Findings Of Fact The Alachua County Detention and Corrections Department (Exhibit 9) consists of 50 full-time employees (Exhibit 17). Authorized personnel spaces include the Correctional Director, the Correctional Assistant Administrator, the Correctional Inmate Consultant, the Correctional Recreation and Education Consultant, a Correctional Officer V, a Correctional Officer IV, six Correctional Officers III, five Correctional Officers II, and thirty Correctional Officers I (see Exhibit 10). Also authorized are a Secretary III who is the secretary to the Director, three Food Service Employees and one Accounting Clerk I. Alachua County has a total of about 786 County employees, including constitutional officers such as the Sheriff, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Tax Appraiser, Tax Collector, Supervisor of Elections and the County Commission Staff. This figure includes 91 professional employees. If employees of constitutional officers were excluded from a single bargaining unit for the County, such a unit would consist of 360 employees. The County is under a unified pay plan for all county employees. It retains the services of a pay plan consultant who does an annual review of pay, job descriptions and duties of all county employees. It also has a unified classification plan and personnel regulations that govern salaries, work hours, vacation, sick leave, leaves of absence and the like (Exhibits 10,11). The County Administrator is the chief executive officer for the county and, with respect to the Department of Corrections, supervises basic policies and budgetary functions. The department budget is proposed by the Director of the Department, submitted to the County Administrator for review and corrections, and then approved by the County Commission. The Director implements the plan and can change line items only by permission of the County Administrator and the County Commission. The only history of prior collective bargaining in the county was recognition of the Sheriff's office on or about May, 1972. The Police Benevolent Association is the bargaining agent for that unit. The position of the County at this time is that it is a co-employer with the Sheriff as to that unit. The current contract with sworn personnel includes about 133 employees. The Police Benevolent Association declined to be included in a county-wide unit of county employees. Alachua County is the subject of special state legislation which permits it to manage funds allocated to constitutional officers such as the Sheriff, Clerk of Circuit Court, Tax Assessor, and Tax Collector for the county (Exhibits 12-15). The functions of the Corrections Department include the detention of persons awaiting criminal trial, care and housing of prisoners serving sentences, work release and school release programs, classification and diagnostic services, recommendations to the court for referrals to these programs and recommendations for diversionary programs. Unlike most counties, the Corrections Department does not operate within or under the office of the Sheriff. The Department is conducting a modern concept in rehabilitation of offenders through a variety of programs which are designed to re-orient prisoners for more useful lives. To this end, the department secures grants which enable it to fulfill some of these functions. In hiring personnel, it looks for those who have a high school degree and preferably some college work in the social services area. When forming the department in 1973, most of the employees hired came "off the street", although some came from the office of the Sheriff and from other county departments. Correctional Officers carry identification as Special Deputies which empowers them to detain people for corrections only. This status is unique to them. They wear a modified uniform consisting of a blazer, slacks and tie. Correctional Officers carry arms in transporting prisoners to and from court and in supervising their recreational activities outside the correctional facility. The department has tried to get away from a chain of command concept to lessen a law enforcement image. Although it has done away with military titles there are still some personnel who use military titles such as Sergeant and Lieutenant in addressing personnel. Employees of the department have their most continuing contacts with the Sheriff's office because they are in the same building and have similar interests in connection with county prisoners. The Correctional Director is responsible to the County Administrator for all activities, operations and functions of the department. His duties include fiscal, plant, manpower planning, management, organization, staff selection and supervision, policy formulation, the establishment of programs for the department, and for the operation and maintenance of the detention center. He alone has the authority to hire, discharge, promote or discipline personnel of the department. He formulates the budget which is submitted through the County Administrator of the County Commission. He is assisted in the hiring process by a panel which includes himself or the Assistant Administrator, another department employee and either the inmate consultant or a faculty member from the University of Florida. The Assistant Administrator assists the Director by making recommendations as to departmental policy, securing grant applications,. and formulating departmental programs. He also makes recommendations to the Director as to personnel matters and assists in fiscal matters. The Director holds periodic staff meetings at which the Correctional Officers IV and V usually attend. The Correctional Officer V is the Commander of the Detention Center and is thus responsible for direct supervision of all personnel and operations at that facility. He carries out operational policy established by the Director in the form of orders and memoranda. He makes budget recommendations to the Director as to necessary equipment but is not directly involved in the budget process. He makes recommendations to the Director concerning all personnel actions affecting the Detention Center, to include leaves, promotions or terminations. He exercises direct supervision over the Correctional Officer IV and the shift commanders (Correctional Officer III). The Correctional Officer IV is under the general supervision of the Detention Center commander and is responsible for supervision of all logistical and support services of the center. He also assists the Commander in maintaining communication and coordination among shift commanders. He serves as the Acting Commander in the absence of the Correctional Officer V. The Correctional Officers III have direct supervision of Correctional Officers I and II in the operation of the center and related programs. They serve as shift commanders for three shifts of 8 1/2 hours a day each. Correctional Officers I and II perform essentially the same duties which involve primary responsibility to maintain physical custody and control of prisoners within the detention facility and while transporting inmates. Their secondary responsibility is support of program goals through communication and observation of behavior and inmate attitude which is reported to the shift commander or treatment staff. The Correctional Officer II also assists in supervision and on the job training for new employees. In the absence of the shift commander, the Correctional Officer II becomes responsible for the functions of the Detention Center and supervision of correctional officers on duty on that shift. The Correctional Recreation and Education Consultant is preferably an ex-offender who initiates programs and activities for the prisoner population, including various sports and games, competitions among the inmates, and assists the Correctional Inmate Consultant. The Correctional Inmate Consultant is a member of the personal staff of the Director. It is his responsibility to spend great portions of his workday in direct contact with the inmate population and to advise the Director on matters pertaining to the well-being, health, sanitation and programming activities of the inmates. He assists individual inmates with their problems and makes recommendations to the director concerning work release, furloughs, extra "gain time" and, in certain instances, disciplinary matters. He attends all staff meetings except those involving departmental personnel and advises the Director on matters relating to policies of the department with reference to inmate treatment and control. He is an ex-inmate and, in general, advises on the institutional climate. The Food Service personnel are cooks who prepare food for the institution in the cafeteria. They report to the Correctional Officer IV. The Secretary III is the secretary to the director of the department who handles confidential matters for him, including meeting agendas, taking and transcribing dictation, minutes of meetings, conferences and other activities.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice with regard to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Sorey is an African-American woman who at the time of the hearing was a resident of Panama City, Florida. Mastercorp was Ms. Sorey's employer at all relevant times and is engaged in the business of providing housekeeping and cleaning services to timeshare resorts in the State of Florida and elsewhere. Mastercorp has its headquarters in Crossville, Tennessee. Ms. Sorey was employed by Mastercorp at a resort in Panama City called the Landmark, from August 2005 until Mastercorp's contract with Landmark ended in September 2006. Ms. Sorey began her employment with Mastercorp at Landmark as a housekeeping supervisor. She was eventually assigned to the laundry. It was while working in the laundry at Landmark that she alleged discriminatory treatment. Ms. Sorey was supervised by an executive housekeeper (EH) and an assistant EH. The EH and assistant EH are management level employees who are supervised by area, district, or regional managers, and ultimately by corporate managers working out of the Crossville office. An EH is responsible for all operations at a client property, including budgeting and supervising all Mastercorp employees located there. Miguel Palacios began his career with Mastercorp in 2004 as an assistant EH and worked his way up to EH at a client property in the Orlando area. Later, he was used as a roving manager by Mastercorp. As a roving manager, he was assigned to "problem properties." It was his job to ameliorate whatever was causing a property to be a "problem property." Mr. Palacios was assigned to Landmark because operations there were unsatisfactory and, as a result, Mastercorp was in danger of losing its contract. Mr. Palacios was instructed to support the existing EH at Landmark. Later, he took charge of the operation and ran it until a new EH, Wilmer Gonzalez, was hired. Ms. Sorey was working at Landmark when Mr. Palacios assumed his duties there. Debbie Green was one of Mastercorp's housekeeping supervisors at Landmark. Ms. Green is an African-American. Because of her excellent performance, Ms. Green became Mr. Palacio's acting assistant while he was in charge of the Landmark property. Mastercorp's Vice President of Operations, David Maier, visited the Landmark property in March 2006 and told Ms. Sorey that he was impressed with her work in the laundry. He complimented her on the good job she was doing there. Mr. Maier made a remark to Ms. Sorey to the effect that she should be her "own boss." Ms. Sorey interpreted this to mean she could run the laundry as she wished, and without supervision. This was the first of several incorrect assumptions made by Ms. Sorey. When a district manager questioned her placement in the laundry, she attempted to contact Mr. Maier for clarification, but was not able to do so. Payment for working overtime at Landmark was permitted only when approved by the EH. This was a policy dictated by the requirement for Mastercorp to remain within its budget. Ms. Sorey approached Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Palacios and informed them that she did not have enough time to complete her laundry during normal working hours and expressed a desire to work and be paid overtime. When rebuffed, Ms. Sorey became frustrated by the demands on her, which, it is found, were substantial. Eventually, Ms. Sorey brought a friend in to help her and the friend was put on the Mastercorp payroll. This alleviated some of the stress felt by Ms. Sorey. Subsequently, a corporate quality inspector named Nell Wilson came to Landmark in June 2006 and gave her department a 100 percent grade on its evaluation and provided a certificate of dedication. Neither Mr. Palacios nor Mr. Gonzalez found time to present the certificate to her. Mr. Palacios, a Puerto Rican, traveled to his native land on vacation in June of 2006 and returned with souvenirs for some of the employees at Landmark. These souvenirs included coffee mugs, liquor, and key chains. He presented Ms. Sorey with a coffee mug. She asserted that she was offended by the coffee mug. She referred to it as an "old devil cup" and considered it to be an inappropriate reflection on her race. Ms. Sorey related at the hearing, "I don't know nothing about Puerto Rico. Coming back here giving me no cup, calling me no black devil." It is clear how a person lacking sophistication in an international sense, or at least a Caribbean sense, could misinterpret the nature of the mug. The mug was black with a Puerto Rican flag superimposed upon it. On one side of the flag were the words "Puerto" and on the other, "Rico." Overlaid on the flag was a figure that vaguely resembled a man that was variously colored green, yellow, and red, and which appeared to be wearing a blue suit. The figure wore a cape with a yellow lining. The mug had the word "Vejigantes" written on it. In certain parts of Puerto Rico, Vejigantes are masks worn by dancers in carnivals. They represent various things such as strength and harmony. The masks are part of Puerto Rican culture and have nothing to do with race except that the festival itself may have had roots in Africa. Although Ms. Sorey appeared to be grateful at the time she was given the mug, two or three days later she called Gloria Turner, the general manager of the Landmark, telling her that she was offended by it. This was relayed to Mr. Palacios who went to Ms. Sorey and told her that he meant no offense and offered to provide her with another gift in return for the mug. She refused this offer. Several days later Mr. Palacios counseled Ms. Sorey because she had worked overtime without approval and was not following the direction of Mr. Gonzalez. This was memorialized in a written memorandum dated June 25, 2006. Subsequently, Ms. Sorey submitted a handwritten complaint, dated July 3, 2006, to Mastercorp's employee leasing company, Oasis. This was forwarded to Mastercorp because Ms. Sorey was an employee of Mastercorp. The aforementioned document was four and one-half pages long and complained about work issues relating to time and amount of work. The sole issue that could be interpreted as addressing race was this sentence: "Miguel Palacio went to Puerto Rico and when he came back he came to the laundry and gave me a black cup and on the cup was a body and a face like a devil like he is call me a black devil. This face had red horn on it and at the top of the cup have these letter 'Vejigantes.'" The July 3, 2006, memorandum was the only complaint that Mastercorp received from Ms. Sorey, and, as noted above, it was received indirectly. Nevertheless, Whitney Stoker, an employee in the human resources department in the Crossville, Tennessee headquarters was tasked to conduct an investigation into the matter. In effecting her investigation, Ms. Stoker interviewed Mr. Palacios. She attempted to contact Ms. Sorey by telephone on five occasions. She left messages imploring Ms. Sorey to provide her with details surrounding her complaint. Ms. Sorey had an ample opportunity to amplify the information contained in the complaint, but chose not to provide additional information. Ms. Stoker also conducted an Internet search into the matter of the "Vejigantes" mask that was featured on the mug, using the Yahoo search engine. She discovered that it was indeed a character signifying various aspects of Puerto Rican culture and related to festivals held in some Puerto Rican towns. She discovered that it had nothing to do with race or insulting someone. Mastercorp's contract with Landmark was by its terms set to expire in September 2006. In July or August 2006 it became clear that Mastercorp would not obtain another contract with Landmark and, therefore, there would be no more work there for Mastercorp's employees. However, a new opportunity for work arose in Mastercorp's contract at Club Destin, in Destin, Florida. Mr. Palacios took nine of the Panama City employees to the Destin job. There were not enough positions in Destin available for everyone who had been employed at the Landmark job. He did not consider race in deciding who would be offered employment in Destin. He was not concerned about the complaint Ms. Sorey had made. Ms. Sorey did not ask to be employed at Destin, and Mr. Palacios did not ask her to work there. Ms. Sorey did not complain at the time that she was not offered one of the positions in Destin. One of the employees employed at the Destin property was Donna Ponds, an African-American. She was trained at Landmark, but was hired in anticipation that she would work at Club Destin. She was hired as the EH at Club Destin. No evidence was adduced that indicated that anyone of another race was treated differently or more favorably than Ms. Sorey. Mr. Palacios did not need any help in the laundry at Club Destin because the property manager there was successfully using foreign exchange students. Ms. Sorey expressed no desire to move to the Destin facility at the time staffing decisions were being made. During the hearing she was asked, "Did you want to go to Destin." She answered, "Not really." Ms. Sorey's allegations of harassment, disparate treatment, and retaliation were precipitated by her anger at management due to having to work hard and not being allowed to incur overtime; the pressure she felt at not having enough time to complete her duties; and her opinion that she was not sufficiently recognized for her work in the laundry. No evidence whatsoever was adduced that adverse working conditions were precipitated by racial prejudice.
Recommendation it is Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Timothy Nathan Tack, Esquire Kunkel Miller & Hament 15438 North Florida Avenue, Suite 202 Tampa, Florida 33613 Judy Sorey 1025 North Everitt Avenue, Apt. A-3 Panama City, Florida 32401 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Pinellas County is a public employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(2). The Charging Party is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(10). During December, 1975, the Charging Party filed a representation petition with the Public Employees Relations Commission seeking to represent a unit of employees of the Public Employer. Proceedings were conducted in accordance with the petition, and on February 2, 1976, the Public Employees Relations Commission, through its chairman, issued a Direction Of Election. A copy of the Direction was received into evidence at the hearing in this case as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The appropriate collective bargaining unit is therein described as follows: "Included: All eligible employees of the Pinellas County School Board employed in the ground maintenance, transportation, plant operations, warehouse and food-service departments. Excluded: All other non-instructional, instructional, and clerical employees; and all managerial/confidential employees of the Pinellas County School Board. See Attachment A." The election as conducted on or about March 11, 1976, and a majority of the employees in the unit described in the Direction of Election voted in favor of representation by the Charging Party for purposes of collective bargaining. The Public Employer thereafter filed objections to the conduct of the election (Respondent's Exhibit 4). The chairman of the Public Employees Relations Commission entered a report on objections on March 31, 1976 (Respondent's Exhibit 5). The chairman dismissed the objections on the grounds that they were not timely filed. On May 12, 1976, the Public Employees Relations Commission certified the Charging Panty as the exclusive bargaining agent for the unit of employees described in the Direction of Election and in the Erratum issued by the chairman of the Commission on February 26, 1976 (Respondent's Exhibit 3). The Public Employer filed a request for review of the chairman's dismissal of the objections (Respondent's Exhibit 6). By decision issued September 7, 1976, the Commission dismissed the objections (Respondent's Exhibit 7). The Public Employer thereafter filed a Petition For Re-Hearing. Further proceedings respecting certification of the bargaining unit were not made a part of the record in this case; however, it is assumed for the purposes of this Recommended Order that the Public Employer is in the process of appealing the Commission's decisions. Following the election, on April 2, 1976, the Charging Party wrote to the Public Employer requesting that negotiations be opened (General Counsel's Exhibit 1). The Public Employer responded by letter dated April 27, 1976 (General Counsel's Exhibit 2), as follows: "As you know, the school board, through the superintendent and my office, has taken appropriate steps to appeal certain procedures relating to the election held in the above matter. Until that procedure has been finalized before the Commission, we will not be in a position to enter into negotiations. It is further noted that you have not received an official notice that you are now the bargaining agent on behalf of a segment of the supporting services of the school board. Until such time as all the proper procedures have been taken before the Commission and a final determination has been made by the courts of the State of Florida, and you have been recognized by the school board as the bargaining agent on behalf of the supporting services employees, we would respectfully deny your request at this time." Following its certification as the collective bargaining representative, by letter dated May 17, 1976, the Charging Party again requested that negotiations be opened (General Counsel's Exhibit 3). Further requests were made by letters dated August 5, 1976, and August 26, 1976 (General Counsel's Exhibits 4, 5). The Public Employer has not responded either in writing or verbally to the requests to open negotiations, other than through its letter of April 27, 1976. The Public Employer has refused to enter into collective bargaining negotiations with the Charging Party, and continues to refuse to enter into negotiations until a final determination is made by the courts respecting the Charging Party's certification, and until the school board has recognized the Charging Party.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Public Employees Relations Commission enter an order requiring the School Board of Pinellas County to recognize the Pinellas County Custodial Union, #1221 as the exclusive bargaining agent of the unit of employees certified by the Public Employees Relations Commission; that the School Board of Pinellas County cease and desist from refusing to engage in collective bargaining negotiations with the Pinellas County Custodial Union, #1221; that the School Board of Pinellas County forthwith enter into good faith collective bargaining negotiations with the Pinellas County Custodial Union, #1221; and that the School Board of Pinellas County advise the Public Employees Relations Commission in writing of what steps it has taken to comply with the final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission between 30 and 45 days following entry of an order by the Commission. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: B. Edwin Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Austin Reed, Esquire Public Employee Relations Commission Suite 300 - 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward Draper 5400 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Kenneth Katsaris, is the duly elected Sheriff of Leon County, Florida. Respondent has its principle place of business in the City of Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of operating a county-wide law enforcement agency, pursuant to the Florida Constitution and the applicable statutes promulgated thereunder. Charging Party, Perry Lawrence was employed by Respondent as deputy with the Leon County Sheriff's Department of approximately four years and seven months prior to his discharge on February 3, 1977. Charging Party, Michael Spiers was an employee with the Leon County Sheriff's Department for approximately four years and one month prior to his discharge on February 3, 1977. At times material herein, Gene Goodman was employed as a Captain with the Leon County Sheriff's Department and as such was an agent and a representative of the Respondent acting on its behalf, and/or a managerial employee. On February 3, 1977, and for sometime previous thereto, Joe E. Davis was employed with Respondent as a Sergeant and was the immediate supervisor of Deputy Perry Lawrence. Also on February 3, 1977, Wilford Jiles was employed as a Lieutenant with the Leon County Sheriff's Department and for approximately one week prior to the termination of Deputy Spiers, was his immediate supervisor. During the period during which Lawrence and Spiers was employed with the Leon County Sheriff's Department, both under former Sheriff Raymond Hamlin and the present Sheriff Kenneth Katsaris, neither received an oral or written reprimand regarding their conduct; nor had they been counseled by either Sheriff or any superior with regard to any type of attitude problem or complaints about their work performance. THE ORGANIZATIONAL EFFORTS The deputy sheriffs of the Leon County Sheriff's Department discussed and began to consider the possibility of organizing collectively in October or November of 1976. However, serious organizational efforts did not begin until January of 1977. On January 31, 1977, Perry Lawrence contacted union organizer James Mixon and established February 5, 1977 as the date for the initial organizational meeting of the Leon County Sheriff's Deputies. The record reveals that deputies Lawrence and Spiers spearheaded the organizational drive, however, they made no contacts concerning organizational activities with employees during their working hours or of the working hours of the deputy employees whom they solicited. The evidence reveals that solicitation efforts were made during the period January 31, February 1 and February 2, 1977, at which time the first meeting was scheduled for February 5 at deputy Lawrence's house. January 31 was the last day of the January pay period for the Leon County Sheriff's Department employees. Evidence further reveals that Respondent Sheriff first learned about the organizational efforts within his department in mid to the latter part of January, 1977. Nearing the end of January or the first of February, Sheriff Katsaris learned of the roles of Lawrence and Spiers in the organizational effort. It was during this time period that deputy Spiers was being considered for a position in the detective division by Captain Poitinger, a managerial employee who was first employed with the advent of the new administration on January 4, 1977. Following the defeat of the incumbent sheriff in November, 1976, by Sheriff Katsaris, he (Katsaris) conducted interviews with the deputy sheriffs appointed by Sheriff Hamlin in order to ascertain those individuals who would be retained on his staff. Both deputies Lawrence and Spiers were interviewed and indicated their desire to continue their law enforcement careers and pledged to support the new administration. Sheriff Katsaris, based on this interview, decided to retain both deputies Lawrence and Spiers. Sheriff Katsaris took office as the Sheriff of Leon County on January 4, 1977. Sheriff Katsaris testified that individuals whose name he could not recall, indicated that deputies Lawrence and Spiers were dissatisfied with his administration and they decided to try to organize the deputy sheriffs. Interestingly, it was about this same time period that Sheriff Katsaris began thinking about terminating deputy sheriffs Lawrence and Spiers. In this regard, Sheriff Katsaris, who had only been in office 10 to 14 days, testified that "he had been unhappy with the conduct of both of them for some time." The record is devoid of any specific incident which deputies Lawrence and Spiers had committed which would bring them under the Sheriff's scrutiny. However, it was revealed that the alleged discriminatees (deputies Lawrence and Spiers) as were numerous other deputies including Sergeant McDearmid, Spier's supervisor, indicated that it had taken a period of adjustment to adapt to the new administration; some deputies voiced their dissatisfaction with the administration and complained about the "colors of the cars, shining their shoes" and the "change in uniforms that was imminent." Based thereon, plus the fact that Deputy Spiers failed to speak to the new Sheriff on numerous occasions, Sheriff Katsaris had decided as of mid January that he know deputies Lawrence and Spiers could not remain with his administration. This decision was, according to his testimony, based on the above unspecified conduct by them during his two week's tenure which in his opinion was so reprehensible that termination of their employment was necessary. Deputies Lawrence and Spiers continued to work in their departments unaware that their conduct was below the expectations and standards of the new administration. Between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. on February 3, 1977, Sheriff Katsaris discharged Deputies Lawrence and Spiers. The reasons assigned for the discharge of Deputy Lawrence was that his attitude was bad and his conduct was unethical and Deputy Spiers' assigned reasons for discharge were a "bad attitude"; "unability to adjust" and "poor work performance." As stated above, and as acknowledged by Sheriff Katsaris, neither Lawrence nor Spiers were ever counseled about their conduct, attitude, or work performance, nor were their supervisors consulted with regard to their conduct, attitude of work performance. The undersigned is mindful of Sergeant McDearmid's testimony that when Deputy Spiers initially came on board, he was over zealous. This, however, is not considered as a shortcoming in terms of ability to adequately perform. In any event, this matter was corrected at the outset of Spiers' employment. Aside from the unsubstantiated rumors received from unknown sources that Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were disgruntled with the new administration and were hampering the new administration's programs, the only specific action discernible in the record which is attributable to Deputy Lawrence is his failure to say "Hello" to the Sheriff on several occasions. Similarly, except for the rumors relied on by the Sheriff, the only two specific actions attributable to Deputy Spiers were: Stating, after the Sheriff inquired about his opinion of the newly painted police cars, that they looked like those on "TV, Adam-12"; and (b) advising the Sheriff that he had been offered a position in other police departments but had turned them down in hopes that he could get into the detective or narcotics unit with the Leon County Sheriff's Department. The record is barren of any further specific actions attributable to the alleged discriminatees. The evidence reveals that on January 26 - 28, 1977, Sheriff Katsaris attended a workshop of the Florida Sheriff's Association. At the workshop a session was held on dealing with unions. Following the session, the Sheriff concluded that under the circumstances it was time for him to deliver a message to the men as to how he felt about unions. On January 31, 1977, Deputy Lawrence contacted the union organizer, James Mixon and established February 5, as the date for the initial organizational meeting. During the period of January 31 through February 2, Deputies Lawrence and Spiers contacted all deputy sheriffs and sergeants, some 85 individuals about the union and the organizational meeting on February 5, 1977. On February 1, 1977, Captain Gene Goodman, a managerial employee of the Sheriff's Department called Deputy Sheriff Scott Key into his office. Among other things, Captain Goodman inquired about Key's knowledge about the union movement; whether Perry Lawrence was contacting the men; when the organizational meeting was being held; whether it was being held at Lawrence's home and what was Lawrence's home address. Captain Goodman indicated that Sheriff Katsaris might like to speak to Deputy Key immediately contacted Deputy Lawrence and advised him of the meeting because he (Key) thought Lawrence's position was in jeopardy. During the nights of January 31, 1977 and February 1 and 2, 1977, Sheriff Katsaris conducted several command staff meetings with his attorney. At the meetings several matters were discussed including union activities of employees and the names of Deputy Spiers and Lawrence were discussed at those meetings. On February 3, 1977, Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were terminated and on February 4, 1977, Sheriff Katsaris posted a no solicitation- no distribution rule and at the same time issued a departmental policy on unions and employee organizations. Included in the Sheriff's position letter was an expression of his feeling that union organization of the department's employees would not serve their best interests and will work to their substantial detriment of the high professional standards that [he] was seeking to achieve. He therefore concluded that it was his firm policy to oppose union organization of any group of the Leon County Sheriff's Department employees by every proper and legal means. (See Respondent's Exhibit #1, Attachment #2) Following the termination of Deputies Lawrence and Spiers the subsequent distribution of the Sheriff's no solicitation-no distribution rule and the position letter dated February 4, 1977, organizational activities within the Sheriff's Department ceased and testimony reveals that those employees who had signed authorization cards became disinterested and requested that they be returned to them.
Conclusions An examination of the above factors leads the undersigned to the conclusion that the Respondent's discharge of Deputies Lawrence and Spiers was discriminatorily motivated and undertaken based on anti-union sentiments. The Respondent was aware that organizational activities were occurring among its employees and that admittedly, Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were spearheading this activity. Respondent's knowledge was gained, at least in part, from its agent, Captain Goodman's interrogation of Deputy Scott Key. Without reciting her the details of Goodman's interrogation, it suffices to say that Respondent was much concerned about the on-going organizational drive. A reading of Respondent's position statement released the day following the discharges of Deputies Spiers and Lawrence unquestionable confirms this concern. Prior to these terminations, the organizational drive was mounting with great interest. However, following the terminations, those employees who had expressed organizational interests by executing authorization cards manifested no further interest and attempted to withdraw their support by requesting that their executed authorization cards be returned. Without question, at this point Respondent had driven home its point that those employees who cared to exercise their right to engage in collectively organized activities faced the ultimate penalty of discharge. The reasons advanced by the Respondent for the discharge of Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were considered and are rejected. The discriminatees had been employed for more than four years and at no time had either been disciplined, reprimanded or counselled about their work performance or attitude. The reasons rested on unsubstantiated rumors without any efforts to confirm that they (Deputies Lawrence and Spiers) were experiencing attitudinal problems. Nor were they given any opportunity to deny, admit or correct such problems. This entire matter hardly resembles the workings of an efficient law enforcement agency that prides itself (according to Respondent) with effective investigative techniques. Respecting Respondent's claim that they (Deputies Lawrence and Spiers) were not adjusting to the new administration, evidence reveals that employees are yet adjusting to the new administration. Indeed, Deputies Lawrence and Spiers had no idea (based on the benefit of consultations from their supervisors) that their performance was anything but satisfactory. To adjust to the new administration, they were given all of one month. Given these facts, the undersigned can only conclude that the reasons assigned by Respondent were merely a pretext and the real reasons that Deputies Lawrence and Spiers were discharged are accurately cited in the complaint herein and it is so concluded. The interrogation of Deputy Scott Key by Captain Goodman constitutes a violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) of the Act since the interrogation centered exclusively around the union activities of Respondent's employees. See e.g. Laborer's International Union, Local #666 v. Jess Parrish Memorial Hospital 3 FPER 172 (June 30, 1977). In the instant case, the Respondent, as was its right, expressed its position opposing unionization of its employees; the interrogation sought information which would lead one to reasonably conclude that such would form a basis for taking disciplinary action; the interrogator was a high-ranking staff personnel and the Deputy (Key) was called away from his duty station. Key's testimony reveals that it was indeed unusual for Captain Goodman to summon employees to his office except in matters of extreme importance. The fact that Deputy Key feared that disciplinary action would be taken is borne out by the fact that when Captain Goodman confirmed that Deputy Lawrence was active in the organizational drive, he advised Deputy Key that he thought that the Sheriff would like to know about that; and that (Key) should wait in his office until he could locate the Sheriff in order that he could be briefed on the matter. When the Sheriff was located, and the matter called to his attention, he told Captain Goodman that he was not interested in speaking to Deputy Key about the subject. Deputy Key spoke to Deputy Lawrence about the interrogation as quickly as he could after leaving Captain Goodman's office and attempted to convince Lawrence to "quit the organizing effort before he lost his job." It is apparent that the Sheriff recognized the dangers inherent in the situation, however, he did nothing to alert the other rank and file employees that he was repudiating the action of Captain Goodman. By failing to do so after learning of the interrogation, the Sheriff is held accountable for the acts and conduct of Captain Goodman. It is so recommended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Chapter 447.501(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, as required by Chapter 447.503(4)(a), Florida Statutes. Based thereon, it is further recommended that the Respondent be ordered to reinstate Deputies Perry Lawrence and Michael Spiers to their former or substantially equivalent position of employment and be reimbursed for all back pay with interest computed at 6 percent per annum beginning on February 4, 1977, in accordance with the formula set forth in Pasco County Teachers Association v. Pasco County School Board, PERC Order No. 76U-U75 (1976). It is further recommended that Respondent be required to post in each of its facilities in Leon County, Florida, on copies of an appropriate "notice to employees" for a period of sixty (60) days, a notice substantially providing that the Respondent will cease and desist from engaging in unfair practices within the meaning of Chapter 447.501, Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Gene L. Johnson, Esquire Staff Attorney Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 P. Kevin Davey, Esquire Post Office Box 1674 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jack M. Skelding, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent, a maintenance technician employed by Petitioner, committed the offenses alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner has been a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03(1), Florida Statutes (2001). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a maintenance technician and was assigned to WLRN, the radio/television station operated by Petitioner. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Hernandez supervised a work crew consisting of Respondent and ten other maintenance technicians. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent, Mr. Hernandez, and several other members of the work crew had worked together since 1990. The work crew performed maintenance work at the radio/television station and at the various schools and other facilities that received signals from the radio/television station. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had his own truck that he used to travel to his various work assignments. Respondent is a frustrated employee who does not get along well with his co-workers or with Mr. Hernandez. Respondent believes himself to be more qualified than his supervisor and his co-workers, and he is ever vigilant for improperly performed work by the maintenance crew. Respondent keeps a copy of the job description for the position held by Mr. Hernandez, which he reviews on a regular basis to determine if Mr. Hernandez is fulfilling his responsibilities. Over the course of his employment with Petitioner, Respondent has had a history of threatening co-workers and other School Board employees. Prior to May 1, 2001, Respondent had threatened Mr. Hernandez with bodily harm on two occasions. As a result of his threats against Mr. Hernandez and other School Board employees, Respondent had been referred on more than one occasion to Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program. In 1995 Petitioner required Respondent to submit to a psychological evaluation 1/ to determine Respondent's fitness for work. For the two and a half weeks immediately preceding May 1, 2001, Respondent was off work. During that time Respondent's work truck was idle. On May 1, 2001, when Respondent returned to work, an incident occurred between Mr. Hernandez and Respondent that underpins this proceeding. 2/ While making the workday assignments on the morning of May 1, 2001, Mr. Hernandez informed Respondent that his work truck had been scheduled for routine maintenance that day. Respondent became upset because the truck had been idle for the previous two and a half weeks, and he believed that the maintenance should have been performed during that period. Mr. Hernandez assigned Respondent to work with Mr. Braddy, but Respondent refused that assignment. 3/ Respondent walked over to the maintenance garage with a tape recorder to have the mechanic state on tape when Respondent's truck would be ready. Respondent then returned to the area where Mr. Hernandez was still making assignments. Mr. Hernandez told Respondent to go work with Rafael Montesino, another member of the work crew. Respondent refused that assignment. When he heard the assignment and Respondent's refusal, Mr. Montesino told Mr. Hernandez he would not work with Respondent and that he would take the day off if he had to do so. By the time Mr. Hernandez began to leave the area to go to his own work assignment, the other members of the crew had left for their assignments. Respondent did not have an assignment and he remained in the area. As Mr. Hernandez was leaving the area, Respondent verbally assaulted Mr. Hernandez in a hostile, threatening manner. Respondent cursed Mr. Hernandez and threatened to kill him. Mr. Hernandez drove off from the confrontation. Mr. Hernandez filed a complaint with his supervisors regarding Respondent's behavior of May 1, 2001, by Memorandum dated May 2, 2001. Following an investigation Detective Mario Victores of Petitioner's school police prepared a report styled Preliminary Personnel Investigation (the report). The report substantiated two alleged violations of School Board rules by Respondent: Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, pertaining to responsibilities and duties of School Board employees and Rule 6Gx13-4.108, pertaining to violence in the workplace. Victoria Bradford held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to discuss the incident of May 1, 2001. Based primarily on Ms. Bradford’s recommendation, 4/ Respondent was referred to Petitioner’s Employee Assistance Program and his employment was suspended without pay for a period of 30 days. Respondent is a non-probationary "educational support employee" within the meaning of Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: As used in this section: "Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system . . . who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or district school board pursuant to s. 231.1725. . . . "Employee" means any person employed as an educational support employee. "Superintendent" means the superintendent of schools or his or her designee. (2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist. Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist . . . In the event a superintendent seeks termination of an employee, the district school board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined by the appropriate collective bargaining process or by district school board rule in the event there is no collective bargaining agreement. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a member of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) collective bargaining unit. AFSCME and Petitioner have entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which in Article II, Section 3, provides that members of the bargaining unit may be disciplined for "just cause." The CBA does not define the term "just cause." Article XI, Section 1A of the CBA provides for progressive discipline as follows: . . . Whenever an employee . . . violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the . . . rule, regulation or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline should be followed, however, in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record. Therefore, disciplinary steps may include: verbal warning; written warning (acknowledged); Letter of reprimand; Suspension/demotion; and Dismissal. Article XI, Section 3 of the CBA provides as follows: 3. In those cases where any employee has not complied with the Board's policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 days without pay. The Superintendent must approve all suspensions. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 states in pertinent part that: All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08 provides as follows: Nothing is more important to Miami-Dade County Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against any students, employee, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public School employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or the threat of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension of Respondent's employment for 30 days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 15th day of April, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Broward County and Broward County Board of County Commissioners is a Public Employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2), F.S. (stipulation of parties). The Teamsters Local Union #769, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America is an Employee Organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10), F.S. (stipulation of parties). In January, 1974, thirty three airport security police employees of the Respondent who worked at the Ft. Lauderdale- Hollywood International Airport and North Perry Airport signed cards authorizing Teamsters Local Union #769 (hereinafter "Union") to represent them for the purpose of collective bargaining with the Respondent (Complainant's Exhibit 6, testimony of Mr. Sack). By letter of January 7, 1974, to Mr. Robert R. Kauth, Broward County Administrator, the Union advised that it represented the airport security employees police and requested that the Respondent recognize the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees and enter into negotiations for the purpose of obtaining a collective bargaining agreement. The Union further offered to demonstrate evidence that it represented the aforesaid employees (Complainant's Exhibit 7, testimony of Mr. Sack). Mr. Kauth responded in a letter dated January 28, 1974, and advised the Union that its letter had been referred to the Board of County Commissioners, but in view of "existing state law", the Commission was unable to and could not recognize the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the airport employees in question (Complainant's exhibit 8). The Union responded by a letter of January 30, 1974, requesting that Mr. Kauth identify the "existing state law" referred to in his letter and advised that the International Union's Constitution specified that the Union did not assert the right to strike amoung employees in the public sector. It also informed Mr. Kauth that the Florida Constitution and statutes guarantee public employees the right to organize and to bargain collectively through a representative of their choice (Complainant's Exhibit 9). Receiving no further response from the Respondent, the Union filed a complaint for declaratory relief and mandatory injunction in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for Broward County requesting the Court declare that the Union be recognized by the Respondent as the collective bargaining representative for the airport security police employees who had designated the union to represent them, and directing and requiring the Respondent to enter into collective bargaining with the Union as required by Art. 1, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution, and Section 839.221(2), F.S. On July 29, 1974, the Court entered a final decree requiring Respondent to grant recognition to the Union pursuant to Art. 1 Section 6 of the Florida Constitution "as the collective bargaining representative or agent of those airport security police officers employed by the Defendants at the Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Airport and North Perry Airport, who, are members and who remain members of the Plaintiff or who have freely and expressly given their consent to the Plaintiff labor organization to act as their collective bargaining agent" (Complainant's Composite Exhibit 11). As a result of the court order, the parties began bargaining, and proposals and counter-proposals were exchanged during the period commencing August, 1974 (Complainant's Exhibit 13, testimony of Mr. Sacks). At one of the negotiating sessions in October, the Respondent gave the Union its proposal for a recognition clause in the eventual agreement, which provided that the Respondent recognized the Union as the collective bargaining representative for those employees who were and would remain members of the Union, and that it would continue recognition after January 1, 1975 for the term of the agreement provided that the Union complied with all state requirements pertaining to recognition as contained in Chapter 447, F.S., and that otherwise recognition and the agreement would cease forthwith (Complainant's Exhibit 14, testimony of Mr. Elster). The Union thereupon filed a motion in the Broward County Circuit Court to hold the Respondent in contempt for violation of the previous final decree. The court, on October 30, 1974, citing Sections 447.009 and .022, F.S., found that the Respondent's proposal as to recognition was not a proper subject of collective bargaining at that time and ordered that it be stricken as a proposal (Complainant's Exhibit 15). At the twelfth negotiation session held on January 8, 1975, the parties reached a proposed collective bargaining agreement, with representatives placing their initials on a rough-draft (Complainant's exhibit 16). Counsel for Respondent agreed to provide a final draft in one week which thereafter was to be submitted to the county commission and the Union membership for approval and ratification. On January 17, the employees in the unit voted to accept the, agreement and new authorization cards were executed by the employees. At this time there were 49 employees in the unit and 46 authorization cards were signed at this time (Complainant's Exhibit 18). Further correspondence and discussions ensued, resulting in agreement on a final draft of the proposed agreement (Complainant's Exhibits 17-21). Article 1 of the proposed agreement concerning recognition provided that the county recognized the Union as the collective bargaining representative of all airport security officers employed by the county at the airports in question "who are members and who remain members of the union, or who have freely and expressly given their consent to the Union to act as their collective bargaining agent". The draft was approved by telegram from the Union's Counsel on February 20th, A except for failure to put the effective date of the agreement, i.e., January 8, 1975 in the draft (Complainant's Exhibit 22). Upon request of the Union, the matter was placed on the agenda of the Board of County Commissioners for its March 4th meeting. By letter to the County Administrator, dated February 28, Respondent's counsel advised that the original recognition had been by court order to recognize the Union "for members only"; that new state labor legislation required that a labor organization register with and be certified by the Public Employees Relations Commission as the majority representative of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit before a legal obligation by a public employer to recognize and bargain with the Union is established; that the Union had not met the registration and certification requirements and that the County was currently appealing in the Fourth District Court of Appeals the order of the lower court which had stricken one of the Respondent's contract proposals during negotiations. He therefore stated that it would be appropriate for the County Commission to consider the appeal before rendering a decision on the proposed agreement (Complainant's exhibit 23). The County Commission, at its meeting, deferred action on the agreement because the Union had not been registered nor certified under current law, and directed its counsel to request an advisory opinion from PERC on the status of the Union in reference to the state statute (Respondent's Exhibit 2). By letter, dated March 12, counsel for the Respondent sought such an advisory opinion from PERC (Respondent's Exhibit 13). Notwithstanding the lack of action by the County Commission, Respondent's Director of the Division of Airports determined to observe the terms of the proposed contract as to various working conditions (Complainant's Exhibit 24). The Union had made an abortive attempt to register with PERC on June 28, 1974, but this was before PERC had been organized and apparently the request was never received (Complainant's Exhibit 12, testimony of Mr. Sack and Mr. Elster). On March 10, 1975, the Union again submitted registration materials to PERC and, by letter of March 25, 1975, the Commission advised the Union that it had met the registration requirements of the statute (Complainant's Exhibit 28). On April 18, 1975, the Union filed a Recognition - Certification petition with PERC seeking certification of the airport security police personnel (Complainant's Exhibit 30), and on May 8, 1975, the Union filed the unfair labor charge against the Respondent alleging that it had violated Section 447.016(1)(a)(c), F.S., by attempting to withdraw recognition that was previously established between the parties and by refusing to sign a final agreement which had been agreed upon on January 8, 1975, (Complainant's Exhibit 1). On or about May 16, 1975, the Union filed with PERC a Motion to Waive the Posting Requirements of Recognition Acknowledgement and Motion to Expedite Processing of Unfair Labor Practice Charges (Complainant's Exhibit 31). In this motion, the Union requested that the posting requirements of recognition acknowledgement under PERC Rule 8H-200.4 (now 8H-2.04) be waived and certification issued based on the fact that it would be inequitable and against the intent and purposes of the statute to deny certification under Section 447.009(1) because recognition had been obtained by court order and the Union represented a majority of the employees in the unit. However, the petition for Recognition - Certification was withdrawn by the Union on June 3, and by letter of June 10, PERC advised it that the withdrawal request had been approved (Complainant's Exhibit 32). The record does not disclose that PERC took any action on the Union's aforesaid motion to waive the posting requirements of recognition-acknowledgment. In April and early May, the parties met and negotiated over a "wage reopener" provision contained in the proposed collective bargaining agreement. However, on May 19, Respondent's Counsel declined to grant a request for a further meeting stating that since the Union had rejected counter-proposals of the Respondent's negotiating team on April 21, it was felt that further meetings would be unproductive (Complainant's Exhibit 25-27). On July 31, 1975, the Union filed an amended unfair labor practice charge against the Respondent and, on August 8, the Acting General Counsel of PERC issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing which alleged unfair labor practices in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c) by reason of Respondent's refusal to execute the agreed upon contract and by unilaterally terminating negotiations with the Union thus having failed and refused to bargain in good faith (Complainant's Exhibit 1). On September 12, 1975, subsequent to the hearing, the Fourth District Court of Appeal rendered an opinion that the points on appeal were moot and that jurisdiction of the issues involved between the parties is in PERC pursuant to Section 447, F.S., and dismissed the appeal of Respondent concerning its proposed recognition clause (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1).
Recommendation It is recommended that the Public Employees Relations Commission, pursuant to Section 447.503(4)(b) issue an order dismissing the charges. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Allen M. Elster, Esquire MAMBER, GOPMAN, EPSTEIN & FOOSANER 16870 Northeast 19th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Thomas W. Burke, Esquire 2005 Apalachee Parkway Suite 105 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph A. Caldwell, Sr., Esquire Suite 600, 100 Biscayne Boulevard North Miami, Florida 33132
