The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as an educational support employee, where Respondent has confessed to a felony shoplifting charge as part of a deferred prosecution agreement pursuant to which criminal charges will be dismissed if Respondent satisfactorily complies with the agreement.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. At all times material, Respondent Cassandre Lawrence (“Lawrence”) was employed in the Palm Beach County School District (the “District”) as a paraprofessional (teacher’s aide), a position which she had held for approximately six years before the events that gave rise to the instant proceeding.1 Lawrence was working at Northmore Elementary School during the 2000-01 school year. On December 26, 2000, Lawrence and a female companion were arrested at the Boynton Beach Mall on shoplifting charges. Lawrence was charged with grand retail theft, which is a third degree felony. Pursuant to Board Rule 6Gx50-3.13,2 all District employees must report any arrests, convictions, “commitment[s] to a pretrial diversion program,” or pleas of any kind within 48 hours after the reportable event.3 At the time of Lawrence’s arrest, however, the District’s schools were closed for Christmas vacation, so she did not report the incident immediately. Instead, on January 9, 2001——Lawrence’s first day back at work after the holidays——Lawrence submitted to the District’s Chief Personnel Officer a written disclosure of her arrest, which stated: On December 26, 2000 I was shopping in the Boynton Beach Mall with a friend. Unknowingly, she put some items in my shopping bag. I was falsely arrested. My friend has admitted doing so [sic]. I felt that being an employee of the School Board that [sic] I should report this matter. This matter would be dissolved [sic] very soon. I have never been in any trouble or accused before. This situation has really been bothering me. After this matter has been straightened out I will be forwarding you the necessary paper work. Lawrence’s statement was provided to the District’s Office of Professional Standards on January 10, 2001. That office opened a case file on Lawrence. On March 29, 2001, Lawrence reached an agreement with the state attorney that provided for her referral to a pretrial intervention program (“PTI”). See Section 948.08, Florida Statutes (governing pretrial intervention programs). This agreement was reduced to writing on April 3, 2001, when the parties executed a contract they called the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“Agreement”). Under the Agreement, the state attorney promised, in return for Lawrence’s agreement to abide by conditions specified in the Agreement, to defer the prosecution of Lawrence for a period of 18 months from the date of April 3, 2001. Further, the state attorney agreed that if Lawrence complied with the conditions of the Agreement, then “no criminal prosecution concerning [the shoplifting] charge [would] be instituted[.]” By signing the Agreement, Lawrence expressly waived her constitutional rights to a speedy trial. On the same day she executed the Agreement, and in consideration thereof, Lawrence signed this statement: I, Cassandre Lawrence freely and voluntarily admit that I am guilty of the allegations [of grand theft] contained in [the charging document]. (This statement will be referred to hereafter as the “Confession.”)4 Sometime shortly afterwards——the evidence does not reveal the exact date——Lawrence reported to the District that she had entered into a PTI pursuant to the Agreement. As a result, on April 19, 2001, Mr. Holeva of the District's Office of Professional Standards met with Lawrence, her attorney (who participated by telephone), and her union representative,5 to investigate the circumstances surrounding the shoplifting charge against Lawrence. In this meeting, Lawrence acknowledged that, to enter into a PTI, she had signed the Confession wherein she admitted guilt to the felony theft charge——a so-called “435 offense.”6 Following this interview, the Office of Professional Standards referred Lawrence’s case to the Case Management Review Committee (the “Committee”). The Committee is composed of a dozen senior District employees who are responsible for determining whether probable cause exists to discipline an employee suspected of having engaged in misconduct. Upon review, the Committee determined that Lawrence had violated Board Rule 6Gx50-3.13 by failing to timely report her arrest and later referral to a PTI within 48 hours after these respective events had occurred. (Yet, it should be noted, Lawrence had not concealed the material facts, nor had she attempted to mislead the District.) However, the Committee considered Lawrence’s purported failures strictly to follow the notification rule to be, collectively, a minor infraction that, without more, would have warranted at most a written reprimand. Much more important, the Committee found that Lawrence was guilty of a “435 offense.” Because the District’s settled policy and consistent practice is to terminate any employee who has committed a “435 offense,” the Committee recommended that Lawrence’s employment be terminated. The Superintendent accepted the Committee’s recommendation that Lawrence be fired. By letter dated June 29, 2001, the Superintendent notified Lawrence that he would recommend to the Board at its July 11, 2001, meeting that she be suspended without pay pending dismissal. The Board subsequently accepted the Superintendent’s recommendation. Lawrence has been suspended without pay since on or about July 11, 2001.
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
Recommendation In view of the above findings and conclusions of law, I therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Staff Attorney for Patrica A. Renovitch Acting General Counsel Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pattillo, MacKay and McKeever, P.A. by John P. McKeever, Esquire Suite 500, Concord Square Post Office Box 1668 Ocala, Florida 32670 Lenard A. Carson, Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions Objections 3B, 3C and 3D involve factual questions which can only be resolved by an evaluation of the credibility of various witnesses. Consequently, pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8H- 3.28, a hearing shall be held where the underlying facts can be determined prior to ruling on the merits of those objections and the remainder of CWA's Objections are dismissed. It is so ordered. LEONARD A. CARSON CHAIRMAN 77E-207 THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on April 21st, 1977, this document was filed in the office of the Public Employees Relations Commission at Tallahassee and a copy served on each party at its last known address by certified mail. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION BY: Judy N. Collins Deputy Clerk
Findings Of Fact The petition herein was filed by Petitioner with PERC on February 12, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). The hearing in this case was scheduled by notice dated April 23, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2). The Sheriff of Sarasota County is an officer who holds his position by virtue of Article VIII, Section 1(d) of the Constitution of the State of Florida. The duties, responsibilities, and powers of the Sheriff's Department are delineated in Florida Statutes, Ch. 30. There are no special statutes which alter the provisions of Ch. 30 with respect to the Sheriff of Sarasota County. The Petitioner is an association which is seeking to represent a group of public employees concerning matters relating to their employment relationship with the Sheriff's Department. The Petitioner has been certified by PERC to serve as the bargaining representative for employees of the City of Sarasota, Florida. The Petitioner requested recognition as the bargaining agent of the unit of employees described in the petition. The Sheriff's Department did not respond to the request. (Stipulation, Transcript of Record, Page 6). 1/ There is no contractual bar for holding an election in this case. (Stipulation, TR 6). There is no collective bargaining history which would affect the issues in this case. (Stipulation TR, 6, 7). PERC has previously determined chat 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 parties stipulated that probationary personnel employed by the Sheriff's Department, and special deputies who are not regularly salaried employees of the Sheriff's Department should be excluded from any collective bargaining unit ultimately certified by PERC as appropriate in this case. The organizational structure of the Sheriff's Department is accurately depicted in an organizational chart which was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 5. The Sheriff is the chief executive officer of the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department is divided into six divisions. There are six sworn law enforcement personnel in the Research, Development, and Training Division. The Division is headed by a Lieutenant. A Corporal serves in this division for two days weekly in the Crime Prevention office. There are four officers in the division. The Sheriff's Staff is headed by the Sheriff. There are no sworn law enforcement personnel in this division. There are five sworn law enforcement personnel in the Detention Division. The Division is headed by a Captain. One sergeant and three patrolmen serve in the division. Two of the patrolmen serve as process servers. The Sergeant supervises the activities of the patrolmen and answers to the Captain. There are approximately 78 sworn law enforcement personnel in the Patrol Division. A Captain is in charge of the Division. There are five lieutenants, seven sergeants, and seven corporals. There are five sworn law enforcement personnel in the Administration Division. The Division is headed by a Captain and includes one lieutenant, one corporal, and two patrolmen. There are sixteen sworn officers in the Investigative Division. The Division is headed by a Captain, and includes two sergeants and three corporals. The Sheriff is ultimately responsible for hiring, firing, suspending, and transferring employees of the Sheriff's Department. Captains serve as heads of four of the Department's divisions. The Captain is responsible for the functioning of his division, and for the assignment and training of personnel who serve under him. Captains are the second highest ranking officers in the Department, and answer directly to the Sheriff. Captains normally work a standard day shift. Lieutenants are in charge of the shifts in the Patrol Division. The lieutenants answer to the Patrol Division Captain. The Lieutenant in the Administration Division is in charge of the Purchasing Office and answers to the Administration Division Captain. The Lieutenant in the Research, Development and Training Division is in charge of the Division and answers directly to the Sheriff. Lieutenants who work the day shift work primarily in the central office. In the four to midnight and midnight shifts the Lieutenant works primarily in a patrol car. Lieutenants are responsible for scheduling the men on their shifts, and for inspecting the men. Lieutenants will serve as acting captain during all times when no captain is on duty. The uniform worn by lieutenants and captains includes a white shirt with the appropriate bars worn on the shoulder. Personnel with the rank of sergeant or below wear uniforms which have light green shirts with patches on the arms. Each of the captains in the Department has use of a department motor vehicle. Some but not all lieutenants and sergeants have use of automobiles. The Sergeants are directly responsible for supervising deputies on patrol. Sergeants are generally responsible for supervising fewer employees than Lieutenants supervise, and Sergeants do not perform regular office functions. Corporals generally serve as backup units for the road deputies. The Sheriff seeks recommendations from each level of the chain of command for personnel action including hiring, firing, transfer, suspension, and other disciplinary action. An advisory committee, which consists of sergeants, corporals, and deputies, makes recommendations respecting hiring of new employees. The Sheriff also utilizes an advisory committee to make recommendations respecting promotions. The Sheriff typically follows the recommendations of Captains respecting personnel administration. Typically the Captains recommendations will be based upon the Lieutenant's recommendations which will be based upon the Sergeant's recommendations. Each division and each department within each division submits proposed budgets to the Administrative Captain. The Administrative Captain and the Sheriff together prepare a proposed budget for the Sheriff's Department. Final budget approval must come from the County Commission. The Sheriff has the various appeal routes set out in Florida Statutes Ch. 30 in the event the County Commission does not approve his proposed budget. Only the Sheriff can expend funds on behalf of the Sheriff's Department. Staff meetings are conducted by the Sheriff on an as-needed basis. Captains and Lieutenants regularly serve on the Sheriff's staff. No personnel below the rank of lieutenant regularly serve on the staff. Other officers are invited to participate in the staff meetings when matters affecting their area of responsibility are involved. The Sheriff receives input at the staff meeting respecting new policies. The Sheriff is ultimately responsible for making decisions respecting new policies, but he does seek the advice of the staff. In the event that the Sheriff's Department engages in the collective bargaining process, no final plans have been formulated respecting which personnel would serve on any negotiating team. The Sheriff intends to do his own negotiating and has not determined whether he will utilize the services of any assistants. ENTERED this 9 day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact The Public Works Department consists of fourteen employees including a superintendent, eight maintenance men - two of whom are CETA personnel, one equipment operator, two mechanics, one lead man, and one operator foreman who supervises the equipment operator. The parties stipulated that all of these employees properly should be included in the proposed bargaining unit except the superintendent, the two CETA employees, and the operator foreman. The Utilities Department has thirty employees, including a director, a finance director, two field supervisors, four sewer plant operators, two sewer plant operator trainees, two utilities servicemen, one mechanic, one mechanic's helper, three clerk typists, a bookkeeper, a records clerk, two accounting clerks, a pipelayer, two secretaries, two meter readers, a customer representative, an inventory clerk-meter repairman, a construction superintendent and an equipment operator. The parties stipulated that the director, finance director, the two field supervisors, the three clerk-typists, bookkeeper, records clerk, two accounting clerks, two secretaries, customer representative, inventory clerk - meter repairman, and construction superintendent properly should be excluded from the proposed unit and that all of the remaining employees properly could be included except for the two meter readers. Thus of a total of 44 employees in the two departments, it was agreed that 20 should be excluded and 24 included, leaving only two employee positions, the meter readers, in dispute. A meter reader does routine field work in reading water meters and recording water consumption. He makes special readings as required, checks to see that meters are functioning properly and reports any defects, clears mud debris and other matter from meter cases, repairs clock leaks, raises boxes and installs new meters. He also checks to determine the consistency of meter readings and reports unusual cases, prepares diagrams showing locations of meters in relation to newly-built houses, and performs related work as required. He has no supervisory responsibilities, and works under the supervision of the customer service representative. (Composite Exhibit 5). The City of Casselberry has a City Council, Mayor, City Manager, and Civil Service Commission. The city employs approximately 110 persons including the city manager. Most of these employees are in the fire department, police department, public works department, and utilities department. The total employees include three part-time employees and five CETA employees (Exhibit 8). Other than the employees who are included in the proposed bargaining unit, there are few other eligible city employees who would not be included in fire or police department bargaining units. The City has a unified classification plan and personnel regulations that govern hiring, firing, salaries, work hours, vacations, leaves of absence, grievances, discipline and the like. The plan is implemented by the appropriation of funds therefor by the city council. All employees of the city fall into one of 35 grades which each contains six steps. The city council approves a yearly budget in the fall which approves pay scales for the various classifications of employees (Exhibit 7, Testimony of Mr. Juliano).
Findings Of Fact The Petition herein was filed by the Petitioner with PERC on March 18, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). The hearing in this case was scheduled by Notice dated May 2, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2). The City of Cocoa, Florida, is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(2). (Stipulation, Transcript of Record, Page 5, 6). 1/ The Petitioner is an Employee Organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(10). (Stipulation, TR 6). The Petitioner has requested recognition as the bargaining agent of the persons described in the petition. (Stipulation, TR 6, 7). There is no contractual bar to holding an election in this case, and there is no collective bargaining history which would effect the issues in this case. (Stipulation, TR 7). PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner is a duly registered Employee Organization. (See: Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3). At the hearing the parties stipulated that the Petitioner is so registered. (TR 7). PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner filed the requisite showing of interest with its petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). No evidence was presented at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. Petitioner and the Public Employer stipulated and agreed that employees within the Public Employer's Police Department who hold the positions of Communications Officers; Secretary, Detective Bureau; and Records and Identification Clerk should be included in the collective bargaining unit previously certified by PERC in Case No. 766-2030. The job descriptions of employees who hold the positions of Communications Officer; Secretary, Detective Bureau; and Identification Clerk were received in evidence as Joint Exhibits 1, 2, and 3. The job descriptions accurately describe the duties, responsibilities, and day-to-day activities of the employees who hold those positions. ENTERED this 12 day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
