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 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.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether or not Respondent: During the course of its negotiations for collective bargaining agreements for the above charging parties which are certified employee organizations representing various units of Respondent's employees, interfered with restrained or otherwise coerced employees in violation of Chapter 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes, (herein sometimes called the Act). Refused to bargain in good faith with the charging parties as certified bargaining agents of its employees, in violation of Chapter 447.501(1)(c) of the Act. Refused to discuss grievances in good faith pursuant to the terms of collective bargaining agreements in violation of Chapter 447.501(1)(f) of the Act. At the close of the testimony all parties waived oral argument, but briefs were filed by the General Counsel of the Public Employees Relations Commission (herein sometimes referred to as the Commission), Counsels for the International Association of Firefighters, Local number 747 (herein IAFF) and the Respondent which have been carefully considered by me in preparation of this recommended order which will be distributed to the parties in the usual course. Upon the entire record in this case, observation of witnesses on the stand, and consideration of arguments of counsel, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The complaints allege, the parties admit and I find that the Respondent is a public employer within the meaning of Chapter 447. The complaints allege further, the parties admit and I find that the Charging Parties are certified employee organizations which represent various employees of the Respondent in units which will be set forth in detail hereinafter. During 1976, all three employee organizations were parties to collective bargaining agreements with the employer which expired on September 30, 1976. Respondent began negotiation with the Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association, PBA, herein, on March 10, 1976, with the IAFF on April 29, 1976 and with the International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, Local 1220 (IBF&O herein) on August 9, 1976. After numerous negotiation sessions, the statutory impasse procedures were invoked and hearings were held before a special master on September 27 and 28, 1976. However, subsequent to the invocation of the impasse procedures and prior to the special master hearings, the parties proceeded through mediation and continued bargaining sessions until or about September 16, 1976. On August 4, 1976, the City Council met in a "workshop session" and abolished the step-merit increase pay plan which had been in effect for several years. The step-merit increase pay plan had been a principle item of contention between the parties in bargaining and was one of the three issues submitted to the special master during hearings on September 27 and 28. Other issues of whether or not changes should be made in the pay plan provisions for firefighters and lieutenants and whether changes should be made in the acting officer pay policy provisions were also submitted to the special master. The following day, on August 5, the City's chief negotiator, Robert DuVernoy, was instructed by the City Manager that the City Council had directed the step-merit increase pay plan be abolished. On September 29, 1976, the Respondent, through its chief negotiator Robert E. DuVernoy, notified the presidents of all three Charging Parties that wages would be frozen at September 30th levels allegedly due to expiration of the various contracts. Additionally, on October 6, 1976, Respondent informed the IAFF that effective October 4, 1976, the following terms and conditions of employment would be unilaterally altered: increase in "checkoff" fee from $.04 per individual to $500.00 for processing all payroll deductions for fiscal year 1976-77; the employee organization grievance procedure, the sick leave provision for family illness, the "step- merit increase pay plan" and the withholding of increments arising under said plan, the acting officers program, insurance coverage for non-high risk on-duty injury and the physical exam program were all deleted. Respondent announced its plan to reduce from $5,000.00 to $2,000.00 its life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance. All of these changes were in fact implemented as reported by Respondent. Subsequent to September 29, 1976, the Respondent refused to process grievances concerning nonpayment of step increments filed by employees represented by IBF&O stating that the subject matter of such grievances was nongrievable and inappropriate. Pursuant to the step-merit increase pay plan contained in each of the parties' collective bargaining agreements, employees were eligible for an evaluation on their anniversary date and assuming that their evaluation was satisfactory, they were entitled to a step increase pursuant to a contractual salary schedule. Testimony reveals that these increases were granted almost automatically and that the plan had been operative since 1972. THE POSITION OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, in its answer and during the course of the hearing, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Respondent urges that pursuant to its inherent managerial rights in the procedure delineated in the impasse resolution provisions of the statute, the legislative body through its political process determined the level of services to be offered to the City August 5, 1976, and the substantive conditions of employment for bargaining units when they took final contract action in "the public interest". Respondent alleges further that the executive branch geared to the legislative process, conducted meaningful negotiations at the table which continued through the special master's proceedings with the PBA and IAFF and that only when the opportunity to reach agreement at the table was exhausted, an agreement had to be reached and with the budget having been determined, the City had no alternative but to eliminate the merit step plan, the grievance procedure and checkoff fee once the contract expired. With respect to the other changes, Respondent insists that such changes amounted only to implementation of its last best offer at the bargaining table and was therefore legitimate and proper. As regards the IAFF, Respondent urges that it has no standing to now complain since it waived any rights it had under the expired 75-76 collective bargaining agreement. Respecting the allegations of the IBF&O, the Respondent alleges that that organization recognized the circumstantial dilemma that the City faced and hammered out a collective bargaining agreement through the negotiating sessions. All parties agreed that after invocation of the statutory impasse procedures, the parties continued to negotiate and in fact movement was made with respect to those issues pending. The parties recognized and agreed that based on the newness of the Florida Statute which regulates collective bargaining in the public sector i.e., Chapter 447, that lessons gained from other state boards and the federal sector are instructive and are useful in resolving similar issues arising in this state. Turning to such cases, the NLRB has long recognized that an employer's unilateral action with respect to a mandatory subject of bargaining is a per se violation of Section 8(a)5 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A., Section 151 et seq. Such a position was sustained by the United States Supreme Court in NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962). In Katz, the Supreme Court was confronted with the issue of whether an employer could unilaterally change its sick leave plan and system of wage increase reached during negotiations between the employer and the bargaining agent. In reaching its decision, the court found that the employer was not at liberty to institute changes respecting mandatory subjects of bargaining during the course of negotiations. 369 U.S. at 737. The court disregarded the necessity of establishing whether or not the employer's conduct evidenced an absence of objective good faith and aid such conduct amounted to per se violations and was a circumvention of the duty to negotiate. Other states have reached a similar result in assessing whether or not such conduct amounted to a violation of the duty to bargain. The undersigned has considered the exceptions which have been recognized i.e., waiver, necessity and impasse, and concludes that they are not operative based on evidence adduced herein. Evidence reveals that while the changes were implemented herein, negotiations were ongoing and the Respondent admits that movement was in fact made while the negotiating process was occurring. It was also noted that the matters in which the Respondent unilaterally changed were principle subjects affecting the terms and conditions of employment of its employees. For example, the step-merit increase pay plan had been operative for at least 5 years and in view of the customary grant of the increase, the employees continued to expect such increases. Based thereon, and in view of the fact that negotiations were ongoing and no exceptions to the per se rule were established as being operative herein, I find that the employer's conduct in unilaterally implementing the changes except as noted hereinafter, amounted to a violation of its duty to bargain in good faith within the meaning of Chapter 447.501(1)(c) and derivatively a violation of Chapter 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Respecting the allegation that the Respondent refused to process a grievance which arose after the expiration of the parties' bargaining agreement, the undersigned is of the opinion that the employer was not obliged to continue to process grievances pursuant to the grievance arbitration machinery provision contained in an expired contract since such obligations have been universally recognized to be contractual in nature which may be terminated during the contract hiatus. (See for example Hilton Davis Chemical Co., Division of Sterling Drugs 185 NLRB No. 58.) Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, I hereby make the following:
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law I shall therefore recommend that the Respondent: Make whole any affected employees by returning to them any and all benefits, financial or otherwise, lost as a result of its unilateral action which is or has not been presently restored. Post at its facilities in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are usually posted, on forms to be provided by PERC, a notice substantially providing: that it will not refuse to bargain in good faith by changing terms and conditions of employment and thereby altering the status quo during the period in which the collective bargaining process is continuing. In all other respects, I hereby recommend that the complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Cleveland, Esquire Staff Attorney for William E. Powers, Jr. General Counsel Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rod W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 508 Gainesville, Florida 32602 John C. Wolfe, Esquire Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Donald D. Slesnick, II, Esquire 2540 N.W. 29th Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact David G. Tracy is, and at all material times has been, an employee of the Respondent, and a public employee within the meaning of Florida Statutes s. 447.203(3). The Firefighters Union is, and at all material times has been, an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes s. 447.203(10). The Respondent is a public employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes s. 447.203(2). The Respondent and the Firefighters Union have been engaging in the collective bargaining process since prior to October, 1973. The parties first entered into a collective bargaining agreement on October 16, 1973. 1/ A second agreement was adopted on March 4, 1975. 2/ This latter agreement was retroactively effective from the first day of October, 1974 until October 1, 1975. The collective bargaining relationship that existed between the Firefighters Union and the Respondent, and the contracts promulgated by them were undertaken in accordance with the Firefighters Bargaining Act, Florida Statutes (1973) 447.20 et seq. In 1972, the Respondent adopted a merit pay plan as a part of its general pay plan. The merit pay plan was adopted by ordinance of the City Commission, but it was not immediately funded. The merit pay plan was funded by the Respondent for the first time in March, 1975, retroactive to October 1, 1974. The merit pay plan as adopted, and as funded, applied to all employees of the Respondent. The merit pay plan was specifically included as part of the second agreement between the Respondent and the Firefighters Union. 3/ In accordance with the second agreement, which was then in effect, the Firefighters Union advised ,the Respondent that it wished to renegotiate 12 of the 36 articles contained in the agreement by letter dated May 22, 1975. 4/ Negotiations commenced during the month of June, 1975. Mr. John Kooser, the Respondent's Assistant City Manager, represented the Respondent at the initial bargaining sessions. Among the articles which the Firefighters Union was seeking to renegotiation was Article 14, Wages. Article 14 included the reference to the merit pay plan. At the initial sessions the Firefighters Union indicated that it was requesting an across-the-board pay increase, and a grade increase for rescue drivers. The Firefighters Union did not mention the merit pay plan at the sessions. Mr. Kooser did not respond to the specific requests pertaining to wages, and raised nothing respecting the merit pay plan. During July, 1975, Diane Schiffman, the Respondent's Personnel Director, became the Respondent's chief negotiator. During the time that Ms. Schiffman served as chief negotiator, the merit pay plan was not raised as an issue at bargaining sessions. Herbert Mintz, an attorney, became the Respondent's chief negotiator on July 31. The merit pay plan was not raised as a subject for bargaining during any of the negotiating sessions attended by Mr. Mintz prior to October 3, 1975. The merit pay plan was discussed at a negotiating session on September 10, 1975; however, it was not discussed as a subject for bargaining. A City Commission meeting had been conducted on September 9, 1975, and on September 10, 1975 Mr. Mintz asked the Firefighters Union representative what had transpired at that meeting respecting the merit pay plan. On or about August 15, 1975 John Kooser, then acting city manager of the Respondent, presented his budget submission message to the Mayor and City Commission for the fiscal year 1975-76. 5/ Mr. Kooser therein stated: "I recommend that merit increases for FY 75-76 be suspended and to support this action they have not been budgeted in the FY 75-76 budget." A copy of the proposed budget was delivered to the Charging Parties. Mr. Tracy in turn delivered the proposed budget to a private consulting firm. The merit pay plan was not budgeted in the proposal; however, neither Mr. Tracy nor any other representative of the Firefighters Union deciphered that fact from the proposed budget. The consulting firm did not so advise the Charging Parties. Whether the merit pay plan would be implemented for the 75-76 fiscal year was a topic for discussion at a City Commission meeting on September 9, 1975. Mr. Gauthier, as a representative of the Firefighters Union, addressed the City Commission at that meeting, and argued forcefully in favor of maintaining the merit pay plan. It is apparent that Mr. Gauthier was aware that the Respondent was considering suspending the merit pay plan for all employees, including firefighters. Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Tracy testified that they believed the Respondent was considering suspending the merit pay plan only for employees other than firefighters. It is apparent, however, from the comments that he made at the City Commission meeting on September 9, that Mr. Gauthier did know that the Respondent was considering suspending the plan for all employees. From other comments made at the meeting and from the totality of the circumstances, Mr. Gauthier should have known what the Respondent was planning, and his testimony that he did not is not creditable. At a meeting conducted on October 1, 1975 the Respondent's City Commission suspended the merit pay plan for the 1975-76 fiscal year, effective on that date. No impasse had been reached in negotiations respecting the merit pay plan on October 1, and indeed, the merit pay plan had not been actively negotiated. It has not been shown that suspension of the merit pay plan was a matter of fiscal necessity for the Respondent. The Charging Parties did not learn of the action until October 3. A negotiating session had been scheduled for October 3, 1975. The parties met on that date. Mr. Tracy, representing the Firefighters Union expressed outrage at the Respondent's action. He expressed the position of the union that only those matters raised in General Counsel's Exhibit 2 were open for negotiation, and that the merit pay plan was not among those items. Mr. Mintz, as the Respondent's chief negotiator, expressed the Respondent's position that all issues were open for negotiation. No specific discussion was had respecting future reinstatement of the merit pay plan. The meeting did not last long. It terminated when Mr. Tracy walked out. Since October 3, 1975, the parties have engaged in several negotiating sessions. The Respondent has made no specific proposals respecting the merit pay plan other than to note in a proposed contract that the plan had been suspended. 6/ The Respondent has not, since October 3, 1975, either formally or informally refused to bargain respecting the merit pay plan, and has, in fact, been willing to do so. The Charging Parties have not requested that the merit pay plan be negotiated, but have rather rested on their earlier position that the merit pay plan is not properly a matter for negotiation, and should be reinstated retroactively to October 1, 1975. At the time that the complaint was filed by the General Counsel, the merit pay plan had not become an active matter of negotiation. The parties may have reached an impasse as to whether the merit pay plan is properly a subject for negotiation. Contracts negotiated between the Firefighters Union and the Respondent for the 1973-74 and 1974-75 years were not adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Public Employees Relations Act. Florida Statutes s. 447.201 et seq. The Act became effective during December, 1974. On or about September 2, 1975, the Respondent and the Firefighters Union filed a voluntary recognition petition with the Public Employees Relations Commission. On or about January 13, 1976, the Public Employees Relations Commission certified the Firefighters Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the Respondent's Fire Department. The Firefighters Union had not been certified by PERC at the time that the Respondent suspended the merit pay plan.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in an early retirement incentive program established by an amendment to the 1991-1994 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board of Pinellas County and the Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Barbara Bates, is presently employed by the Pinellas County School Board, serving as a guidance counselor at the 16th Street Middle School. The Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association (P.C.T.A.) is the exclusive bargaining agent for all teachers employed by the School Board of Pinellas County (Board). The term "teachers", as used in that context, includes full time guidance counselors. At all times relevant, there was in force a collective bargaining agreement between the Board and the P.C.T.A., effective 1991-1994. During the 1991-92 school year, the Board experienced severe losses in revenue, and had to prepare for substantial budget cut backs in 1992/93 fiscal/school year. Among the measures taken by the Board to reduce expenditures was a reduction in the number of instructional personnel. To keep the number of instructional personnel involuntarily terminated as small as possible, the P.C.T.A. and the Board negotiated modifications to the existing collective bargaining agreement between them, providing for extended leave options, shared teaching responsibilities and early retirement incentives. The modifications stated in pertinent part: "ARTICLE 1 These proposed amendments to the agreement are in effect for 1992-93 only and cannot be extended without the mutual agreement of the parties . . . ARTICLE XX - TERMINAL PAY The following language will be implemented as part of the current language in Article XX, Section B: "Employees who are eligible for and accept regular retirement at thirty (30) years of creditable FRS service . . . shall receive a cash incentive of $8,500 payable upon retirement . . . IN WITNESS WHEREOF the aforesaid parties have hereunto executed this Agreement on the 11th day of March, 1992, to be effective on the 1st day of July 1992." Said language was ratified by the Board on March 11, 1992, and was subsequently ratified by a vote of the membership of the P.C.T.A. The amount of $8,500, as a retirement incentive, was arrived at as the average amount the Board would have had to pay in unemployment benefits to laid off teachers, and it was determined that it would be preferable to pay that amount to an employee to obtain voluntary retirement rather than to pay it to a former employee who had been involuntarily laid off, or terminated due to budget cuts. It was the understanding of the parties (the Board and P.C.T.A.), that in order to achieve that desired result, the individuals exercising the retirement option would have to be retired by the start of the school year, 1992/93, or else the position occupied by the retiring teacher could not be filled with a teacher who would otherwise have been terminated or laid off. The approved policy manual of the Board provides that the school year calendar begins July 1 of one year and ends on June 30 of the following year. Barbara Bates is a guidance counselor employed full time by the Board, and is thus a member of the bargaining unit represented by the P.C.T.A. Barbara Bates does not currently have thirty (30) years of creditable service in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), but will attain such on January 29, 1993. On April 20, 1992, Barbara Bates submitted an application to retire to be effective when she did attain thirty years of creditable service, and to receive the $8,500 cash incentive. Petitioner's application to retire and receive the incentive was submitted in a timely fashion. Initially, no individual other than Barbara Bates employed by the Board who would have attained thirty (30) years of creditable service after the start of the 1992/93 school year actually applied for the $8,500 retirement incentive; however, a number of individuals inquired as to the possibility of retiring shortly after the start of the 1992/93 school year. In order to clarify the intent of the March 11, 1992 amendment to the collective bargaining agreement, and to increase the number of individuals for whom the $8,500 incentive would be available, the Board and the P.C.T.A. approved another amendment to the collective bargaining agreement which stated in part: ". . . 6. The parties to the agreement concur that the intent of the retirement incentive program is to create vacancies to avoid laying off teachers in August of 1992. To this end, eligibility for participation in this incentive was limited to those educators who met eligible requirements on or before June 30, 1992. Subsequent to the receipt of applications, a number of exceptions were requested by those who were close to the June 30 deadline. In an effort to accommodate these requests and still satisfy the intent of the parties to create vacancies prior to the opening of school in the fall, the parties mutually agreed that the following exceptions will be allowed to the original requirement of thirty years service or ten years of service and age 62 prior to June 30, 1992: Employees who are not yet 62, but are willing to accept the State imposed penalty of 5/12ths of 1% per month, provided their date of retirement is on or before June 30, 1992, or in the case of 235 day contract teachers the last day of their July, 1992 quinmester. Employees on 235 day contracts who wish to work until the end of the quinmester in July, and who meet eligibility criteria prior to the end of that quin. Employees who become qualified during the summer of 1992 or prior to November 1, who are willing to accept alternative assignments, and who are approved by the Superintendent or his designees and the president of the association or his designee, provided that the retirement date will be the earliest date upon which the employee satisfies the established eligibility, requirements, such dates not to extend beyond November 1, 1992."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application to participate in the early retirement incentive bonus program for the school year 1992 should be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,11,12,13 Rejected: As against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 9,10,14 Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-17 COPIES FURNISHED: Louis Kwall, Esquire GROSS & KWALL 133 North Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34615 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Pinellas County School Board Largo Administration Building 301 Fourth Street, S.W. Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C. 2639 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sidney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. J. Howard Hinsley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board P.O. Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 33518
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as an educational support employee, where Respondent has confessed to a felony shoplifting charge as part of a deferred prosecution agreement pursuant to which criminal charges will be dismissed if Respondent satisfactorily complies with the agreement.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. At all times material, Respondent Cassandre Lawrence (“Lawrence”) was employed in the Palm Beach County School District (the “District”) as a paraprofessional (teacher’s aide), a position which she had held for approximately six years before the events that gave rise to the instant proceeding.1 Lawrence was working at Northmore Elementary School during the 2000-01 school year. On December 26, 2000, Lawrence and a female companion were arrested at the Boynton Beach Mall on shoplifting charges. Lawrence was charged with grand retail theft, which is a third degree felony. Pursuant to Board Rule 6Gx50-3.13,2 all District employees must report any arrests, convictions, “commitment[s] to a pretrial diversion program,” or pleas of any kind within 48 hours after the reportable event.3 At the time of Lawrence’s arrest, however, the District’s schools were closed for Christmas vacation, so she did not report the incident immediately. Instead, on January 9, 2001——Lawrence’s first day back at work after the holidays——Lawrence submitted to the District’s Chief Personnel Officer a written disclosure of her arrest, which stated: On December 26, 2000 I was shopping in the Boynton Beach Mall with a friend. Unknowingly, she put some items in my shopping bag. I was falsely arrested. My friend has admitted doing so [sic]. I felt that being an employee of the School Board that [sic] I should report this matter. This matter would be dissolved [sic] very soon. I have never been in any trouble or accused before. This situation has really been bothering me. After this matter has been straightened out I will be forwarding you the necessary paper work. Lawrence’s statement was provided to the District’s Office of Professional Standards on January 10, 2001. That office opened a case file on Lawrence. On March 29, 2001, Lawrence reached an agreement with the state attorney that provided for her referral to a pretrial intervention program (“PTI”). See Section 948.08, Florida Statutes (governing pretrial intervention programs). This agreement was reduced to writing on April 3, 2001, when the parties executed a contract they called the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“Agreement”). Under the Agreement, the state attorney promised, in return for Lawrence’s agreement to abide by conditions specified in the Agreement, to defer the prosecution of Lawrence for a period of 18 months from the date of April 3, 2001. Further, the state attorney agreed that if Lawrence complied with the conditions of the Agreement, then “no criminal prosecution concerning [the shoplifting] charge [would] be instituted[.]” By signing the Agreement, Lawrence expressly waived her constitutional rights to a speedy trial. On the same day she executed the Agreement, and in consideration thereof, Lawrence signed this statement: I, Cassandre Lawrence freely and voluntarily admit that I am guilty of the allegations [of grand theft] contained in [the charging document]. (This statement will be referred to hereafter as the “Confession.”)4 Sometime shortly afterwards——the evidence does not reveal the exact date——Lawrence reported to the District that she had entered into a PTI pursuant to the Agreement. As a result, on April 19, 2001, Mr. Holeva of the District's Office of Professional Standards met with Lawrence, her attorney (who participated by telephone), and her union representative,5 to investigate the circumstances surrounding the shoplifting charge against Lawrence. In this meeting, Lawrence acknowledged that, to enter into a PTI, she had signed the Confession wherein she admitted guilt to the felony theft charge——a so-called “435 offense.”6 Following this interview, the Office of Professional Standards referred Lawrence’s case to the Case Management Review Committee (the “Committee”). The Committee is composed of a dozen senior District employees who are responsible for determining whether probable cause exists to discipline an employee suspected of having engaged in misconduct. Upon review, the Committee determined that Lawrence had violated Board Rule 6Gx50-3.13 by failing to timely report her arrest and later referral to a PTI within 48 hours after these respective events had occurred. (Yet, it should be noted, Lawrence had not concealed the material facts, nor had she attempted to mislead the District.) However, the Committee considered Lawrence’s purported failures strictly to follow the notification rule to be, collectively, a minor infraction that, without more, would have warranted at most a written reprimand. Much more important, the Committee found that Lawrence was guilty of a “435 offense.” Because the District’s settled policy and consistent practice is to terminate any employee who has committed a “435 offense,” the Committee recommended that Lawrence’s employment be terminated. The Superintendent accepted the Committee’s recommendation that Lawrence be fired. By letter dated June 29, 2001, the Superintendent notified Lawrence that he would recommend to the Board at its July 11, 2001, meeting that she be suspended without pay pending dismissal. The Board subsequently accepted the Superintendent’s recommendation. Lawrence has been suspended without pay since on or about July 11, 2001.
