Findings Of Fact The Public Works Department consists of fourteen employees including a superintendent, eight maintenance men - two of whom are CETA personnel, one equipment operator, two mechanics, one lead man, and one operator foreman who supervises the equipment operator. The parties stipulated that all of these employees properly should be included in the proposed bargaining unit except the superintendent, the two CETA employees, and the operator foreman. The Utilities Department has thirty employees, including a director, a finance director, two field supervisors, four sewer plant operators, two sewer plant operator trainees, two utilities servicemen, one mechanic, one mechanic's helper, three clerk typists, a bookkeeper, a records clerk, two accounting clerks, a pipelayer, two secretaries, two meter readers, a customer representative, an inventory clerk-meter repairman, a construction superintendent and an equipment operator. The parties stipulated that the director, finance director, the two field supervisors, the three clerk-typists, bookkeeper, records clerk, two accounting clerks, two secretaries, customer representative, inventory clerk - meter repairman, and construction superintendent properly should be excluded from the proposed unit and that all of the remaining employees properly could be included except for the two meter readers. Thus of a total of 44 employees in the two departments, it was agreed that 20 should be excluded and 24 included, leaving only two employee positions, the meter readers, in dispute. A meter reader does routine field work in reading water meters and recording water consumption. He makes special readings as required, checks to see that meters are functioning properly and reports any defects, clears mud debris and other matter from meter cases, repairs clock leaks, raises boxes and installs new meters. He also checks to determine the consistency of meter readings and reports unusual cases, prepares diagrams showing locations of meters in relation to newly-built houses, and performs related work as required. He has no supervisory responsibilities, and works under the supervision of the customer service representative. (Composite Exhibit 5). The City of Casselberry has a City Council, Mayor, City Manager, and Civil Service Commission. The city employs approximately 110 persons including the city manager. Most of these employees are in the fire department, police department, public works department, and utilities department. The total employees include three part-time employees and five CETA employees (Exhibit 8). Other than the employees who are included in the proposed bargaining unit, there are few other eligible city employees who would not be included in fire or police department bargaining units. The City has a unified classification plan and personnel regulations that govern hiring, firing, salaries, work hours, vacations, leaves of absence, grievances, discipline and the like. The plan is implemented by the appropriation of funds therefor by the city council. All employees of the city fall into one of 35 grades which each contains six steps. The city council approves a yearly budget in the fall which approves pay scales for the various classifications of employees (Exhibit 7, Testimony of Mr. Juliano).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mose Howard, Jr., was hired by the Respondent, K-Mart Corporation, as a night maintenance man at its store number 7339 located at 2620 N. Hiawassee Road in Orlando, Florida on July 10, 1984. According to Mr. Howard, his job was to help clean up after the store closed for the evening and to -notify the store authorities if and when the alarm went off during that period. His duty hours were from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday. He worked at the store for approximately six weeks during which time, according to him, he was never told by anyone in authority that his work was unsatisfactory. On August 16, 1984, Mr. Howard was called in by Mr. King who advised him that his work was not satisfactory. Mr. Howard contends that at the time in question, Mr. Ring gave him two pieces of paper to sign and advised him that if he didn't perform better, he'd be laid off. At the time, Mr. Howard looked at the papers and determined that his name was on them, but nothing else. The form in question was a Personal Interview Record consisting of two pages and Mr. Howard contends that that portion of the record dealing with the summary of discussion held between the parties at the interview was left blank. According to Mr. Howard, he signed the form in blank because he thought it was merely a notice that he was being placed on probation. In fact, though he may not have known it, he was on a probationary period from the time he was hired. During the course of the discussion, Mr. King advised him that the store had been receiving complaints about his work from undisclosed sources and also information that he had been sleeping on the job. Mr. Howard categorically denies having slept on the job at any time during the period of his employment and Respondent produced no evidence that he had. He admits, however, that his cleaning duties may have been, from time to time, accomplished in a less than satisfactory fashion. From time to time, when he was cleaning up paper and other debris from under the counters, crews of the contractor hired to maintain the floors in the store, whose job it was to strip and re-wax the floors periodically, were working on other aisles of the store. He contends that when this crew would go from one aisle to another, they would turn off and on the lights. Because he could not turn the lights on where he was working if the crew had previously turned them off, it was too dark for him to see and clean up well. He believes that it was this inability to clean up properly because of lack of lighting that formed the basis of the complaints against him. In addition, he states, the burglar alarms would periodically sound and when this happened, it would be necessary for him to call someone to come in and turn them off. This caused him to lose work time because when the alarm sounded, he felt he had to stop working and leave-the store because, had he stayed in there, the police might think he was breaking in. While denying, unequivocally, that he ever slept on the job, Mr. Howard admitted he would sit down from time to time in the break room but only on his two 15 minute breaks or during his 30 minute meal period. There were other times, he admits, that because of the lighting situation, he was unable to work in the store while the floor crew was there. In that case, he would sit down and wait until the crew would finish where it was working and he could go back to work. Sometimes this would be for an hour or even a couple of hours and during the period of enforced break from sweeping, he would try to find something else to do like cleaning the restrooms. In this regard, according to Mr. King, the cleaning of the restrooms was an integral part of Petitioner's responsibilities and his accomplishment of these duties was also periodically and repeatedly unsatisfactory. After the personnel interview conducted on August 16, 1984, Mr. Howard finished work for the evening and left. When he returned the following evening, a Friday, he was called in by another supervisor and advised that he was discharged. He says that at this point he was not given any reason for his discharge. However, he waited around outside the store until the closing time of 9:30 p.m. (approximately a half-hour after he came to work and was fired), went into the office, and picked up his paycheck from Payroll. The check he received that night was for all that was owed him up to the end of the pay period. A few days later, (the following Monday), he went back and was given another check for the day and a half wages owed him for the new pay period up until he was discharged. Mr. Howard denies having received a call in advance to advise him his work was unsatisfactory nor was he given a reason for being fired. Nonetheless, he did not question the basis for his firing either on August 17, or the following Monday, but merely accepted the pay due him and left. Even though Mr. Howard says he was not given a reason for his discharge and does not know why he was fired, he is convinced the discharge action was taken on the basis of his race because he always did his duty to the best of his ability and worked extra hours without pay on many occasions. It is because of his own satisfaction with his duty performance that he contends his discharge must have been racially motivated. However, he admits that no one from K-Mart Corporation or the store in which he worked ever gave him any indication of a desire to get rid of him or other black employees. Further, during the period of time he worked there, he never heard any racial comments or slurs from any employees, either upper management or low level, except from one young stockboy who used the term "nigger" frequently. He admits to being told on one occasion by an employee of the contractor that he had missed an area in his sweeping and had to go back and do it again and, on several occasions, he observed areas he missed and went back and cleaned them on his own, but aside from those instances, he contends no one from the corporation ever complained to him about the way he was performing his duties until the night of August 16, 1985, when he was interviewed by Mr. King about his performance. Even on that occasion, according to Petitioner, there were few specifics in Mr. King's comments. As he remembers it, Mr. King merely stated that he was deficient in keeping the floors, the walls, the restrooms, etc. clean but Mr. Howard states that these allegations are all lies. Mr. King, on the other hand, indicates that when Mr. Howard was hired, he was fully briefed on the nature and scope of his duties and was taken around the store and shown where and how things were to be done. At that time, the routine janitorial. duties such as wet mopping the floors, cleaning the restrooms and the cafeteria, and the other items of a similar nature were clearly made known to him. In the interim, Mr. King has personally discussed his performance, which was not up to par with Mr. Howard on at least three or four separate occasions, including in his comments such things as the stools not being kept clean, the floors not being mopped, spots being left on the mirrors. These duties and others of a similar nature were solely the responsibility of the Petitioner on the nights he worked. On each occasion, Mr. King found Petitioner's attitude to be negative. Mr. Howard gives the impression he feels he is performing satisfactorily and if management doesn't like the way he's doing his job, that's too bad. Though Mr. Howard contends that the problems he faced in accomplishing his duties were caused by the low availability of light in the store after closing hours due to the actions of the contractor's crew, he never complained to anyone about this. He didn't feel he had to say anything to the contractor's employees because he did not work for them and he felt that they could see the problem because it was obvious. He also contends that he cleaned the ladies' room as he was required to do and that any unsatisfactory condition may well have been caused by two white contractor's employees who would sleep in there from time to time. Again, he did not say anything to the contractor or anyone else about this because he thought what was happening was obvious. Petitioner's deficiencies and the counselings he received for them ultimately culminated in the personal interview reduced with a written memorandum on August 16, 1985. At that time, Petitioner was told that if he didn't improve, it would be necessary to get someone else to do the job. The personal interview on August 16, 1984 was the last effort on the part of K-Mart management to get Petitioner to do a better job. The description of his deficiencies, according to Mr. King, was placed on the interview form before the interview and was given to Petitioner to read at the time. Mr. King is quite certain that Petitioner looked at the form containing these comments and signed it. The personnel manager for the store was present at the time. When the work was not done properly that August 17, 1984 when he came to work, he recommended Petitioner's termination to the store manager. The other assistant manager, Mr. Avera, concurred in this recommendation on the basis that Petitioner was simply not getting the job done. Mr. King unequivocally denies that his recommendation for termination was racially motivated. He has, in the past, recommended only one other termination of an employee. This employee was white. The list of all employees terminated by this K-Mart store from August , 1983 through November, 1984, with reasons therefor, reflects that of the three other night maintenance personnel terminated during that period, two were white and one was black. The reasons for termination include sleeping on the job, unsatisfactory performance and drug possession. Of the fifteen total employees discharged during the period, at least ten were white, four were black, and one is not identified by race. On balance it is clear that Mr. Howard was terminated not as a result of any racial motivation but simply because he was a probationary employee and management was dissatisfied with his performance during the period of probation. Mr. Howard rejects Mr. King's evaluation of him on the basis that Mr. King did not personally supervise his work and that his analysis is based on matters outside his personal knowledge. He contends that his work was always done to the best of his ability and he does not accept the possibility that his performance could have resulted in his termination. Nonetheless, he does not know if any other black maintenance employees were discriminated against or, for that matter, if any other black employees in any job were discriminated against at this facility. Mr. Howard denies signing the separation report that was prepared on the night of his discharge even though, admittedly, it bears his signature. It is for this reason as well as because of his denial that any detail was included on the interview report when he signed it that a question is raised as to the accuracy of his analysis of the situation. In substance, there is ample evidence with specifics to establish the legitimate ground of inappropriate performance as the basis for his discharge and very little evidence other than his allegation to support a claim of racial prejudice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Mose Howard, Jr. be denied. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED Mose Howard, Jr. 67 West Michael Gladden Blvd. Apopka, Florida 32703 Janice Paulsen, Esq. International Headquarters K-Mart Corporation 3100 West Big Beaver Road Troy, Michigan 48084 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F - Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Aurelio Durana General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F - Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303
The Issue Whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of race or handicap in discharging him from employment on February 25, 1992; and whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner and other black employees in pay for similar jobs.
Findings Of Fact During the summer of 1988, Larry Jelks, a black male, approached Jerry Sikes, the Director of Public Works of Suwannee Country, seeking employment. Petitioner, Jelks, explained and Sikes was aware that Petitioner had significant experience as a welder. Several weeks later, Sikes contacted Jelks and offered him a job as a laborer. The Petitioner began work of August 16, 1988 with a starting pay of $5.00/hour in the position of laborer, an entry level, unskilled job classification. The Petitioner received a copy of the employer's regulations. On August 24, 1988, the Petitioner was promoted to Serviceman, and his pay increased to $6.00/hour. On October 12, 1988, Sikes hired Mr. Praley, a white male, as a welder, although his expertise was as a mechanic and Praley was subsequently assigned duties as a mechanic by Sikes. Praley was paid a starting salary of $6.50/hour. The welder/mechanic position was open when Jelks was hired. On November 24, 1988, Petitioner completed his 100 day probation and given his annual 5 percent raise, increasing his pay to $6.30/hour. Other black employees also had their pay raises delayed until after their probation was completed. White employees, including Praley, received their annual raises in the year of their initial employment, notwithstanding their probationary status. This discrepancy in treatment of employees was not explained by the County. On September 30, 1989, the Petitioner laterally transferred to the position of truck driver for the refuse collection service because he did not enjoy the work of a serviceman. One October 1, 1989, Petitioner received an annual raise of 4 percent, to $6.56/hour. Subsequently, the axle in Petitioner's truck broke, and when he was questioned about it, he asked for a transfer. On March 3, 1990, the Petitioner was transferred to a shop position in which he repaired rusted or damaged garbage bins (dumpsters), by welding new sides and bottoms on them. The sheets of steel which Petitioner welded on the bins were 6 feet by 12 feet in size and 1/16" thick, and weighed approximately 180 pounds. These sheets were generally cut into smaller pieces prior to being moved from the stack in which they were stored. These pieces of material had to be moved into position to be cut and welded. The bins were moved using backhoes and forklifts. The Petitioner was responsible for moving the pieces of sheet steel and using the equipment to move the bins. On March 17, 1990, the Petitioner received a 5 percent pay increase to $6.89/hour. On April 28, 1990, the Petitioner received a 5 percent raise to $7.24/hour. On October 1, 1990, the Petitioner was given a 5 percent raise to $7.61/hour. In early 1991, the Petitioner's child became critically ill, and the Petitioner obtained leave to be with the child. In addition, Jerry Sikes approved flexibility in the Petitioner's scheduling to permit him be with the child conditioned upon Petitioner letting his supervisors know what he was doing and when he was going to be away from his job. Problems were encountered with Petitioner's attendance, and he was counseled about this and given a copy of the Country's leave policy. Generally, however, the Petitioner's performance was satisfactory, and he was considered a good and valued employee. On September 23, 1991, the Petitioner suffered a job- related injury, and was placed upon workers' compensation leave. The Petitioner received workers' compensation and disability benefits during his leave. During his absence the other employees performed his welding duties. While on leave, the Petitioner received a 3 percent pay increase to $7.84/hour. On November 25, 1991, Sikes wrote Petitioner a letter advising that he was required to submit doctor's notes concerning his absences while on workers compensation leave. On December 20, 1991, John B. Roberts, the County's workers' compensation (rehabilitation) consultant contacted Sikes and asked Sikes to identify an alternative position the duties of which the Petitioner could perform. Sikes advised Roberts that the County had no light duty jobs, but that driving a truck was one of the least physically demanding jobs in the County's maintenance department. He advised Roberts that he would assign the Petitioner to drive one of the light dump trucks if he returned to work. These trucks have an especially rough ride when operated off road, as these were. Roberts looked at the duties of the job, and determined that the Petitioner ought to be able to perform these duties. Roberts discussed returning to work and performing the duties of a truck driver with the Petitioner; however, the Petitioner advised Roberts that he wanted to talk with his attorney prior to returning to work. The Petitioner did not return and assume the duties of driving a truck in December as Roberts had arranged. On January 2, 1992, the Petitioner was sent a copy of a letter which was to Mr. Larry Sikes from Dr. Cason who had been treating Petitioner. The letter stated that the Petitioner was released from treatment to return to regular work activities as of January 2, 1992. On January 3, 1992, the Petitioner returned to work. He had a 4 percent permanent impairment, but his employer was not advised of this. His doctor advised the rehabilitation counselor that the Petitioner be placed on light duty because he would have to toughen up after returning to work. Sikes did not afford the Petitioner the opportunity to work back into the job. The Petitioner's work area was outside, behind the regular shop, exposed to the elements. It was very cold at the time the Petitioner returned to work. The Petitioner's production was low because he could not physically manhandle the large sheets of steel as he could prior to his injury. He asked that an inmate be assigned to work with him all the time, but assistance was denied to the Petitioner. The Petitioner asked for a backhoe, which he had previously modified, to move the bins and sheets around; however, this piece of equipment had been sent to the landfill. He was told to use a front end loader to do this work; however, he went to the landfill and retrieved the backhoe because he had difficulties climbing into the cab of the front end loader. His demands and getting the backhoe without permission created additional conflicts between the Petitioner and his supervisors. On January 8, 1992, Sikes issued the Petitioner a memo concerning his poor productivity and failure to follow the instructions of his supervisor. Prior to his injury, the Petitioner repaired approximately one bin per day. During the period after his return to work, he did approximately one bin every two to three days. When presented with the memorandum, the Petitioner advised that he was unable to do that which he had formerly done. The Petitioner was told that he was expected to do all his regular work. This motivated the Petitioner to return to the doctor and seek a clarification of what he could and could not do. In addition, Petitioner was also seeing a chiropractor regularly for treatment. Petitioner left work almost daily to see the doctor, and frequently did not return. He did not provide his employer with documentation of these visits. The Petitioner asked that an overhead chain hoist, similar to the one which was inside the shop area, be installed in his work area to move the sheets of steel to assist him. His direct supervisor, Mr. Horton, denied the request because it was expensive and required additional construction to support the mechanism. On January 13, 1992, the Petitioner received a second warning for being absent from work without notifying his supervisor. Sikes advised the Petitioner that he would have to comply with the County's personnel regulations which required prior notification and a note from the doctor. Although the Petitioner testified he was absent attending doctor's visits, he presented no other substantiation of these visits at the hearing. On January 22, 1992, the Petitioner submitted, as requested earlier, a report from Dr. James B. Slatery of Gainesville Orthopedic Group, advising that the Petitioner could return to work, but should avoid climbing and limit his lifting over 50 pounds to an occasional basis. A similar report was submitted by Dr. A. C. Bass. The metal sheets the Petitioner was lifting weighed over fifty pounds. The County failed to make accommodations for the Petitioner's physical problems upon his return to work in a manner it had for white employees. The county had placed recovering white employees in positions where they were flagmen, directed traffic, and in similar positions. The county placed the Petitioner back at his regular duties, stated it had no "light duty" positions, and demanded Petitioner perform all his duties to pre-injury standards of productivity. When the Petitioner asked for assistance in lifting the sheets of steel which were in excess of the weight allowance set by his doctor, the County told him to seek assistance from his coworkers, who were instructed to assist him. He had to wait until they finished with their immediate task, and they were less than happy about these interruptions, and going outside where the Petitioner worked. This slowed his production for which he received criticism from his supervisors. The conditions imposed by the employer were not so bad as to constitute a constructive discharge. However, had Petitioner filed an action at that time, he would have proven that he was treated differently than white employees who were accommodated for their physical problems when returning from workman's compensation leave. There was a verbal exchange between the Petitioner and one of his coworkers, Earnest Johns, arising out of their interactions in the shop. The Petitioner told Johns that he "would pass up a bus load of white girls, to make him (Johns) his bitch." Johns complained to Sikes about the Petitioner, and told Sikes, "he needed to do something about that Nigger." Sikes told Johns that he would take care of it and to calm down. Johns, who was very upset, subsequently apologized to Sikes for his confrontational manner in raising the matter with him. On January 25, 1992, Sikes sent the Petitioner another memo confirming a verbal warning about his poor work habits, wasting time, and absenteeism. On January 30, 1992, Sikes sent the Petitioner another memo regarding his poor work habits. In February, the Petitioner's wife, from whom he was separated, died, and he was granted three days bereavement leave for February 11-13, 1992. On February 18, 1992, the Petitioner called the shop and left word with a secretary that he would not be at work for the rest of that week. He did not submit a leave request for this period of time. Subsequently, the Petitioner was absent without permission from February 14 until February 24, 1992. The Petitioner did not obtain permission from his supervisors prior to taking this leave, did not request leave without pay, and did to explain his absence. Neither did his doctor, the rehabilitation counselor, his chiropractor, his attorney, or a member of his family or a friend report his absence and give any explanation. During this period, he appeared once at work to pick up his pay check on February 21, 1992. On this occasion the Petitioner did not address the matter of his absence with Sikes or Horton, although Horton advised he Petitioner that Sikes wanted to speak with him. The Petitioner had exhausted all of his sick and vacation leave prior to February 14, 1992. Under the County's rules, an employee had to request leave without pay after exhausting sick and annual leave, and the request had to be approved by the County Commission. The Petitioner did not make a request for leave without pay. Although the Petitioner asserts that he had not exhausted his sick leave because he was visiting the doctor during his absences which was covered by workers' compensation leave, he did not provide medical substantiation for the alleged treatments and doctors' visits as required by the employer's rules in order to obtain workers' compensation leave. On February 25, 1992, the Petitioner returned to work at starting time wearing work clothes. Horton stopped him on his way to his work area, and advised him that Sikes wanted to talk with him. Horton accompanied the Petitioner to Sikes office. Sikes asked the Petitioner were he had been, and the Petitioner answered that he had been attending to personal business. Sikes asked him for a more detailed explanation of his absence, and the Petitioner again told him that he had been tending to business and that Sikes should either fire him or get off his back. Sikes warned the Petitioner that unless he provided some explanation for his unauthorized absence, he would have to terminate him. The Petitioner refused to provide any additional explanation, but asked that his firing be put in writing. The Petitioner left the work place after the meeting, and did not return to work or attempt to explain his absences. Sikes viewed the Petitioner's absences and refusal to obey the personnel regulations as undermining his credibility as a supervisor. Several days after the confrontation on February 25, 1992, Sikes wrote a letter terminating the Petitioner for (1) continued or gross neglect of duty; (2) absence without leave; incompetence or unwillingness to render satisfactory service; insubordination; and (5) habitual absences, as provided in Parts X and XI of the County personnel regulations. Sikes extended special consideration to all employees of the department, who were permitted to take leave or be absent without applying for leave. The Petitioner was permitted to take leave without applying for it, and that considerable latitude was extended to the Petitioner regarding his absences prior to his being discharged. A white male, who was not handicapped, was hired on May 28, 1992 to file the position from which the Petitioner was discharged. The Petitioner appealed his discharge under the County's rules, and after an evidentiary hearing in which the Petitioner was represented by counsel, the county's hearing officer found that the dismissal was for cause in a Final Order dated September 24, 1992. Discrimination in Promotion and Pay among Blacks. The population and labor market statistics offered by the Petitioner in support of his contention that Blacks were discriminated against in promotion fail to support the proposition for which they were offered. For example, the Petitioner limits the labor pool to those persons who are over 16 and worked in 1989. However, there are those persons who are over 16 and would like to work, but who have not been hired. If the Petitioner's contention is correct, one would expect that for every white employee hired, there was a black applicant who was not hired. Therefore, comparisons based upon persons actually hired understate the percentage of Blacks in the labor pool. The relevant labor market for this dispute is Suwannee County, Florida, and the relevant labor pool are those people over 16 years of age who are now seeking, or who have in the past sought employment. According to the 1990 census, 14.7 percent of the population of the County is black. Blacks constitute 13.8 percent of the County's employees. The work environment was not overtly racist, and while, as stated above, racially charged verbal barbs were occasionally exchanged, there is no evidence that this was common or tolerated by the employer. The best evidence of discrimination by the employer were the actual practices engaged in by the County. During the 12 years prior to the termination of the Petitioner, the County had never had a Black supervisor. From 1989 to September 23, 1992, the County hired one black employee of 30 employees who it hired. Its top 10 highest paid employees were all white. The highest paid black was the forty-first highest paid employee of the County. Kevin Praley was placed in a welder's position despite the fact he was a mechanic at $6.50/hour; and Petitioner, who was a professional welder, was hired as a laborer at $5.00/hour in 1988. At the time Praley was hired, the Petitioner was making $6.00/hour, so that the differential between their pay was $.50/hour in 1988. After four years, Praley, who was hired after the Petitioner, was paid $2.01/hour more than the Petitioner for work which Sikes and others said was similar. This reflects continuing discrimination in hiring and paying Blacks. Blacks were hired in the lowest paying, menial jobs within the county, and this was not on the basis of education. All of the county's custodial employees are black. Only one of the county's secretaries is black. Until very recently, there were no black supervisors in the county's maintenance department. Most of the County's increases in Black employment and promotions occurred after institution of this case. The Clerk of the Circuit Court/Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners has not published a salary discrimination review required by Section 28.34, Florida Statutes. Further, the County's Equal Opportunity Program of 1992 provided for annual assessment of its progress in equal opportunity. As of May 9,1994, the County and not compile an annual report pursuant to its plan. The County did not train Black employees to assume greater responsibility, and did not utilize them as heavy equipment operators until after the institution of this action. The county did not pay Jelks and other Black employees annual pay raises while they were on probation; however, it did pay white employees Praley, Hardin, Simmons, Mobley, Luanne Mixon, Tervola, and Brother annual pay raises while they were on probation. These white employees were all hired prior to or during the year the Petitioner was hired. Jelks received the raise at the end of his probation period on November 24, 1988. Helen Stoudermire, Mattie L. Weatherspoon, Tyrone Tillman, and Marvette Gwinn, all black employees of the Respondent, did not receive annual raises while in probationary status, contrary to the treatment afforded white employees. The amounts of their collective salary losses were not presented as a finding of fact. The county did discriminate against the Petitioner and other black employees in pay and promotion during the period 1989 until February 25, 1992.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission of Human Relations enter a Final Order directing that: The Petitioner's Petition for Relief relating to his discharge be dismissed; Black employees of the County be certified as a class for the period beginning August 1988 until the present; The County be ordered to cease and desist its discriminatory practices in pay and promotion against the class of black employees; The County's Clerk be ordered to file reports on salary differentials are required by statute; and Reasonable attorney's fees and costs be awarded to Petitioner's counsel. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 8th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX CASE NO. 93-5330 Both of the parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 2 Rejected as contrary to more credible facts. See Paragraph 41. Paragraph 3 True, but part of statement of case. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 11. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 1. Paragraph 6 Subsumed in Paragraph 11. Paragraph 7 Subsumed in Paragraphs 11 and 17. Paragraphs 8,9,10 Paragraph 44. Paragraph 11 Conclusion of Law Paragraph 12 Paragraph 57. Paragraph 13 Contrary to facts. The Petitioner returned to duty. Paragraph 14 Irrelevant. Paragraph 15 Paragraph 48 Paragraphs 16,17,18 Paragraph 51 Paragraph 19,20 Contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraph 21 Subsumed in paragraph 54. Paragraph 22 Paragraph 56. Paragraphs 23,24,25 Paragraphs 2,3,4,58,60 Paragraph 26 Paragraph 26. Paragraphs 27,28 Paragraph 42. Paragraphs 29,30 Subsumed in 2,3,52,53. Paragraph 31 Rejected because Jelks received the raise at the end of his probation period on November 24, 1988. His reduction in pay was $.30/hour for October and November, or 8 weeks X 40 hours X .30 = $96.00. Paragraph 32 County's claims were rejected on this point. Paragraph 33 Paragraph 18 Paragraph 34 The statistical record is rejected for lack of credibility because it considers averages of both groups compared when there are findings which show whites held higher paying jobs. Paragraph 35 Subsumed in paragraph 32. Paragraph 36 Subsumed in paragraph 54. Paragraph 37 Rejected as contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 38 Subsumed in Paragraphs 26,27. Paragraph 39 Paragraphs 29,30. Paragraph 40 Is not addressed specifically because it violated the HO's directions that findings be kept short, and address specific factual matters, and is mostly argument. Paragraph 41 Subsumed in Paragraph 17. Paragraph 42 Paragraph 20. Paragraph 43 The County did accommodate some whites. Paragraph 44 Rejected as contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 45 Paragraph 50. Paragraph 46 Subsumed in Paragraph 55. Paragraph 47 Rejected. Welder and mechanic were the same job description. Paragraph 48 Irrelevant. Paragraph 49 Rejected because "handicap" relates to permanent conditions, and his permanent handicap was only 4 percent. It was his temporary condition which impacted his ability to perform the work. Paragraph 50 Irrelevant. Paragraph 51,52 The name calling by employees, to include Johns, occurred in the context of an angry exchange with Sikes, who cautioned Johns to calm down. Johns subsequently apologized to Sikes, and neither were aware that his comments had been overheard by Jelks. Paragraph 53 Paragraph 51. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1-5 Paragraphs 1-6 Paragraph 6 Subsumed in part in 1-6, and rejected in part as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraphs 7,8 Paragraph 6 & rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 9 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 10,11 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 12,13,14 Paragraph 9,10 Paragraph 15 Paragraph 29 Paragraph 16 Paragraph 49 Paragraphs 17-23 Paragraphs 11-17 Paragraph 24 Paragraph 21 Paragraph 25 Paragraph 19. Paragraphs 26,27 Irrelevant. Paragraph 28 Paragraph 25 Paragraph 29 Paragraph 17 Paragraph 30 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 31 Paragraph 28. Paragraph 32 Irrelevant. Paragraph 33 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 34 Paragraph 20. Paragraphs 35,36 Paragraph 19 & rejected as contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 37 Paragraph 23. Paragraph 38 Paragraph 24. Paragraph 39 Paragraph 25. Paragraph 40 Paragraph 31. Paragraph 41 Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 42 Paragraph 33. Paragraphs 43,44 Paragraph 32. Paragraph 45 Paragraph 35. Paragraph 46 Paragraph 36. Paragraph 47 Irrelevant. Paragraph 48 Subsumed in paragraphs above. Paragraph 49 Subsumed in Paragraph 33. Paragraph 50 Paragraph 35, best evidence. Paragraph 51 Paragraph 32. Paragraph 52 True, but part of law. Paragraph 53 Paragraph 34. Paragraphs 54-58 Paragraphs 37,38,40,41 Paragraph 59 Irrelevant. Paragraph 60 Duplicative. Paragraphs 61,62 Irrelevant. Paragraph 63 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 64 Paragraph 48. Paragraph 65 Subsumed in Paragraph 41. Paragraph 66 Subsumed in Paragraph 48. Paragraph 67 Irrelevant. Paragraph 68 The wage disparity was the result of hiring Blacks in the lowest paying jobs. Paragraph 69 Subsumed in Paragraph 54. Paragraph 70 Paragraph 50. Paragraph 71 See comments to Paragraph 68. Paragraphs 72-83 Subsumed in Paragraphs 54, 55. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mattimore, Esquire Kimberly L. King, Esquire Suite 305 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Toby Buel, Esquire Three Rivers Legal Services 817 West Duval Street Lake City, FL 32055 C. Dean Lewis, Esquire Post Office Box 8 Live Oak, FL 32060 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113
The Issue The issues posed for decision are: 1. Whether the Respondent, by its agent Lawrence McCarthy, unlawfully discharged Jerome Cilhar on June 21, 1976, in violation of Section 447.501(1)(b), of the Act. 2 . Whether the Respondent, by its agent and representative, Lawrence McCarthy, unlawfully interrogated and threatened employees on April 30, and May 4, 1976, within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a), of the Act. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, including the entire record compiled herein) I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, City of Gulfport, Florida, is a Florida municipal corporation located in Pinellas County, Florida. During times material to this proceeding, the City Manager was Mr. Harry Perkins (Perkins) who had the ultimate authority over personnel matters including hirings, discharges, levels of manpower, administration of federal employment assistance programs, as well as labor relations. During times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lawrence McCarthy (McCarthy) was employed by Respondent as Director of Public Works. As such, he had operational responsibility for sanitation, water and sewer, streets and parks among others. While McCarthy had the authority to manage his department, the hiring and discharge of employees and the general administration of budgets was handled by Perkins with some input and recommendation by McCarthy. During 1975, Gulfport contracted with Pinellas County, Florida to be a member of a consortium to receive federal supplemental employment assistance funds from the federal government under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). Under this contract, Gulfport was required to follow all federal rules and regulations adopted under the CETA program. In March, 1975, Mr. Jerome Cilhar (Cilhar or the alleged discriminatee) had been unemployed for the requisite period of time to qualify for employment under the Pinellas County CETA program. Cilhar applied for a CETA position with Gulfport and, after the interview, was hired as a sanitation worker in the Public Works Department on March 3, 1975. He (Cilhar) was hired along with a Mr. Johnson who was also hired by Respondent under the CETA prograin as a sanitation worker, On July 17, 1975, an election was conducted by PERC among a comprehensive unit of Respondent's blue and white collar employees. The Petitioner therein did not receive a majority of the valid ballots cast. With these facts, both Perkins and McCarthy were under the impression that no union organizational campaign could begin until after the expiration of a one year period from the date of the election. Respondent operates on a fiscal year basis from October 1, until September 30. For the fiscal year 1975 to 1976, Respondent had budgeted approximately 130 positions for employees. In April and May, 1976, testimony reveals that Perkins became concerned that estimated revenues from services and taxes would not be reached during fiscal year 1975 through 1976 and that expenses would exceed the amount estimated. In this regard, it was noted that Respondent realized an operating deficit of approximately $200,000 for the fiscal year 1975 to 1976. In response to projected deficits, Perkins began personnel cutbacks in May, 1976, since personnel costs represented the largest single budget expenditure. Between May of 1976 and September 30, 1976, Perkins trimmed the City's work force by approximately 20 percent or a net loss of 26 employees. (See Respondent's Exhibit #4). In this regard, the evidence revealed that the City operated the sanitation department without any upward manpower adjustments until February, 1977, when employees were transferred to that area. Mr. Cilhar stated that he voluntarily informed Mr. McCarthy (the Public Works Director) of his desire for a union in late April, 1976. He testified that he and Barney White, a fellow employee in the sanitation department volunteered this information respecting their union activity because White was upset about the lack of pay raises. He testified that Barney White took the initiative in the conversation with McCarthy and in this regard, the evidence revealed that White who, as best as the record reveals, made all of the comments respecting their union activities. Cilhar testified that he noted no change in his relationship with the City and its employees during the six week interim between the date he and White made known their union activities to Respondent's agent (McCarthy) and the date of his discharge on June 21, 1976. Evidence reveals that Respondent made the decision (jointly by Perkins and McCarthy) to retain CETA employee Johnson, whose seniority was equal to Cilhar's, based on the fact that Johnson was more versatile in terms of his employment skills and Respondent was of the opinion that he would be of more assistance in that he could be assigned to a multitude of tasks. Cilhar also advanced the position that Respondent terminated him because he was arranging to schedule a union meeting on the date that he was discharged. The testimony in this regard establishes, on balance, that the Respondent made its decision to terminate Cilhar on Friday, June 18, but could not locate Cilhar because he had left to go home when the final decision was made by Respondent. He was contacted and advised of the termination decision by Respondent early the following Monday, June 21, 1976. He was given an exit interview and advised that his job was being abolished due to the lack of CETA fundings for the next fiscal year. He was also paid for his accrued annual leave from CETA funds. In this regard, Respondent established that this was done to curb employment costs from municipal funds since the payment of Cilhar's leave would have come from municipal funds had the decision been postponed until the end of the fiscal year. It was also noted in this regard that in its effort to realize economy through personnel cuts, Perkins terminated Ryan Larison, a budgeted city employee in the Sanitation Department on June 16, 1976 and thereby realized an economic savings. Pertinent CETA rules and regulations as well as the Respondent's contract with Pinellas County required that the City utilize federal CETA funds only as supplemental to budgeted employment positions. Thus Respondent could not maintain CETA positions instead of budgeted positions under its contract and the regulations. See Respondent's Exhibit #2, Section 205(c)(8). With these facts, I conclude that the Respondent did no more than it was required to do or in fact was compelled to do based on the financial restraints that it was operating under and its regulations with Pinellas County under the CETA program. As Respondent aptly notes, union activity does not insulate an employee from discharge for cause. While there were some uncertainties in this record, and some suspicions automatically arise from the fact that a union adherent was discharged while an employee of equal seniority with, as best as can be determined by the record, little or no union sympathies, these suspicions provide no substitute for record evidence upon which a finding can be made that the Respondent discharged the alleged discriminatee based on his union sympathies or desires as alleged in the complaint. I shall therefore recommend that this allegation be dismissed. THE ALLEGED THREATS AND INTERROGATION The complaints cite two instances in which the Respondent's agent, McCarthy, engaged in unlawful threats and/or interrogation. Witnesses testifying to these remarks during the hearing were Messrs. McCarthy and Rousseau. Both testified that in essence McCarthy warned that "they had a constitutional right to do any damn thing they wanted, but while on City property and on City time, solicitation of union activities was not condoned. Any one I heard would be subject to dismissal". McCarthy testified frankly and openly with respect to his remarks to employees respecting solicitation while on City time and property. Given all of the circumstances of this case and the complete absence of any evidence indicating that the Respondent engaged in any independent acts to unlawfully interfere with, restrain or coerce employees to exercise those rights guaranteed them in Chapter 447, I am of the opinion that the remarks given employees by McCarthy respecting solicitations for unions on City time on City property did not rise to the level of unlawful activity as defined in Chapter 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint allegations be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., Esquire 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 William E. Sizemore, Esquire Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing, the following facts are found: The City of Madison employs approximately 60 full time employees who serve under the general supervision of the City Manager, who has identical fringe benefits as all other employees. The City Commission employes the City Manager and is the ultimate authority and decision making body. The City Commission is composed of elected officials who serve without compensation. A representation petition was filed seeking a certificate of representation by Local Union 2865, AFL-CIO as the exclusive bargaining agent for all full time employees of the City of Madison except for professional employees, managerial employees and confidential secretarial employees. The Public Employer refused to grant the request. A consent election was rejected. A Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Petition for Certification was entered into evidence over the objection of the Petitioner and a Motion to Quash said Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Petition for Certification was denied. Testimony was taken as to whether there was such solicitation by managerial employees to initiate the showing of interest. Testimony was taken and final action on the Motion is referred to PERC for action. If the Motion to Dismiss is denied, the determination must be made as to whether the hereinafter enumerated job positions as set forth in Exhibit 3 should be considered managerial and excluded from the unit. No agreement was reached on such employees. Each employee whose job description is set forth in Exhibit 3 works a standard 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. five day work week, but each is expected to get their respective job done and in the event of an emergency work overtime. The City Commission sets the wages and each reports directly to the City Manager. Each has the same fringe benefits except those who need a truck and radio are furnished one for job use only. Each such employee hears grievance matters on those under him and if the problem cannot be worked out, the parties go to the City Manager who acts as final arbitrator and who acts on a recommendation for termination. Each such employee submits a budget and then sits with the City Manager in making up the budget and keeps with the administration of the budget. Each of the following persons have been funded with the job description and entered in Exhibit 3 and testimony from the City Manager indicates that a meeting for clarification and explanation was planned and thereafter a meeting of these nine employees on a monthly basis. The City Manager stated that in the event of a bargaining situation he would call together these employees for indirect and direct input but that he would prefer not to try to negotiate a contract himself inasmuch as this would put him in conflict with employees and that he would rely on these persons for input and any mollification of policy or procedures. (a) Special Project Supervisor. This work involves the direction of a maintenance or construction crew performing road and utility construction and maintenance work. This employee may hire, promote, demote and assign work and is responsible for directing a crew of skilled and unskilled workers in routine maintenance or construction of streets, roadways and utilities. Duties include inspecting equipment and machinery used to ensure proper operation and checking street and roadway utilities for defects or problems. At times this employee may serve as relief equipment operator. He may also perform other duties as required by the City Manager. Four persons work under the Special Project Supervisor but he may obtain help from other departments when necessary. (h) Fire Chief. This employee is directly responsible for protection against fire and for firefighting activities within the jurisdiction. This employee may hire, promote, demote or assign work and is responsible for directing and supervising skilled and unskilled firefighters in the routine maintenance of facilities and equipment. He coordinates the activities of firefighters, inspects station house and equipment, responds to fire alarms and other rescue activities. This employee may also perform other duties as required by the City Manager. (c) Construction Supervisor. This employee directs one or more departments and/or construction crews engaged in the construction of city streets, roadways, bridges and related facilities. The employee may hire, promote, demote and assign work. The work involves the supervision of several types of heavy equipment operators as well as the skilled and unskilled labor activities. The employee may perform other duties as required by the City Manager. (d) Executive Secretary. Excluded as managerial employee. (e) Gas Supervisor. This employee directs the maintenance and construction crew performing gas and utility maintenance and construction. The employee may hire, promote, demote, assign work and is responsible for directing and supervising a crew of skilled and unskilled workers in the routine maintenance of gasolines, services and utilities. Duties include inspecting equipment and checking for defects and when necessary serving as relief operator and supervising the moving of right of ways. This employee may perform other duties as required by the City Manager. (f) Sewage Plant Supervisor. This employee directs the maintenance and construction crew performing sewage plant lines and utility maintenance. The employee may hire, promote, demote, assign work and is responsible for directing and supervising a crew of skilled and unskilled workers in the routine maintenance or construction of sewer or water related facilities. Other duties include inspecting the equipment and machinery used to ensure proper operation and checking for defects or other problems. This employee may perform other duties as required by the City Manager. (g) Water Supervisor. This employee directs the maintenance and construction crew performing water, sewer and utility maintenance. The employee may hire, promote, demote, assign work and is responsible for directing and supervising the crew of skilled and unskilled workers in the routine maintenance and construction of water and sewer facilities and ocher utility services. Duties include inspecting equipment, serving as relief operator when necessary, supervising the moving of right of ways. The employee may perform other duties as required by the City Manager. (h) Grounds Keeper. This is work directing small crews engaged in the care and maintenance of grounds and yards. The employee may hire, promote, demote, assign work and is responsible for the overall maintenance of the grounds and yards in the City. The employee may perform other duties as required by the City Manager. (i) Shop Superintendent-Mechanic. Excluded as a non-managerial employee. (j) Warehouse Supervisor. This employee is involved in the record keeping, inventory control and the operation of the purchasing department. The duties are in general, a bookkeeper and storekeeper. He performs other duties when required by the City Manager. (k) Police Chief. This employee is responsible for the direction and administration of law enforcement activities. He may hire, promote, demote, assign work and is responsible for directing and supervising skilled and unskilled police officers and other activities involved in law enforcement. He is responsible for inspection of the stationhouse and equipment. He responds to calls for assistance. Other duties may be required by the City Manager or Mayor in case of Marshall Law. In accordance with Florida Statute 447.307(3)(a), and Florida Administrative Rule 8H-3.23, no recommendations are submitted. DONE and ENTERED this 30 day of April, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Cox, Esquire Michaels and Patterson 2007 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Bembry, Esquire Davis, Browning and Hardee Post Office Box 652 Madison, Florida Ben Patterson, Esquire Michaels and Patterson 2007 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward B. Browning, Jr., Esquire Davis, Browning and Hardee Post Office Box 652 Madison, Florida Chairman Public Employee Relations Commission Suite 300, 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent has committed an act of employment discrimination by totally reducing the employment hours of the Petitioner, such that the Petitioner was constructively discharged and whether such action was on account of his race, in the manner proscribed by Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Lavon A. Baker, was employed by the Respondent at a convenience store which operated in Jackson County, Florida, at times pertinent hereto. He performed various jobs involving cooking, cleaning, cashier duties, checking and maintenance of inventory at the "Jr. Food Store" involved. His employment record is without blemish, having no disciplinary incidents on his record with that employer, the Respondent. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor and employment decision-maker was Dina C. Bonine, the manager of the store involved. The Respondent, Jr. Food Mart of America, Inc., is a corporation headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi, which owns and operates convenience stores in various locations, employing more than 15 employees. The Petitioner is a black man. He was employed at the Respondent's store until October 1992 with no difficulties with his employer. His work record was good and free of disciplinary incidents. Beginning in early October 1992, he began to have his hours of employment per week reduced in number. This became a problem for him because he was earning insufficient income to meet his monthly expenses. He discussed the possibility of obtaining a second job so that he could earn sufficient income, but his supervisor, Ms. Bonine, advised him that he had to work "at her convenience" and would risk termination if he took a second job. Upon his hours of employment at the Respondent's place of business being reduced to approximately 8-10 hours per week, he was forced to take a second job at the Pizza Hut. He began working at the Pizza Hut for 28 hours per week at the minimum wage rate of $4.65 per hour, beginning in March of 1993. Although his supervisor, Ms. Bonine, cautioned him against taking a second job at the risk of being terminated from his job with the Respondent, she allowed a white female employee, Becky Baxter, and a white male employee named "Bobby", who were more recently hired than the Petitioner, to get additional hours of employment, while the Petitioner's hours were being reduced. At the same time, she allowed these two white employees to work at a second job with another employer, as well. Both Ms. Baxter and "Bobby" had been discharged by the Respondent, or Ms. Bonine, in the past, but had been rehired by her and given preferential treatment, in terms of working hours and accommodation of a second job, which treatment was not accorded to the Petitioner. In fact, Ms. Baxter worked in a second job at the Pizza Hut at the same time the Petitioner did, but received the overtime hours formerly given to the Petitioner at the Respondent's place of employment, while the Petitioner's hours were cut to nothing. The Petitioner testified that "she was already at 40 hours and she just got more". These employees, hired since the Petitioner, got all the working hours they wanted from the Respondent and convenient working time schedules, as well, compared to the Petitioner's hours. Ultimately in April of 1993, the Petitioner's working hours were totally eliminated and therefore his employment was effectively terminated. Upon taking the second job at the Pizza Hut, his employer at that facility allowed him to schedule his hours at the Pizza Hut so that he could still obtain all of the working hours he needed at the Respondent's facility. Nevertheless, his hours were constantly reduced by Ms. Bonine to the point that, in April, he had no hours scheduled for several weeks, effectively resulting in his termination. Debra McDaniel is a home health aide and certified nursing assistant. She is a friend of the Petitioner, and when he lost his automobile due to his reduced working hours and reduced income, she often transported him to and from his job. She therefore was able to observe on several occasions the work schedule placed at the Respondent's facility. She observed, for several weeks at a time, that the Respondent had given the Petitioner no working hours. She testified that Ms. Bonine told the Petitioner that she would post a new schedule with his working hours on it, but that never occurred. This observation was made sometime in April of 1993. Ms. McDaniel's testimony thus corroborates that of the Petitioner. Up until the first of October of 1992, the Petitioner earned $160.00 per week at the Respondent's employment facility, without overtime hours calculated in that figure. There is no evidence of what he earned in terms of overtime hours. His employment hours at the Respondent's facility were reduced to 8 hours per week by March 1, 1993. At that point in time, he took the job at Pizza Hut at 28 hours per week at a rate of $4.25 per hour. He worked at that job at Pizza Hut at the rate of 28 hours per week until the end of November, 1993. He was out of employment and looking for work until December 18, 1993, when he became employed with "Seminole Outdoors", at the rate of $5.00 per hour for 32 hours per week. He remained with that employer at that rate until February 28, 1994, when he resigned to return to school full time. He is in a law enforcement education program at Chipola Junior College. The Respondent adduced no evidence in this proceeding and failed to appear. The notice of hearing was issued on April 11, 1994 and served on the Respondent at its address of record, as previously mentioned in the above Preliminary Statement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations finding that the Petitioner has established that he is a victim of employment discrimination in the form of constructive discharge, following discriminatory reduction of his hours of employment, and opportunity to hold non-conflicting outside employment, all on account of his race, and that he be reinstated in his position with the Respondent and awarded back pay in an amount reflective of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 10th day of August, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lavon A. Baker Post Office Box 1276 Sneads, FL 32460 Ms. Cheryl Little Administrative Assistant Jr. Food Mart of America, Inc. P.O. Box 3500 Jackson, MS 39207-3500 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was terminated from his employment by the Respondent based on discrimination because of his race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an African-American male. He was employed at times pertinent hereto until his termination, by the Respondent Mold-Ex, L.L.C. The Respondent is a manufacturing company located in Milton, Florida, which operates a manufacturing facility and operation on a multi-shift basis, engaged in the manufacturing of various plastic and rubber products, particularly automotive-related parts. The Petitioner began employment with the Respondent on September 8, 1989, as a press operator. He also worked as a machine operator for about four months and was promoted to Second Shift Supervisor in the injection department. This is an injection molding operation which molds plastic and rubber parts. The Petitioner was a Second Shift Supervisor in that department for eight and one- half years. The Petitioner reported to Jerry Decker, who was his supervisor. The Petitioner is an employee and the Respondent company is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's duties included monitoring overall operation of the machinery, training, new employees, setting up machines and jobs, completing attendance reports and holding employee meetings. As many as twenty-three employees were supervised by him on the second shift. The Petitioner was the only black supervisor at Mold-Ex. The Petitioner was terminated from his employment on December 4, 1998. He was told by Mr. Decker, his supervisor, that he was being terminated because the company was "down-sizing" or reducing positions and the number of employees due to financial difficulties. The Petitioner elected to contest this by filing a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission, claiming that he was harmed because he was discharged because of his race. Beginning in early 1998, the corporate parent company which owned Mold-Ex, L.L.C., was experiencing significant financial difficulties. This resulted in part from the "reservoir seal project" which involved a contract for a certain part that the Respondent was to manufacture for the Delphi Division of General Motors Corporation. There were difficulties in manufacturing the reservoir seal successfully, it was difficult to manufacture and required extra labor. It was termed by the Respondent's president as a "real disaster" which caused serious financial drain on the company. The company had a great deal of difficulty in successfully manufacturing the part to the correct specifications and lost much revenue due to unfilled orders and/or improperly manufactured parts which had to be replaced. Additionally, and related to these difficulties, the parent company was having great difficulty meeting its debt service obligations. In fact, the parent company never actually recovered from the financial difficulties from 1998, such that ultimately the Respondent was sold to another corporation. These financial difficulties throughout 1998 resulted, by the fall of that year, in the parent corporation putting significant pressure on the Respondent's management in Milton to reduce costs substantially, including labor costs. The Respondent considered and implemented several ideas for cutting costs, including restructuring the supervision of the operation and otherwise seeking to reduce labor costs. In September of 1998, the Respondent employed an excess of people over those needed to operate efficiently. At that time the Respondent employed approximately three-hundred workers. Because there was an excess of employees and, therefore, payroll expense, a hiring freeze was instituted. This resulted in a steady reduction of employees through not filling positions that were voluntarily vacated by employees leaving the company, as reflected in the Respondent's Exhibit 10 in evidence. The overall operating officer of the Milton facility, Vice President Ettelson, established in his testimony that in late November of 1998, the hiring freeze resulted in a reduced head count which saved the company substantial amounts of money. Thus, by the end of 1998, the company employed only approximately 280 persons instead of the 300 who were employed in September of 1998. By April of 1999, the employment roster was down to approximately two hundred and fifty persons. The Respondent additionally restructured supervision in order to save money and to operate more efficiently, in terms of simply more effective manufacture and filling of orders, as well as in the saving of personnel and related expenses. This restructuring involved combining supervisory positions and re- allocating duties, such that one plant superintendent was placed in charge of all of the operations on the second shift rather than having approximately three supervisors overseeing the individual business units operating on the second shift. The Petitioner was a Second Shift Supervisor whose position was eliminated in this restructuring. His duties were distributed among Mr. Don Brumley, who was a long-experienced employee who was re-hired out of retirement and who became the Second Shift Plant Superintendent; an employee in the injection and molding department, referred to as a "lead-employee" and also to certain individuals on the first shift. The restructuring resulted in a savings of approximately $40,000.00 as to salaries by eliminating three positions and selecting Mr. Brumley as the plant superintendent for the second shift. The re-structuring concentrated on the second shift because the other two shifts required the management personnel that were currently in place. On the first shift, various improvement projects and process development efforts required more intense, active supervision and supervisory personnel that were already in place. On the second shift, because no improvement projects were being conducted, the differences in activity between the second and first shift allowed the company to supervise that entire shift, as to all departments, by placing a strong effective plant superintendent in charge of that entire shift; eliminating three supervisory positions for a substantial savings in expenses. On the third shift, no re- structuring occurred because it was only a small operation of approximately twenty-five employees. The highest management personnel present for that shift was already a lead person in the mixing department and a supervisor in the injection molding department. Additionally, the company management recognized a strong need for a superintendent such as Mr. Brumley who had a record of implementing better disciplinary measures and who could ensure consistency and efficiency of operation in all of the operating departments on the second shift. The re-structuring effort resulted in a change in the reporting system or "chain of command" as well. Prior to re- structuring, three managers, one for each of the three business units (profile extrusion, molding, and reinforced hose), reported directly to Vice President Ettelson. Below these three managers were the supervisors in charge in each individual department within the three business units. For example, in the molding department where the Petitioner worked as Injection Molding Supervisor on the second shift, supervisors in injection molding on the first and third shifts as well as a first shift supervisor in the trim department, for a total of four supervisors, reported directly to molding manager Jerry Decker. Four supervisors reported to the Reinforced Hose Manager, Sidney Hood. Two supervisors reported to Profile Extrusion Manager Steve Wieczorek. Those three managers reported to Vice President Ettelson. After the re-structuring, supervisors remained in place on the first and third shifts, but on the second shift no supervisors remained who would be reporting to the department managers Decker, Hood and Wieczorek. Instead, Don Brumley, re- hired from retirement as the second shift plant superintendent, reported directly to Vice President Ettelson. Don Brumley was therefore in charge of all three business units during the second shift. His duties were much more substantial than the Petitioner's. He managed approximately 60 people while the Petitioner had managed approximately 20 to 23 people. Mr. Brumley had more administrative duties than did the Petitioner. He had hiring and firing authority that the Petitioner did not have and had the responsibility for adherence to company policy on the entire second shift rather than in only one department. Molding Manager, Jerry Decker, established that the re-structuring organization functioned effectively. It resulted in the elimination of the Petitioner's position on or about December 4, 1998. Additionally, two white males in supervisory roles were terminated by the Respondent because of the re-structuring. The Petitioner maintained that one of those terminated white individuals, Dan Lowery, had been out of work seven months with tuberculosis and was permanently disabled and, therefore, was terminated because he was not qualified to perform his job duties. However, the Human Resources coordinator, Nick Bores, the person with probably the most knowledge and insight concerning Mr. Lowery's employment capabilities, established in a credible fashion that Mr. Lowery had indeed been on leave for a few months due to his illness but returned to his employment duties with a full clearance from his physician to perform all of his duties. This testimony was corroborated by that of molding manager Jerry Decker and Vice President David Ettelson and is accepted. The Petitioner also contended in his testimony, in essence, that racially discriminatory motivation for his termination existed as shown by two incidents. One incident in 1997 involved an employee who had been disciplined in some way by the Petitioner, who then purportedly placed a "swastika" symbol on the Petitioner's car in the parking lot. The Petitioner asserts that the employee was not disciplined for that act, which he contends was indicative of racially discriminatory animus toward him by the Respondent's management. In fact, however, the Respondent did not discipline that employee because, upon questioning, he denied the conduct. The Respondent had no independent proof that he was guilty of the act. The Petitioner himself was not disciplined on an occasion when he was accused of sexual harassment by a female employee, because he denied it and the Respondent had no independent proof that he was guilty of the alleged conduct. Moreover, at about the same time as the "swastika incident" the Petitioner received a written commendation, signed by CEO Thomas Henry and Vice President Ettelson. These facts, considered together, tend to show lack of racial animus by the company management. The other incident described by the Petitioner related to management reaction to observing an employee under the Petitioner's charge failing to wear safety goggles. Mr. Ettelson purportedly told the Petitioner he would "kick his butt" if his employees again failed to wear protective goggles. This statement, if made, may be coarse or harsh, but was not shown to be other than an isolated occurrence. Moreover, it does not evince a racially discriminatory motive or attitude on the part of an employment-related decision-maker. The Petitioner maintained that his replacement, Don Brumley, was not qualified for the position created by the re- structuring and that his "lead man," Eddie Byers, was the only person in the department who could have performed the duties that the Petitioner had performed. This testimony, however, is rebutted by the testimony of witnesses Decker, Ettelson and Thomas Henry, the CEO of the company. Their testimony establishes that Mr. Brumley was well-qualified to assume management of the entire second shift operations as Plant Superintendent which included the scope of the Petitioner's job but included other substantial duties and responsibilities as well. In fact, with the exception of being retired for approximately one year, Mr. Brumley worked for the Respondent since 1963 and was the company's first employee after it was founded by Mr. Henry, his father and Mr. Henry's brother. Prior to his retirement, Mr. Brumley functioned as Compression Molding Manager, which was a position above the Petitioner's position level in the hierarchy of the company and at the same level as the Petitioner's former supervisor, Jerry Decker. In fact, Mr. Brumley, at one time, had a supervisory role over the Petitioner. The Petitioner's experience was limited to one department during his tenure with the company. Mr. Brumley, however, had worked in all departments in his 36 years with the Respondent. Mr. Brumley knew the operations of the company very well and bringing him back to the company to function as the Second Shift Plant Superintendent, with his skills and experience, saved the company substantial expenses by allowing it to avoid the necessity of retaining other employees. Additionally, Mr. Brumley had a reputation as a strict disciplinarian and Mr. Ettelson and the company management felt that stricter discipline was required for the operations on the second shift. When the Petitioner was terminated he was offered a severance package of four weeks' pay at the time of termination, but elected not to accept that offer. He was not offered a different employment position with the Respondent because no suitable options, in terms of his skills and qualifications and in relation to his salary level, were available with the company at that time. The Petitioner was earning $7.80 per hour, at the time of his termination and his annual salary, without overtime, was $16,234.00. During 1998, which was his best year in terms of income, he earned approximately $27,000.00 when overtime was added to his regular salary. The Petitioner earned a total of $13,175.72, in 1999 and earned $3,117.00 in unemployment compensation in 1999. He earned $7,513.51, when employed by Britt Landrum Temporaries, Inc., in 1999, and earned $1,608.01 when employed by Interim Services, Inc., in 1999. Additionally, he was employed by Transport Leasing Contract, Inc., in 1999 and earned $937.20 with that employer. Since approximately January 2000, the Petitioner has been working at the Waterfront Mission and earned $6.50 per hour, and then in September 2000, was raised to $7.00 per hour. The Petitioner concedes that with his qualifications and experience he could obtain employment at more than $7.00 per hour, which he makes at the Waterfront Mission. He chose to work at the Waterfront Mission because that employment is compatible with his calling to be a minister. He desires to have work which is compatible with his duties as a pastor for two churches in the area. He has earned about $375.00 per month as a pastor for his two churches since approximately May 2000. The Respondent presented evidence by witnesses Ettelson, Decker and Bores, the Human Resources coordinator, all of whom testified that the re-structuring plan, which included the elimination of the Petitioner's position, was for the purpose of serving the above-referenced financial business needs in relation to reducing costs, as the reasons which led to the Petitioner's termination. All testified that the primary goal was reducing costs in order to help the company to survive its business downturn, including the fact, established by Mr. Henry's testimony, that the United Auto Workers strike of the Delphi Division of General Motors began in the summer of 1998. This caused a loss of approximately one-million dollars per month. That is the reason that the re-structuring was effected which allowed them to bring in a more experienced man, Mr. Brumley, who was qualified to run the entire department at lower costs as the Plant Superintendent on the second shift, rendering the Petitioner's job and position unnecessary. Their testimony that these business reasons were the cause of the re- structuring and the Petitioner's termination is accepted, rather than the Petitioner's contention that the reasons for his termination involved his race.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 6th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry, P.L. 1108-A North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501 Heather Fisher Lindsay, Esquire Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, P.C. 1400 South Trust Tower Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Azizi Coleman, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Thee PBA filed it's petition with PERC on April 17, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). The FOP filed it's petition with PERC on April 28, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 5). The hearing in these cases was scheduled by notice dated June 6, 1975. The two cases were consolidated for the purposes of the hearing by agreement of the parties. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2, TA 4). The City of Tampa is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statute s447.002(2). (Stipulation TA 5). The Hillsborough County Police Benevolent Association is an Employee Organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes 447.002(10). (Stipulation TA 5). The Florida State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police is an Employee Organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes 447.002(10). (Stipulation TA 5). The PBA and the FOP have requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of employees described in their respective petitions, and these requests have been denied by the Public Employer. (Stipulation TA 6). There is no contractual bar to the holding of an election in this case. (Stipulation TA 6). There is no bargaining history between the Public Employer and any members of the proposed bargaining units. (Stipulation TA 7). The PBA is properly registered with PERC. (Stipulation TA 7, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3). The FOP is properly registered with PERC. (Stipulation TA 7, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 7). PERC has previously determined that the PBA filed the Requisite Showing of Interest with it's petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut this administrative determination. PERC has previously determined that the FOP filed the Requisite Showing of Interest with it's petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 8). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut this administrative determination. The parties stipulated and agreed that the position of Police Legal Advisor, the Chief of Police, the Assistant Chiefs of Police, or lieutenant colonels, and police majors should be excluded from any collective bargaining unit ultimately certified by PERC. (TA 8 - 10). The City of Tampa Police Department is organized into seven divisions consisting of Police Headquarters, two Uniform Districts, a Detective Division, a Tactical Division, a Services Division and an Administrative Division. Police Headquarters is commanded by the Chief of Police. A total of 12 sworn personnel work at headquarters. These are two lieutenant colonels or deputy police chiefs, an administrative sergeant, two administrative corporals, the Criminal Intelligence Unit, the Internal Affairs Unit, and the Police Legal Officer. The two Uniform Districts are organized in the same manner. Uniform District 1 covers roughly the western geographic half of the city, and Uniform District 2 covers the eastern half of the city. Each uniform district is commanded by a police major. The districts are divided into three shifts, each of which is commanded by a shift commander who holds the rank of police captain. There is a field commander who generally holds the rank of lieutenant and five to seven squads on each shift. The squads are commanded by a police sergeant and consist of one police corporal and nine police officers. Two of the police officers are designated field instructors. There are approximately 210 sworn personnel in each uniform district. The Detective Division is commanded by a police major. The function of the Detective Division is to conduct latent criminal investigations. There are four bureaus in the division. The Homicide Bureau, the Burglary Bureau and the Larceny Bureau are each commanded by a captain, with a sergeant as second in command. The Juvenile Bureau is commanded by a captain with a lieutenant second in command. One sergeant in the Juvenile Bureau commands the Missing Persons, Social Welfare, Police Athletic League, and Community Relations sections. Another sergeant commands the ten detectives who are assigned to the juvenile section. There are 82 sworn personnel in the Detective Division. The Tactical Division is commanded by a police major. It is composed of 3 major subdivisions: the Vice Control Bureau, the Police Air Service, and the Selective Enforcement Unit. The Vice Control Bureau is commanded by a captain with a lieutenant second in command. The Vice Control Bureau is divided into two squads, one responsible for lottery and beverage investigations, and one for narcotics investigations. Each of the squads is commanded by a sergeant. The Police Air Service is commanded by a police flight supervisor who is roughly equivalent in rank to a police captain. The assistant flight supervisor is second in command, and is roughly equivalent in rank to a police sergeant. The Selective Enforcement Unit is commanded by a captain with a lieutenant second in command. There are approximately 83 sworn personnel in the Tactical Division. The Services Division is commanded by a police major. Two bureaus compose the Services Division: the I.D. and Records Bureau and the Communications and Maintenance Bureau. Each bureau is commanded by a captain with a lieutenant as second in command. There are 42 sworn personnel in the Services Division. The Administrative Division is commanded by a major. Two bureaus comprise the division: Personnel and Training, and Budget Research. Each bureau is commanded by a captain. A bureau sergeant and a range sergeant command the two sections of the Personnel and Training Bureau. The Budget and Research Bureau has two sections: Property and Research commanded by a sergeant, and Payroll and Accounting which is staffed entirely by civilians. There are 27 sworn personnel in the Administrative Division. The majors who command the two Uniform Districts, the Detective Division and the Tactical Division, answer directly to the operation's lieutenant colonel, who answers to the Chief of Police. The majors who command the Services Division and the Administrative Division answer to the administrative lieutenant colonel, who answers to the Chief of Police. There are approximately 665 sworn personnel in the City of Tampa Police Department. The Chief of Police is the top management official in the City of Tampa Police Department. His responsibilities include, inter alia, establishing standards of conduct for police officers; supervising preparation of the departmental budget, and administering departmental expenditures in accordance with budget provisions; interpreting departmental rules, regulations, and policies to employees; and supervising the selection and development of new patrolmen. The Chief of Police has ultimate responsibility for hiring, firing, and promoting employees within the Police Department. The Chief conducts staff conferences on an as needed basis. Lieutenant colonels and majors attend these conferences. The staff formulates policy for the Chief's approval. It is anticipated that the staff would formulate collective bargaining procedure in the event that a bargaining unit is established, and will ultimately administer any collective bargaining agreement that is formulated. The parties stipulated and agreed that the Chief of Police should be excluded from any collective bargaining unit ultimately certified PERC. The two lieutenant colonels are also referred to as deputy chiefs of police. The administrative lieutenant colonel supervises the support functions of the department. The operations lieutenant colonel supervises the field activities. The lieutenant colonels make inspections of assigned operations to ascertain level of performance, review employee problems and insure that necessary steps are taken to maintain high morale, receive and dispose of complaints and report thereon to the Police Chief and review expenditures and assist the Chief in preparation of the annual budget estimates. The lieutenant colonels serve on the Police Chief's staff. At the hearing the parties stipulated and agreed that lieutenant colonels should be excluded from any collective bargaining unit ultimately certified by PERC. Police majors command the major divisions of the Police Department other than the Police Headquarters Division. Police majors are commonly referred to as the chief law enforcement officers. The major has the primary responsibility for the planning, coordination, and direction of activities and functions assigned to his division. He has supervisory control and direction of all members and employees assigned to his division. The major is required to make or cause to be made, inspections of all units, personnel, equipment and facilities under his command. The major is required to investigate, or cause to be investigated, any cases of apparent or alleged misconduct of his personnel and to prepare a report for review by the Chief of Police and the lieutenant colonel. The major takes whatever immediate disciplinary action is required. The major is responsible for making personnel assignments within his division. The major is charged with responsibility for preparing an annual budget estimate for his division, and he exercises control over disbursements of budgeted funds within his division. The major is required to report in writing to the Chief of Police any probationary officers who for any reason appear unfit or unqualified for police service, and to make recommendations concerning their continued employment. Majors serve on the Police Chief's staff. At the hearing the parties stipulated and agreed that majors should be excluded from any collective bargaining unit ultimately certified by PERC. Police captains plan, direct and coordinate the activities of a bureau, or are in command of a police shift. The police captain is responsible for directing and training personnel under his command, and assumes responsibility for occurrences on the shift. It is the police captain's duty to assure adequate performance by all assigned personnel. The captain assists in the selection and development of new patrolmen, and participates in the police training program. The captain recommends disciplinary action. He is responsible for the care and maintenance of all equipment, materials and facilities assigned to his command. Captains generally work at Police Headquarters, and have field duties only under unusual circumstances. Police captains can modify deployment of personnel under their command without further authority. Police captains attend the Chief's staff conferences in the absence of a major, or for special reporting purposes. The day-to-day activities undertaken by captains within the Police Department vary according to the particular assignment; however, the captains are interchangeable with one another. Standard Operating procedure Bulletins outlining the particular duties assigned to each police captain have been promulgated. These bulletins accurately describe the duties, responsibilities, and day-to-day activities of each police captain. These bulletins were received into evidence as Public Employer's Exhibits #12, 25, 29, 40, 47, 53, 55, 61, and 65. The Public Employer contends that police captains are managerial employees. The PBA is not seeking to include captains within it's proposed bargaining unit. The FOP is seeking to include police captains in a collective bargaining unit with lieutenants and sergeants. Police lieutenants are frequently referred to as field commanders, or field supervisors. They serve as supervisors in one of the major administrative functional areas. Police lieutenants exercise immediate supervision over uniform sergeants and patrolmen, and are responsible for overseeing activities in the field. A lieutenant in one of the Uniform Districts would supervise from 3 to 6 sergeants, and from 30 to 60 police officers. A police sergeant's reports and recommendations respecting disciplinary action are submitted to the captain through the lieutenant. The lieutenant can make independent recommendations respecting disciplinary action. A police lieutenant would typically spend from 1 to 3 hours weekly on discipline problems. When circumstances such as a large number of calls in a given zone warrant it, a lieutenant can make immediate decisions respecting the deployment of squads. The lieutenant is responsible for coordinating the activities of squads, and generally will make recommendations to the shift commander respecting deployment of personnel. The police lieutenants evaluate police sergeants, but not at regularly scheduled times. Lieutenants can place material in a sergeant's personnel file. Lieutenants wear a different uniform than officers with lower ranks. Lieutenants wear white shirts and blue slacks while other uniform personnel wear blue shirts and blue slacks. Lieutenants serve as captains during the latter's absence. In the Uniform Districts, this regularly occurs at least two days per week. In the absence of both the captain and a major, the lieutenant would serve as district commander. The lieutenant in the Services Division, I.D. and Records Bureau, serves as the bureau chief for an average of 5 to 6 weeks per year. The day-to-day activities of lieutenants will vary depending on the assignment; however, lieutenants are interchangeable with one another. Standard Operating Procedures Bulletins respecting lieutenants assigned to various bureaus and divisions have been promulgated. These bulletins accurately describe the duties, responsibilities, and day-to-day activities of the lieutenants. These bulletins were received into evidence as Public Employer's Exhibits #13, 14, 30, 48, 54, and 56. The Public Employer contends that lieutenants should not be included in a collective bargaining unit with rank and file personnel, but could be included in a unit of supervisory personnel with police sergeants. The PBA does not contend that lieutenants should be included in it's proposed unit. The FOP contends that lieutenants should be included in a unit of supervisory personnel including captains, lieutenants, and sergeants. Police sergeants serve as the immediate supervisors of police corporals, field instructors, officers, and detectives. Sergeants command squads within the department. The rank of sergeant is the first rank which is viewed by the department as an actual promotion. The ranks of corporal, field instructor, detective, and officer are viewed as assignments, although corporals, field instructors and detectives receive more pay than officers. Corporals and field instructors do frequently act as sergeants. Sergeants have close working relationships with the personnel in their squads, but do not perform precisely the same functions. On a typical day the sergeant will call the roll, read directives to the officers, check crime reports, perform additional administrative duties, then go into the field in a patrol car. The sergeant continues to supervise the officers, but he may perform some of the same duties that officers perform. Sergeants make the determination of which personnel within a squad perform which functions. Sergeants spend more time in the field than in their offices, but they answer far fewer calls and make far fewer arrests than do the officers. Sergeants wear a uniform consisting of blue slacks and a blue shirt. This is the same uniform worn by corporals, field instructors, and officers; however, sergeants wear gold badges and hat insignias rather than the silver worn by the lower ranking personnel. In the Detective Bureau sergeants serve as acting captain for approximately two to two and one half months per year. Sergeants occasionally serve as division commander within the detective division. A sergeant in the Detective Division does not investigate offenses. He examines reports of investigations, and if not satisfied instructs the detective as to what additional steps should be pursued. Sergeants regularly evaluate corporals, field instructors, officers, and detectives on forms which have been adopted by the department. The sergeant maintains a pending evaluation file for personnel under his supervision. An evaluation rendered by a sergeant cannot be changed, although the sergeant's recommendations may not be followed. Lieutenants, captains, and majors can make notations on the evaluation, but cannot change it. The sergeant's evaluation is reviewed with the officer. The sergeant and the lieutenant generally confer about the evaluation. The division commander, or major, reviews the evaluations and frequently discusses them with the officers who have been evaluated. Evaluations play some part in determining promotions. Promotions are determined 70 percent on the basis of a civil service test, 10 percent on the basis of seniority, and 20 percent on the basis of findings of an evaluation board appointed by the Chief. Sergeants can serve on the evaluation board, and the sergeant's evaluations are among the items considered by the board. In a sergeant's absence, a corporal would perform the evaluation. Disciplinary action against corporals, field instructors, officers or detectives is initiated by sergeants. The sergeant will make an initial determination as to whether disciplinary action is necessary. The sergeant might frequently counsel the officer rather than initiate disciplinary action. The sergeant will investigate the incidence and ultimately will make recommendations which go into the personnel file, and could be used in consideration of promotion. A sergeant's recommendations respecting discipline are not changed, although they are not necessarily followed. If an officer is tardy in arriving at work, the sergeant can send him home without pay and then initiate disciplinary action. The officer could lose a vacation day and the month's sick day. A sergeant can relieve an officer of duty for performing duties improperly or for being incapable of performing duties without prior authority. The sergeant would then initiate disciplinary action. The sergeants serve as the first step in the department's grievance procedure. If a sergeant does not resolve a grievance within 48 hours of submission, he will forward it up the chain of command. The sergeant's comments in a grievance matter become part of the grievance file. The sergeant's recommendations respecting grievances are not changed although they are not necessarily followed. Granting or denying unscheduled time off is initially the responsibility of the police sergeant. The police sergeant determines when comp time and vacation days can be taken, and this determination is not reviewable unless a grievance is initiated. Extra duty work is work which an officer can perform while off duty for extra pay. The sergeant authorizes or refuses requests for extra duty. Without prior approval, a sergeant can require that officers work overtime. The sergeant makes recommendations respecting which officers in his squad are assigned the designation field instructor. The sergeant's recommendation has always been followed in the recollection of each witness who testified. In a squad within the Uniform Districts, sergeants, corporals, field instructors and one other officer are permitted to use a department car. The sergeant makes the determination of which officer is permitted use of a car. Requests for transfer are submitted to sergeants. The sergeant makes the initial recommendation respecting request for transfer, and his recommendation is generally followed although the request is sent up the chain of command. Sergeants make recommendations respecting discharge and suspension, but they do not make the final decision. The day-to-day activities of a police sergeant will vary depending upon the particular assignment. Standard Operating Procedure Bulletins respecting each assignment which a sergeant might be given have been promulgated. These bulletins accurately describe the duties, responsibilities, and day-to-day activities of the assignments. These bulletins were received in evidence as Public Employer's Exhibits #15, 16, 26, 32, 36, 41, 49, 57, and 62. The Patrol and Traffic Divisions referenced in Public Employer's Exhibit #15 have been merged into the two Uniform Districts since the time that that bulletin was prepared. The sergeant assigned to the personnel and Training Bureau no longer performs the functions set out in paragraph 6 of Public Employer's Exhibit 62. The Public Employer contends that sergeants should not be included in any unit of lower ranking personnel, but could be included within a unit consisting of lieutenants and sergeants. The PBA contends that sergeants should be included within the unit described in it's petition. The FOP contends that sergeants should be included within a unit consisting of captains, lieutenants, and sergeants. The position of police corporal is not considered a permanent assignment. Police corporals serve as acting sergeant in the absence of the police sergeant. Standard Operating Procedures Bulletins respecting various assignments that a corporal might receive in the department have been promulgated. These bulletins accurately describe the duties, responsibilities, and day-to-day activities of police corporals. The bulletins were received in evidence as Public Employer's Exhibits #17, 18, 33, 38, and 50. The Public Employer, the PBA, and the FOP are in agreement that corporals should be included in any non-supervisory collective bargaining unit that might be certified by PERC. A police sergeant is assigned to the position of administrative sergeant. The administrative sergeant answers directly to the Chief of Police. Four police corporals are assigned the position of administrative corporal. One administrative corporal answers directly to the administrative lieutenant colonel, one answers directly to the operations lieutenant colonel, and two answer directly to the two majors assigned to the Uniform Districts. The administrative sergeant and the administrative corporals perform duties assigned by their supervisor. Generally all of the files, information, and correspondence available to the supervisor is available to the administrative sergeant and administrative corporal. This would include personnel files. The administrative sergeant and the administrative corporals occasionally investigate citizen complaints, and perform research respecting proposed changes in procedure. The administrative sergeants and corporals handle escort work, screen personnel coming into their supervisor's office, and receive telephone calls and correspondence. The person presently serving as administrative sergeant has been assigned to that position for some time. The administrative corporals are rotated. It is anticipated by the Chiefs the lieutenant colonels, and the majors, that the administrative sergeants and corporals will not reveal information that is available to them. The Police Air Service is commanded by a police flight supervisor. The police flight supervisor is roughly equivalent in rank to a police captain. The second in command is the assistant flight supervisor. The assistant flight supervisor is roughly equivalent in rank to a police sergeant. Standard Operating Procedure Bulletins respecting the positions of police flight supervisor and assistant police flight supervisor have been promulgated. These bulletins accurately describe the duties, responsibilities, and day-to-day activities of the police flight supervisor and the assistant flight supervisor. These bulletins were received in evidence as Public Employer's Exhibits #43, 44, and 46. The Criminal Intelligence Unit is headed by a police sergeant, who reports directly to the Police Chief. The Internal Affairs Unit is headed by a police lieutenant who answers directly to the Police Chief. The Criminal Intelligence Unit conducts investigations dealing with subversive activities and organized crime. The Internal Affairs Unit conducts investigations involving misconduct on the part of police personnel. When the need arises the personnel in the Criminal Intelligence Unit will assist the Interal Affairs Unit, and vice versa. Information gathered by these units are not distributed to anyone without the consent of the Police Chief. Personnel are assigned to these units by the Chief of Police on a rotating basis with the recommendation of the sergeant or lieutenant. It is probable that any investigations of illegal strike activity would be conducted by one of these units. There are approximately 151 unsworn personnel employed by the City of Tampa Police Department. Neither Employee Organization sought inclusion of unsworn personnel in their proposed bargaining units. The Public Employer agreed that unsworn personnel should not be included in any collective bargaining unit consisting of sworn personnel. Very little testimony was presented at the hearing respecting unsworn personnel. ENTERED this 5th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
