The Issue Whether Respondent, Douglas Porter, should be terminated for his third absence without leave in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Petitioner, Seminole County School Board, and the non-instructional personnel of Seminole County.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing in this matter and the joint stipulation submitted April 24, 2007, the following Findings of Facts are made: Respondent, Douglas Porter, is, and has been, employed by the School Board of Seminole County since July 13, 1993. Paul Hagerty and William Vogel have been Superintendents of Public Schools for the School District of Seminole County, Florida, for all times material to the occurrences relevant to this case. Pursuant to Section 4, Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Sections 1001.30, 1001.31, 1001.32, 1001.33, 1001.41, and 1001.42, Florida Statutes (2006), the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, is the governing board of the School District of Seminole County, Florida. The relationship of the parties is controlled by Florida Statutes, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and School Board policies. Respondent is an employee of Petitioner's Grounds Maintenance Department, 100 Division ("maintenance department"). He began his employment in that division at the entry level position of Grounds Laborer I and worked his way up to Grounds Laborer II, prior to becoming a mechanic crew leader. As a mechanic crew leader, Respondent supervised three employees on his crew and interacted with principals and assistant principals to determine the landscaping needs of various schools. Respondent held the position of mechanic crew leader for approximately two years. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner for more than three years and is a "regular" employee and subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, copies of which he receives annually. Article VII, Section 15, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, provides, in pertinent part: Employees shall report absences and the reason for such absences prior to the start of their duty day in accordance with practices established at each cost center. An employee who has been determined to have been AWOL shall be subject to the following progressive discipline procedures: 1st Offense - Written reprimand and one day suspension without pay. 2nd Offense - Five day suspension without pay. 3rd Offense - Recommended for termination. Each day that an employee is AWOL shall be considered a separate offense. However, any documentation of offenses in this section shall be maintained in the employee's personnel file. Article VII, Section 15, has consistently been construed to apply to an employee's absence from his or her assigned duties for any portion of the day, as well as the entire day. An employee who is absent from his or her assigned work duties without the permission of the employee's supervisor is considered to be absent without leave. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires that an employee call in before the start of the work day if he or she is going to be absent; historically, maintenance department employees are given a 15-minute grace period after the start of the work day to call in. Although not reduced to a written directive, this practice is well-known within the maintenance department. An employee in the maintenance department who calls in sick, is reported to the payroll clerk who checks the employee's timesheet; if the employee has time on the books, he or she is approved for pay for the sick time. If the employee does not have time on the books, he or she is charged with a sick day with no pay. An employee who fails to call in, or calls in late, is considered absent without leave if he or she does not physically report for work that day or for the portion of the day missed due to tardiness. If the employee reports for work, he or she is subject to discipline, but is paid for the hours worked. If the employee calls in during the 15-minute grace period and is late, he or she is not subject to discipline, but is paid only for the time worked. Respondent had used 13 days of annual leave, 16 days of sick and personal leave, and 27 days of unpaid leave in the 2000 school year. This prompted Respondent's supervisor to indicate that his attendance needed improvement in Respondent's annual evaluation. As reflected in each of Respondent's annual assessments during his employment, Respondent's absenteeism created a hardship on his department and his attendance needed improvement. Normally, an employee is not required to provide proof of illness. In instances where an employee has excessive sick days, validation of illness is required. Concern with Respondent's excessive sick days prompted his supervisor to require, by letter dated October 1, 2001, medical certification of future illness that required missing work. By October 1, 2001, for the 2001 school year, which began on July 1, 2001, Respondent had used six days of vacation, eight days of paid leave, and four and a-half days of leave without pay. This "abuse of sick leave" resulted in a letter of reprimand dated October 1, 2001, which was clearly intended to warn Respondent to improve his attendance and required validation of illness as referenced in the preceding paragraph. Respondent was absent on September 1, 2002. He did not provide a medical validation of the illness causing the absence and, as a result, the absence was treated as an absence without leave. On September 18, 2002, Respondent received a letter of reprimand and a one-day suspension without pay due to his failure to provide medical verification for this unpaid leave day. This invoked the first step of progressive discipline as contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. On March 20, 2005, Respondent called in during the late evening and left a message on his supervisor's voicemail stating that he would not be at work the following day. The message was vulgar and unacceptable. Respondent did not report to work on March 21, 2005, and did not produce medical verification for his absence. On March 28, 2005, his supervisor recommended that he be suspended from work without pay for this absence without leave, his second offense in the progressive discipline system. On April 7, 2005, Respondent received a letter from the Superintendent notifying him that he would be following the supervisor's disciplinary recommendation for Respondent's absence without leave. The Superintendent's letter clearly references Respondent's failure to give appropriate prior notice of absences "in accordance with practices established at each cost center," and warns that future failure to comply "with procedures established at the Facilities Center to properly report and receive approval for future absences" would result in discipline in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. On September 7, 2006, Respondent voluntarily entered South Seminole hospital, a psychiatric facility. He was discharged on or about September 25, 2006. Respondent's condition required that he again be hospitalized on October 31, 2006, for four days. Respondent was diagnosed as suffering from bipolar disorder. During his hospitalizations, Respondent was administered various medications to treat his condition. Following release from his second hospitalization, Respondent's prescriptions were changed due to adverse side effects he was experiencing. In addition to being diagnosed with bipolar disorder, Respondent also voluntarily sought treatment for substance abuse at the Grove Counseling Center through the outpatient drug/substance abuse program. Respondent returned to work in November 2006, but was still suffering from problems related to his medication. He was late on November 8, 2006, and absent on November 9, 2006. Respondent had a meeting with his supervisor on November 10, 2006; it was the supervisor's intention to recommend Respondent for termination for the tardiness of November 8, 2006, and absence of November 9, 2006. On November 10, 2006, Respondent advised his supervisor that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in September 2006 and that he was having problems with his medication. As a result of this conversation, instead of being recommended for termination, Respondent was given time off to adjust his medications, and it was agreed that Respondent would return to work on January 2, 2007. On January 9, 2007, approximately a week after returning to work, Respondent called in at approximately 7:10 a.m., his work day begins at 6:30 a.m., to advise that he had overslept and would be late to work. Respondent arrived at work at 7:28 a.m., 58 minutes after the start of his work day. As a result of this tardiness, Respondent's supervisor recommended suspension and termination to the Superintendent for a third offense of being absent without leave.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent, Doug Porter, guilty of the allegations stated in the Petition for Termination and that his employment be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 31st day of August, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeanine Blomberg, Interim Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Bill Vogel, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Pamela Hubbell Cazares, Esquire Chamblee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 200 Brandon, Florida 33511
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Verdyce Clarke (Clarke), was certified as a law enforcement officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission) on October 18, 1974, and was issued certification number 02-12405. At all times material hereto, Clarke was employed as a police officer by the City of Miami, Florida. On February 10, 1988, Clarke, at the request of her employer, presented herself for her annual physical. Consistent with the collective bargaining agreement existent between her union and employer, such physical included the taking of a urine sample and analysis of that sample for the presence of controlled substances. In this instance, the sample taken from Clarke proved positive for the presence of cocaine, a controlled substance. Again, consistent with the collective bargaining agreement, Clarke was offered the opportunity on February 10, 1988, to provide a second urine sample for substance abuse screening. Clarke elected to provide the second sample and upon analysis it likewise proved positive for the presence of cocaine. The quantity of cocaine detected in Clarke's system on February 10, 1988, was so extreme as to suggest recent recreational use or severe addiction. At hearing, no appearance was entered on behalf of Clarke, and no proof was offered that the subject drug was possessed or administered under the authority of a prescription issue by a physician or that its presence could otherwise be lawfully explained.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking the certification of respondent, Verdyce Clarke. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of March, 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 15th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William C. Robinson, Esquire 28 West Flagler Street Suite 220 Roberts Building Miami, Florida 33130 Verdyce Clarke 2230 N.W. 74th Street Miami, Florida 33147 Jeffrey Long, Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Daryl McLaughlin Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, Esquire General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
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).
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s employment position was properly reclassified from Career Service to the Select Exempt Service (SES) on July 1, 2001, pursuant to Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact On May 1, 2001, Petitioner was reassigned from Accountant Supervisor I to Administrative Assistant II. At the time, Petitioner was under the Career Service System and was a probationary status employee. Petitioner’s position as an Administrative Assistant II was a position within the PERC certified collective bargaining unit, entitled the Administrative and Clerical Unit, Certification Number 542 issued on June 25, 1981. For inclusion within such a unit the position was considered to not involve managerial or supervisory functions. In the early part of 2001, the Department’s Bureau of Personnel Services worked with the Department of Management Services to implement the Service First initiative. As part of Service First’s implementation, the Bureau reviewed positions to determine whether they met the criteria set forth in Section 110.205, Florida Statutes. After its review, the Bureau forwarded its determination regarding those positions to the Department of Management Services (DMS) for reclassification or exemption as appropriate. The Bureau reviewed Petitioner’s duties and consulted with Petitioner’s immediate and indirect supervisors regarding the essential duties assigned to Petitioner’s position. Based on that review, the Bureau determined that Petitioner’s position was confidential. Although the evidence at the hearing did not demonstrate such the Bureau determined that Ms. Wofford and Petitioner had access to confidential collective bargaining material due to their work with the Long-Range Program Plan (LRPP). On July 1, 2001, Petitioner’s position was reclassified from Career Service to SES due to the Service First initiative. Petitioner’s position was reclassified to SES because it was determined to be a confidential position as defined in Section 110.205, Florida Statutes. The title of the position remained the same. A new position description under SES was approved by the Division Director, Ms. Sandy Delopez. The new SES description was essentially the same as Petitioner’s old Career Service position description. In pertinent part, the position description as of July 1, 2001, stated the following: This position is authorized to work independently assisting management in the coordination of tasks and/or assignments, which are complex in nature, broad in objective with diverse functions. Duty [Sic] involves the performance of activities, which involve independent planning and prioritization. Assists in collecting, evaluating and analyzing data and work. Review records and reports that require action and recommend solutions that fully utilize technology. Perform special assignments, research, report preparation, conducting and/or directing special projects or activities as directed. Responsible for performing other related duties as required. Petitioner remained employed under the new classification until his termination on March 12, 2003. As an Administrative Assistant II under SES, Petitioner worked in the Office of Planning and Business Support under the Division of Administrative Services in the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. One of the Division’s major responsibilities was to coordinate preparation of the LRPP. The Division provided administrative support functions for the Department, including budgeting, accounting, human resources, purchasing and contracts. Petitioner reported to Stacy Wofford, the Bureau Chief of Purchasing and Contracts, who acted as his immediate supervisor. Ms. Wofford served as the Agency Planning Officer. Petitioner’s chain of command also included Ms. Wofford’s direct supervisor, Mallory Horne, Jr., Chief of Staff, and the Division Director, Ms. Sandy DeLopez. Ms. Wofford had the primary responsibility for preparing the LRPP. The Office of Planning only had two employees, Ms. Wofford and Petitioner. The LRPP is a five-year plan prepared by Respondent each year, pursuant to Section 216.013, Florida Statutes, that lays out the agency’s goals, strategies for reaching those goals, and the performance measures used by the agency in evaluation of its performance. The Governor’s Office directed the items and issues that were to be included in the LRPP. The LRPP addresses Respondent’s plan for reductions in force, and identifies specific positions that could be impacted by such reductions in force. There was no substantive evidence that this information was used in collective bargaining in any substantial way. The LRPP also is used to justify the Department’s legislative budget request. The plan provides the framework and foundation for the Department’s legislative budget request and addresses how the Department is going to meet the Governor’s mandate of a five percent budget and workforce reduction for each year. As a part of the LRPP, the Department provided its plan for reductions in force and identified specifically positions that would be impacted. It has a substantial impact on the preparation of the Department’s budget and legislative consideration of that budget. However, neither Ms. Wofford, nor Petitioner prepared or administered agency budgets. Ms. Wofford had primary responsibility for coordinating the plan’s preparation. In preparing the LRPP, Ms. Wofford had to analyze the goals of the various Divisions in the Department and what positions may be possible for elimination or consolidation. Furthermore, Ms. Wofford consulted with bureau chiefs in staff meetings and briefings to provide information to the Division Director that could be used in determining where job cuts would be made. Based on her job description, Ms. Wofford’s position was not of a routine, clerical or ministerial nature and did require the application of independent judgment, such that she constituted a managerial or supervisory employee. However, the information used in the LRPP was developed by and collected from the various Divisions of the Department. In that regard the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Wofford’s true duties were of a ministerial nature and included faithfully reporting to others the information she obtained from others. Petitioner assisted Ms. Wofford in obtaining the information collected from the various Divisions and putting that information into the correct format for easy inclusion into the LRPP. To accomplish these tasks Petitioner utilized Microsoft Word, Excel and Access and had significant experience in those areas. None of the information gathered in preparing the LRPP was exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. The information contained in the LRPP was clearly important and sensitive because of its potential impact. The evidence did not show that such information was secret or confidential information. The testimony of the Division Director that he considered everything in his office to be confidential is insufficient to establish such confidentiality, since clearly the Sunshine laws apply to his office and much of the information he deals with is subject to public scrutiny. Moreover, such testimony is insufficient to establish confidentiality strictures down to Petitioner’s level of employment. At the time, the DMS conducted the collective bargaining negotiations with unions representing State employees. The Department did not conduct such negotiations. However, the Department had several managers on the advisory council that worked with DMS on collective bargaining with unions. These included Ken Wilson, Sandra DeLopez, a chief from the Highway Patrol, and sometimes one of the agency attorneys. Neither Stacy Wofford, nor her supervisor, Mallory Horne, was the bargaining team. Neither Ms. Wofford, nor Petitioner prepared, or assisted anyone in preparing, collective bargaining proposals to be used in collective bargaining negotiations. Moreover, neither was ever asked to do so. According to Petitioner’s testimony, he preformed two general functions in his position as an Administrate Assistant II: writing computer programs and performing ad hoc clerical tasks for Ms. Wofford. Approximately 80 percent of Petitioner’s time was spent on various computer programming tasks; approximately 20 percent was spent in performing clerical tasks. On the other hand, Ms. Wofford described Mr. Snyder as her “right hand person,” and as someone who worked very close with her. The evidence showed that Petitioner’s work in programming consisted of creating various programs that were ultimately used by other administrative units to collect and display data. After creating the programs, Petitioner would turn the application over to the administrative unit for which it was prepared, for its use. He developed programs, to analyze how quickly property was entered into the State property system, customer service surveys, the use of electricity in State buildings and programs for the State childcare facility. These were created, primarily, using Visual Basic for applications and Microsoft Excel. Petitioner’s work on the LRPP was essentially clerical in nature. It consisted of receiving numerous documents from the various Divisions of the Department, and compiling all of the documents into a single document, with consistent formatting. His primary concerns were that the final document used the same typeface, or font, the same margins, and that the various compiled documents fell on the correct page. He had no control over the data; he simply arranged the formatting and entered information into spreadsheet and database programs for use in the LRPP. Petitioner had no policy-making role in the development of the LRPP. Petitioner helped Ms. Wofford in assimilating information and verifying that the information being provided by the various program areas was the most recent and accurate. In addition, he made sure that the information was uploaded electronically in the Legislature’s budget system. Petitioner also created the formulas used to get to the output reflected on the LRPP. However, these formulas were basic mathematical formulas and not formulas that used policy parameters in their creation. The evidence did not show Petitioner’s assistance was independent or required significant amounts of independent judgment. Petitioner, also, along with Ms. Wofford, was involved in meetings related to the preparation of the LRPP. These meetings would have included Mr. Neal Standley, Budget Chief, Ms. Sandy DeLopez, Division Director, Mr. Ken Wilson, former Personnel Chief, Ms. Rene Knight current Personnel Chief, and other managers. Again, the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner’s role was other than to explain various processes used to create the LRPP. His role did not involve policy judgments or require independent action or judgment. Petitioner did not supervise any other employee; did not give performance evaluations; did not work on collective bargaining grievances or arbitrations or on Career Service appeals; and did not assist in developing policies or materials to be used in collective bargaining. Petitioner did not regularly handle information that was not subject to public inspection. Although he performed clerical work on the LRPP, he never knowingly viewed information identifying positions the agency intended to eliminate or consolidate due to reductions in force. In particular, Petitioner did not have access to a database of positions to be eliminated due to reductions in force, and did not know of the existence of any such database. In short, the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner was either a managerial employee or an employee involved with confidential matters. Therefore his position should not have been reclassified from Career Service to SES.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner's position of Administrative Assistant II, is that of a Career Service employee, setting aside the classification as Select Exempt Service, and reinstating Petitioner as a person entitled to rights pertaining to Career Service employees as of the time of his improper reclassification. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 2nd day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Judson Chapman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway Room A-432, Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Fred O. Dickinson, III, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Jerry G. Traynham, Esquire Patterson & Traynham 315 Beard Street Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 Melissa Horwitz, Esquire 6840 Highland Park Terrace Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Avery D. McKnight, Esquire Alien, Norton and Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent's employment with the Monroe County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the entity charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Monroe County, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Respondent as a non-probationary air-conditioning mechanic in the Upper Keys. As noted previously, Petitioner initiated the instant cause against Respondent on January 19, 2012. In a letter signed by the superintendent of schools on that date, Petitioner advised Respondent that it intended to terminate his employment: [F]or willful violation of school board policy, 4210(I), (L) and (Q), by theft of time, inappropriate use of a District owned vehicle, and by making fraudulent statements in required District paperwork, all of which are grounds for discipline up to and including termination. * * * This action is being taken in accordance with School Board Policies . . . and the Collective Bargaining Agreement. (emphasis added). The above-quoted language notwithstanding, Petitioner's Administrative Complaint ("Complaint"), filed contemporaneously with the superintendent's letter, does not purport to discipline Respondent in accordance the collective bargaining agreement,1/ the terms of which are neither referenced in the Complaint nor included in the instant record——a fatal error, as explained later. Instead, Petitioner seeks in its Complaint to terminate Respondent's employment based solely upon alleged violations of School Board Policy 4210 (specifically, subsections I, L, and Q), which provides, in relevant part: 4210 – Standard for Ethical Conduct An effective educational program requires the services of men and women of integrity, high ideals, and human understanding. The School Board expects all support staff members to maintain and promote these essentials. Furthermore, the School Board hereby establishes the following as the standards of ethical conduct for all support staff members in the District who have direct access to students: A support staff member with direct access to students shall: * * * not use institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage. * * * L. maintain honesty in all dealings. * * * Q. not submit fraudulent information on any document in connection with employment. (emphasis added). Significantly, the record is devoid of evidence that Respondent has direct access to students, and the nature of Respondent's position (an air-conditioning mechanic) does not permit the undersigned to infer as much; therefore, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Respondent is subject to the proscriptions of School Board Policy 4210. In light of these unique circumstances——i.e., Petitioner has not proceeded against Respondent under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (as it should have), but rather, under a school board policy that applies only to employees that have direct access to students——it is unnecessary to reach the merits of the underlying allegations of misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Monroe County School Board enter a final order: dismissing the Administrative Complaint; and immediately reinstating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 2012.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the subject petition to determine the invalidity of Rule 38D- 17.023(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, is granted, and Rule 38D- 17.023(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, is found to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, 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 30th day of July, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Claire D. Dryfuss, Esquire M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack E. Ruby, Esquire 2596 Seagate Drive, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-5032 Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Holland Building, Room 120 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
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 The petition herein was filed by the Petitioner with PERC on February 11, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). The hearing in this case was scheduled by notice dated May 3, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2). The City of Boca Raton is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(2). (Stipulation, Transcript of Record */ , Page 6). The Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(10). (Stipulation, TR 6, 7). The Petitioner has requested recognition as the bargaining agent of employees set out in the petition, and the Public Employer has denied the request. (Stipulation, TR 7). There is no contractual bar to holding an election in this case, and there is no pertinent collective bargaining history which affects the issues in this case. (Stipulation, TR 7, 8). PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner is a duly registered employee organization. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner filed the requisite showing of interest with its petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. The Public Employer contends that the unit described in the petition is inappropriate, and that the Petitioner has made no appropriate showing of interest with respect to any appropriate collective bargaining unit. The Public Employer's Fire Department is divided into five divisions. The employees in the proposed collective bargaining unit all work under the Administrative Division, and are supervised by an assistant chief. The other divisions are the Training Division, Operations Division, Staff and Line Support Division, and Fire Prevention Division. The Public Employer operates four fire stations. Station No. One is the Department's headquarters. Fire fighters and emergency medical personnel are housed at headquarters as are all communications personnel, including the persons in the proposed collective bargaining unit. None of the persons in the proposed unit are stationed at the Public Employer's other fire stations. Dispatchers and Alarm Operators are supervised either by the Assistant Chief in charge of the Administrative Division, or by the company officer in- charge of the shift at the headquarters station. Dispatchers are not certified fire fighters, and they do not perform the duties of certified fire fighters. Fire fighters work what is called a twenty-four-hour-on, forty-eight-hour-off shift. Dispatchers work an eight-hour shift which revolves so that one or more dispatchers are continuously on duty. Dispatchers and fire fighters have a different pension plan, and different employee benefits. Fire fighters make a larger contribution to theirs pension plan than do dispatchers, and are covered by their plan from the first day of employment. Dispatchers are not covered until after the passage of six months. The City provides hazardous duty insurance for fire fighters, but not for dispatchers. Dispatchers have a six- months probationary period. Fire fighters have a one-year probationary period. Although dispatchers do not perform the work of fire fighters, fire fighters are trained to serve as dispatchers, and do frequently perform the dispatchers' functions. The dispatchers and fire fighters work closely together. There are occasional social functions attended by fire fighters and dispatchers which no other city employees attend. Dispatchers receive the same basic employment benefits that are received by clerical employees of the Public Employer. They have the same pension plan, vacation and sick leave policies, and they serve the same probationary period. Dispatchers and clerical employees receive similar salaries. The only promotions available to dispatchers within the City of Boca Raton would be to clerical positions with a higher pay grade. There are no promotions available within the Fire Department. Dispatchers do not perform typing, filing, and other general clerical duties. Their function is not, however, unique to the City. The Police Department also employs dispatchers, and police and fire dispatchers have the same job description. (Public Employer's Exhibit 7). The Public Employer is presently engaged in collective bargaining with three employee organizations representing three certified bargaining units. There is a unit of "blue collar" employees, a unit of sworn police officers, and a unit of certified fire fighters. ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Crossland, Esquire Muller & Mintz, P. A. Suite 600, One Hundred Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33132 Richard F. Krooss, President Fire Fighters of Boca Raton, No. 1560 Post Office Box 565 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Curtis L. Mack, Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300 - 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 =================================================================
