The Issue The issues in the case are whether or not the Respondent (1) during the course of an organizing campaign by the Union engaged in a course of conduct amounting to unlawful surveillance and/or creation of the impression of surveillance (2) whether or not Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain in good faith with the Union and (3) whether or not Respondent unlawfully refused to execute dues checkoff authorizations signed by its employees. By the alleged acts referred above, the Respondent allegedly engaged in unfair labor practices affecting the orderly and uninterrupted operations and functions of government within the meaning of Florida Statutes 447. As stated, these issues arise on a complaint issued October 16, by the acting general counsel of the Public Employees Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as PERC), as amended at the trial after PERC's investigation of-the charges filed by the Union on various dates. The Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. At close of the testimony all parties waived oral argument. A brief has been received by counsel for the general counsel and has been carefully considered by me in preparation of this hearing officer's report and recommended order which was signed and released by me on March 17, 1976, for distribution to the parties in the usual course. Upon the entire record in the case, observation of witnesses on the stand, and considerations of arguments of counsel, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact Respondent's operation and the status of the Union. The Respondent is now and has been at all times material herein, a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2) of the Act. The Union is an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(2) of the Public Employees Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Union was certified by the Commission on April 22, order no. 75E-6-31 and the parties commenced bargaining on or about April 23, 1975, and notice of negotiations was forwarded to the Commission's office on or about May 5, 1975. By way of background, the case was originally noticed for hearing to commence on October 29 and 30, 1975, in the Escambia County Courthouse. The Respondent, on October 29, applied for and obtained a temporary restraining order which had the effect of commanding the Public Employees Relations Commission to refrain from conducting or attempting to conduct the hearing based on the charges alleged in the subject complaint and notice of hearing. On the following day, the School Board filed a non-suit which had the effect of resolving the temporary restraining order. Prior thereto and subsequent to the non-suit, the Respondent filed numerous motions for continuance and dismissal based on alleged procedural violations. The basis of the procedural deficiencies were that (1) PERC failed to advise the Respondent of its investigation prior to issuing complaint and therefore the complaint was improperly issued. Additionally, the Respondent alleged that it has filed charges of a similar nature against the Union and that PERC has failed to expedite investigation of said charges which according to Respondent, amounts to violations of bad faith bargaining by the Union also in violation of Florida Statutes 447. Accordingly, Respondent asked that continuance be granted and that a period somewhere in the nature of 30 days be allowed to consider the charges alleged. Respondent also filed motions to dismiss alleging inter alia, that the charges filed by the Charging Party are false and groundless and that representatives of the Charging Party and PERC's agents have colluded to effectuate violations of its rules and enabling statutes as set forth in the complaint. Based thereon states the Respondent, it has been deprived of its opportunity for investigation and defense of the matters asserted in the administrative charges and the complaint and therefore the complaint should be dismissed. Aside from the fact that the hearing officer is without the authority to grant motions to dismiss, looking to the motion to dismiss and the motion for continuance, no evidence other than the bare claims were made to substantiate all of the allegations contained in both the motion to dismiss and the motion for continuance. Accordingly they are tentatively denied by the undersigned and the motion to dismiss is referred to PERC for final ruling. Respondent's counsel also made a motion for continuance on the final day of the hearing and as grounds therefor alleged that he had been recently retained. Aside from the fact that the testimony revealed that the law firm had been retained to represent Respondent months prior to the instant hearing, Dr. Moses, Respondent's chief negotiator under- took to represent Respondent at the hearing. Additionally, the motion was denied as being untimely filed. THE REFUSAL TO DEDUCT DUES ISSUE Guy Price, Special Education Teacher for approximately 4- 1/2 years, testified that he is a union member and that he signed a dues deduction authorization form in 1971. 2/ Price testified that the Respondent has refused to deduct dues since on or about July. He testified that the Respondent caused to be circulated in October, a notice which indicated it would only deduct dues pursuant to authorizations on a lump sum basis for the yearly dues which, according to the testimony, amounted to $110.00. He testified that inasmuch as he could not afford the lump sum deduction, he canceled his authorization go or about October 6. He testified that he was aware personally of approximately 10 other employees who canceled their dues deduction authorization based on the fact that according to his testimony, they were unable to afford a lump sum deduction. He testified that the Respondent permits piece meal deductions of other organizational and benefit drives whereas it refused to do so in this case. On cross-examination, he testified that during the months of March thru June, no deductions were made. On redirect examination, he reiterated his prior testimony that he canceled his dues deduction authorization based on the fact that he could not afford the lump sum payment as indicated by the Respondent's notice to employees. Carl Ledehman, an employee for approximately 18 months and a Union member indicated that he canceled his dues deduction authorization based on the fact that he too could not afford a lump sum deduction as testified to by Guy Price. He testified that the Respondent indicated sometime in early October that it would only deduct Union dues in a lump sum fashion and that based on this announcement, 3/ he then canceled his dues deduction. He testified that inasmuch as the Respondent indicated that it would only deduct dues pursuant to a lump sum method, he canceled his authorization and that he did so for no other purpose. He testified as did Mr. Price that to his knowledge, the Respondent deducts contributions for hospital, cancer and the united givers fund as well as other benevolent and humanitarian purposes. Albert M. Robuck, an employee for approximately 6 years, testified that he, signed a dues deduction authorization form yearly and that the employer refused, sometime in October, to deduct dues on a monthly basis. He testified that he received several memos citing in essence that Respondent would only deduct dues on a lump sum basis. Based on this statement, he canceled his dues deduction authorization on or about October 12, and that along with his cancellation, approximately three other teachers canceled their dues deduction authorization. He testified that he was aware that the employer is presently deducting health insurance, annuities and other deductions monthly. Jackie Barrineau, the Union's Chairperson and an employee for approximately three years as a teacher, testified that she has been a Union member throughout her employment with the Respondent. She testified that the Respondent submitted what she considered to be exorbitant proposals for the cost of processing the dues deductions and that the proposals ranged from $12,500.00 annually to its last offer which amounted to .05 per card per month for each employee utilizing the dues deduction procedure. On April 21, 1975, she testified that the Union agreed to pay $325.00 for dues deduction for the remainder of the school year, whereas the Employer on July 15, proposed the amount of $12,500.00 for dues deduction. She testified that the Employer amended its position and countered with the same figure it had originally proposed. Approximately two days later on July 17, the board reduced its cost for processing dues deductions and reduced the $12,500.00 figure to .50 per card per month for each employee utilizing dues deduction. In late July the parties declared an impasse and during the numerous proposals which were submitted during the impasse on or about September 4, the Respondent resubmitted the $12,000.00 figure as the cost for deducting dues. See for example Charging Party's Exhibit 7 received in evidence and is made a part hereof by reference. She testified that despite the adamant position taken by the Respondent on dues deduction, she did not cancel her dues authorization. On cross-examination she corroborated the fact that the parties tentatively agreed to a provision whereby the Respondent would deduct .05 per card for each member utilizing the dues deduction authorization procedure. The Employer advised that it had received legal advice regarding the legality of the notice given employees whereby it would only deduct dues in a lump sum and that a local attorney, William Davenport, advised that that procedure was permissible. She testified that she is charged with giving collective bargaining advice to all employees within the County School System. She testified as to a problem the Respondent advised that it had relative to incorrect signatures and improper amounts being recorded on dues authorization cards and that that was part of the stated motivation for the Employer cancelling the procedure of deducting dues on a monthly basis. She testified that as to the Respondent's release of its intention to deduct dues only on a lump sum basis, a substantial number of employees withdrew from the Union. The Respondent also claims that it refused to honor existing dues authorizations which were executed by its employees because numerous cards were either incorrectly executed or were undated. There is nothing in Section 447.303, F.S., which saddles Respondent with the responsibility of insuring that dues deduction authorizations are properly executed. Nor was there any credible testimony from any employee that dues deductions were being made without their express authorization. It thus appears that the Respondent's stated concern about the legality or propriety of the dues authorizations was nothing more than a pretext to effectuate its real desire of securing from employees mass cancellation of their dues authorizations and thus stifle the Union's ability to function. This becomes more apparent when consideration is given to the Respondent's attitude at the bargaining table relative to the amount that it proposed to the Union for the administrative costs for providing the dues deduction service. Respondent maintained the same basic "no give" position on this issue until the entry of the mediator into the negotiations. Although not specifically urged by Respondent as a defense to the refusal to deduct dues allegation, small mention was made of the fact that no contract was in existence between the parties when it (Respondent) ceased to deduct dues on a monthly basis as had been its practice during the remainder of the school year following the Union's certification as exclusive bargaining representative for Respondent's instructional personnel. Inasmuch as the statute which is pertinent to dues deduction (447.303, F.S.) at no point refers to the existence of a collective bargaining agreement as a prerequisite to dues deduction authorizations, the undersigned is constrained to conclude that the statute which is specific on its face, must be applied literally. Accordingly, even if Respondent had urged that as a defense for its actions stated above, the undersigned would recommend rejection of that ground as basis for its refusal to deduct dues pursuant to authorizations. 4/ THE SURVEILLANCE ISSUE Jack Bridges, who is the Employer's Director of Industrial Services and who is responsible for the media, news releases, etc., testified that he photographed pickets who picketed the Respondent's school administration building during the summer months of 1975. He testified that Charging Party's composite of approximately 17 pictures which the Respondent utilized in order to maintain a "historical" file. He testified that he was responsible for taking approximately 7 pictures and he recognized, after having been shown Mrs. Barrineau, Martha Smith and another teacher whom he described as being an active Union supporter. He testified that there was no blocking of ingress and egress into the school building and that the pickets picketed approximately 6 times. He testified that he had received advance notice from the news paper and TV advertisements that there would be a picket at the administration building. He testified that the photos were taken to the Director of Employee Relations, Dick Phillingem. 5/ He testified that the photos were taken with the school's camera and film. Bridges further testified that there were no blacks picketing during the time the photos were made and that to the best of his recollection there were only two pickets. On cross-examination he testified that he had received advance notice of racial picketing but that no photos were made nor was the division in which he headed asked to take pictures of such demonstration. On further recross, he testified that he was, contrary to his earlier testimony, asked to take pictures of racial matters. Thomas J. Le Master, the Respondent's Assistant Superintendent for approximately 5-1/2 years, testified that the pictures were taken to determine whether or not employees were breaking the law and to place such pictures in the labor files. He testified that Phillingem asked him if he had anyone to take pictures whereupon the answer was elicited that pictures were made such that there could be a record of labor relations. He testified that he was present at a school board meeting during mid September and that the pictures were discussed at such meeting and during a further conversation with Mr. Phillingem. He testified that he talked closely and worked closely with Phillingem on all matters relating to the operation of their division. When shown the pictures in Charging Parties Exhibit 11, he was able to identify the subjects in the pictures A,D,C,F and G. He testified that he presently serves on Respondent's bargaining team and has done so since January, 1975, when the pertinent divisions of Section 447, Florida Statutes, became operative. He testified that he had not witnessed a labor trial although he had seen Charging Party's Exhibit 2 which as stated was the notice to employees regarding dues deductions. The notice bears a date of October 2nd. On cross-examination, he also testified that the pictures were shown at a public board meetings and that few comments were made regarding the subjects contained on the pictures. He testified that the file which the pictures were part of, is used in collective bargaining negotiations between the Charging Party. He did not elaborate on this point. He testified that he obtained his advance notice for the picketing through either the news paper or the television. Dick Phillingem, Manager of Employee Relations for the past year, has been employed by the Respondent for approximately 24 years in various positions. He testified that he maintained records regarding employee relations and he referred to such correspondence a "blurb" sheets and Escambia Education Association fliers. He testified that he did not talk about his prior conversation regarding this hearing. He gave Le Master instructions to take the pictures. He testified that the instructions were to take pictures of bath the pickets and the legends contained thereon. Messr. Bridges called to inform him that the pictures were to be delivered to him via a courier and that he thereafter disbursed them at the Board meeting. He utilized the pictures to keep current his file which he uses to monitor Union activity. During the normal course of his work day he spends approximately 80 percent of his time visiting teachers, coordinators and checking records on disclosures at discussions of board meetings. When asked for the purpose for which he was collecting a "history" for his files, the witness was unspecific however, he did testify that no attempts were made to utilize the pictures for reprisals. Jackie Barrineau, who previously testified, was recalled and testified that she engaged in picketing on or about August 20, at approximately 3:30 p.m. She testified that there were approximately 25 pickets and that she confronted Jack Bridges and approximately 2 other photographers whose names she did not recall and that she approached Bridges and informed him that she did not like the idea of his taking photos of her. She testified that the Union obtained a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Respondent to disclose the budget and Dr. Moses' contract with the Respondent. The pickets expressed to her their fear of retaliation for engaging in such acts. There was no blockage of ingress or egress of the school's administration building where the picketing occurred. When shown the pictures, she was able to identify most of the subjects. She testified further that the picketing was at all times peaceful. On cross-examination she also stated that she is the Union's public relations official and reiterated her identification of Mr. Bridges as one of the photographers. 6/ Dr. Ruby Jackson Gainer, a counselor dean and an employee for approximately 20 or more years, testified that she engaged In the picketing and that she was also intimidated by a managerial employee taking pictures of her while she was picketing. She testified that despite this fear, she went along with the idea of picketing because she felt "committed to her task." She recalled an incident whereby she was discharged and her tenure removed due to her engagement in a walkout during school year 1968. She testified that the employer tried to discharge her for taking two days' sick leave and that this action was turned over to the professional practices committee. On or about August 28, she testified that she was demoted from administrative dean to counselor dean and that the difference being that as counselor dean, her work station is located in an isolated area removed from the other school facilities. William McArthur, the Respondent's Personnel Director, testified that the picketing occurred in front of the school building which is where his office is located. He is a member of the board's negotiating team and he testified that he was unaware of any employees being intimidated based on their engaging in picketing. He corroborated the earlier testimony that the pickets did not block any ingress or egress to the school's administrative building. He is the custodian of the instructional personnel records and to his knowledge, there was no data placed in the personnel files regarding the picketing. He also testified that the Respondent does not maintain any separate personnel file for pickets. He testified on cross-examination, that he viewed the picture in Mr. Odom's office which were lying on his desk uncovered. He was unable to witness pickets from the school's building as was previously testified to by other witnesses. In the private sector, the NLRB has consistently held that direct surveillance by company supervisory employees or executives is intimidating and coercive. However, the mere presence of a supervisor or agent of a Respondent is insufficient to prove surveillance where such presence is not out of the ordinary. In this case, evidence reveals that the occurrence of the picketing was a matter of common knowledge throughout the county. The picket was so well known that there was extensive media coverage. The evidence reveals further that the photos were passed around at a public School Board meeting and that since that time no reprisals have been practiced upon the subjects appearing in the photographs. There was no evidence that employees' job activities were more closely scrutinized than before the picture taking episode occurred. Jackie Barrineau, a chief spokesman for the Union testified that she engaged in picketing on or about August 20, at approximately 3:30 p.m. She testified that approximately 25 pickets gathered in front of the school's administration building and that Jack Bridges and two other photographers took pictures of the pickets. She as well as other witnesses testified that they feared reprisals would be taken against them for engaging in the picketing and that they were unable to discern any useful purpose as to why the pictures were being taken by Jack Bridges. The evidence also reveals that the Respondent's agents testified that the purpose for which the photos were made was to maintain "history" for their files. Further testimony on this point, however, reveals that the photos were openly discussed at a public meeting and that no attempts were made by the Respondent and/or its agents to utilize those photos for retaliation or for any other purpose unlawful under Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. The record was barren of any evidence that the Respondent attempted to use the pictures from the pickets to substantiate retaliatory motives. While one witness testified that she was demoted because she participated in a strike several years ago, such testimony standing alone is insufficient to base a finding that the Respondent during the picketing in 1975 utilized or planned to utilize the photos for some unlawful purpose. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the Respondent treated picketing employees any differently than it did any other employees who engaged in the strike following the time that the photos were taken. This tends to show the exact opposite of a surveillance situation or the creation of the impression of surveillance as alleged. It is true that there was scant evidence that the Respondent utilized the materials in a file relative to labor relations matters, no ulterior or unlawful motive was attached or shown by the evidence. While one might infer or surmise that the photos would be utilized for discriminatory purposes, there was no proof of that and mere suspicion is no substitute for proof. For these reasons, the undersigned hereby recommends that the surveillance issue be dismissed for lack of proof. THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ISSUE Fred Haushalter, the Charging Party's Executive Director for approximately 8 years and a consultant, testified that he requested access to budget information from the comptroller and for a copy of the contract given to the Respondent's labor negotiator, Ed Moses. He testified that the request was made on or about 5 different times during the month of July, 1975. He said when Respondent refused to honor his request for budget papers at the school board meeting, the mandamus suit was filed to compel disclosure whereupon the court ordered the Respondent to turn over those documents and, ill addition, the Union was awarded attorney's fees and cost for bringing the action. He testified that the school board plead that it was unable to pay any additional salaries since revenues were right and further, that there would be no economic improvements contained in the collective bargaining agreement that the parties were negotiating. He testified that all bargaining team members were notified that there would be no economic improvements forthcoming from the Respondent. On cross-examination, he testified that he requested the school board's budget work papers and a tentative budget. He testified that bargaining commenced in late July, 1975. Specifically, he testified that he asked the comptroller, Messr. Olden, for a copy of the tentative budget. Beginning in April, 1975, the Union formally began to formulate proposals and the procedure utilized was that of past practice when the employee organization had utilized in negotiating prior contracts. By letter dated September 8, Robert C. Mott, Deputy Superintendent, stated that he was supplying, (1) a copy of the tentative 75-76 budget; (2) a copy of Dr. Moses' contract; and (3) a copy of the administrative salary schedule. He testified that of the data which was requested by the union, some could not he supplied immediately as some of it needed to be assembled. As to the other request, Mott advised that "since it related so directly to the collective bargaining scene," he would need the "legal advice" from Dr. Moses concerning that data. He concluded by stating that he would submit the requested data when he was able to either assemble it or when Dr. Moses gave him the proper advice. 7/ He testified that Moses was Respondent's chief spokesman as of May 20, and that there were approximately 13 sessions. He phoned Dr. Moses on June 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24 and he (Moses) failed to respond to his phone calls. He had previously been advised by Dr. Moses on June 4 that a negotiating session could be arranged on June 9. He testified that when his phone calls to Dr. Moses were unanswered, he started calling the school board's secretary; Mr. Phillinger and a Mr. Davis, who according to his testimony is Dr. Moses' assistant. Davis took the message and informed him that he would give it to Dr. Moses immediately. When he spoke to Mr. Phillinger, he indicated that he would try to contact Dr. Moses as soon as possible. After approximately 10 or more phone calls, Moses returned his call on June 24, a Tuesday, and informed him that he was told that no one would be in the office until around 1:00 p.m. on that day, i.e., June 24. He testified that Phillinger, Director of Employee Relations, stated that he would contact Dr. Moses since he did not have the authority to arrange dates for collective bargaining negotiation sessions. The following day a Messr. Leper was called and he informed him of the difficulty that he had encountered in trying to contact Dr. Moses. He testified that during a two-week period he made approximately 22 phone calls to both officers of Educational Services Bureau, Inc., a consulting firm in which Dr. Moses is employed and serves as its Executive Vice President. He testified that when he finally made contact with Dr. Moses, they arranged a tentative date of July 1 to commence negotiations and that he requested dates of June 25 or 26 and to that request, Moses indicated July 1 would be the earliest date. He testified that at the July 1 session, Moses brought with him no proposals, but merely read a statement that the union's proposals were hastily prepared and irresponsible. He testified that the negotiating team which consisted of approximately 6 members began preparing the original proposal in October of 1974 and that special preparation lasted through April 1975 when formal proposals were submitted. He testified that Phillingem advised that the employer would only discuss the preamble and the following three articles, mainly (1) recognition; (2) association and teacher rights and (3) negotiation procedures. 8/ He testified that at that session, Respondent would only propose language regarding the recognition article. During that meeting the employer submitted its "guidelines for negotiation" and previously thereto on April 23, Respondent advised that it would have prepared at its next session, a counter proposal. The Union's proposal consisted of some 123 pages containing approximately 33 articles. The next meeting was held on May 19, and the parties agreed to payroll deduction for the remaining school year. He testified that Moses, at that meeting, advised that he wanted the Union's negotiating team to "localize the agreement." He testified that the next three sessions mainly consisted of questions by Moses, who informed the Union's bargaining team that "when we start bargaining, we will get. responses." 9/ On cross-examination, Moses asked the witness a number of questions regarding the Union's necessity of affiliation, the understanding as to why two whereases were included in Hue Union's preamble and other questions regarding language contained in provisions of its (the Union's) proposal. Moses inquired of him what his definition of good faith bargaining was and how the Union derived the one 1000th figure as the cost for dues deduction payments. He testified that Moses indicated to him that most of the Union's proposals were "non-bargainable items." The Respondent counter-proposed with a one page proposal. The Employer's initial counterproposal, which was submitted on July, in essence contained provisions that all offers were package offers which had to be either accepted or rejected as a package; that the contract term be two years and that the salary level be that level that was paid to instructional personnel the last school year. The proposal also contained provisions that all negotiable benefits be maintained at the funded level as contained ill the last contract and for existing benefits only; that final and binding arbitration be added to the present concept of grievance as is now in use in the Escambia County Schools.. The counterproposal ended with a provision which stated that all other bargainable items proposed by the union and identified as bargainable by the board were rejected. 10/ Mrs. Barrineau testified that the board's final proposal which was mailed to the teachers contained provisions whereby lunch hours were discretionary with the principal; a no strike provision; dues deduction and mileage allowance which was less beneficial than that contained in the predecessor agreement. The counterproposal also contained more restrictive provisions regarding maternity leave, personal leave and a two year contract term. There was a provision regarding association and teacher rights, three paid holidays, professional leave and procedures for reviewing personnel files. There was a provision controlling posting, voluntary transfers, class size, teacher's schedules, $60.00 bonus and that in her opinion, the salary proposal was regressive. She testified that the Respondent attempted to withdraw certain items which had been tentatively agreed to by the parties. The Respondent advised that this proposal which was submitted to the union on or about September 26, could only be accepted or rejected "in toto." On July 3, Mrs. Barrineau asked the Respondent for a counter and that its failure to do so would result in the Union's filing an unfair labor practice charge with PERC. Respondent's chief negotiator indicated that management's rights superseded employee rights except as specifically restricted by law. She testified that the only items which he considered negotiable were those items which were existing items or items which were covered by Respondent's policy. She testified that the principle area of discussion at that session dealt with grievance procedures and Dr. Moses informed the Union's negotiating team that their proposals were "so far out of line that they would not be either accepted or entertained." She testified that while the Union was willing to discuss item by item in their proposals and various counterproposals, the Employer indicated that all proposals had to be either totally accepted or rejected. The Union pressed for an informal grievance procedure and a more expeditious manner to resolve such but this was not forthcoming through negotiations. She expressed the opinion the "in toto" position urged by the Respondent was stifling the bargaining process and in her opinion, an attempt was being made to create an impasse. Regarding maternity and sabbatical leave, the discussion surrounding those areas were more regressive and restrictive than the existing policy. 11/ She testified that the Union agreed to accept the Respondent's dormant position regarding insurance in order to enable it to put insurance bids to various carriers. The Employer took a "no give" stance on the preamble and refused to allow employees a "choice of forums to resolve grievances." The next session which was held on July 9 was, according to Mrs. Barrineau, a discussion which largely centered around grievance procedure and sabbatical leave and that in the Unions opinion, the grievance procedure advanced by Respondent was "too detailed." For a detailed discussion on the grievance procedure, see Charging Party's Exhibit 31, which is a counter dealing with grievance procedure. During the next discussion, the witness testified that she expressed concern about the absence of insurance, sabbatical leave and teacher's retirement provisions, and that this was a subject to which the Employer refused to discuss.. The only items that the Employer would discuss were sabbatical leave and insurance. During the July 9 meeting, the Employer agreed to withdraw its insurance proposal. At the next session on July 14, the Union submitted its counterproposal no. 5, which was a regression from its earlier proposal regarding unpaid leave and grievance procedures and all other proposals were identical to its earlier submission and previously adopted position. 12/ Another session was held the following day, i.e., July 15, and the employer adopted the position of making responses only via written proposals and during that session, the Union changed its dues deduction proposal and incorporated a hold harmless clause for the Employer. Thereafter, the Union changed its position on the grievance procedure and advanced an informal one which in her opinion, provided for a more expedited procedure of resolving grievances. During that period from May 20 through mid-July, the parties had only agreed to three items. The Employer adopted a "no give" position regarding sabbatical leave. During a negotiating session on July 17, Dr. Moses appeared at the session approximately one and one-half hours late. At that meeting he submitted a counter which in essence stated that all issues which were "bargainable" had been discussed. She testified that the employer refused to submit counters on promotions, overtime, transfers, calendars, affect of class sizes and all other items. The Employer remained adamant regarding its position that dues deductions were subject to a $.50 deduction per card per employee and that she expressed the opinion that all other deductions were not subject to a like charge and, therefore, the administration charge for dues deduction was punitive in nature. She testified that at the July 17 meeting, the Respondent submitted its counterproposals 9 and 10 and that there were no changes regarding bargainable versus nonbargainable items. The proposals contained regressive language and that employees had to specifically state the reasons for taking personal leave. There were other changes in military and professional leave which deviated from and were more restrictive than existing policies. She testified that the dues deduction pursuant to the $.50 per card charge amounted to approximately $12,450.00 for the Union. The Employer submitted a proposal whereby the instructional personnel would work an 8-hour day which had the effect of increasing the normal work day and the lunch period was reduced to 20 minutes. The proposal contained no compensation allotments for overtime work and the Employer took the position that salary supplements were not negotiable. The Employer refused to change its attitude with regard to physical examinations, mileage allowances and the collective bargaining contracts would be printed at the Union's expense. There was no movement from the initial salary proposals submitted on April 23. During the period from July 1 through July 23, Respondent was unprepared approximately seven times and was late approximately nine times for bargaining sessions. On July 23, the Respondent submitted its counter no. 11 which changed the contract terms from one year to two years and the recognition clause also contained the provision deleting "the board and the association and added the State of Florida." On dues deduction, the employer agreed to recede from its earlier position adopted in its counter no. 10 by an amount totaling $50.00, i.e., the amount previously stated from $12,450.00 to $12,400.00. The proposal also contained a provision that Respondent reserved the right to establish those deductions which it considered to be voluntary deductions and that said right also included the "establishment of a reasonable set deduction, if in the opinion of the board such cost is necessary." All other items were consistent with those contained in its earlier counterproposal. 13/ On July 23 the Union declared impasse which was 60 days prior to the Respondent's budget submission date. At the time of the impasse, the parties had not reached agreement on: the insurance proposal, grievance procedures, sick leave, illness in line of duty, personal leave, sabbatical leave, general leave of absence, military leave, professional leave, visitation rights, dues deduction, preamble, maternity leave, as well as others. 14/ The parties scheduled their first mediation session on August 13, and it was scheduled to begin at 4:30 p.m. At that session, the Respondent's team was late by approximately two hours. The testimony is that the dues deduction costs submitted to the mediator was for a lump sum payable by the Union of $12,400.00. At that session, the Employer took the position that the subject of discharges was a nonnegotiable item. At the next meeting, on or about August 26, the Respondent's chief negotiator was late approximately two hours. On November 10, the Union requested a further session and Moses wired a message that he would not be available until November 15. The witness remained at the negotiating meeting on November 15 for approximately one hour and no negotiating official of Respondent appeared. The Employer remained adamant on positions wherein there was disagreement only as to language but not in principle. The parties agreed to a marathon bargaining session beginning November 28, and the sessions continued through November 30, at which time an agreement was tentatively reached by the parties, subject to ratification by the bargaining unit members. 15/ The unit members voted against ratification of Charging Party's Exhibit 46 which is the agreement entered into by the negotiating team and the Respondent's team on that same date. Included therein, is a salary proposal which amounts to a reduction in the previous school year salary of approximately 3.6 percent, i.e., $8,320.00 per annum versus $8,266.00. The Respondent refused to accede to most proposals submitted by the Union based on its stated claim that most were already provided for by law and thus that there was no need to incorporate such in a collective bargaining agreement. A member of the Respondent's negotiating team allegedly made the statement that "the teachers had nothing, that the school board had everything, that the school board could do what it desired regarding salaries. Additionally, it considered as nonnegotiable such matters as: dismissal, layoffs, evaluation, tenure, discipline for annual contract teachers and the scheduling of planning periods." Floating teachers, assignment of summer school teachers, problems regarding absence without leave and class size were also nonbargainable. Respondant's negotiating team also took the position that the effects of such items were also nonnegotiable. The chief spokesperson, Mrs. Barrineau, testified that her duties consisted primarily of carrying out speaking engagements regarding collective bargaining rights, effectuating collective bargaining policy for the Escambia Education Association, the certified bargaining agent, to settle disagreements within the collective bargaining team, to formulate policy, to issue news releases, to make civic speeches, to attend EEA workshops and to formulate a collective bargaining budget. She testified that the proposals resulted from a joint effort of EEA's collective bargaining team. She became actively engaged in the formulation of proposals on or about March 1. She testified that she made approximately seven phone calls during the period June 12 through June 26, in an effort to schedule a session with Respondent. At the August 14 meeting, the Respondent presented the impasse proposals to the FMCS mediator. As of September 25, the parties reached the figure of approximately $1300.00 for the cost of deducting dues pursuant to checkoff authorizations. Mr. Phillingem was called and testified that the file to which he earlier testified to contain Chapter 447 and the pertinent enabling statutes and the Department of Education Rules and Regulations in addition to proposals submitted by EEA, the certified bargaining agent, "blurb" sheets which are distributed and various other Union news letters. He testified that the school board's legal counsel is, to the best of his knowledge, associated with Muller & Mintz, a Miami law firm. Wallace S. Odom, the comptroller, testified that he is responsible for maintaining all financial data with regard to the school's budget. He is charged with maintaining accurate records and during fiscal year from October 1, thru September 30, there was a county wide reduction in teacher aides by approximately 110. He testified that there was no increase in salaries based on the status of incoming revenues. He testified that there has been an increase in the millage paid for property tax in and around Escambia County and that such increase is up to, according to his testimony, a full 8 mills. Fred Haushalter, EEA's Executive Director, testified that he monitors correspondence which comes through his office. He testified that the allowance for dues deductions during the months of June, July and August was achieved through negotiations and that the parties stipulated as to the amount of the cost for such deductions. He testified that the stipulation was reached on or about May 20, 1975. Thereafter during the remaining months of the school year, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby the cost of administration and dues deduction were set at a cost somewhere in the nature of $325.00 for the remaining three months. While the basic issues here can be simply stated, they are not susceptible of a short and simple answer: Did the Respondent negotiate with the Union in bad faith and with the intent of avoiding reaching agreement or conditioning agreement with the Union's acceptance of terms and conditions which the Respondent knew or should have known are unacceptable to any self respecting Union? The governing principles need not be set forth in exhaustive detail. Section 447, F.S., (the Act) defines collective bargaining and imposes upon the parties the duty to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment or the negotiation of and agreement, or any question arising thereunder... but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession. " The Public Employees Relations Act which was largely patterned after the National Labor Relations Act, 29 USC 151 et seq, sets forth the yard stick which is contained in Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act and provides that the measurement of "good faith" is not rigid but, necessarily is an elastic concept having meaning only in its application to the particular facts of a particular case. See for example N.L.R.B. v. American National Insurance Company, 343 U.S. 395, 410 (1952). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the second circuit stated in N.L.R.B. v. National Shoes, Inc., and National Syracuse Corporation, 208F 2d. 688, 691-692 (1953), the problem is essentially to determine from the record the intention of the state of mind of [the employer] in the matter of [his] negotiations with the Union. In this proceeding, as in many others, such a determination is a question of fact to be determined from the whole record. See also N.L.R.B. v. Reed and Prince Manufacturing Company, 205F. 2d.131, 134-135 (C.A. 1, 1953), cert. denied 346 U.S. 887 (1954). The National Labor Relations Board has repeatedly held that it is without authority to either directly or indirectly compel concessions or otherwise set in judgement upon substantive terms of a collective bargaining agreement. A necessary corollary to this principal is that just as the Act contains no authority to force an agreement when the parties have reached an impasse (N.L.R.B. v. The United Clay Mines Corporation, 219F. 2d 120, 126 (C.A. 6, 1955), so also refusal to bargain cannot he equated with refusal to recede from an announced position advanced and maintained in good faith. Division 1142, Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motorcoach Employees of America, AFL-CIO (Continental Bus System v. N.L.R.B., 294F. 2d 264, 266 (C.A.D.C., 1961). Applying these principles to the facts here, it becomes apparent that based on the small movement and the repeated standoffs by Respondent, I am constrained to conclude that the Respondent here has failed to fulfill its obligation to bargain in good faith with the Union. Turning to the pertinent facts in this case, up to and including the point of "impasse", the Respondent refused to recede from its initial stand on inter alia, checkoff, seniority, grievance procedure, all types leave, assignment scheduling, shorter lunch periods, reduction in pay and longer work days. Based on this position, one would readily infer that the Respondent approached the table with a preconceived determination never to reach agreement on these issues and that it maintained this position during negotiations without doing anymore than listen to Union argument on those points. Thus, in effect it engaged in surface bargaining on those as well as other issues without any attempt to explore argument thereon with a sincere desire to reach agreement. The Respondent's chief negotiator approached the table with a cleverly concealed scheme of displaying a real and sincere attitude of negotiating which was carried on with sophistication and finesse and the mere making of concessions on some items was the very means by which he concealed a purposeful strategy to make bargaining futile or fail. Using this approach, the Respondent opened negotiations with an extremely high cost for the administration of dues deduction and then failed to recede from this position until the waining moments of the negotiating sessions and after the parties had gone through the lengthly process of calling in mediators which were costly to both parties. There was no meaningful change on its consideration of position on the mandatory subject of checkoff as provided in Section 447.303, Florida Statutes. Throughout the sessions, the Union brought out and repeated all its main arguments regarding checkoff, salary levels, scheduling assignments, grievance procedures, contract terms, health insurance coverage as well as other items which the record is replete with documentary evidence. The Respondent, according to the testimony, stood fast on various articles which it deemed to be nonbargainable throughout the negotiation and as the sessions progressed, its position hardened. These are mandatory bargaining subjects and the Respondent's failure to enter negotiations with an effort to reach agreement constitutes bad faith bargaining in violation of 447.501(c), Florida Statutes. One example of this unlawful conduct can be examined by consideration of the fact that during the previous school year, the Respondent agreed to deduct dues on a monthly basis and the cost of such deduction amounted to approximately $325.00 for a three month period whereas when it entered the negotiation table it started out with the "outrageous" figure of approximately $13,000.00 for the same service that it had earlier provided for a total cost of $1300.00 if projected over a one year period. The same can be said for the Respondent's adamant refusal throughout the negotiations to accede to minor language changes in the preamble and other matters which in its opinion, were matters already covered by other laws and therefore there was no need to incorporate such in a collective bargaining agreement. While not suggesting that the Act requires concession by either side during bargaining nor the surrender of convictions or alterations of philosophies provided such convictions or philosophies are not made operative in such manner as to foreclose bone fide consideration of bargainable issues, the repeated refusal to consider or counter when proposed with items which amounts to nothing more than language changes, such a position militates a finding that the employer approaches the bargaining table with the intent of reaching an agreement and/or to engage in good faith bargaining. While parties oft times approach the bargaining table and jockey for positions, there comes a time when there must be a sincere desire to reach agreement. Further support in this position can be found in the fact that the Union on numerous occasions made futile attempts to reach the Respondent's Chief negotiator. During one period during the negotiating sessions, the Union's chief spokesman testified that she made more than ten phone calls during a twelve day period and that at no time were her calls returned by the Respondent and/or its agents. This in the opinion of the undersigned evinces a practice on the part of the Respondent to engage in dilatory and evasive tactics designed to make the bargaining process a sham and fruitless process. For example, anti-discrimination clauses are customarily included in contracts whereas there are other specific laws which specifically provide for and cover such proscribed activity. The fact that a proposal is made to include such in an agreement does not detract from or otherwise modify from other existing laws covering the same procedure. Further support for the conclusion reached by the undersigned can he found in the fact that the Respondent's chief negotiator entered the negotiating sessions with the idea that all proposals submitted by the Respondent would be package proposals and that the Union could not accept part of a counter proposal put by the Respondent without completely accepting or rejecting the entire proposal. This is not to say that the parties cannot enter into negotiations and negotiate on an item by item basis but the adoption of an "in toto", or take it or leave it" policy is further indication of bad faith bargaining. This is of much significance here since Respondent refused to agree to insignificant or traditional items contained in collective agreements. See e.g., Big Three Industries, 201 N.L.R.B. No. 105. Another indicia of the negotiating process which is indicative of bad faith bargaining is the fact that after the Union had been certified for approximately 6 months, the Respondent without prior consultation with the Union, unilaterally indicated that dues deductions could only be effected on a lump sum basis which ultimately had the effect of forcing numerous employees to cancel their dues deduction authorizations. This statement is based on the credited testimony of several witnesses including Mrs. Barrineau and Mr. Price. Although the Respondent, during the course of the hearing, testified that the dues deductions were canceled or that attempts were made to get employees to execute new authorization forms, there is nothing in Florida Statutes which places such a burden on the Respondent. A careful reading of Section 447.303, Florida Statutes, indicate that such authorizations are revokable at the employee's will upon 30 days written notice to both the employer and employee organization. Based on the foregoing, I therefore conclude and find that the Respondent's negotiating team entered the table with no intent to fulfill their duty to bargain in good faith and that its actions in forcing employees to execute forms which call for the single deduction of Union dues was a deliberate attempt on its part to force mass withdrawals from the Union in an effort to undermine it.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Sarasota County School Board (Petitioner or School Board), had just cause to terminate Ernest Curry (Respondent) for misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for operating, controlling, and supervising the public schools in the School District. See § 1001.32(2), Fla. Stat. At all times material, Respondent was employed as a groundskeeper for the School Board. Groundskeepers are educational support employees. On September 2, 2020, while at work at Tuttle Elementary School, Respondent submitted to a reasonable-suspicion urine drug screen. The final test results returned positive for marijuana. As an educational support employee, Respondent’s employment with the School District is governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 1 Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 is a copy of an excerpt of the Classified Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association and the School Board of Sarasota County, FL (Collective Bargaining Agreement). The undersigned takes official recognition of the entire Collective Bargaining Agreement, which may be accessed at https://www.sarasotacountyschools.net/cms/lib/FL50000189/Centricity/Domain/143/2019- 20%20Classified-Final-Rev%20052620.pdf. (Last visited Jan. 6, 2021).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JODI-ANN V. LIVINGSTONE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Ernest Curry 3408 16th Court East Bradenton, Florida 34208 Robert K. Robinson, Esquire Rob Robinson Attorney, P.A. 500 South Washington Boulevard, Suite 400 Sarasota, Florida 34236 (eServed) Dr. Brennan W. Asplen, III, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34321-3365 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Broward County and Broward County Board of County Commissioners is a Public Employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2), F.S. (stipulation of parties). The Teamsters Local Union #769, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America is an Employee Organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10), F.S. (stipulation of parties). In January, 1974, thirty three airport security police employees of the Respondent who worked at the Ft. Lauderdale- Hollywood International Airport and North Perry Airport signed cards authorizing Teamsters Local Union #769 (hereinafter "Union") to represent them for the purpose of collective bargaining with the Respondent (Complainant's Exhibit 6, testimony of Mr. Sack). By letter of January 7, 1974, to Mr. Robert R. Kauth, Broward County Administrator, the Union advised that it represented the airport security employees police and requested that the Respondent recognize the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees and enter into negotiations for the purpose of obtaining a collective bargaining agreement. The Union further offered to demonstrate evidence that it represented the aforesaid employees (Complainant's Exhibit 7, testimony of Mr. Sack). Mr. Kauth responded in a letter dated January 28, 1974, and advised the Union that its letter had been referred to the Board of County Commissioners, but in view of "existing state law", the Commission was unable to and could not recognize the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the airport employees in question (Complainant's exhibit 8). The Union responded by a letter of January 30, 1974, requesting that Mr. Kauth identify the "existing state law" referred to in his letter and advised that the International Union's Constitution specified that the Union did not assert the right to strike amoung employees in the public sector. It also informed Mr. Kauth that the Florida Constitution and statutes guarantee public employees the right to organize and to bargain collectively through a representative of their choice (Complainant's Exhibit 9). Receiving no further response from the Respondent, the Union filed a complaint for declaratory relief and mandatory injunction in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for Broward County requesting the Court declare that the Union be recognized by the Respondent as the collective bargaining representative for the airport security police employees who had designated the union to represent them, and directing and requiring the Respondent to enter into collective bargaining with the Union as required by Art. 1, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution, and Section 839.221(2), F.S. On July 29, 1974, the Court entered a final decree requiring Respondent to grant recognition to the Union pursuant to Art. 1 Section 6 of the Florida Constitution "as the collective bargaining representative or agent of those airport security police officers employed by the Defendants at the Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Airport and North Perry Airport, who, are members and who remain members of the Plaintiff or who have freely and expressly given their consent to the Plaintiff labor organization to act as their collective bargaining agent" (Complainant's Composite Exhibit 11). As a result of the court order, the parties began bargaining, and proposals and counter-proposals were exchanged during the period commencing August, 1974 (Complainant's Exhibit 13, testimony of Mr. Sacks). At one of the negotiating sessions in October, the Respondent gave the Union its proposal for a recognition clause in the eventual agreement, which provided that the Respondent recognized the Union as the collective bargaining representative for those employees who were and would remain members of the Union, and that it would continue recognition after January 1, 1975 for the term of the agreement provided that the Union complied with all state requirements pertaining to recognition as contained in Chapter 447, F.S., and that otherwise recognition and the agreement would cease forthwith (Complainant's Exhibit 14, testimony of Mr. Elster). The Union thereupon filed a motion in the Broward County Circuit Court to hold the Respondent in contempt for violation of the previous final decree. The court, on October 30, 1974, citing Sections 447.009 and .022, F.S., found that the Respondent's proposal as to recognition was not a proper subject of collective bargaining at that time and ordered that it be stricken as a proposal (Complainant's Exhibit 15). At the twelfth negotiation session held on January 8, 1975, the parties reached a proposed collective bargaining agreement, with representatives placing their initials on a rough-draft (Complainant's exhibit 16). Counsel for Respondent agreed to provide a final draft in one week which thereafter was to be submitted to the county commission and the Union membership for approval and ratification. On January 17, the employees in the unit voted to accept the, agreement and new authorization cards were executed by the employees. At this time there were 49 employees in the unit and 46 authorization cards were signed at this time (Complainant's Exhibit 18). Further correspondence and discussions ensued, resulting in agreement on a final draft of the proposed agreement (Complainant's Exhibits 17-21). Article 1 of the proposed agreement concerning recognition provided that the county recognized the Union as the collective bargaining representative of all airport security officers employed by the county at the airports in question "who are members and who remain members of the union, or who have freely and expressly given their consent to the Union to act as their collective bargaining agent". The draft was approved by telegram from the Union's Counsel on February 20th, A except for failure to put the effective date of the agreement, i.e., January 8, 1975 in the draft (Complainant's Exhibit 22). Upon request of the Union, the matter was placed on the agenda of the Board of County Commissioners for its March 4th meeting. By letter to the County Administrator, dated February 28, Respondent's counsel advised that the original recognition had been by court order to recognize the Union "for members only"; that new state labor legislation required that a labor organization register with and be certified by the Public Employees Relations Commission as the majority representative of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit before a legal obligation by a public employer to recognize and bargain with the Union is established; that the Union had not met the registration and certification requirements and that the County was currently appealing in the Fourth District Court of Appeals the order of the lower court which had stricken one of the Respondent's contract proposals during negotiations. He therefore stated that it would be appropriate for the County Commission to consider the appeal before rendering a decision on the proposed agreement (Complainant's exhibit 23). The County Commission, at its meeting, deferred action on the agreement because the Union had not been registered nor certified under current law, and directed its counsel to request an advisory opinion from PERC on the status of the Union in reference to the state statute (Respondent's Exhibit 2). By letter, dated March 12, counsel for the Respondent sought such an advisory opinion from PERC (Respondent's Exhibit 13). Notwithstanding the lack of action by the County Commission, Respondent's Director of the Division of Airports determined to observe the terms of the proposed contract as to various working conditions (Complainant's Exhibit 24). The Union had made an abortive attempt to register with PERC on June 28, 1974, but this was before PERC had been organized and apparently the request was never received (Complainant's Exhibit 12, testimony of Mr. Sack and Mr. Elster). On March 10, 1975, the Union again submitted registration materials to PERC and, by letter of March 25, 1975, the Commission advised the Union that it had met the registration requirements of the statute (Complainant's Exhibit 28). On April 18, 1975, the Union filed a Recognition - Certification petition with PERC seeking certification of the airport security police personnel (Complainant's Exhibit 30), and on May 8, 1975, the Union filed the unfair labor charge against the Respondent alleging that it had violated Section 447.016(1)(a)(c), F.S., by attempting to withdraw recognition that was previously established between the parties and by refusing to sign a final agreement which had been agreed upon on January 8, 1975, (Complainant's Exhibit 1). On or about May 16, 1975, the Union filed with PERC a Motion to Waive the Posting Requirements of Recognition Acknowledgement and Motion to Expedite Processing of Unfair Labor Practice Charges (Complainant's Exhibit 31). In this motion, the Union requested that the posting requirements of recognition acknowledgement under PERC Rule 8H-200.4 (now 8H-2.04) be waived and certification issued based on the fact that it would be inequitable and against the intent and purposes of the statute to deny certification under Section 447.009(1) because recognition had been obtained by court order and the Union represented a majority of the employees in the unit. However, the petition for Recognition - Certification was withdrawn by the Union on June 3, and by letter of June 10, PERC advised it that the withdrawal request had been approved (Complainant's Exhibit 32). The record does not disclose that PERC took any action on the Union's aforesaid motion to waive the posting requirements of recognition-acknowledgment. In April and early May, the parties met and negotiated over a "wage reopener" provision contained in the proposed collective bargaining agreement. However, on May 19, Respondent's Counsel declined to grant a request for a further meeting stating that since the Union had rejected counter-proposals of the Respondent's negotiating team on April 21, it was felt that further meetings would be unproductive (Complainant's Exhibit 25-27). On July 31, 1975, the Union filed an amended unfair labor practice charge against the Respondent and, on August 8, the Acting General Counsel of PERC issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing which alleged unfair labor practices in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c) by reason of Respondent's refusal to execute the agreed upon contract and by unilaterally terminating negotiations with the Union thus having failed and refused to bargain in good faith (Complainant's Exhibit 1). On September 12, 1975, subsequent to the hearing, the Fourth District Court of Appeal rendered an opinion that the points on appeal were moot and that jurisdiction of the issues involved between the parties is in PERC pursuant to Section 447, F.S., and dismissed the appeal of Respondent concerning its proposed recognition clause (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1).
Recommendation It is recommended that the Public Employees Relations Commission, pursuant to Section 447.503(4)(b) issue an order dismissing the charges. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Allen M. Elster, Esquire MAMBER, GOPMAN, EPSTEIN & FOOSANER 16870 Northeast 19th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Thomas W. Burke, Esquire 2005 Apalachee Parkway Suite 105 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph A. Caldwell, Sr., Esquire Suite 600, 100 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact The City and Charging Party executed their first collective bargaining agreement on November 5, 1974. This agreement under its terms was made retroactive to October 1, 1974. Among the provisions of the agreement is Article 9, which sets forth the grievance procedure. Its last step is final and binding arbitration. Paul Williams, a firefighter employed by the City and covered under the agreement, had apparently had a history of pay problems going back to 1973 when Williams was allegedly placed in the improper pay classification based upon his years of service. The exact nature of the difficulty was not explored because it is not material to the issue present in this case. However, Williams subsequently sought to correct this situation, which apparently adversely affected his pay, by various means to include discussing the matter with various superiors in both the fire department and city administration. This matter was never officially resolved or a decision reached which was satisfactory to Williams. In December 1974, Williams received his first check under the newly negotiated contract. He went immediately to his union representative and complained that he was not being paid in accordance with the contract's terms and the service which he had. In short, the alleged error about which Williams had complained nearly 18 months had been continued under the computation of Williams' pay under the newly negotiated contract. Williams filed a grievance under the contract in December 1974, disputing his pay classification and seeking adjustment to his wages from October 1, 1974, the effective date of the contract. His grievance was therefore filed within six months of the date the alleged dispute arose regarding his classification and wage under the contract. The grievance was approved by the union grievance committee, as the first step in the grievance procedure. Thereafter, the grievance was submitted to the fire chief, who requested that he be given several days to check around and see what he could do. On or about December 20, 1974, the fire chief advised the men that he lacked authority to change the pay status of Williams, thus leaving the matter unresolved at the second level. The matter was pursued to the third step, referring it to the city manager. During the latter part of December and January, the city manager discussed the Williams' grievance with the union representative. By January 14, 1975, there had been no progress in resolving the matter, and the union representative notified the City of its intent to invoke Step 4 of the grievance procedure outline in Article 9, supra. The City has refused to move to Step 4, which is submission to a grievance committee whose decision is final and binding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends the Commission order the Employer to cease and desist from refusing to take Williams' grievance to the final step in the grievance procedure set out in the collective bargaining agreement. Further, the Hearing Officer recommends that an appropriate public notice to employees of the Public Employer be posted in conspicuous placed where notices to employees are usually posted for a period of time determined by the Public Employees Relations commission. This report is respectfully submitted this 26th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Allen M. Blake, Esquire Alley and Alley, Chartered Post Office Box 1427 Tampa, Florida 33601 Tom Brooks, Esquire Staff Attorney Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert W. Vause, President Tarpon Springs Professional Fire Fighters, Local 2353 1408 Ledgestone Drive New Port Richey, Florida
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Miami-Dade County with just or proper cause to terminate his employment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent is now, and has been since 1986, employed by the School Board as a Data Input Specialist II. Prior to the effective date of his suspension pending the outcome of the instant dismissal proceeding (that is, prior to the close of business on June 21, 2000), Respondent was assigned to the D. A. Dorsey Educational Center (Dorsey), an adult education center. His suspension pending the outcome of the instant dismissal proceeding is the only disciplinary action that has been taken against him in the approximately 15 years he has worked for the School Board. In discharging his duties as a Data Input Specialist II at Dorsey, Respondent was not responsible for supervising students, nor did he have reason to be with them alone. As a noninstructional employee of the School Board occupying a Data Input Specialist II position, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (Union) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Union (Union Contract), effective from July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2002. Article XXI, Section 3, of the Union Contract contains "[p]rocedures for [c]ontinued [e]mployment of [e]ducational [s]upport [p]ersonnel." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Upon successful completion of the probationary period, the employees' employment status shall continue from year to year, unless the number of employees is reduced on a district-wide basis for financial reasons, or the employee is terminated for just cause. Just cause includes but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009. The employee is entitled to be represented by up to two representatives of the Union at any conference dealing with disciplinary action(s). Where the Superintendent recommends termination of the employee, the Board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination by notifying the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action within 20 calendar days of receipt of the written notice. Following receipt of an appeal, the Board shall appoint an impartial administrative law judge, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. Prior to the hearing, the Board will file and serve the employee with a Specific Notice of Charges. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the findings of the administrative law judge shall be presented. The findings of the administrative law judge shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any seniority or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal. Dismissals are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Respondent has a seven-year-old daughter, J. Since his wife passed away in 1994, he has raised J. as a single parent. Four years ago, Respondent opened his home to a 13- year-old boy, D. J. J., whose family had been evicted from the apartment in which they had been living. D. J. J.'s stepmother had just died and his father was unable to properly care for him. From the time that D. J. J. first became a member of Respondent's household until the incident that is the focus of the instant case (Subject Incident), Respondent treated D. J. J. like a son. D. J. J., however, did not always reciprocate and act like a dutiful son. At times, he was rude and disrespectful toward Respondent and refused to follow Respondent's instructions. On three or four occasions prior to the Subject Incident, he even used physical force against Respondent. Respondent responded to these physical attacks, not by hitting D. J. J. back, but with words designed to impress upon D. J. J. that he needed to act appropriately and respect Respondent. While Respondent's words may not have had any long-lasting impact on D. J. J., by talking to D. J. J., Respondent was able to resolve the situation without the use of any force. D. J. J. was also physically aggressive toward Respondent's sister, Sara Payne, and Respondent's niece, Shara Payne. On one occasion, during a visit to Sara's home, D. J. J. asked Sara "to have sex with him." When Sara attempted to get D. J. J. to leave, he refused and grabbed Sara by the arms. Sara, however, was able to free her arms from D. J. J.'s grasp and push D. J. J. out the door. Sara reported to Respondent, prior to the Subject Incident, what had happened during D. J. J.'s visit. Respondent was also made aware, prior to the Subject Incident, of an instance where D. J. J. had walked into his niece's, Shara's, classroom at Miami Northwestern High School, demanded that she leave with him, and, when she refused, pulled her by arm, until a teacher intervened by calling school security. There is no indication that either Sara or Shara suffered any injuries as a result of the above-described incidents. The Subject Incident occurred on September 8, 1999. On that date, D. J. J. was 16 years of age, stood approximately five feet, two inches tall, weighed 160 pounds, 1/ and had a muscular build. Respondent was approximately 25 years older, 13 inches taller, and 40 pounds heavier than D. J. J. Upon returning home from work on September 8, 1999, Respondent reprimanded D. J. J. for not having done his chores around the house. D. J. J., in turn, without saying anything, picked up his house key and headed to the front door "as if he was going to leave." When he saw D. J. J. walking toward the door, Respondent asked D. J. J. for the house key. D. J. J. ignored Respondent's request. He continued walking, silently, toward the door. Respondent followed D. J. J., "sticking close to [D. J. J.] because [Respondent] didn't know [D. J. J.'s] intention." As Respondent repeated his request that D. J. J. hand him the key, D. J. J. went into the kitchen, took a hammer, laid the key down on the counter, and struck the key with the hammer with sufficient force to bend the key. D. J. J. then threw the key to the floor, moved toward Respondent, and struck Respondent in the jaw with a closed fist. After punching Respondent, D. J. J. walked into the living room and picked up a key chain containing Respondent's house and car keys. (Respondent did not have another key to the house.) The front door was locked from the inside 2/ and therefore D. J. J., if he wanted to exit the house (by conventional means), needed the house key to unlock the front door. (All of the house's windows, except for the "safety window," had bars on them, and the safety window was locked, with no key readily available to unlock it.) Concerned that he and his daughter (who was also in the house at the time) might be locked in the apartment if D. J. J. left with the house key, 3/ Respondent repeatedly requested that D. J. J. give him back his keys. Without saying a word, D. J. J. walked into his bedroom and sat down on his bed. Respondent followed him, demanding that D. J. J. return the keys. He told D. J. J., "you can leave and it won't be no trouble, just give me the keys." Maintaining his silence, D. J. J. stood up and started walking toward the bedroom door where Respondent was standing. As D. J. J. approached Respondent, 4/ Respondent took a hot (plugged-in and turned-on) iron that was on a nearby ironing board in the bedroom and struck D. J. J. with the iron in the face, thereby bruising and burning the side of D. J. J.'s face. A scuffle ensued, with D. J. J. trying to take the iron away from Respondent. During the scuffle, Respondent was burned on the leg by the iron, as it fell to the floor. D. J. J. then exited his bedroom and walked into the hallway, with Respondent following behind him. 5/ The hammer that D. J. J. had used to bend his house key was in the hallway. Respondent picked the hammer up and hit D. J. J. on the back of head with it. Neither Respondent's hitting D. J. J. on the back of the head with the hammer, nor Respondent's striking D. J. J. on the side of the face with the hot iron, was reasonably necessary to protect Respondent or his daughter against D. J. J. or to further any other legitimate purpose. Bleeding from the head wounds Respondent had inflicted, D. J. J. went to the telephone that was in the hallway and called the police, who shortly thereafter arrived on the scene. After speaking with D. J. J. and Respondent, and then examining D. J. J.'s injuries, the police placed Respondent under arrest for "aggravated child abuse." The police waited until Respondent's sister, Tatiana (who had agreed to care for J. in Respondent's absence), arrived at the house before transporting Respondent from the scene. Respondent spent the night in jail. The following day, September 8, 1999, Respondent was released pursuant to an Order of Pretrial Release Conditions, which, among other things, prohibited Respondent "from having any contact with" D. J. J. and required Respondent to "stay at least 500 feet away from [D. J. J.], [D. J. J.'s] home, place of employment and/or school at all times." On October 18, 1999, the State Attorney's Office filed, in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 99-30932, an "information for aggravated child abuse" against Respondent alleging the following: GREGORY PAYNE, on or about SEPTEMBER 8, 1999, in the County [of Miami-Dade] and [the] State [of Florida], did unlawfully feloniously commit an aggravated battery upon D. J. J., a child of sixteen (16) years of age, by HITTING HIM IN THE HEAD WITH A HAMMER AND BY PLACING A HOT IRON ON HIS FACE, and during the commission of such felony the defendant committed an aggravated battery in violation of s.827.03(1), Fla. Stat., 6/ contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. That same day, Respondent was arrested and taken into custody for violating the requirement of the September 8, 1999, Order of Pretrial Release Conditions that he "stay away" from D. J. J. Respondent remained in jail until October 26, 1999. On that date, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the "aggravated child abuse" charge filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 99-30932, after having discussed the matter with his attorney and determined that it was in his best interest to enter such a plea. Respondent was thereafter adjudicated guilty of the crime and ordered to serve one year of community control, followed by one year of probation, during which he was required to "enter and successfully complete the Anger Control Program." 7/ The School Board learned of Respondent's "aggravated child abuse" conviction through a records check (Records Check E-02988). A conference-for-the-record with Respondent was held on February 23, 2000, "to address Records Check E-02988 concerning Aggravated Child Abuse, noncompliance with School Board policy and rules regarding Employee Conduct, a review of the record, and [Respondent's] future employment status with Miami-Dade County Public Schools." At the conference, Respondent was provided a copy of the records check findings and provided the opportunity, of which he took advantage, to "respond to the allegation that [he] 'w[as] arrested and later convicted of Aggravated Child Abuse.'" After doing so, he was advised that further review of the matter would be undertaken and that he would remain in his current assignment pending the outcome of such further review, provided he did the following: Remain in control of [him]self at all times and, specifically, during work hours. Comply with School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Employee Conduct, a copy of which was provided to [him]. At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I), Employee Conduct, has provided as follows: All persons employed by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace is expressly prohibited. A pre-dismissal conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on May 19, 2000. At the conference, Respondent was told that a recommendation for his dismissal would be made based upon the following charges: Just cause, including but not limited to, immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. The Superintendent of Schools subsequently made such a recommendation to the School Board. At its June 21, 2000, meeting, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated a proceeding to terminate his employment "for just cause, including, but not limited to, immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Respondent formally appealed his proposed termination pursuant to Article XXI, Section 3F. of the Union Contract, and the School Board subsequently referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct a hearing on the appeal. Prior to the hearing, the School Board filed and served on Respondent a Notice of Specific Charges, as required by Article XXI, Section 3F. of the Union Contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment on the grounds set forth in Counts I through III of the Notice of Specific Charges. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2001.
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 The petition herein was filed by the Petitioner with PERC on February 11, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). The hearing in this case was scheduled by notice dated May 3, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2). The City of Boca Raton is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(2). (Stipulation, Transcript of Record */ , Page 6). The Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(10). (Stipulation, TR 6, 7). The Petitioner has requested recognition as the bargaining agent of employees set out in the petition, and the Public Employer has denied the request. (Stipulation, TR 7). There is no contractual bar to holding an election in this case, and there is no pertinent collective bargaining history which affects the issues in this case. (Stipulation, TR 7, 8). PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner is a duly registered employee organization. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner filed the requisite showing of interest with its petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. The Public Employer contends that the unit described in the petition is inappropriate, and that the Petitioner has made no appropriate showing of interest with respect to any appropriate collective bargaining unit. The Public Employer's Fire Department is divided into five divisions. The employees in the proposed collective bargaining unit all work under the Administrative Division, and are supervised by an assistant chief. The other divisions are the Training Division, Operations Division, Staff and Line Support Division, and Fire Prevention Division. The Public Employer operates four fire stations. Station No. One is the Department's headquarters. Fire fighters and emergency medical personnel are housed at headquarters as are all communications personnel, including the persons in the proposed collective bargaining unit. None of the persons in the proposed unit are stationed at the Public Employer's other fire stations. Dispatchers and Alarm Operators are supervised either by the Assistant Chief in charge of the Administrative Division, or by the company officer in- charge of the shift at the headquarters station. Dispatchers are not certified fire fighters, and they do not perform the duties of certified fire fighters. Fire fighters work what is called a twenty-four-hour-on, forty-eight-hour-off shift. Dispatchers work an eight-hour shift which revolves so that one or more dispatchers are continuously on duty. Dispatchers and fire fighters have a different pension plan, and different employee benefits. Fire fighters make a larger contribution to theirs pension plan than do dispatchers, and are covered by their plan from the first day of employment. Dispatchers are not covered until after the passage of six months. The City provides hazardous duty insurance for fire fighters, but not for dispatchers. Dispatchers have a six- months probationary period. Fire fighters have a one-year probationary period. Although dispatchers do not perform the work of fire fighters, fire fighters are trained to serve as dispatchers, and do frequently perform the dispatchers' functions. The dispatchers and fire fighters work closely together. There are occasional social functions attended by fire fighters and dispatchers which no other city employees attend. Dispatchers receive the same basic employment benefits that are received by clerical employees of the Public Employer. They have the same pension plan, vacation and sick leave policies, and they serve the same probationary period. Dispatchers and clerical employees receive similar salaries. The only promotions available to dispatchers within the City of Boca Raton would be to clerical positions with a higher pay grade. There are no promotions available within the Fire Department. Dispatchers do not perform typing, filing, and other general clerical duties. Their function is not, however, unique to the City. The Police Department also employs dispatchers, and police and fire dispatchers have the same job description. (Public Employer's Exhibit 7). The Public Employer is presently engaged in collective bargaining with three employee organizations representing three certified bargaining units. There is a unit of "blue collar" employees, a unit of sworn police officers, and a unit of certified fire fighters. ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Crossland, Esquire Muller & Mintz, P. A. Suite 600, One Hundred Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33132 Richard F. Krooss, President Fire Fighters of Boca Raton, No. 1560 Post Office Box 565 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Curtis L. Mack, Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300 - 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 =================================================================
Conclusions Objections 3B, 3C and 3D involve factual questions which can only be resolved by an evaluation of the credibility of various witnesses. Consequently, pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8H- 3.28, a hearing shall be held where the underlying facts can be determined prior to ruling on the merits of those objections and the remainder of CWA's Objections are dismissed. It is so ordered. LEONARD A. CARSON CHAIRMAN 77E-207 THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on April 21st, 1977, this document was filed in the office of the Public Employees Relations Commission at Tallahassee and a copy served on each party at its last known address by certified mail. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION BY: Judy N. Collins Deputy Clerk
