public Employees Relations Commission until final determination of the case was resolved.
On or about May 18, 1976 the Public Employees Relations Commission issued a CERTIFICATION ORDER certifying the Charging Party as the exclusive bargaining representative for the Public Employees in the following unit:
INCLUDED:
Firefighters Lieutenants Captains
Employed by the City of Jacksonville Fire Department EXCLUDED:
All officers above the rank of captain employed by the City of Jacksonville Fire Department and all other employees of the City of Jacksonville
On or about June, 1976 the Respondent filed an APPEAL of the above- stated certification order by PETITION FOR REVIEW in the First District Court of
Appeal in and for the State of Florida. At no time was a stay of the certification order sought or obtained by the Respondent.
Although the CERTIFICATION ORDER was challenged by PETITION FOR REVIEW, the Charging Party has been the certified representative for purposes of collective-bargaining of all public employees in the unit described in the above paragraph since May 18, 1976. It has been the continuous policy, and most recently by special ordinance, for the City of Jacksonville to extend dues- deductions to firefighters, lieutenants and captains authorizing such deductions since on or about 1969. This policy of extending dues-deductions to captains, lieutenants and firefighters has continued at all times until October 15, 1976.
On October 15, 1976 the biweekly paychecks of the captains (sic) and lieutenants employed by the, Respondent did not reflect the usual dues- deduction. The Charging Party was notified of the City's intention to discontinue dues-deductions for the employees "in the ranks of lieutenants and captains during contract negotiations in late September, 1976.
On or about October 18, 1976 agents for the City, including Dave Thompson, Administrative Aide for the Public Safety Department and John Waters, Director of Department of Public Safety informed Robert Carver, President of the Charging Party, that the Respondent would not extend dues-deductions to the captains or lieutenants since the Respondent did not feel these positions were properly included in the certified bargaining unit.
The action of the Respondent in discontinuing the dues-deductions on October 15, 1976 was resultant from the attached cumulative exhibit B, Memorandum of September 24, 1976 from John M. Waters to Jack Parker, City Accountant for the City of Jacksonville, which directs that positions above the rank of firefighter are to no longer receive dues-deductions.
The Director of Employee Relations and chief negotiator for the Respondent, William Davis, was officially notified of the proposed discontinuation on September 29, 1976 by action of the attached cumulative exhibit c."
The act complained of by the Charging Party, is the act of the Respondent in discontinuing the dues-deductions for the ranks of lieutenant and captain effective October 15, 1976. (The facts that led up to that action are established in the stipulations of fact entered into by the parties.) In the mind of the Charging Party the discontinuation of the dues-deductions on October 15, 1976, constituted: (1) an interference with the rights of employees as described in 447.501(1)(a), F.S.; (2) a unilateral change during the bargaining process in violation of 447.50l(1)(c), F.S.; and (3) a specific refusal to comply with the provisions of 447.303, F.S. The Respondent disputes and joins issue with that claim.
To resolve the conflict, the case is best discussed by dividing the consideration into two broad categories. The first category is concerned with the question of whether the Respondent's initial petition for writ of certiorari filed with the First District Court of Appeal, State of Florida, on March 4, 1976, and/or the Respondent's appeal of the Public Employees Relations Commission's certification order, which was filed with the First District Court of Appeal, State of Florida; imposed an automatic stay of the effect of the proposed certification order by the Public Employees Relations Commission, and/or a stay of the certification order of May 18, 1976, entered by the Public Employees Relations Commission.
Any stay of the proposed certification order and subsequent certification order by the Public Employees Relations Commission must have been effectuated by the filing of the initial petition for writ of certiorari on March 4, 1976, and the appeal of June, 1976, because the facts establish that no specific request was ever made of the First District Court of Appeal or the Public Employees Relations Commission to grant a stay. To that end, the Respondent contends that it could justifiably rely on the Florida Appellate Rule
to grant an automatic stay in both the initial petition for writ of certiorari of March 4, 1976, and the appeal of June, 1976 Pertinent provisions of Rule 5.12 state:
"Rule 5.12 Supersedeas Bond not Required of the State and its Political Subdivisions and their Boards, Commissions, etc.; Security when Required
When Security Not Required. When the state or any of its political subdivisions, or any officer, board, commission or other public body of the state or any of its political subdivisions, in a purely official capacity, takes an appeal or petitions for
certiorari, the filing of the notice of appeal or the petition for certiorari as the case may be shall perfect the same and stay the execu tion or performance of the judgment, decree
or order being reviewed and no supersedeas bond need be given unless expressly required by the court.
Court May Require Bond. The court may, on motion for good cause shown, require a super sedeas bond or other security, in such amount, form and manner as it may prescribe as a condition for the further prosecution of the appeal or certiorari."
On the face of the language of Florida Appellate Rule 5.12, it would appear that the Respondent is correct in its assumption of having an automatic stay; however, there is a subsequent appellate decision which defeats the Respondent's right to rely on the theory it offers as standing for the proposition that an automatic stay is granted. That case is Panama City v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 333 So.2d 470, (1st DCA 1976, Fla.). The decision in this case was initially rendered on May 5, 1976, and a rehearing denied on June 29, 1976. The effective date of the decision is July 14, 1976. The Panama City case, supra, concerns the determination by the Public Employees Relations Commission of an appropriate bargaining unit and direction of an election. Those actions by PERC were not found to be final orders and in discussing the position of that Petitioner requesting a writ of certiorari, the Court stated that a stay of the effect of the enforcement of the agency action does not transpire merely by filing the petition for writ of certiorari. Under the ruling, in the decision, the stay may be granted by the agency or by the Court upon appropriate terms and in keeping with the authority of 120.68(3), F.S. That section of Chapter 120 indicated the following:
"(3) The filing of the petition does not
itself stay enforcement of the agency decision, but if the agency decision has the effect of
suspending or revoking a license, supersedeas shall be granted as a matter of right upon such conditions as are reasonable, unless the
court, upon petition of the agency, determines that a supersedeas would constitute a probable danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the state. The agency may grant, or the reviewing court may order, a stay upon appropriate terms, but, in any event, the order shall specify the conditions upon which the stay or supersedeas is granted."
Moreover, in the opinion of the Court in the Panama City case, under Florida Appellate Rule 5.5, the Petitioner for writ of certiorari shall apply to the agency for supersedeas to forestall the terms of the agency action.
Through its memorandum the Respondent in this cause has concluded that there is a distinction in the facts of the Panama City case and the facts sub judice, in that the Panama City case dealt with determination of an appropriate bargaining unit and direction of an election which were interlocutory matters, whereas the question here deals with a certification order which is final agency action on the part of the Public Employes Relations Commission. As an adjunct to this argument, Respondent indicated that it is the June, 1976, appeal taken by the Respondent, challenging the Public Employees Relations Commission order of certification, that becomes the focal point of the inquiry upon the subject of an automatic stay. This latter phase of the argument is accepted and it is the June, 1976, appeal that should be addressed. With that fact in mind, the language of the Court's opinion in the Panama City case on a petition for rehearing clarifies any distinction which might be drawn between the right to stay in an interlocutory situation, and the right to a stay of final action by an agency. The Court, in its discussion on rehearing, stated that the PERC order certifying an employee organization's exclusive collective bargaining representative of employees is a final order, which is subject to judicial review, together with all prior interlocutory orders. The Court goes on to say that if PERC refuses to stay any bargaining pending the Court review, the Court would have authority to grant that relief, in A order to make the Court's jurisdiction effective. For this proposition it cites to Article V, Section (4)(b) 3, Florida Constitution.
A close analysis of the Court's statement on the rehearing in the Panama City case, supra, points out that the party who takes an appeal of the final order of certification by the Public Employees Relations Commission should look to the Public Employees Relations Commission to grant a stay prior to turning to the Court for such relief. This is in keeping with the requirements of 120.68(3), F.S. It can be seen by an examination of the facts stipulated to in this cause that the Respondent has failed at any point to request of the Public Employees Relations Commission that the effect of the order of certification be stayed pending the outcome of the consideration of the appeal on its merits. Consequently, in keeping with the decision of the Panama-City case, supra, the effect of the certification order is not stayed and any action which the Respondent took in derrogation of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Panama City, supra, subsequent to July 14, 1976, the date the decision became binding, may constitute an unfair labor practice. See also, Duval Cty School Bd v. Fla. Pub. Emp. etc., 346 So.2d 1086 (1st DCA 1977, Fla.)
Having determined that the effect of the certification order of the Public Employees Relations Commission has not been stayed, consideration of the
effect of the Respondent's action which discontinued the dues-deduction after October 15, 1976 for those ranks of lieutenant and captain can be made. It is clear from the facts In the record that it had been the practice of the employer to authorize the dues-deduction for lieutenants and captains since 1969 and there is no showing that the employees in those ranks who requested the dues- deduction ever asked that the deductions be discontinued. The conclusion on the part of the Respondent that the dues-deduction should be discontinued was a unilateral action, premised upon Respondent's individual evaluation of the propriety of including lieutenants and captains in a unit with firefighters. In view of the history of the dues-deduction process for lieutenants and captains in the City of Jacksonville, and the outstanding unit certification by PERC which includes such employees, it is concluded that deductions should have been continued beyond October 15, 1976. This is authorized under the opinion of United Faculty of Palm Beach Jr. College, Case No. 8H-CA- 754-1158. The failure to continue this deduction program beyond October 15, 1976 constituted an action by the Respondent in regard to conditions of employment and was per se a violation of the duty to collectively bargain. See 447.309(1), F.S., and NLRB v. Katz, 396 U.S.736 (1962). This responsibility on the part of Respondent to continue the dues-deduction has now been specifically established in 447.303, F.S., as amended at 77-343, Laws of Florida which reads:
"Any employee organization which has been certified as a bargaining agent shall have the right to, upon request, have its dues
and uniform assessments deducted and collected by the employer from the salary
of those employees who authorized the deductions, set dues and uniform assessments
In a related argument, the Respondent attempts to suggest that the Public Employees Relations Commission has unilaterally expanded and redefined the bargaining unit that had been previously agreed to between the City of Jacksonville and Local 1884 IAFF. Specifically, the Respondent claims that the City of Jacksonville and Local 1884 IAFF had agreed that only fire privates be included in the unit in 1973-1974 and 1974-1975, and that thereafter the Commission expanded and redefined the bargaining unit to include firemen and fire officers. Although this may be a fact, this fact is not in evidence through the stipulation of facts and in view of the limitations imposed by the agreement of the parties through their stipulation, the above-referenced information may not be utilized in reaching conclusions in this case. However, assuming arguendo the propriety of those facts, they would not seem to promote a different result in this cause. This conclusion is drawn from an examination of Clearwater Firefighters Association; Local 1158, IAFF and City of Clearwater, Case No. 8H- RC-766-1O68, 77E-377, reported at 3 FPER 177 (1977) and City of Titusville v. PERC, 3,30 So.2d 733 (1st DCA 1976, Fla.) Even though the Commission and the Court seemed to be stating that the Public Employees Relations Commission may not extend the unit which has voluntarily been recognized by the parties, or offered for recognition by the Petitioner for unit determination, these cases demonstrate that each case that occurs should be examined on an individual basis. Applying that process, it would be necessary to request the Public Employees Relations Commission to reconsider their position in the instant case on the question of the appropriateness of the inclusion of lieutenants and captains in the certified bargaining unit, and that decision could be subject to appeal to the appropriate appellate court. Because a determination has not been rendered on the merits of excluding lieutenants and captains from the certified bargaining unit, either by the Public Employees Relations Commission or an appellate court, the certification order remains in effect and all rights and
entitlements for ,the unit employees remain in force and effect until amended by a Perc order.
Consequently, the act of discontinuing the dues-deduction for lieutenants and captains in the bargaining unit after October 15, 1976, constituted a specific refusal to comply with the provision of 447.303, F.S.; an interference with the rights of employees in violation of 447.501(1)(a), and an unilateral change during the bargaining process, in violation of 447.501(1)(c) , F.S.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this cause.
Respondent is a public employer within the meaning of 447.203(2), F.S., and has its principal place of business in the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of operating a consolidated municipal government. Respondent is created directly by the legislature of the State of Florida so as to constitute a consolidated government administered by individuals who are responsible to public Officials and/or the general electorate.
The Charging Party is now and has been at all times material herein an employee organization within the meaning of 447. 203(10), F.S.
The acts of the Respondent in discontinuing the dues-deduct ions of lieutenants and captains within the bargaining unit after October 15, 1976, constituted an interference with the rights of those employees in violation of 447.501(1)(a), F.S., as well as a specific refusal to comply with the provisions of 447.303, F.S.
The acts of the Respondent in discontinuing the dues-deduction of lieutenants and captains within the bargaining unit after October 15, 1976, constituted a unilateral change during the bargaining process in violation of 447.501(1)(c), F.S., as well as the specific refusal to comply with the provisions of 447.303, F.S.
The stated violations found in paragraphs 4 and 5 constitute unfair labor practices within the meaning of 447, F.S.
It is recommended that the Respondent, City of Jacksonville, be required to reinstate the dues-deduction authorizations of those lieutenants and captains in the certified bargaining unit.
DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings
530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
COPIES FURNISHED:
Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 508 Gainesville, Florida 32602
Robert G. Brown, Esquire Assistant Counsel
Office of General Counsel City Of Jacksonville
1300 City Hall
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Leonard A. Carson, Chairman
Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300
2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FLORIDA
Exhibit A STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JACKSONVILLE ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1834,
Charging Party,
and CASE NO. 8H-CA-1194
DOAH Case No. 77-425
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE,
Respondent.
/
JOINT STIPULATIONS OF FACT
The charge herein attached as cumulative exhibit #1 was filed by the Charging Party on October 21, 1976 and a copy was simultaneously served on Respondent. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Rule 8H-4.03 a copy of the charge is hereby attached.
The trial and presentment of the above-captioned cause wad assigned to RODNEY W. SMITH, attorney for the Charging Party on or about February 25, 1977.
Respondent is a public employer within the meaning of FS. 447.203(2) and has its principal place of business in the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida where it is engaged in the business of operating a consolidated municipal government. Respondent is created directly by the legislature of the State of Florida so as to constitute a consolidated government administered by
individuals who are responsible to public officials and/or the general electorate.
Charging Party is now and has been at all times material herein an employee organization within the meaning of 447.203(10) of the Act.
On March 4, 1976 Respondent filed a PETITION FOR CERTIORARI with the opinion that said petition would stay the proposed CERTIFICATION ORDER by the Public Employees Relations Commission until final determination of the case was resolved.
On or about May 18, 1976 the Public Employees Relations Commission issued a CERTIFICATION ORDER certifying the Charging Party as the exclusive bargaining representative for the Public Employees in the following unit:
INCLUDED:
Firefighters Lieutenants Captains
Employed by the City of Jacksonville Fire Department EXCLUDED:
All officers above the rank of captain employed by the City of Jacksonville Fire Department and all other employees of the, City of Jacksonville
On or about June, 1976 the Respondent filed an APPEAL of the above- stated certification order by PETITION FOR REVIEW in the First District Court of Appeal in and for the State of Florida. At no time was a stay of the certification order sought or obtained by the Respondent.
Although the CERTIFICATION ORDER was challenged by PETITION FOR REVIEW, the Charging Party has been the certified representative for purposes of collective-bargaining of all public employees in the unit described in the above paragraph since May 18, 1976. It has been the continuous policy, and most recently by special ordinance, for the City of Jacksonville to extend dues- deductions to firefighters, lieutenants and captains authorizing such deductions since on or about 1969. This policy of extending dues-deductions to captains, lieutenants and firefighters has continued at all times until October 15, 1976.
On October 15, 1976 the biweekly paychecks of the captains and lieutenants employed by the Respondent did not reflect the usual dues-deduction. The Charging Party was notified of the City's intention to discontinue dues- deductions for the employees in the ranks of lieutenants and captains during contract negotiations in late September, 1976.
On or about October 18, 1976 agents for the City, including Dave Thompson, Administrative Aide for the Public Safety Department and John Waters, Director of Department of Public Safety informed Robert Carver, President of the Charging Party, that the Respondent would not extend dues-deductions to the captains or lieutenants since the Respondent did not feel these positions were properly included in the certified bargaining unit.
The action of the Respondent in discontinuing the dues deductions on October 15, 1976, was resultant from the attached cumulative exhibit B, Memorandum of September 24, 1976 from John M. Waters to Jack Parker, City Accountant for the City of Jacksonville, which directs that positions above the rank of firefighter are to no longer receive dues deductions.
The Director of Employee Relations and chief negotiator for the Respondent, William Davis, was officially notified of the proposed discontinuation on September 29, 1976 by action of the attached cumulative exhibit C.
ROBERT BROWN, ESQUIRE RODNEY W. SMITH, ESQUIRE
Assistant General Counsel Attorney for IAFF, Local 1834 City of Jacksonville
FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION
OCT. 21 1976
CHARGE AGAINST EMPLOYER (PERC Rule 4.01)
INSTRUCTRIONS: File an original and four (4) copies of this charge with the Public Employees Relations Commission, Office of the General Councel. If more space is needed for any one item, attach additional sheets, numbering, items accordingly.
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE CASE NO.
DATE FILED:
CHARGED PARTY
Name of Employer Employer Representative
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE BILL DAVIS
Address (Street number, Telephone City State & ZIP code)
220 E. Bay Street Jacksonville, FL. 32202
Type of Employer Number of Employees (City, State, etc.)
Municipality
The above-named employer has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of 447.501 (1) (a) and (b)', (c) and 447.03 of the Act of the Public Employees Relations Act, and these unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting the orderly operations and functions of government within the meaning of the Act.
Basis of charge: (Specify facts, names addresses, sites, dates, etc.)
The BASIS OF CHARGE is attached hereto, and incorporated herein as if specifically set forth within this space.
By the above and other acts, the above-named employer has interfered with, restained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
447.03 and 447.301 of the Act.
CHARGING PARTY
Name (If employee organization Representative (If applicable) give number and affiliation)
Jacksonville Association of
Local Fire Fighters 1864 RODNEY W. SMITH
Address (Street number, City, Telephone State & ZIP code)
P.O. BOX 508
Gainesville, FL 32602 (904) 375-4413 DECLARATION
I declare that I have read the above charge and that the statements herein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
By SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE
ROBERT K. CARVER ME THIS 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER,
Title President, Local 1864 1976
Address | 2205 HAINES St. JAY, FLA 32208 |
NOTARY PUBLIC |
Telephone | (904) 355-8251 | MY COMMISSION EXPIRES |
WILLFULLY FALSE STATEMENTS ON THIS PETITION CAN BE PUNISHED BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 837.012.
BASIS OF CHARGE
On June 20, 1975, the Jacksonville Association of Fire Fighters, Local No.
1864, hereinafter the "Charging Party", was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent for the following unit:
INCLUDED: Privates, Lieutenants, Captains
employed in the City of Jacksonville Fire Department.
EXCLUDED: All Officers above the rank of
Captain employed in the City of Jacksonville Fire Department and all other employees of the City of Jacksonville.
At that date and at all times prior to October 15, 1976, those employees covered in the unit described above who `had authorized such deductions here afforded dues deduction pursuant to provision of 447.303, F.S. On or about September 24, the City of Jacksonville, without notifying the Fire Fighters of its intent to do so, or notifying any Fire Fighters in the rank of Lieutenant and Captain who had authorized such deductions, unilaterally decided to discontinue dues deductions.
The action of the employer not only constituted a unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment in violation of Section 447.501 (1)(a) & (c), but also constituted violations of 447.303, F.S. as a failure to grant dues deductions to a certified bargaining agent. (The Commission has already recognized the obligation of an employer to grant dues deductions, to a certified bargaining representative in United Faculty of Palm Beach Jr. College, Case No. 8H-CA-754-4l58). In addition, the filing of a petition for review (i.e., Writ of Certiorari) by the Respondent on March 5, 1976, did not in and of itself stay the operation and enforcement of the Commission's order of certification. The Respondent failed to stay the enforcement of said certification by failing to seek or apply for a stay order within the meaning of
F.S. 120.68 (3) or Rule 5.5 of the Florida Appellate Rules. Accord. Panama City
v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 333 So.2d 47, May 5, 1976.
Since the Respondent's unilateral decision to withhold dues under mines the Union security by dissipating its financial position and frustrating the express desires of the unit members, the Charging Party hereby requests that the Commission employ those powers vested within it by F.S. 447.503(3)(b) and petition the Circuit Court for appropriate injunctive, relief. The Charging Party hereby alleges that it will suffer substantial and irreparable harm due to the Employer's actions which cannot be adequately remedied absent the aforementioned injunctive assistance.
I HEREBY CERTIFY copy of the foregoing CHARGE AGAINST EMPLOYER with copy of BASIS OF CHARGE attached thereto was furnished by mail this 20th day of October 1976 to Bill Davis, City of Jacksonville, Florida, 32201
LAW OFFICES OF RODNEY W. SMITH
RODNEY W. SMITH
Attorney for Defendants Post Office Box 508
204 W. University Ave. Suite 6
Gainesville, Florida 32602
(904 ) 375-4413
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Nov. 04, 1977 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 04, 1977 | Recommended Order | Public employer violated rights of employees in ceasing to take dues redux out of pay checks. This also establishes unilateral change. Reinstate deduction. |
