Findings Of Fact The petitions herein were filed by Petitioner with PERC on June 16, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1 and 2). The final hearing was scheduled to be conducted on September 17, 1975, by Notice dated August 26, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3). The Intervenor filed a petition with the Public Employees Relations Commission on June 26, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 6). The Intervenor's petition was dismissed by the Chairman of PERC on August 6, 1975. The Motion to Intervene was filed with PERC on September 8, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 8). The School Board of Broward County is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.002(2). (Stipulation, TR, vol. I, pp. 13, 14). The Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.002(10). (Stipulation, TR, vol. I, pp. 14, 15). The Intervenor is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.002(10). (Stipulation, TR, vol. I, pp. 14, 15). There is no contract bar to holding an election in this case. (Stipulation, TR, vol I, p. 15). PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner is a duly registered employee organization. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner filed the requisite showing of interest with its petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 5). Intervenor offered approximately 88 signed statements into evidence at the hearing as Intervenor's Exhibit 5. The statements express the signers' desire to resign from membership in the Petitioner. The statements were not accompanied by any testimony or other evidence with respect to their authenticity, and they were not, therefore, received in evidence. No additional evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC respecting Petitioner's showing of interest. PERC has previously determined that the Intervenor is a duly registered employee organization. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 7). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. In order to make a proper showing of interest in support of its Motion to Intervene, Intervenor offered authorization cards which had previously been forwarded to PERC in Case No. 8H-RC-754-2177, and which were not found by PERC to be stale and untimely. Intervenor offered additional authorization cards at the hearing, which cards have been forwarded to PERC by the undersigned. At the time of the hearing no administrative determination had been made by PERC with respect to the Intervenor's showing of interest. No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut such an administrative determination in the event that one is made. The Broward Educational Secretaries Association is an employee organization which is seeking to represent a unit of clerical personnel employed by the Public Employer. Petitioner and Intervenor are not seeking to represent the same employees which the Broward Educational Secretaries Association is seeking to represent except that the Intervenor wishes to include employees in the Purchasing and Warehousing Departments in the unit in this case. The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 675; the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, Local Union 719; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 728; and the Air Conditioning Local 725, are building trades unions which are seeking to represent employees of the Public Employer who perform building trades labor. At the time that the hearing was held none of these organizations had filed any petition with PERC seeking to represent employees of the Public Employer, and no motions to intervene were made at the hearing. The organizations had joined to form a new organization, the Broward County Public Employees Maintenance Committee. This new organization had registered with PERC, and is actively seeking to represent employees of the Public Employer. The new organization had not filed any petition with PERC, and made no motion to intervene at the hearing. The Petitioner, the Intervenor, and the Public Employer agree that the appropriate collective bargaining unit would include the following employees: Bus Drivers, Bus Driver Aides, Substitute Bus Drivers and Aides, Mail Service Employees, Garage Employees, Assistant Head Custodians, and Head Custodians, Warehousemen and Maintenance Men, except that there is a disagreement as to whether tradesmen should be included. The parties agree that the following employees should be excluded: all instructional personnel, and confidential and managerial employees. The functions of the School Board of Broward County are divided both functionally and geographically. The School Board of Broward County serves as the legislative body of the Broward County School System. The superintendent is the Chief Executive Officer. The central school board office is divided into four primary departments: Instructional Services, headed by a Program Superintendent for Instruction and a Program Director; Business Services, headed by a Program Director; Operational Services, headed by a Program Director, and Personnel Services, headed by a Director. Many school board functions are administered on a decentralized basis in four geographic areas. Each of the schools within the Broward County system fall within one of the areas. The principal of each school is charged with the responsibility for administering both instructional and non-instructional functions at the school. Each geographic area performs support functions for the schools. Four departments have been established in each area to perform the support functions. These departments are headed by a Curriculum Analyst, a Business Analyst, a Supervisor of Maintenance and Operations, and a Supervisor of Transportation. Employees involved in this case are employed in the Central Operational Services Department, in the purchasing and warehousing office of the Central Business Services Department, in the area Maintenance and Operations and Transportation Departments, and at the individual schools. There are five departments within Operational Services. The School Facilities Department is headed by a Director. This department is responsible for planning the construction of new schools or additions to already existing schools. Personnel in the department serve as a liaison between educational personnel and the school board architects. Once a project is approved by the School Board and the State, and has been contracted, the School Facilities Department supervises construction. The Minor Capital Outlay Department is headed by a Coordinator. The Coordinator prepares the budget for the Department, assigns duties, and coordinates the activities of the Department with maintenance personnel in the areas. When area maintenance personnel have special problems that cannot be handled in the ordinary course of their work day, the area supervisor from Maintenance and Operations will request assistance from Minor Capital Outlay. Five supervisors work under the Coordinator. The Plumbing Supervisor is responsible for seeing that supplies are furnished, determining what jobs need to be performed, assigning personnel to the jobs, and seeing that all jobs are accomplished. The Plumbing Supervisor submits a proposed budget to the Coordinator, coordinates purchases with area supervisors, and serve as the first step in the grievance procedure. The Electrical Supervisor, Custodial Services Supervisor, Portable Classroom Supervisor, and Painting Supervisor have the same duties and responsibilities as the Plumbing Supervisor within their respective realms. Functions performed by the Minor Capital Outlay Department which are not supervised in the `foregoing manner are supervised by foremen or leadmen. These personnel answer directly to the Coordinator. They are responsible for submitting budget information to the Coordinator, serve as the first step in the grievance procedure, and coordinate purchases with area supervisors. The Auxiliary Services Department, which is headed by a Director, covers the garage, transportation, and mailroom. The garage is responsible for maintaining buses and all school board vehicles. The Garage Coordinator is responsible for supervising activities at the garage. A Body and Paint Foreman, a Shop Foreman, and Day and Night Shift Mechanic Foremen answer to the Garage Coordinator. These foremen are working foremen. The Transportation Division is headed by a Coordinator. The Central Transportation office coordinates with transportation offices in each area. Area Transportation Supervisors work out bus routes for the individual schools based upon information submitted by the school principals. The central office coordinates with the area offices to assist in routing of buses. Bus drivers answer to the Area Transportation Supervisors, and to the Principals at the individual schools. The primary function of the Central Transportation Office is to coordinate activities of the Area Transportation offices. The mailroom provides intra-school mail service. The mailroom is headed by a mailroom specialist. The Pupil Accounting and Sight Planning Department is responsible for maintaining demographic records of the county, in order to determine where future schools should be built, and when they should be built. The department coordinates the acquisition of school sites. The department consists of a Director, two secretaries and three clerk typists. The Safety Department was previously a division of the Auxiliary Services Department. It is now a separate department under Operational Services. The Department consists of a Coordinator and two Inspectors. These personnel are certified by the State Department of Education to make health and safety inspections of the school facilities. In the event of an accident, these personnel would make an investigation and report. Such an investigation might result in disciplinary action being taken against other employees. A part of the Safety Inspector's function might be to testify at grievance hearings relating to accidents. These employees would be eligible for membership in the Petitioner, but the Constitution of Petitioner would not permit the employees to file reports that might cause disciplinary action to be taken against another member of the Petitioner. Each area is headed by an Area Superintendent. The Area Superintendent is responsible for both instructional and non-instructional matters within the area. School principals answer to the Area Superintendent. The Supervisor of Maintenance and Operations, and the Supervisor of Transportation for each area also answer to the Area Superintendent. There is no intermediate management in the non-instructional divisions of the areas. Various functional divisions of the Maintenance and Operations Departments may have working foremen which generally direct the activities of the crews. There is, for example, a small mower foreman in each area. Employees in the areas receive the same salaries and benefits, and work the same hours as the employees in the central office. A journeyman electrician assigned to the Maintenance and Operations Department of an area would receive the same employment benefits as a journeyman electrician assigned to the Minor Capital Outlay Department of Operational Services in the central office. School principals are in charge of both instructional and non- instructional matters at the schools. The principal is responsible for hiring and firing the school's custodians and on-site repairmen. The on-site repairmen will coordinate their activities with the area maintenance and operations office, but they will nonetheless answer to the principals. Head custodians provide principals with information respecting monetary needs, but they play no other budget role. Head custodians play no policy or collective bargaining role. Head custodians do serve as the initial step in the grievance procedure. Some of the principals in the school system place strong reliance upon their head custodians; others do not. Some principals assign the head custodians the responsibility of interviewing prospective employees, and such principals rely upon the head custodian's recommendations respecting hiring, firing, promotion, and vacations. Head custodians generally perform the same functions as other custodians, in addition to their supervisory functions. Head custodians will open the school plants, perform maintenance chores, clean floors, and move heavy objects. Some head custodians are given virtually no supervisory role respecting other custodians. Some of the schools employ student custodians. Student custodians answer to the Head Custodian and to the Principal. They work on a part-time, irregular basis during the school year. Regular custodians work on a full-time regular schedule, twelve months per year. Student custodians are paid less than regular custodians. The Purchasing and Warehousing Department is located within Business Services. The Director of Purchasing and Warehousing answers to the Program Director of Business Services. The Purchasing and Warehousing Department is divided into a Purchasing Division, a Property and Inventory Control Division, and a Warehouse Division. The Purchasing Division is headed by a supervisor who answers to the Director of Purchasing and Warehousing. The Purchasing Division is responsible generally for purchasing all supplies for the school system. Supplies are sent to the warehouse and are delivered from the warehouse to the schools. There are twenty-one employees in the Purchasing Division. Fifteen are Clerks or Clerk Typists. These employees generally type invoices and do filing. There are four Buyers in the Division. These employees process requisitions, process bids, and write bid specifications. The Buyers will consult with maintenance and instructional supervisors respecting supplies. The Purchasing Division is in constant contact with the warehouse, although the division is located approximately five miles from the warehouse. Three Purchasing Clerks work at the warehouse. These employees sit at desks and do not wear warehouse uniforms. Many persons in the Purchasing Division have been members of the Broward Educational Secretaries Association for some time, and wish to be represented in collective bargaining by that organization. Other employees of the Purchasing Division have been members of the Intervenor. The Public Employer employs numerous employees who perform work generally classified as in the building trades. Trade unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO have a long-standing agreement among themselves that they will not seek to represent members of another affiliated union's trade. The trade unions commonly refer to members of their trade as within their "jurisdiction". Neither the Petitioner, the Intervenor, nor the Public Employer are parties to that agreement. Tradesmen employed by the Public Employer do perform non-trade work. All tradesmen will drive trucks. The crane operator is often not engaged in that activity and will perform other maintenance work. Plumbers are occasionally called upon to dig ditches. Approximately 90 percent of the tradesmen's work is in their trade. The School Board has participated in an apprenticeship program which is managed in part by the trades unions. Through this program an employee of the School Board can become a journeyman. The program is not mandatory, and employees can become journeymen without participating in it. No evidence was offered at the hearing showing any direct conflict between tradesmen and other employees of the Public Employer. ENTERED this 12 day of March, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida
The Issue Has Respondent committed an "unlawful employment practice" against Petitioner, pursuant to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, based upon a Petition for Relief dated October 13, 1997, referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Florida Commission on Human Relations?
Findings Of Fact Respondent stipulated to jurisdiction, and the evidence demonstrates that by number of employees, Respondent is an "employer" as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a freight company which ships and receives living nursery stock by truck through a depot/warehouse. Petitioner was employed there from 1993 until June 16, 1995. In the course of formal hearing, Petitioner waived his Charge of Discrimination on the basis of his national origin (United States citizen). (TR-116). There is no evidence the Respondent employs anyone other than United States citizens. The remainder of Petitioner's allegations were that Respondent failed to accommodate one or more handicaps and subjected Petitioner to disparate treatment from similarly situated black employees. Petitioner also related a series of remarks and one personnel action that he considered to be harassing and abusive due to his handicaps. The "handicaps" that Petitioner testified to were high blood pressure, an undefined heart condition requiring medication, "bad knees," and problems with his back. At formal hearing, no medical physician or health care professional corroborated the foregoing conditions. However, it is undisputed that on or about January 9, 1995, Petitioner presented a physician's excuse to Respondent's Warehouse Supervisor, Jeff Bradner. That physician's excuse stated that Petitioner could return to work on that date, working 10 hours per day, 5 days per week, doing medium lifting, that is, "lifting 30 pounds and frequently lifting and/or carrying objects weighing 25 pounds." The excuse further stated that Petitioner was to avoid squatting, kneeling, and climbing. Mr. Bradner informed Eddie Payne, Petitioner's immediate supervisor, that the foregoing January 9, 1995, medical restrictions were to be observed for Petitioner. Attached to both Petitioner's initial Charge of Discrimination and his later Petition for Review was another physician's letter dated January 29, 1993. It stated, in pertinent part: [Petitioner], patient of record, suffers from high blood pressure, anxiety, and arterial coronary disease. These conditions are aggravated by the stress caused by problems he has with his teenage son. Also attached was a March 3, 1994, doctor's letter stating that Petitioner had a spine and knee injury. It contains the same restrictions as the January 9, 1995, letter. Because the 1993 and 1994 letters are part of the record herein, (attached to the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief), I have taken official recognition thereof and find that they supplement or explain Petitioner's oral testimony at formal hearing to the effect that Petitioner was suffering from high blood pressure, anxiety, and arterial coronary disease in 1993, and from a knee injury in 1994. However, these letters were not introduced in evidence at formal hearing, and Petitioner did not testify that he ever presented any such written medical confirmations of these conditions to any of Respondent Employer's supervisory personnel. Mr. Payne and Mr. Bradner denied that any oral or written requests for accommodation had been received from Petitioner other than the January 9, 1995, doctor's excuse listing specific restrictions. Contrary to Petitioner's testimony, Mr. Payne denied knowing of Petitioner's heart condition. There also is no corroboration of Petitioner's testimony that he orally requested any accommodation specifically because of his high blood pressure or heart condition at any material time. Furthermore, and most importantly, the 1993 letter places no restrictions on Petitioner in the workplace, and the 1994 letter imposes the same restrictions as the 1995 letter, which is in evidence. The only medical condition any of his co-workers ever heard Petitioner complain about was his "bad knees." Upon the record as a whole, it is inferred that Eddie Payne also knew Petitioner complained of "bad knees." At all times material, both before January 9, 1995, and afterwards, Petitioner worked for Respondent as a "checker." Checkers have the most physically non-taxing job in Respondent's operation. They make sure that "wheelers" or "loaders" place unloaded freight on pallets in the correct location in the warehouse and that "loaders" load the correct freight from the warehouse or warehouse dock into the correct truck. In this capacity, the bulk of Petitioner's work was carrying a clipboard, making notations thereon, and orally directing others where to put boxes. Petitioner testified that due to his blood pressure and back condition, he "needed" to sit down for 15 minutes' rest every 20 minutes after January 9, 1995. The evidence as a whole does not indicate that Petitioner clearly enunciated this "need" to any supervisor. Moreover, the credible evidence supports the inference that no one could work effectively as a checker while taking 15 minute breaks as frequently as every 20 minutes, because each truck needed to be loaded or unloaded as a component, so as to avoid shipping errors. Therefore, substituting other checkers every 20 minutes would have adversely affected Respondent's business and would constitute an unreasonable accommodation for Petitioner and undue hardship for the Employer. Either substituting another checker or waiting on Petitioner to rest every 20 minutes would have been unduly costly, burdensome, or substantially disruptive and would have altered the nature of Respondent's business. Prior to January 9, 1995, Petitioner worked at least a 40-50 hour week and was paid by the number of hours he worked. Due to the nature of Respondent's business and the hours when freight was received, Petitioner's usual hours before January 9, 1995, were from approximately 4:00-4:30 p.m. until 9:30 a.m. (17- 18 hours) three days a week, mostly Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. At all times material, both before and after January 9, 1995, only twenty-five percent as much freight came in on Wednesdays and Fridays as came in on the other three work days of each week. Therefore, all employees were not needed for a 17-18 hour day on those days, and employees had the option of working at whatever was available on those days to "make their hours" for pay purposes. At all times material, on Wednesdays and Fridays, all employees who wanted to work took turns digging weeds out of the cracks in the Respondent's paved parking lot with a claw on a broom handle or the edge of a shovel; picking the weeds up with a shovel; and throwing them away. Sometimes a blower was used. In accord with the January 9, 1995, physician's written restrictions, Eddie Payne accommodated Petitioner by assigning him to work from 10:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m., so that Petitioner would only be working 10 hours per day. This assignment had Petitioner working the hours during which the employer needed the most men because those were the hours when the workload was the heaviest. Petitioner complained because Mr. Payne would not let him work his 10 hours from 4:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m., a less busy time, but he complained only because those hours were more convenient for him. Petitioner related that after January 9, 1995, he was made to lift more than 30 pounds of parking lot weeds at a time, with the shovel, after getting on his hands and knees to dig the weeds out, and always in the hot sun, which aggravated his undisclosed heart condition. He also related that he never got to use the blower like other employees. His testimony on this issue is not credible in light of the contrary testimony of all the other witnesses. Even if credible, Petitioner was not forced to do this work. He was permitted to do this "make work" during slow days so that he would earn at least 40 hours per week. Witnesses confirmed that another "make work" project on a single occasion was digging muck out of a ditch. Petitioner testified that he was required to dig more than 30 pounds of muck in each shovelful that he lifted out of the ditch. His description was neither corroborated or refuted, but again, Petitioner was the one who controlled the content of each shovel, and he could have declined to work at that "make work" project. According to Petitioner's time cards, from which information Petitioner received his pay, Petitioner usually worked only 10 hours or less per day after January 9, 1995. Occasionally, he worked more than 10 hours, but less than 11 hours per day. Petitioner and Eddie Payne were fishing buddies outside of work, and on at least one occasion, Eddie Payne treated his subordinates, including Petitioner, to a night-clubbing expedition. Petitioner asserted that on the job, Eddie Payne had used derogatory and profane language to him, on account of his handicaps. Once, when Petitioner wanted to punch-out early, Mr. Payne supposedly said, "Go home if you need to, you crippled old pussy." Once, Mr. Payne allegedly called Petitioner "a crippled old Mother F-----." Mr. Payne denied ever using such language either socially or on the job. Mr. Bradner testified that he had instructed his subordinates against profanity on the job, and related that Mr. Payne had a reputation for not using profanity. No other witness corroborated Petitioner's testimony that any such language had ever been addressed to Petitioner. Petitioner called Matthew Hickox, a co-employee, as a witness. Mr. Hickox related that Petitioner would often "act goofy," by doing a "Quasimodo imitation," twisting his arm, making a face, and dragging one leg behind him. When Petitioner did this, other employees would "make cracks." Petitioner claimed that dragging his leg behind him was evidence of his handicap. Mr. Hickox's opinion was that "disabled don't give you the right to act like a nut and then people not make some comment." Petitioner testified that he had only become entirely disabled since leaving Respondent's employ June 16, 1995. Although Petitioner moved slowly and evidenced pain on rising and sitting, he was able to move around and approach the witness stand at formal hearing. The undersigned observed no twisted arm, facial contortions, or dragging leg. It is inferred from observing the candor and demeanor of all the witnesses, including Petitioner, and from the whole of the evidence, but particularly from Mr. Hickox's testimony, that on such occasions as Petitioner performed his imitation on the job, Mr. Payne or Mr. Bradner may have vehemently ordered Petitioner back to work and warned him to cut out the horseplay. Petitioner claimed to have received only a fifteen-cent per hour raise when other employees received more. According to Petitioner, the other employees, including Mr. Gonzalez, were raised by twenty-five cents per quarter hour for a $1.00 per hour raise. What anyone was being paid before this raise is not in evidence. Since no evidence indicates whether this raise occurred before or after January 9, 1995, when Respondent's management clearly knew of any of Petitioner's restrictions, there was no nexus between the lack of raise and handicap discrimination.2 Petitioner also developed no nexus between this raise and racial discrimination. According to Eddie Payne, Petitioner was a sub-average worker. According to Eddie Payne and Jeff Bradner, they frequently had to instruct Petitioner to resume work. Mr. Bradner related an incident when Petitioner was leaning on a shovel in the parking lot, so Mr. Bradner sarcastically commented, "You're not getting much work done leaning on that shovel," but this motivational comment was not directed at a handicap. No employee testified that any supervisor's instructions to Petitioner, which they observed or overheard, were offensive or otherwise inappropriate. On one occasion, Petitioner was told by Mr. Bradner to stop kicking a "basketball of tape" around; throw it away; and get back to work. No employee other than Petitioner found this instruction offensive. On another occasion, Petitioner was given a written reprimand when a truckload of freight was sent to the wrong location. Petitioner attributed the error to a black "loader" named James Oliver and perceived the reprimand as discriminatory because Mr. Oliver was not reprimanded. Petitioner's superiors reprimanded Petitioner as a formal personnel action instead of Mr. Oliver because they considered Petitioner responsible for the error and resultant costs since Petitioner was in the superior position of checker. Petitioner suffered no loss of pay, hours, or seniority as a result of the reprimand. Petitioner's assertions that he was required to climb tall ladders to change light bulbs in the warehouse, to squat to lift boxes, and to kneel to pull weeds were denied by management witnesses and uncorroborated by Petitioner's witnesses. On one occasion, Petitioner had just come on duty and was having a coke and a cigarette, when Mr. Bradner told him to get to work helping a black loader named "Willie T." unload a truck. On this single occasion, Petitioner may have been asked to lift boxes in excess of 30 pounds, but the boxes also may have weighed as little as 20 pounds. This incident may have occurred before Mr. Bradner knew of Petitioner's medical restrictions on January 9, 1995, but it was probably afterwards. If so, this single incident was contrary to Petitioner's doctor's instructions, but Petitioner admittedly never complained to Mr. Bradner about this one-time incident in terms of "lack of accommodation" for his physical limitations. On the same occasion, Willie T., who already had been loading the truck for three hours, took a coke and cigarette break a half an hour after Petitioner began to help him unload the truck. Willie T. asked Petitioner to join him on his break, which Petitioner did. Mr. Bradner spotted them and instructed Petitioner to return to loading the truck because he felt Petitioner was not entitled to a break after only a half an hour of work, but did feel that Willie T. was entitled to a break after three full hours of work. This was a bona fide business consideration of Respondent. Petitioner failed to establish a nexus of racially discriminatory intent on the basis of this incident. On June 16, 1995, Petitioner was sweeping the warehouse floor, leaving trails of residue behind. Petitioner intended to go back and sweep up the residue, but before he could do so, Mr. Bradner told him that he was leaving trails and that he should do a better job. Petitioner considered this instruction to be demeaning and discriminatory, but he did not reply to Mr. Bradner. Mr. Bradner noted that Petitioner began to do a better job of sweeping, and Mr. Bradner left the area. Petitioner perceived that his co-workers were laughing at the incident and became upset. Petitioner finished sweeping one section of the warehouse and asked Eddie Payne if he could clock-out. He assumed that Eddie Payne knew he was upset because of Mr. Bradner's comment but did not tell him so. Eddie Payne authorized Petitioner to clock-out. Petitioner clocked-out and never returned to work for Respondent
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Human Relations Commission enter a Final Order denying and dismissing the Petition for Relief on all issues. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1998.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(2). Lloyd A. Perry was formerly an employee of the Respondent, and a public employee within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(3). Dana E. Pratt was formerly an employee of the Respondent, and a public employee within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(3). Prior to February 17, 1976, Lloyd A. Perry was employed by the Citrus County Road Department for a period of over four years. Immediately prior to the time that his employment was terminated, Perry was a roller operator. Except for rare occasions when he performed work as a flagman, or other work in conjunction with his roller work, Perry operated a tandem road roller. For the several months prior to February, 1976, Perry had continuously operated the same roller machine. Prior to February, 1976, none of Perry's supervisors informed him that his work was unsatisfactory, reprimanded him for performing work in an unsatisfactory manner, or indicated to him in any way that his job was in jeopardy for unsatisfactory performance of his duties. Dana E. Pratt had been employed by the Citrus County Road Department for approximately five years prior to February, 1976. For four years prior to that date he had been a motor grader operator. Pratt had annually received formal evaluations and his evaluations had always been very good. Prior to February, 1976, Pratt had never been criticized for below average or unsatisfactory work. He had never received any written reprimand for unsatisfactory performance on the job. From approximately December, 1973 until February, 1976, Perry had operated the newest grader machine in use by the Citrus County Road Department. No one else had operated the machine since it was acquired by the Citrus County Road Department. During February, 1976, Thomas Hutchinson was the Citrus County Road Superintendent. William Hitt was thee Assistant Road Superintendent. Hutchinson and Hitt served under the direction of the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners. Perry, Pratt, and numerous other employees of the Citrus County Road Department had, prior to February, 1976, become dissatisfied with conditions in the Road Department, primarily the manner of direction given the department by Hutchinson and Hitt. On Sunday, February 8, 1976, Perry drafted a petition specifying numerous grievances against Hutchinson and Hitt. It was his intention to secure the signatures of employees of the Road Department on the petition, and to present it to the Board of County Commissioners. Perry sought the assistance of County Commissioner DeBusk in drafting the petition. DeBusk offered several suggestions and his daughter typed the petition for Perry. Perry secured six or seven signatures on that Sunday. He was the first person to sign the petition, and Dana Pratt was the third. On Monday, February 9, Pratt informed his office that he had business to attend to and would not be at work that day. He did not claim sick leave for the time he missed. Prior to work and during the lunch hour he called as many employees of the Road Department as he could. After working hours he waited at a business establishment called the "Country Store" which was located in close proximity to the place where Road Department employees checked out of work. Forty-six employees of the Road Department signed the petition. Dana Pratt assisted in soliciting people to sign the petition. There was no evidence offered at the hearing from which it could be determined that those persons signing the petition did so other than freely and voluntarily. On Tuesday, February 10, 1976, Perry called his supervisor, Mr. Hutchinson, and told him that he had business to attend to. Hutchinson asked him if he was going to solicit more signatures. Perry told him that he was not. The Board of County Commissioners was meeting on that date, and Perry presented the petition to the Board. Members of the Board discussed the petition at length during the meeting. One commissioner asked Perry if he was big enough to go back to work and forget about the matter. Perry said that he was. On February 11, 1976 Perry returned to work at the regular time. Rather than being assigned to his regular duty as a roller operator, he was assigned to flag traffic for a grader operator. He continued in that capacity until Tuesday, February 17. On that date, at approximately 11:00 or 11:30 A.M. Tom Morton, the grader foreman, informed Perry that his employment was terminated as of 1:00 P.M. on that date. Both Morton and William Hitt told Perry that they did not know why he was fired. Dana Pratt attended the County Commission meeting on February 10. He was asked about whether he threatened a Road Department employee named Langley with respect to signing the petition. Pratt told the County Commission that he did not threaten Langley, and no evidence was offered at the hearing to establish that he did. On February 12, 1976, Pratt used the new grader machine that he had been using for some time prior thereto. At the end of that day his supervisors informed him that he would be using the oldest machine in the Department thereafter. He began using it on February 13. It took some time to get it started on that date. It also took some time to get it started on Monday, February 16. This was an old machine, and had been difficult to start for some years prior to the time that it was assigned to Pratt. At 12:30 on February 17, 1976, Tom Morton informed Pratt that his employment was terminated as of 1:00 P.M. on that date. Pratt was never given any reasons for his termination. On February 17, 1976, the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners acted to terminate the employment of Perry and Pratt. These actions were taken upon the recommendation of Mr. Hutchinson. Ostensibly the reason for Pratt's termination was that he had marked out on sick leave on a day when he was not sick. Ostensibly the reason for Perry's termination was that he had been missing from the job for approximately an hour. The evidence would not support a finding that Perry and Pratt were fired for these reasons. These reasons offered by Hutchinson, and followed by the Board of County Commissioners, were used as a ruse. On February 18, 1976, the day after Pratt and Perry were fired, Hutchinson called a meeting of all employees of the Road Department. Hutchinson told the employees that he had nothing to do with the termination, but he also told them that he would tolerate no more petitions and that if anyone did not like working conditions at the Road Department they could leave. He said that he had four County Commissioners in his pocket, and he reminded the employees that unemployment in Citrus County was high. He told the employees that he would take care of any petitions they distributed. During the week the petition was distributed, Hutchinson told one employee of the Road Department, James Johnson, that Johnson could be put in jail for signing the petition. During that same week he told his assistant superintendent, William Hitt, that all of the men who signed the petition had to go. After Perry and Pratt were fired, Hutchinson told Hitt that he got two, and he would get the rest. The basis for Hutchinson's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that Perry and Pratt be terminated was the fact that they participated in the distribution of the petition, and presenting it to the Board of County Commissioners. There was no evidence offerred at the hearing to indicate that any members of the Board of County Commissioners knew Hutchinson was presenting false reasons for the terminations; however, they did act to adopt the recommendation. The Board of County Commissioners did know that Pratt and Perry were among the leaders in distributing the petition highly critical of Hutchinson's work, and was clearly on notice that Hutchinson may have ulterior motives in recommending their dismissal.
Findings Of Fact Prior to April 21, 1976, Gordon C. Barton had been employed by the City of Eustis Police Department for approximately six (6) years. At the time of his discharge in May, 1976, he had attained the rank of sergeant. As a sergeant, he was responsible for one of three patrol shifts, each consisting of three patrolmen. The City of Eustis Police Department consists of twenty-one (21) certified law enforcement officers and other support personnel. Authority over the department rests in the city manager under the city charter, while administration of the police department is the responsibility of the chief of police. The procedures governing, the employment relationship between and employee of the city and the city are set forth in the city charter (Respondent's Exhibit 14), the rules and regulations governing conduct, duties and procedures of Eustis Police Department (Respondent's Exhibit 13), and city ordinance 409 (Union's Exhibit 2). In February, after some discussion with his patrol sergeants, the chief of police had adopted a modification of the department's radio procedures. In early March, 1976, after some experience with the new procedures, Sergeant Barton discussed the subject of problems arising out of the change in radio procedures with Assistant Chief Horner. Horner suggested that Barton reduce his comments to writing because the chief was out of town and that Horner would present the matter to the chief upon his return. Barton authored the memorandum to the chief on March 3, 1976. The memorandum expressed concern with the safety and efficiency of the modified radio procedures. On the date the memorandum was prepared, Barton showed the memorandum to the sergeant relieving him who expressed to Barton the fact that he concurred in Barton's observations and wished to co-sign the memorandum. Barton assented to this and eventually the signatures of thirteen (13) additional police officers were placed on the back of the memorandum. On March 12, 1976, Sergeant Barton was called into Chief Burrows' office. Burrows asked Barton to express his views concerning the modified communications procedure. Sergeant Barton explained the problems that he and other were having with it. The chief criticized Barton for having publicized the contents of the memorandum by making it available to other officers for their signature. The chief's criticism of Barton for having allowed others to sign the memorandum caused an emotional exchange between the men. In late March, the chief learned from other police officers in the department that Sergeant Barton had solicited fellow police officers who were on duty in behalf of the West Central Florida Police Benevolent Association. In late March, the chief advised the city manager and city attorney that he desired to discharge Barton. He was requested by the city manager and city attorney to provide them with information on Barton's conduct upon which the termination was to be based. The chief prepared a memorandum to the city manager (General Counsel's Exhibit 3), and several meetings were held between the chief, city manager, and city attorney. Their evaluation of the grounds asserted by the chief for Barton's discharge resulted in a letter of discharge dated April 20, 1976, which was signed and delivered to Barton by the chief of police, prepared by the city attorney, and approved by the city manager. This letter was delivered to Barton on April 21, 1976, while Barton was waiting to go on duty at 3:00 P.M. When asked for some justification of his termination, Barton was told by Burrows that if Barton requested in writing the grounds for the discharge that Burrows would look it over. Notations on the memorandum prepared by the chief and submitted to the city manager and city attorney and the testimony of the city manager indicate that four of the paragraphs in the letter of discharge relate to the memorandum authored by Barton and signed by his fellow officers. Police Chief Burrows freely admitted that the preparation and submission of the memorandum signed by the police officers was one of she reasons for the termination of Barton. The City of Eustis is a public employer as defined by Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. The Charging Party, West Central Florida Police Benevolent Association, is a labor organization as defined under the act. The Charging Party was not the "organization", however, with which the public employer interfered. The organization which was interfered with was the group which signed the memorandum. It was not the group which was interfered with which brought the unfair labor practice charge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Public Employees Relations Commission enter its order directing the following: That the City of Eustis offer Gordon C. Barton immediate and full reinstatement to his former position of employment, or if such employment no longer exists, to reemploy Barton in a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or rights or privileges, and to make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. Such back pay shall include interest at a rate of 6 percent per annum and computed quarterly and in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1949); Pasco Classroom Teacher's Association, PERC Case No. 8H-CA-754-1037 (Order No. 76U-875) (April 1, 1976); and Post at its facilities, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are usually posted, on forms to be provided by PERC, a notice stating that all public employees have the right to form, join, and participate in, or to refrain from forming, joining, or participating in any employer organization of their own choosing and may not be discharged or otherwise discriminated against because of their exercise of these rights. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: C. Anthony Cleveland, Esquire Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300, 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norman F. Burke, Esquire Van Den Berg, Gay & Burke, P.A. 16 South Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 793 Orlando, Florida 32801 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire 1215 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact The Other Eligibility Criteria The Petitioner is a corporation formed in 1984, whose sole stockholder, only Director, and President is Kathleen Weber, a minority person. Respondent, Department of General Services (DGS) concedes that Petitioner corporation meets all eligibility criteria for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) except for the number of permanent, full-time employees, which statutory component is the sole focus of the dispute in this cause. Eligibility in this regard hinges on the employment of "25 or fewer permanent full-time employees." Petitioner engages in the provision and installation of plumbing, HVAC ventilation, fire protection, process piping, and potable and waste water systems in the commercial construction field. Permanent, Full-time Employees Ms. Weber claims no part-time employees and considers all employees to be full-time. That is, all employees work, when they work, for a full forty hours per week. However, Ms. Weber classifies her employees, as of date of formal hearing, into two categories of full-time employees: office employees and field employees. Petitioner asserts that the office employees are permanent, while the field employees are not permanent. At the time of the hearing, petitioner had twelve permanent office employees whose positions included Ms. Weber, six project managers, accounting and estimating personnel, and clerical help. Office employees are paid for holidays, sick leave and vacation, and insurance. They are paid a salary on a monthly basis. They are covered by written corporate employment policies. The number of field employees fluctuates between sixty and ninety. Their number and makeup are determined on an "as needed" basis, depending upon the securing by petitioner of a construction contract upon which they can be employed, the size of the "job" and the stage of completion of each job undertaken by Petitioner at any given time. As individuals, these employees do not work on a guaranteed, regular, or predictable basis. The corporation does not have or display any written employment policies concerning them. Sometimes, field employees are hired through a labor company. Usually, as with most non- union construction companies, they are hired upon word of mouth, reputation, and as they present themselves at the job. Field employees are paid only for the hours that they actually work. They may be moved from job to job to accommodate the schedule on each job and to avoid Petitioner laying off personnel that may be needed again soon. Their pay scale ranges from $6.00 to $14.00 an hour with $8.00 being an average. Field employees' wages are set by Bob Pacitti, the head project manager. When a man in the field feels that he is entitled to a raise and asks for it, then a form is filled out by a superintendent who gives it to Bob Pacitti who approves or disapproves the raise. Final approval of a wage increase is made by Ms. Weber. There is no set beginning wage for field employees. Their hourly rate depends on the experience of the worker, the type of work, how badly an employee is needed, add if there is a labor crunch or not. There is no set review period for deciding whether a field employee is entitled to a raise. Field employees are not paid for sick time, holidays, or vacation time. The company designates a field worker, who is called a "foreman" for each job in progress. The "foreman" telephones on a daily basis to the office personnel to inform them of the time worked for all field workers on his particular job/site. After working for the company for one month, field employees are eligible to join the major medical group health insurance plan. The employee is automatically put on the insurance and the company pays the premium for an individual employee. Once an employee has stopped working for two weeks, he is taken off the insurance, retroactive to the last day he worked, and sent a letter indicating that he can assume the insurance premium payment himself through petitioner. Although there is no direct-testimony to that effect, it can be inferred from Ms. Weber's testimony that the health insurance premium for the company is somehow calculated on a regular basis to anticipate at least some number of continuously, employed field employee positions. Two separate payroll ledgers are generated by petitioner: one for field employees and one for office employees. Superintendents Frank Llama and Don De Silva are included in the field employees' weekly computerized payroll but are nonetheless considered by Ms. Weber as permanent employees. The monthly office employee payroll is done by hand. There were about ninety field employees on the last field employee payroll before the date of formal hearing. As of the date of formal hearing, Petitioner was working on twelve projects. The twelve projects have a contract amount ranging from $123,000 to $6,200,000, which may last from a few months to almost two years. The total contract amount for the twelve contracts is in excess of $14,000,000. Each project is assigned one of the six project managers who oversee the job. Frank Llama is a superintendent who is in charge of field operations. He travels from job to job making sure that things are done the way they are supposed to be done Don De Silva performs the same supervisory function, but his work is generally limited to supervision of the air conditioning aspects of the projects. There were thirty-three individual field employees (not counting superintendents Llama and De Silva) who were listed on the applicant's payroll as of 6/19/86 who were also listed on the last payroll for 1986. These employees were continuously employed throughout that time frame. There were twenty-two individual field employees (not counting Llama and De Silva) who were listed on the Petitioner's first payroll for the year 1987 and who were also listed on the last payroll for 1987. Most of these field employees were continuously employed by Petitioner for all or a significant part of that year. There were forty-seven field employees (not counting Llama and De Silva) who were listed on the first payroll for 1988 and who were also listed on the 9/08/88 payroll. Some non-supervisory field employees were employed continuously from one year to the next, and a few were continuously employed for all or the better part of the two or three years. Each had federal income and FICA taxes deducted from his salary while employed by Petitioner. During 1986, 1987, and the first two quarters of 1988, the Petitioner reported the following number of office and field employees on the initial Florida Employer's Quarterly Wage and Tax Report, for Florida Unemployment Compensation purposes: 1986 1987 1988 Jan. 77 74 97 Feb. 1st 91 79 105 March 93 81 107 April 116 96 96 May 2nd 117 98 96 June 108 105 96 July 127 122 August 3rd 100 122 Sept. 106 112 Oct 91 108 Nov. 4th 74 110 Dec. 68 110 Petitioner's gross receipts in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, were $5,702,138. Its gross receipts for 1987, $3,466,926. Its gross receipts for 1988, were $3,917,190. Non-Rule Policy Petitioner's initial application for MBE certification was deemed incomplete by DGS. The application did not respond to the question that says, "state-the number of current, full-time, permanent employees ", on page 3 of the Certification Application Form 1704. It did not give the name, home address, home telephone number and length of service for each current, full-time, permanent employee on an attached sheet of paper, also as required by the application form. It did not attach a copy of one or more of the following items: W-4 Social Security form for each current full-time employee. The most current Florida Quarterly Unemployment Report. The most current Federal Annual Unemployment Report. (R-13) Ms. Weber filled out only the questions relating to minority status. By letter dated December 15, 1988, Ms. Weber was requested to provide this information by Lloyd Ringgold, Minority Business Assistance Labor Employment and Training Field Representative of the Minority Business Enterprise Office. By letter dated December 23, 1986, Ms. Weber replied, "Falcon Mechanical, Inc., has 22 full-time, permanent employees. Ms. Weber also included an employee roster showing a list of twenty- two employees. When that employee roster was submitted to the MBE office, twelve of the employees on that roster were paid on a monthly basis and ten were paid on a weekly basis. At the time of the hearing, the applicant no longer employed eight warehouse employees from that roster, who had been paid on a weekly basis. (See Finding of Fact 11). Without needless elaboration, it is found that Mr. Ringgold and Ms. Weber did not have a meeting of the minds when, during an on-site interview, he requested her to define "full-time employee" and "permanent employee." Her responses then are not inconsistent with her testimony at formal hearing nor with the facts as found supra. Petitioner's President clearly always viewed the field employees as a transient, very flexible, changing labor force who were not office personnel and who did not individually work on both a regular and a predictable basis, whether they worked 40 hours a week in stretches or not. DOS personnel, however, did not understand her responses at the interview this way and applied what Mr. Ringgold thought Ms. Weber meant to both of the Petitioner's payroll ledgers to reach the conclusion that Petitioner employed more than twenty-five permanent full-time employees. DOS does not have a duly promulgated rule defining the term "permanent employee" which is a crucial component of the element, "permanent full-time employee," within the statutory MBE criterion "small business' which is here at issue. DOS also has no written statement of its policy with regard to such a definition but it asserts it has an unpublished, not publicly declared definition or method for determining the number of permanent full-time employees. DOS admittedly did not explicate, announce, or publish this method to Petitioner or anyone else. When an agency makes such an assertion, it must explicate and demonstrate the reasonableness of its non-rule policy on a case- by-case basis. MacDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Florida Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 463 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). This is a heavy burden, and the non-rule policy does not have the presumption of validity which is afforded formally promulgated agency rules. Barker v. Board of Medical Examiners, 428 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). From the testimony of Lloyd Ringgold, and the testimony of his supervisor, Marsha Nims, DGS Employment and Training Manager, it was established that DGS uses the information provided by the applicant on the application form, the Employer's Quarterly Wage and Tax (Unemployment) Reports, and other employee records to initially consider whether an applicant employs twenty-five or fewer permanent full-time employees. What formula, if any, is applied at that stage of agency review, other than a general discussion between DOS employees, was not fully explicated at formal hearing. However, after the first stage of review, if the reviewer has a question as to whether an applicant has more than twenty- five permanent full-time employees, DOS then conducts an on-site interview as it did in this case and relies on the applicant's definition of "permanent" and "full-time" employee given in that interview. The reasoning behind this approach by the agency is apparently that someone within DOS believed such an approach to be the fairest method for judging MBE applicants who represent diverse types of businesses, not all of which businesses are susceptible of easy analysis. No non-speculative rationale was advanced for this method of defining "permanent, full-time employee." This method has built-in external inconsistency and subjectivity as between applicants and is subject to manipulation and control by every applicant. Moreover, as the foregoing findings of fact demonstrate, ordinary conversational misunderstandings subject the method to internal inconsistencies in actual practice. The method/policy does nothing to apply presumed agency expertise to a program the agency is mandated by statute to administer. The method also was not demonstrated to conform with any generally recognized MBE or employment planning and reporting considerations. Therefore, DOS failed to explicate its non-rule policy and failed to demonstrate its reasonableness.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's request for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 87-1950 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF 1-3,5. Accepted in substance but not adopted where subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative to the facts as found or never at issue. 4,7. Accepted. 6. Rejected as a FOF: covered in conclusions of law (COL). 8-9. Rejected as mere statements of position or argument. To the extent they address the evidence presented and are contrary, they are rejected for that reason. The non-rule policy is addressed within the RO and FOF made therein that conform to the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. 10-16. Accepted in substance but not adopted as cumulative, subordinate, and unnecessary to the facts as found. 17-18. Rejected as cumulative, subordinate, and unnecessary to the facts as found and portions are also mere argument or statement of position. 19. Accepted as Petitioner's classifications only. The second sentence is modified to conform to the relevant and material evidence as a whole. Respondent's PFOF 1-14. Accepted in whole or in substance except where subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative. A portion of PFOF 3 has been rephrased so as not to constitute an ultimate conclusion of law. Mere recitations of testimony have been rejected as-such. 15-20. Generally accepted; what is rejected is rejected as contrary to the evidence, cumulative in part, and in part as mere recitations of testimony. Further explanation and rulings are contained within the RO itself. 21-23,25. Accepted in substance, modified to clarify or conform more closely to the record evidence as a whole. 24. Accepted in substance but conformed to the greater weight of the evidence as a whole in FOF 15. During year 1987, Respondent does not state that employees Budgett and Ocasio were not employed for a significant number of pay periods and seems to have confused Ruben Ocasio (59415) and Jose Ocasio (59400) throughout the pay periods as well as with regard to the first and last payrolls. In 1988, Figueroa and Zager were not employed for a significant number of pay periods. The Hearing Officer has read composite exhibit 6 with diligence and has conformed the FOF to the evidence, without cumulative verbiage. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald G. Sternstein, Esquire MacFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P.A. Suite 600 First Florida Bank Bldg. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Sandra D. Allen, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of General Services 200 East Gaines Street Room 452 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services 133 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed with the Florida Department of Transportation since 1971. He is a graduate of the University of West Florida, with a degree in business management. Petitioner is 38 years old, with a physical disability which limits his use of his left hand and arm, and his left leg is shorter than his right. In 1979, Petitioner was employed by Respondent in its right-of-way section, as a Right-of-Way Agent III. In that position, he was responsible for the coordination of the Acquisition, Relocation and Property Management sections of Respondent's District III. One of Petitioner's subordinates was H. E. Walls, who was in charge of the Acquisition section. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was J. F. Culpepper, Assistant Right-of-Way Administrator. In April, 1980, a new Right-of-Way Administrator, J. A. Alfes, was assigned to District III. In 1980, and again in 1981, Petitioner filed charges of discrimination against Respondent with the Florida Commission on Human Relations premised upon Petitioner's aforementioned disability. The 1980 charge was resolved through the entry of a settlement agreement. The charge filed in 1981 was premised upon the same disability, but that charge was ultimately dismissed by the Florida Commission on Human Relations. In January, 1981, a hearing was held in Tallahassee, Florida, on one of the charges of discrimination filed by Petitioner. On the day following that hearing, Petitioner was called into Mr. Alfes' office in Chipley, Florida, and was told that the hearing held in Tallahassee had been several hours of "horse shit." On May 18, 1981, Mr. Alfes advised Petitioner of an impending reorganization of the section in which Petitioner was employed. Subsequently, on June 17, 1981, Mr. Alfes told Petitioner that there would be "consequences" as a result of Petitioner's having filed complaints with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. In 1981 a reorganization of functions occurred in all six districts statewide of DOT. This reorganization eliminated one classification of position, Right-of-Way Agent III, which Petitioner had held in District III, and elevated the positions at the head of Acquisition and Relocation sections to the administrator level. At the time this reorganization occurred, Petitioner, as previously mentioned, was a Right-of-Way Agent III, and Herbert Walls headed the Acquisition section. Mr. Alfes, Petitioner's immediate superior, recommended that Petitioner be placed in charge of Relocation, and that Mr. Walls, who had been working in Acquisition, be placed in charge of the Acquisition section in light of his experience in that area since 1978. J. F. Culpepper, who occupied the position on DOT's organization chart to whom the Acquisition section, Relocation section, and Property Management section would report, recommended that the Petitioner be placed in charge of the Acquisition section, based upon his belief that Petitioner was better qualified by reason of his real estate training and college degree. Mr. Walls had only a high school diploma. During the period of his employment with DOT, Petitioner had not handled any complete right-of-way acquisition matters, and had never negotiated for DOT in the acquisition of any right-of-way parcels. Petitioner had, however, attended two relocation seminars while employed by DOT. Mr. Walls had been continually engaged in acquisition work for DOT since at least 1978. DOT's District Engineer, Alan Potter, was the DOT employee ultimately responsible for selecting the heads of the Acquisition and Relocation sections. Mr. Potter concurred with the recommendation that Petitioner be placed in charge of the Relocation section, based upon his belief that it was the most important job involved in right-of-way acquisition, and that it required a very thorough and cautious person. Based upon Mr. Potter's evaluation of Petitioner as possessed of high ability, and being very mature and compassionate, Petitioner was placed in charge of the Relocation section. At the time Petitioner was named as head of Relocation and Mr. Walls was placed as head of Acquisition, the two positions were both classified as Right-of-Way Specialist II's, pay grade 22. Later both were reclassified as Right-of-Way Administrator I's, at pay grade 23. The record in this cause establishes that neither position was more prestigious" than the other, or that either position placed the individual holding it in a more favorable posture for promotion or advancement. Subsequently, in the summer of 1981, the reorganization of DOT was completed, with Mr. Walls having been appointed head of Acquisition, with approximately six subordinates. Petitioner became responsible for Relocation, and shared the supervision of a clerical employee with the head of Property Management. After reorganization, Mr. Alfes relocated Petitioner's office in another building 100 feet away from the main office. Petitioner's office was initially located in a passageway and, as a result, Petitioner was required several times a day to make trips to the main building to obtain files necessary to complete his work. In August of 1983, prior to final hearing in this cause, Mr. Alfes retired, and Petitioner's office was relocated in a more spacious office close to the Acquisition section.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Commission on Human Relations, dismissing the petition for relief, and denying the relief requested therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of May, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: BEN R. PATTERSON, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 4289 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32315 VERNON L. WHITTIER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 JEAN OWEN, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS WOODCREST OFFICE CENTER 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD SUITE 240, BUILDING F TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303 DONALD A. GRIFFIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jesse Leon Thomas, Jr., was first hired by the School Board of Pinellas County in January of 1974 and before his demotion, had served as a maintenance supervisor, supervising sixty-seven people for between five and five and a half years. In February, 1988, Respondent's driver's license was revoked for a period of five years. The order of revocation provided after one year that he could apply for an essential use driving permit for the purpose of driving in connection with his work. Within the office of the Executive Assistant Superintendent for Institutional Services of the Pinellas County School System, maintenance work is divided into five general sections. These include the Technical Engineering Section, the Capital Improvement Force, the SJO section, the DEIS section, and the Emergency/Service section, of which three are headed by maintenance supervisors. Respondent Thomas, at the time of his demotion, was serving as the maintenance supervisor of the Capital Improvement Force. When demoted as a result of the loss of his driver's license, he was assigned the position of general foreman, under the maintenance supervisor of the Emergency- Service section. Arthur M. Spinney is Director of Maintenance for the Pinellas County Schools and serves directly under the Executive Assistant Superintendent for Institutional Services. According to Mr. Spinney, a maintenance supervisor, supervises primarily trades people (roofers, carpenters, painters, etc.). As maintenance supervisor, Mr. Thomas reported directly to Mr. Spinney. All maintenance supervisors are issued School Board owned motor vehicles to assist in the performance of their duties. The Pinellas County School Board Maintenance Department has a twenty-four hour a day response capability, which requires that one of the several maintenance supervisors within the system be on call during off-duty hours for approximately ten days a month. The on-call maintenance supervisor is expected to insure appropriate repair personnel are dispatched to the scene where needed, and if necessary, to go to the job site himself, in a supervisory capacity. Mr. Spinney expected the maintenance supervisor of the Capital Improvement Force to visit each job site at which an active project was being accomplished by that force at least twice a week. The maintenance supervisor was charged with the responsibility of making separate, unscheduled visits to job sites on an unannounced basis as well. Capital Improvement Force projects are those on which normally more than sixteen man-hours of labor are expended and which generally cost between four and five thousand dollars. Some projects may go considerably higher. The projects are often located at more than one job site, and may be located at any school property throughout the county. More than one job is accomplished at a time. Within the Capital Improvement Force, the maintenance supervisor is assisted by a general foreman, who is assisted by several trades foremen. The maintenance supervisor is not expected to personally check daily on each project being supervised directly by a trades foreman. He has overall responsibility to insure that the general foreman and the trades foremen supervise the workers properly and is expected to make separate and unscheduled visits to the job sites to insure that the progress is appropriate. Mr. Spinney did not take immediate action when Mr. Thomas first advised him of the situation involving the driver's license. However, when presented with proof of the revocation action, effective April 4, 1988, he demoted Mr. Thomas from the position of maintenance supervisor of the Capital Improvement Force, to the position of general foreman of the Emergency Task Force. The Emergency Task Force generally works on projects involving less than sixteen man-hours. Mr. Spinney does not expect Mr. Thomas, in his capacity of general foreman of the Emergency Task Force, to routinely visit job sites because they would normally be completed before he could conduct an inspection. He is required to visit the sites on an as-needed basis and make periodic checks, but can go with the individual trade foreman. Mr. Spinney is prepared to recommend Mr. Thomas for promotion to a maintenance supervisor position as soon as his driving license is restored and a maintenance supervisor position comes open. Mr. Thomas contends that his completion of the routine office jobs while a maintenance supervisor left him only approximately eight hours per week for actual job site visits. Because of his routine office duties, and other duties such as special studies and teaching of training sessions, Mr. Thomas was rarely able to visit the job sites. As a matter of fact, during the five years immediately prior to his demotion, Respondent recalls going to a job site after regular hours on only two occasions and on both of those visits, his presence was not actually necessary. In fact, he has not driven a county vehicle home since July of 1987; Possession of a driver's license is not listed as an essential criteria in the job description for maintenance supervisor. In some other jobs such a requirement is listed in the job description. When in 1979, Mr. Spinney concluded that a driver's license requirement should be included in the job description for maintenance supervisor his efforts to effect that change were disapproved by the school board. As maintenance supervisor, Mr. Thomas dispatched qualified workers to job sites, a function he could fulfill by the use of a telephone or radio. When on call, he could be reached by telephone, mobile radio, or beeper, and when it was necessary for him to go to a job site, he could always travel with the general foreman or a trade foreman, who are in and out of the office, going to and from the various jobs sites on a continuing basis throughout the day. Any meetings he might have to attend as a maintenance supervisor are, almost without exception, conducted in the office where he worked. During the forty days after his driver's license was revoked, and before he was demoted, Mr. Thomas missed no calls requiring his presence due to his inability to drive. The acting maintenance supervisor, filling Mr. Thomas's position since his demotion, indicated he has visited job sites on very few occasions, due to the large amount of paperwork involved in the position. Since he has been serving as general foreman of the Emergency Services Section, Mr. Thomas has made more weekly visits to job sites than when he was maintenance supervisor of the Capital Improvement Force. All visits have been made as a passenger in a vehicle driven by another school board employee. Mr. Thomas's work record during the period of time he has worked with the school system has been outstanding. There is no indication that the demotion was a result of poor duty performance or other instances of misconduct. Mr. Spinney contends that Respondent's driving revocation adversely affected his ability to serve as a leader, and required his demotion from the job of maintenance supervisor, but he has been satisfied with the Respondent's leadership as a general foreman. Mr. David Jackman, in charge of the maintenance section's accounting department, has been twice convicted of driving while intoxicated. Even after his convictions, he was placed into that position and no disciplinary action was taken against him. This is explained by the fact that Mr. Jackman's job requires few visits outside the office. He can get to any meetings he is required to attend by riding with Mr. Spinney or someone else from the office. He was warned, however, after his second offense, that his conduct could affect his job. While no formal requirement exists in the job description of a maintenance supervisor that the incumbent possess a valid driver's license, the job requires that the incumbent visit the work sites on both a periodic and an unannounced basis. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to insure that visits were unannounced if the supervisor were required to rely on other employees for his transportation to the work site. Consequently, the incumbent must have the means of independent travel to effectively accomplish the requirements of the position.
Recommendation It is, therefore recommended that the demotion of Mr. Thomas to the position of general foreman, be sustained. Recommended in Tallahassee this 21st day of July, l98, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2094 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11 - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13 - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16 - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18 - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. By the Respondent: 1 - 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporate herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted, but not complete in intent. 7 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a misleading statement. 12 - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17 - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21 - 22. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not supported by evidence of record. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire School Board Attorney 1960 East Druid Road Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Louis Kwall, Esquire 133 North Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34615
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.
Recommendation 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
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Kenneth Katsaris, is the duly elected Sheriff of Leon County, Florida. Respondent has its principle place of business in the City of Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of operating a county-wide law enforcement agency, pursuant to the Florida Constitution and the applicable statutes promulgated thereunder. Charging Party, Perry Lawrence was employed by Respondent as deputy with the Leon County Sheriff's Department of approximately four years and seven months prior to his discharge on February 3, 1977. Charging Party, Michael Spiers was an employee with the Leon County Sheriff's Department for approximately four years and one month prior to his discharge on February 3, 1977. At times material herein, Gene Goodman was employed as a Captain with the Leon County Sheriff's Department and as such was an agent and a representative of the Respondent acting on its behalf, and/or a managerial employee. On February 3, 1977, and for sometime previous thereto, Joe E. Davis was employed with Respondent as a Sergeant and was the immediate supervisor of Deputy Perry Lawrence. Also on February 3, 1977, Wilford Jiles was employed as a Lieutenant with the Leon County Sheriff's Department and for approximately one week prior to the termination of Deputy Spiers, was his immediate supervisor. During the period during which Lawrence and Spiers was employed with the Leon County Sheriff's Department, both under former Sheriff Raymond Hamlin and the present Sheriff Kenneth Katsaris, neither received an oral or written reprimand regarding their conduct; nor had they been counseled by either Sheriff or any superior with regard to any type of attitude problem or complaints about their work performance. THE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFORTS The deputy sheriffs of the Leon County Sheriff's Department discussed and began to consider the possibility of organizing collectively in October or November of 1976. However, serious organizational efforts did not begin until January of 1977. On January 31, 1977, Perry Lawrence contacted union organizer James Mixon and established February 5, 1977 as the date for the initial organizational meeting of the Leon County Sheriff's Deputies. The record reveals that deputies Lawrence and Spiers spearheaded the organizational drive, however, they made no contacts concerning organizational activities with employees during their working hours or of the working hours of the deputy employees whom they solicited. The evidence reveals that solicitation efforts were made during the period January 31, February 1 and February 2, 1977, at which time the first meeting was scheduled for February 5 at deputy Lawrence's house. January 31 was the last day of the January pay period for the Leon County Sheriff's Department employees. Evidence further reveals that Respondent Sheriff first learned about the organizational efforts within his department in mid to the latter part of January, 1977. Nearing the end of January or the first of February, Sheriff Katsaris learned of the roles of Lawrence and Spiers in the organizational effort. It was during this time period that deputy Spiers was being considered for a position in the detective division by Captain Poitinger, a managerial employee who was first employed with the advent of the new administration on January 4, 1977. Following the defeat of the incumbent sheriff in November, 1976, by Sheriff Katsaris, he (Katsaris) conducted interviews with the deputy sheriffs appointed by Sheriff Hamlin in order to ascertain those individuals who would be retained on his staff. Both deputies Lawrence and Spiers were interviewed and indicated their desire to continue their law enforcement careers and pledged to support the new administration. Sheriff Katsaris, based on this interview, decided to retain both deputies Lawrence and Spiers. Sheriff Katsaris took office as the Sheriff of Leon County on January 4, 1977. Sheriff Katsaris testified that individuals whose name he could not recall, indicated that deputies Lawrence and Spiers were dissatisfied with his administration and they decided to try to organize the deputy sheriffs. Interestingly, it was about this same time period that Sheriff Katsaris began thinking about terminating deputy sheriffs Lawrence and Spiers. In this regard, Sheriff Katsaris, who had only been in office 10 to 14 days, testified that "he had been unhappy with the conduct of both of them for some time." The record is devoid of any specific incident which deputies Lawrence and Spiers had committed which would bring them under the Sheriff's scrutiny. However, it was revealed that the alleged discriminatees (deputies Lawrence and Spiers) as were numerous other deputies including Sergeant McDearmid, Spier's supervisor, indicated that it had taken a period of adjustment to adapt to the new administration; some deputies voiced their dissatisfaction with the administration and complained about the "colors of the cars, shining their shoes" and the "change in uniforms that was imminent." Based thereon, plus the fact that Deputy Spiers failed to speak to the new Sheriff on numerous occasions, Sheriff Katsaris had decided as of mid January that he know deputies Lawrence and Spiers could not remain with his administration. This decision was, according to his testimony, based on the above unspecified conduct by them during his two week's tenure which in his opinion was so reprehensible that termination of their employment was necessary. Deputies Lawrence and Spiers continued to work in their departments unaware that their conduct was below the expectations and standards of the new administration. Between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. on February 3, 1977, Sheriff Katsaris discharged Deputies Lawrence and Spiers. The reasons assigned for the discharge of Deputy Lawrence was that his attitude was bad and his conduct was unethical and Deputy Spiers' assigned reasons for discharge were a "bad attitude"; "unability to adjust" and "poor work performance." As stated above, and as acknowledged by Sheriff Katsaris, neither Lawrence nor Spiers were ever counseled about their conduct, attitude, or work performance, nor were their supervisors consulted with regard to their conduct, attitude of work performance. The undersigned is mindful of Sergeant McDearmid's testimony that when Deputy Spiers initially came on board, he was over zealous. This, however, is not considered as a shortcoming in terms of ability to adequately perform. In any event, this matter was corrected at the outset of Spiers' employment. Aside from the unsubstantiated rumors received from unknown sources that Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were disgruntled with the new administration and were hampering the new administration's programs, the only specific action discernible in the record which is attributable to Deputy Lawrence is his failure to say "Hello" to the Sheriff on several occasions. Similarly, except for the rumors relied on by the Sheriff, the only two specific actions attributable to Deputy Spiers were: Stating, after the Sheriff inquired about his opinion of the newly painted police cars, that they looked like those on "TV, Adam-12"; and (b) advising the Sheriff that he had been offered a position in other police departments but had turned them down in hopes that he could get into the detective or narcotics unit with the Leon County Sheriff's Department. The record is barren of any further specific actions attributable to the alleged discriminatees. The evidence reveals that on January 26 - 28, 1977, Sheriff Katsaris attended a workshop of the Florida Sheriff's Association. At the workshop a session was held on dealing with unions. Following the session, the Sheriff concluded that under the circumstances it was time for him to deliver a message to the men as to how he felt about unions. On January 31, 1977, Deputy Lawrence contacted the union organizer, James Mixon and established February 5, as the date for the initial organizational meeting. During the period of January 31 through February 2, Deputies Lawrence and Spiers contacted all deputy sheriffs and sergeants, some 85 individuals about the union and the organizational meeting on February 5, 1977. On February 1, 1977, Captain Gene Goodman, a managerial employee of the Sheriff's Department called Deputy Sheriff Scott Key into his office. Among other things, Captain Goodman inquired about Key's knowledge about the union movement; whether Perry Lawrence was contacting the men; when the organizational meeting was being held; whether it was being held at Lawrence's home and what was Lawrence's home address. Captain Goodman indicated that Sheriff Katsaris might like to speak to Deputy Key immediately contacted Deputy Lawrence and advised him of the meeting because he (Key) thought Lawrence's position was in jeopardy. During the nights of January 31, 1977 and February 1 and 2, 1977, Sheriff Katsaris conducted several command staff meetings with his attorney. At the meetings several matters were discussed including union activities of employees and the names of Deputy Spiers and Lawrence were discussed at those meetings. On February 3, 1977, Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were terminated and on February 4, 1977, Sheriff Katsaris posted a no solicitation- no distribution rule and at the same time issued a departmental policy on unions and employee organizations. Included in the Sheriff's position letter was an expression of his feeling that union organization of the department's employees would not serve their best interests and will work to their substantial detriment of the high professional standards that [he] was seeking to achieve. He therefore concluded that it was his firm policy to oppose union organization of any group of the Leon County Sheriff's Department employees by every proper and legal means. (See Respondent's Exhibit #1, Attachment #2) Following the termination of Deputies Lawrence and Spiers the subsequent distribution of the Sheriff's no solicitation-no distribution rule and the position letter dated February 4, 1977, organizational activities within the Sheriff's Department ceased and testimony reveals that those employees who had signed authorization cards became disinterested and requested that they be returned to them.
Conclusions An examination of the above factors leads the undersigned to the conclusion that the Respondent's discharge of Deputies Lawrence and Spiers was discriminatorily motivated and undertaken based on anti-union sentiments. The Respondent was aware that organizational activities were occurring among its employees and that admittedly, Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were spearheading this activity. Respondent's knowledge was gained, at least in part, from its agent, Captain Goodman's interrogation of Deputy Scott Key. Without reciting her the details of Goodman's interrogation, it suffices to say that Respondent was much concerned about the on-going organizational drive. A reading of Respondent's position statement released the day following the discharges of Deputies Spiers and Lawrence unquestionable confirms this concern. Prior to these terminations, the organizational drive was mounting with great interest. However, following the terminations, those employees who had expressed organizational interests by executing authorization cards manifested no further interest and attempted to withdraw their support by requesting that their executed authorization cards be returned. Without question, at this point Respondent had driven home its point that those employees who cared to exercise their right to engage in collectively organized activities faced the ultimate penalty of discharge. The reasons advanced by the Respondent for the discharge of Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were considered and are rejected. The discriminatees had been employed for more than four years and at no time had either been disciplined, reprimanded or counselled about their work performance or attitude. The reasons rested on unsubstantiated rumors without any efforts to confirm that they (Deputies Lawrence and Spiers) were experiencing attitudinal problems. Nor were they given any opportunity to deny, admit or correct such problems. This entire matter hardly resembles the workings of an efficient law enforcement agency that prides itself (according to Respondent) with effective investigative techniques. Respecting Respondent's claim that they (Deputies Lawrence and Spiers) were not adjusting to the new administration, evidence reveals that employees are yet adjusting to the new administration. Indeed, Deputies Lawrence and Spiers had no idea (based on the benefit of consultations from their supervisors) that their performance was anything but satisfactory. To adjust to the new administration, they were given all of one month. Given these facts, the undersigned can only conclude that the reasons assigned by Respondent were merely a pretext and the real reasons that Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were discharged are accurately cited in the complaint herein and it is so concluded. The interrogation of Deputy Scott Key by Captain Goodman constitutes a violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) of the Act since the interrogation centered exclusively around the union activities of Respondent's employees. See e.g. Laborer's International Union, Local #666 v. Jess Parrish Memorial Hospital 3 FPER 172 (June 30, 1977). In the instant case, the Respondent, as was its right, expressed its position opposing unionization of its employees; the interrogation sought information which would lead one to reasonably conclude that such would form a basis for taking disciplinary action; the interrogator was a high-ranking staff personnel and the Deputy (Key) was called away from his duty station. Key's testimony reveals that it was indeed unusual for Captain Goodman to summon employees to his office except in matters of extreme importance. The fact that Deputy Key feared that disciplinary action would be taken is borne out by the fact that when Captain Goodman confirmed that Deputy Lawrence was active in the organizational drive, he advised Deputy Key that he thought that the Sheriff would like to know about that; and that (Key) should wait in his office until he could locate the Sheriff in order that he could be briefed on the matter. When the Sheriff was located, and the matter called to his attention, he told Captain Goodman that he was not interested in speaking to Deputy Key about the subject. Deputy Key spoke to Deputy Lawrence about the interrogation as quickly as he could after leaving Captain Goodman's office and attempted to convince Lawrence to "quit the organizing effort before he lost his job." It is apparent that the Sheriff recognized the dangers inherent in the situation, however, he did nothing to alert the other rank and file employees that he was repudiating the action of Captain Goodman. By failing to do so after learning of the interrogation, the Sheriff is held accountable for the acts and conduct of Captain Goodman. It is so recommended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Chapter 447.501(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, as required by Chapter 447.503(4)(a), Florida Statutes. Based thereon, it is further recommended that the Respondent be ordered to reinstate Deputies Perry Lawrence and Michael Spiers to their former or substantially equivalent position of employment and be reimbursed for all back pay with interest computed at 6 percent per annum beginning on February 4, 1977, in accordance with the formula set forth in Pasco County Teachers Association v. Pasco County School Board, PERC Order No. 76U-U75 (1976). It is further recommended that Respondent be required to post in each of its facilities in Leon County, Florida, on copies of an appropriate "notice to employees" for a period of sixty (60) days, a notice substantially providing that the Respondent will cease and desist from engaging in unfair practices within the meaning of Chapter 447.501, Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Gene L. Johnson, Esquire Staff Attorney Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 P. Kevin Davey, Esquire Post Office Box 1674 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jack M. Skelding, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
