Findings Of Fact The Respondent caused the experience increments which had been in effect for all adult education teachers to be modified or terminated, and reduced the hourly wage amounts paid to adult education teachers. However, the real question presented is whether adult education teachers were included within the bargaining unit. The position of adult education teachers was not mentioned either in the inclusions or exclusions of the descriptions of the bargaining unit. Whether they would be included therefore turns upon whether adult education teachers are regularly employed certificated personnel." Adult education teachers were not required to be certificated, one primary requirement for inclusion in the unit. In addition, persons employed in the adult education program included both certificated day-time teachers and administrative personnel specifically excluded from the unit. Their employment was not contractual and could be terminated if a particular class was cancelled or dropped based upon lack of student enrollment. In such a case the adult education teacher's employment would be automatically terminated. Adult education classes were presented at night and the maximum number of hours that any adult education teacher would work would be six (6) hours per week. For both groups, employment as an adult education teacher was in addition to their regular employment. From a budgetary standpoint, adult education teachers were compensated from a separate functional breakout within the school budget to which that portion of their compensation earned as an adult education teacher was charged. No deductions were made from the adult education portion of a teacher's salary for retirement or Social Security. Based on the foregoing facts, the Hearing Officer finds that adult education teachers are not "regularly employed certificated personnel" and therefore, are not within the bargaining unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that no action be taken on the charges as stated in Paragraphs 10(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(J)(H) and Paragraphs 11(A) and (B). Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relating to Issue XI and Paragraph 10(H) of the complaint, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Commission enter its order requiring the Respondent to cease and desist its refusal to bargain upon request over mandatory items of collective bargaining. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Meyer, Esquire Frank & Meyer, P.A. Flagship Bank Building Tampa, Florida Norman J. Smith, Esquire Brinson and Smith, P.A. Post Office Drawer 1549 Kissimmee, Florida 32741 Austin Reed, Esquire Public Employee Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Leonard Carson, Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. If so, what action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties The School Board The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent Respondent began working for the School Board approximately 12 years ago. He is presently under suspension pending the outcome of this disciplinary proceeding. For the duration of his employment with the School Board, he has done roofing work. He was hired as a Roofer II, was subsequently promoted to a Roofing Foreperson position, and then took a voluntary demotion back to a Roofer II position, the position he currently occupies. The School Board's job description for Roofer II provides, in pertinent part, as follows: BASIC OBJECTIVES The Roofer II (journey person) will work independently under the guidance of a foreperson or other supervisory personnel and in accordance with the standard practices of the roofing trade. Journey person level work includes, but is not limited to: installing, altering, maintaining and repairing all hot and/or cold roofing systems and their related components; using knowledge and experience of the trade to determine a method or to devise a means to accomplish the assigned job; and interpreting technical data from sketches, blueprints, schematics and service manuals. . . . PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS This is very heavy work which requires the following physical activities: climbing, balancing, bending, stooping, kneeling, crouching, twisting, reaching, standing, walking, pushing, pulling, lifting, finger dexterity, grasping, repetitive motions, talking, hearing, and visual acuity. The worker is exposed to heat, noise, hazards, atmospheric conditions and oils. The work is performed outdoors. MINIMUM QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS * * * 5. Possession of a valid CDL Class A (6331) or Class E (6056) driver's license. * * * NOTE: This is an Omnibus Transportation Employees Testing Act (OTETA) monitored position. Employees with this job description may be required to drive or road test a motor vehicle weighing over 26,000 pounds, transport 16 or more persons, or carry hazardous materials. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was assigned to the School Board's South Central Maintenance Satellite (South Central). At all times material to the instant case, Robert Goldberg was the director of South Central. At all times material to the instant case, Berny Blanco was a Coordinator III at South Central and Respondent's immediate supervisor. The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a Roofer II employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Dade County School Maintenance Employee Committee (DCSMEC) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and DCSMEC (DCSMEC Contract). Article XI of the DCSMEC Contract addresses the subject of "disciplinary action." Section 1 of Article XI is entitled, "Notification." It provides, in pertinent part, 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 whenever the employee[']s conduct or the nature and severity of the alleged infraction/violation does not warrant formal disciplinary action. Section 2 of Article XI is entitled, "Types of Separation." It provides as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any of three distinct types of separation. Voluntary-- The employee initiates the separation by resigning, retiring, abandoning the position, or other unilateral action by the employee. Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays, where such absence is not reported as prescribed by bureau/office procedures, shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling five or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for which the School Board may terminate employment. Absences due to emergencies, or circumstances beyond the employee's control, will be given full consideration. An employee recommended for termination under this provision shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of up to 10 working days after first being notified by the Office of Professional Standards. Dismissals, Suspensions, Demotions-- Employees dismissed, suspended, or demoted shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial hearing Officer. The employee shall be notified of such action and of his/her right to appeal by certified mail. (The employee shall have 20 calendar days in which to notify the School Board Clerk, in writing, of the employee's intent to appeal such action.) Failure to request a hearing for appeal of disciplinary action in the manner prescribed herein shall be deemed a waiver of rights to any such hearing. The Board shall provide for an impartial Hearing Officer who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. All such proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with School Board Rule 6Gx13-8C- 1.64. The findings of the Hearing Officer shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals, suspensions, and demotions. If the employee is not employed or has had a reduction in salary during the time of appeal of such dismissal, suspension, or demotion, and if reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked, or salary not received, and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or demotion. Section 4 of Article XI is entitled, "Cause for Suspension." It provides as follows: In those case where any employee has not complied with Board 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 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent. School Board "[R]ule[s], [R]egulation[s], [and] [P]olic[ies]" As a School Board employee, Respondent is obligated to act in accordance with School Board "rule[s] regulation[s], [and] [p]olic[ies]" and, if he does not, he may be disciplined in accordance with the DCSMEC Contract. Among the School Board's rules are School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES I. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. . . . School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01 addresses the subject of "[a]bsences and [l]eaves." It provides, in pertinent part, that, "[e]xcept for sudden illness or emergency situations, any employee who is absent without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave." Pre-2001-2002 Regular School Year Warnings and Conferences-for- the-Record Regarding Respondent's Attendance and Leave On December 13, 2000, in response to Respondent having been absent without authorization a total of three and a half days since the beginning of the previous month, Mr. Blanco sent a memorandum to Respondent, which read as follows: SUBJECT: Notice of Performance Expectation/Requirement Consider this notice a reminder of the importance of your performance expectation in the area of attendance. A review of the most recent Leave Without Pay (LWOP) Report indicates that you have accumulated three and one half (3.5) days (11/2/00- 1 day, 12/4/00- 1 day, 12/7/00- 1/2 day, 12/1/00- 1/2 day and 12/12/00 1/2 day) of unauthorized leave without pay (ULWOP) during the previous twelve months. Be advised that Article XI, Section 2-A.2 of the Bargaining [A]greement between the School Board of Miami-Dade County and Dade County School Maintenance Employee Committee (DCSMEC) states that " . . . Unauthorized absences totaling five or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism . . . shall constitute grounds for which the School Board may terminate employment . . ." This provision serves to insure the required job performance, and prevent any unnecessary impact on other staff members and contributes to the effective operation of this department. Your unauthorized absences adversely impact this department's ability to provide timely service. When you fail to report to work, the projects you are assigned are disrupted and must be either rescheduled or reassigned to other staff members. This in turn causes them to disrupt their work schedules to perform your assignment. In conclusion, you are hereby warned that should you continue to accumulate ULWOP's, appropriate disciplinary action will be taken. Respondent signed the memorandum, acknowledging his receipt thereof. On that same date (December 13, 2000), Mr. Goldberg formally referred Respondent to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) based upon, among other things, Respondent's "excessive absences"; his "unauthorized absences"; and his "absences on Monday[s] and/or Fridays." Despite the School Board's efforts to help him, Respondent continued to have attendance problems, which adversely impacted South Central's maintenance operations. For example, he was absent without authorization on July 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18, 2001. On August 7, 2001, Mr. Goldberg held a Conference-for- the-Record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's "excessive absences" and "performance-related issues." Mr. Goldberg subsequently prepared and furnished to Respondent a memorandum, dated August 28, 2001, in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference and indicated what actions Respondent needed to take in the future. Mr. Goldberg's memorandum read as follows: A conference for the record was held on Tuesday, August 7, 2001. In attendance at this conference were Dr. James Monroe, Executive Director, Maintenance Employment Standards, Mr. Berny Blanco, Coordinator, South Central Satellite, Mr. George Ellis, DCSMEC, Representative, yourself, and this administrator. Your employment history indicates that you were first employed in December of 1990 as a Roofer II, Maintenance Operations South Central Satellite. I verified that your home address is: . . . . The purpose of this Conference was to address your excessive absenteeism: nine and one half unauthorized absences, which you have accumulated in the past twelve months. Also discussed were performance- related issues and the adverse effect your unsatisfactory performance has on your employment status as a Maintenance Operations Employee. You were on unauthorized leave on the following days: July 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 2001, December 4, and 7(.5), 2000, November 2, 2000, October 23(.5), 18(.5). You were given a written warning for attendance in December 2000 when you accumulated three and one half absences without authorization. You were previously referred to the District's Support agency on two separate occasions, and you declined to avail yourself of this service. You will again be administratively referred to this agency. You are directed to: To be in regular attendance. If in the event of further abs[ences], you are to contact Mr. Blanco or in his place Mr. Louis Martinez. If your absences are due to illness, immediately upon your return to duty, you must submit a note from your treating physician. Failure to comply will result in the absence being recorded as leave without pay, unauthorized (LWOP). To honor the workday by arriving on time. You submitted the attached letter dated August 1, 2001 requesting a career redirection back to [a] Roofing Journeyperson position. Dr. Monroe and I indicated that we would recommend to Mr. Woodson that this request be accepted and you be placed in a Journeyperson's position effective immediately. It was explained to you that this request does not relieve you of your responsibility to improve your attendance nor does it allow you to interfere with the daily operation of the roofing crew under the supervision of an acting or temporary foreperson. Please be aware of your right to clarify, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference summary, and to have any such response appended to this document. Respondent signed the memorandum, acknowledging his receipt thereof. Respondent's request to be placed back in a Roofing II position was granted. In a further attempt to assist Respondent to become a more productive employee, the School Board again referred him to the EAP. The 2001-2002 School Year The School Board's efforts to help Respondent were unavailing. Respondent's poor attendance persisted. Moreover, contrary to the instructions he had been given, he failed to notify supervisory personnel of his absences. Not having "heard from [Respondent]," who had been absent without authorization for an extended period of time, Mr. Goldberg, on October 15, 2001, sent the following memorandum, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent's residence: SUBJECT: EMPLOYMENT INTENTION Please be advised that you have been absent from the worksite on the following days: 9/14/01, 9/17/01, 9/18/01, 9/19/01, 9/20/01, 9/21/01, 9/24/01, 9/25/01, 9/26/01, 9/27/01, 9/28/01, 10/1/01, 10/2/01, 10/3/01, 10/4/01, 10/5/01, 10/8/01, 10/9/01, 10/10/01, 10/11/01 Because these absences have caused . . . __x__ effective operation of the worksite to be impeded . . . I am requesting your immediate review and implementation of any of the following options. Notify the worksite or your intended date of return; Effect leave procedures (request for leave form attached); Implement resignation from Miami-Dade County Public Schools (resignation letter attached); Implement retirement process (if applicable). You are directed to notify the worksite in writing within 3 days of the date of this memorandum as to your employment intention. Your absences will be considered unauthorized until you communicate directly with this administrator. Respondent failed to comply with the directives contained in this memorandum; however, he did attend a meeting on October 23, 2001, at which his "leave history for the past 12 months was presented to [him] and reviewed with [him]." During this 12-month period, Respondent was absent a total of 83.5 days, 40.5 of which he was absent without authorization. Respondent attended a Conference for-the Record held on November 7, 2001, in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. Also in attendance at the conference were Renaldo Benitez, the Executive Director of the Office of Professional Standards; Dr. James Monroe, the Executive Director of Facilities Operations; Mr. Goldberg; and a DCSMEC representative. The conference was held to address Respondent's "performance assessments-to-date; attendance-to-date; non- compliance with site directives regarding attendance; and . . . future employment status with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools." On November 13, 2001, Mr. Benitez prepared a summary of what had transpired at the conference. The summary, a copy of which was provided to Respondent, read, in pertinent part as follows: You have exceeded the number of days accrued and have failed to follow directives and reminders issued to you at your worksite in reference to your excessive absenteeism. You were provided an opportunity to respond and you said: "I was out on back injury and knee surgery. I thought that the worksite would grant me authorized leave. I knew it would be leave without pay, but not unauthorized. I provided all the doctor's notes to Mr. Goldberg." This administrator told you that if that was the case, you should have effected a medical leave with the leave office. You said, "I didn't know anything about the leave office. I was not aware of those procedures." Dr. Monroe asked you if you were in possession of your Maintenance Employee Handbook, which includes procedures to effect leave and you said, "Yes, I did not read the employee book and that is my fault." Mr. Goldberg showed you the employee intention letter sent to you on October 15, 2001, which you admitted having received, and pointed out that one of the options is for you to implement leave procedures and a Request for Leave Form was attached. You said, "I did get the letter, but there was no form attached." This administrator asked you if you had attempted to contact your union and seek advice from them and you said, "No." You also said: "I just went through a divorce. I don't want to be a bad employee. I have tried to see Mr. Abin with the District's support referral services. He just has not been able to see me. I want to participate." You provided a note from your physician, Dr. Nancy L. Erickson, releasing you for full duty and restricting you to only wearing a knee support. Dr. Monroe said, "This note is satisfactory, but you have to be in attendance and on time every day. It is very important for you to schedule any pending doctor's appointments after work hours because of the large number of absences you have amassed." This administrator reminded you that 40.5 days of leave without pay unauthorized within the last 12 months is more than excessive. According to contractual stipulations, "Unauthorized absences totaling more than five or more workdays during the previous 12 month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism." Action Taken You were advised of the availability of services from the District's support referral agency. You were provided the option to resign your position with Miami- Dade County Public Schools. You said, "No. sir." The following directives were issued to you during the conference concerning your future absences: Be in regular attendance and on time. Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to Mr. Goldberg. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be considered and procedures for Board-approved leave implemented. Resignation must be tendered if no leave options are available. Should future absences exceed the number of days accrued, the absences will be considered Leave Without Pay Unauthorized (LWOU). You must advise Mr. Goldberg in advance of any doctor's appointments and try to schedule them after working hours. Pending further review of this case and formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to be taken, these directives are reiterated and will be implemented immediately to prevent adverse impact on the operation of the work unit, as well as to insure continuity of the program. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate review by the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of action. During the conference you were provided with a copy of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties/Employee Conduct and 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves. You were advised of the high esteem in which M-DCPS employees are held and of the District's concern for any behavior which adversely affects this level of professionalism. Mr. Goldberg was apprised as to your return to the worksite immediately after this conference, to assume your duties. . . . Please be aware of your right to clarity, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. The "note from . . . Dr. Nancy L. Erickson" that Respondent submitted during the conference was a forgery. It read as follows: To whom it may concern: I apologize. Mr. Kepler's rehabililative [sic] therapy completion date was incorrect. The correct date in [sic] November 1st. He kept his appointment with me on October 31st which was the completion of his therapy. He is released for full duty and only restriction is to wear knee support. The second sentence of the note referred to a previous note that Dr. Erickson had purportedly written. This previous note, which had been sent, by facsimile transmission, to Mr. Goldberg, was also a forgery. It read as follows: October 16, 2001 Re: Charles Kepler To Whom It May Concern: Mr. Charles Kepler has been under my care for an injury to his left knee. Mr. Kepler has been under going [sic] rehabilitative physical therapy which he will complete the end of this week. Mr. Kepler is released to return to work on Monday October 22, 2001. Respondent was a patient of Dr. Erickson's, but the last time he had seen her was March 29, 2001, and he had only received treatment from her for back pain, not for any knee problems. Mr. Goldberg received other notes concerning Respondent's physical condition and medical needs, in addition to the two mentioned above, purporting to be from Dr. Erickson that were also forgeries. While he may have had the assistance of others, Respondent was the driving force behind this scheme to defraud the School Board through the submission of forged doctor's notes. 2/ Following the November 7, 2001, Conference-for-Record, Respondent continued his "pattern of excessive absenteeism and . . . violation of . . . attendance procedures," which prompted Mr. Goldberg to recommend, in writing, that Respondent be fired. Mr. Goldberg's written recommendation, which was dated November 30, 2001, read, in pertinent part, as follows: I hereby recommend that Mr. Charles Kepler be terminated from his employment with the Miami-Dade County School District Maintenance Operations, South Central Satellite. Mr. Kepler has a continuing pattern or excessive absenteeism and has recurring violations of Maintenance and Operations attendance procedures. He has failed to comply with School Board rules, responsibilities and duties even after he was given specific instructions and directives regarding future absences. * * * On November 26, 2001, he requested one-day sick leave but only had 1/2 day available leave. On November 29 and 30, 2001, he again called in for sick leave with no available time. He never personally notified Mr. Blanco or this administrator of this request for leave time. On three separate occasions, Mr. Kepler was referred to the District Support Agency. He declined to avail himself of its service on every occasion. . . . No immediate action was taken on Mr. Goldberg's recommendation. Respondent was absent without authorization on December 10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28 and 31, 2001, January 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 31, 2002, and February 1 and 4, 2002. On February 4, 2002, Mr. Goldberg sent a memorandum, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent's residence containing the following instructions: I am requesting your immediate review and implementation of any of the following options: Notify the worksite of your intended date of return; Implement resignation from Miami-Dade County Public Schools (resignation letter attached); Implement retirement process (if applicable). You are directed to notify the worksite in writing within 3 days of the date of this memorandum as to your employment intention. Your absences will be considered unauthorized until you communicate directly with this administrator. On or about February 7, 2002, Mr. Goldberg received the following letter from Respondent: This is to inform you that I will be returning to work on Feb. 11, 2002. I will be completing my therapy for my knee on Feb. 9, 2002. I will bring a release from the doctor and she will fax you one. Her assistant has been faxing you updates every week. I will be moving this weekend; my new address is . . . and my new phone number is . . . . If there are any changes with my injury I will contact you Friday after therapy. Respondent did not report to work on February 11, 2002, or at any time thereafter, and he failed to comply with the directive he had been given to "communicate[] directly to Mr. Goldberg" his "intent to be absent." (On numerous occasions, Mr. Goldberg telephoned Respondent's residence in an effort to "contact [Respondent] directly," but he was never able to reach Respondent.) During the week of February 11, 2002, and the several weeks that followed, Mr. Goldberg received, by facsimile transmission, notes, purportedly signed by Dr. Erickson, concerning Respondent's physical ability to report to work. Mr. Goldberg, suspecting (correctly) that the notes might not be genuine, contacted Dr. Erickson's office by telephone and, in response to the inquiries he made, was told that the last contact Dr. Erickson had with Respondent was in late March of 2001. Following this telephone conversation, Mr. Goldberg referred the matter to the School Board's Police Department for investigation. The investigation was conducted by Detective Richard Robinson. After completing his investigation, Detective Robinson issued a written report (Investigative Report G-13852) on May 1, 2002, which contained the following accurate conclusion: Based on statements and evidence gathered during this investigative process, there is sufficient evidence to prove between the dates of July 25, 2002, Mr. Charles Kepler, Jr., Roofer II at South Central Maintenance Satellite, allegedly submitted forged documents stating his inability to return to work, due to an injury. During an interview with Mr. Kepler's physician, Dr. Nancy Erickson, it was confirmed that the physician notes faxed to Mr. Goldberg from Mr. Kepler, and allegedly signed by Dr. Erickson, were forged. Dr. Erickson stated she has not seen Mr. Kepler since March 29, 2001. The allegation of the Violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, against employee, Mr. Kepler, Jr., is Substantiated. From November 7, 2001, the date of the last Conference-for-the-Record, to May 23, 2002, Respondent was absent a total of 122 days. All but one of these absences were unauthorized. Respondent repeatedly disregarded the directive he had been given to "communicate[] directly to Mr. Goldberg" his "intent to be absent." Sometime prior to May 31, 2002, Mr. Goldberg learned that Respondent's driver's license had been suspended since December 31, 2001 (as a result of Respondent being arrested for driving under the influence) and that therefore Respondent no longer (and had not since December 31, 2001) met the minimum qualifications to be a Roofer II. Respondent attended a Conference-for-the Record held on May 31, 2002, in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. Also in attendance at the conference were Mr. Benitez, Mr. Goldberg, and representatives of DCSMEC. The conference was held "to address Investigative Report G-13852 . . . ; [Respondent's] record; and [his] "future employment status with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools." On June 17, 2002, Mr. Benitez prepared a summary of what had transpired at the conference. The summary, a copy of which was provided to Respondent, read, in pertinent part as follows: You were provided an opportunity to respond to your excessive absences and your suspended driver's license. You said, "I was sick. I could not bend my knees, but I still called the tape. My driver's license is suspended, but I'm not guilty. That's why I'm fighting it. I'm in the process of clearing all this up." Mr. Goldberg said, "The directives that you were given were specific, that is, to contact me and not to call the tape. Furthermore, your job requires you to have a valid driver's license in order to perform your duties. You need to take care of your driver's license and submit a letter from your doctor that you can return to work without any restrictions." Investigative Report- G-13852, Violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities- Substantiated A copy of the aforementioned investigative report was presented to and reviewed with you in its entirety. You were provided an opportunity to respond to the allegation that: "Between July 25, 2001 and February 25, 2002, Employee Charles Kepler, Jr., Roofer II at South Central Maintenance Satellite, allegedly submitted forged documents, stating his inability to report to work, due to injury." You said, "I did not submit anything forged. Everything came from her office as far as I know. I have never forged any doctor's letter." This administrator asked, "Why were these medical notes faxed from a different medical center and some even had misspellings." You said, "I don't know. It was the girl in the office that wrote them." I reminded you that Dr. Nancy L. Erickson, O., is an anesthesiologist and she stated that she has only seen you three times. You said, "That's because they don't want to deal with me anymore. The other doctor that she sent me to was afraid that I would sue him." I asked you again if any of these notes were false and you said, "No." Mr. Bell [a DCSMEC representative] said, "He will submit documentation of his knee surgery." Action Taken You were advised of the availability of services from the District's support referral agency. You were provided the option to resign your position with M-DCPS. You said, "No, sir." Should you return to work, the following directives were re-issued to you during the conference concerning future absences: Be in regular attendance. Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to Mr. Goldberg. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be considered and procedures for Board-approved leave implemented. Resignation must be tendered if no leave options are available. Should future absences exceed the number of days accrued, the absences will be considered Leave Without Pay, Unauthorized (LWOU). You must advise Mr. Goldberg in advance of any doctor's appointments and try to schedule them after working hours. In addition, the following directives herein delineated were also issued to you during the conference: Adhere to all (M-DCPS) School Board Rules and regulations at all times. Do not forge any documents related to your employment with M-DCPS. Do not submit any forged documents for any reason to M-DCPS. Pending further review of this case and formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to be taken, these directives are reiterated and will be implemented immediately to prevent adverse impact to the operation of the work unit, as well as to insure continuity of the program. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate review by the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of action. During the conference, you were provided with a copy of School Board Rule[] 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties/Employee Conduct. You were advised of the high esteem in which M-DCPS employees are held and of the District's concern for any behavior which adversely affects this level of professionalism. Mr. Goldberg was apprised as to your return to the worksite immediately after this conference to assume your duties. You were advised to keep this information presented in this conference confidential and not discuss this with co- workers. Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information presented in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, the Chief Facilities Officer of Maintenance, and the Director of South Central Satellite. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of legal review with the endorsement by the Chief Facilities Officer of Maintenance will compel formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to include dismissal. Please be aware of your right to clarify, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have any response appended to your record. Respondent did not provide supervisory personnel with proof that his driver's license had been reinstated, nor did he "submit a letter from [his] doctor that [he] c[ould] return to work without any restrictions," as he had been instructed to. He remained out of work, accumulating additional unauthorized absences. On June 23, 2002, Respondent attended a meeting in the Office of Professional Standards, along with Mr. Benitez and Mr. Goldberg, at which he was advised of the following: A legal review of the case file and the summary information determined that you, Mr. Charles M. Kepler, be recommended for dismissal for the following charges: Just cause, including, but not limited to: excessive absenteeism; abandonment of position; conduct unbecoming a School Board employee; non-performance and deficient performance of job responsibilities; gross insubordination; and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves. This action is taken in accordance with Sections 230.03(2); 230.23(5)(f); 231.3605; 231.44; and 447.209. On August 9, 2002, Merrett Stierheim, the School Board's Superintendent of Schools, sent Respondent the following letter: I am exercising my responsibility as Superintendent of Schools and recommending to The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, at its scheduled meeting of August 21, 2002, that the School Board suspend you and initiate dismissal proceedings against you from your current position as Roofer II at South Central Maintenance effective at the close of the workday, August 21, 2002, for just cause, including, but not limited to: excessive absenteeism; abandonment of position; conduct unbecoming a School Board employee; non-performance and deficient performance of job responsibilities; gross insubordination; and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves. This action is taken in accordance with Sections 230.03(2); 230.23(5)(f); 231.3605; 231.44; and 447.209. If you wish to contest your suspension and dismissal, you must request a hearing in writing within 20 calendar days of the receipt of notice of the Board action, in which case, formal charges will be filed and a hearing will be held before an administrative law judge. At its August 21, 2002, meeting, the School Board took the action recommended by Mr. Stierheim. At no time from May 23, 2002, until the date of his suspension did Respondent report to work. All of his absences during this period were unauthorized. Although Respondent had accumulated an extraordinary number of unauthorized absences at the time of his suspension, the number would have been even greater had Mr. Goldberg not "worked with [Respondent]" and converted some absences, which were initially unauthorized, to "vacation or sick days when [Mr. Goldberg] could" (following his review of medical documentation belatedly provided by Respondent).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating his employment with the School Board pursuant Article XI of the DCSMEC Contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 26th day of February, 2003.
Findings Of Fact The Business of Respondent The Respondent is a public employer with its principle place of business located in Orange County, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of operating a school system. Respondent is created directly by the Florida State Constitution or legislative body so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the government and is administered by individuals who are responsible to the public officials or to the general electorate. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2) of the Act. The Employee Organization Involved The Orange County Classroom Teachers Association is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act. Background During April, 1975, PERC certified the employee organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the following collective bargaining unit: INCLUDED: All certified non-administrative personnel including the following: teachers, teachers-countywide, teachers-exceptional, teachers-gifted, speech therapist, teachers- specific learning disabilities, teachers-adults full-time, guidance personnel, occupational specialist, teachers-adult basic education, librarians-media specialist, deans, department chairpersons, physical therapist. EXCLUDED: All other positions of the Orange County Public Schools. Soon thereafter, the CTA and the School Board began negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement. Each party submitted written proposals or counter proposals. (See Joint Exhibit #3 and #4, received in evidence). When negotiations began, teachers in the bargaining unit represented by the CTA were employed in one of the following categories: 10, 11, or 12-month contract. While most bargaining unit members were on 10-month contract status, some guidance counselors and approximately 90 teachers commonly referred to as vocational/technical teachers were on 12-month contract status. `These 90 vocational/technical teachers had been on 12-month contract status since at least 1970 and some since at least 1965. The negotiations resulted in a collective bargaining agreement which became effective on October 1, 1975. (Joint Exhibit #1). Neither the CTA's proposals nor the School Board's counter proposals for the 1975-76 contract contained a provision expressly granting the School Board the right to unilaterally change 12-month employees to 12 month status. Additionally, there was no specific discussion during negotiations regarding the alteration of the vocational/ technical teachers' 12-month contract status. During late spring, 1975, the Charging Party, and others similarly situated, were informed that during the 1975-76 fiscal year (which runs from July 1, 1975 through June 30, 1976) they would be employed for a full twelve months. They began their twelve month period of employment on July 1, 1975, prior to the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement-between the Board and the teachers' union. At that time there were approximately 200 teachers employed within the vocational/technical and adult education department. During the 1975-1976 school year, the school system with the exception of the post-secondary programs operated for two full semesters plus a summer school. Portions of the post-secondary programs, such as the vocational/technical and adult educational programs operated on a year-round basis. During the school year, the School Board decided to institute a system- wide program of year-round schools by adopting the quinmester system. Under the quinmester system the year is divided into five terms, each consisting of forty- five (45) days of student class time. Students can attend all five terms (or quins) thereby allowing them to graduate early, take extra courses or make up failed courses. Respondent takes the position that it was not possible to employ teachers on the 12-month basis as they would not be available for the required number of days. This is based on the fact that, as stated during the hearing under the 12-month system of employment, employees were only available for a total of 233 working days. Such a figure is derived by taking the number of days in a year, 365, and subtracting the number of Saturdays and Sundays, 104, which leaves 261 days. The School Board allows up to nineteen (19) days annual leave each year. Further, employees did not work on nine legal holidays on which the school system was closed which together with the 19 days annual leave made an additional 28 days that the employees would not be available for work in addition to the 104 Saturdays and Sundays. Thus when Saturdays, Sundays, Holidays and leave time are subtracted from the total 365 days, there are 233 available working days that employees working on a 12-month basis would be available. Therefore, the Board contended that in making its operational decision to change to a year-round school system, by adoption of the quinmester program, it needed employees to be available for 237 days if the teacher would be available to work all five quinmesters. Such a figure is derived by computing the number of days that the student will attend and the number of days that the teacher would therefore be required to be in attendance. Under the quinmester system, the student attends classes forty-five (45) days each quinmester, which means that the teacher needs to be present at least 225 days when the students are going to be present. Additionally, the Respondent urges that the collective bargaining agreement (Joint Exhibit #2) requires that teachers be on duty twelve (12) days when the students are not in attendance. These twelve days consist of five days of preplanning, five days of in-service training and two days of post-planning. With these figures, it is apparent that the teacher who is to work the entire year must be available the 225 days which the students are to be present together with the twelve days which the students are not present. Thus, wider this system, the teachers must be available 237 days during the school year. It is based on these figures that the Respondent contends that it made the operational decision to convert to a year-round school system, during the spring of 1976. In so doing, the Board advised its employees in the bargaining unit that they would be employed for an initial period of ten (10) months and given an extended contract for services rendered in programs extending beyond the regular school year. The regular school year comprises 196 days during a 10-month period of employment. Under the 10-month appointment, the teacher would be employed for an initial period of 196 days as provided for by the collective bargaining agreement and by statute. Out of the 196 days, the teacher earns 4 days leave which leaves available 192 work days in the initial employment period. The 192 work days include the 12 days that teachers are present and students are not. It also includes 180 days that the teacher is present with the students. This of course equals the first 4 quinmesters. The teacher employed to work year-round during the fifth quinmester would, under the operation of the quinmester system, be issued an extended contract to cover the additional 45 days of the fifth quinmester. By so doing, the 45 working days of the fifth quinmester with the 192 working days of the initial employment period provided for in the 10-month contracts provides the total 237 days needed to implement the year-round school system. It suffices to say that the neither the employee organization nor Respondent bargained about the implementation of the year-round school system. The teachers' union was not given advance notice of this action by the school board nor was there any attempt by the school board to bargain the impact of this decision with the teachers' union. During the course of the hearing, the Respondent introduced evidence to establish that the Charging Party and others similarly situated who are employed on a 10-month basis would receive a salary of $17,629.00 whereas the salary for the same services rendered under the 10-month plus extended contracts for the fifth quinmester would be $18,063.75. Respondent also introduced evidence establishing that the sick leave under either system was identical and that the Charging Party and others similarly situated are able to work 4 more work days under the 10-month plus extended contract than was available under the 12-month system. As stated, Respondent does not deny that it made its decision to employ vocational/technical teachers on a 10 month plus extended contract basis and that such was a departure of the contract status which said teachers had received in the past. In making its decision, Respondent contends that its acts were permissible under Chapter 447.209,F.S., since it is clothed with the statutory authority to unilaterally "determine the purpose of each of its constituent agencies, set standards of services to be offered to the public, and exercise control and discretion over its organizations and operations It contends further that armed with this authority, it was not required to bargain concerning its management rights (which it contends that this was) in that here there is no violation of any contractual provision or of any other section of Chapter 447, Florida Statues, since Chapter 447 does not call for year-round bargaining. Chapter 447.309, F.S., provides in pertinent part that a certified employee organization and the public employer shall jointly bargain collectively in the determination of the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees. Respondent contends that since a collective bargaining agreement "shall contain all the terms and conditions of employment for the bargaining unit employees" and that since the current collective bargaining agreement does not provide in any part that bargaining unit employees are given a contractual right to a 12 month contract, there has been no violation of Chapter 447, F.S. While research reveals no reported decisions in Florida defining or otherwise interpreting terms and conditions of employment, other public employment relations boards aid state courts have determined that terms and conditions of employment means "salaries, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment". The length of the work year is a function of hours or work and thus has been determined to be a term of employment, and thus a public employer is required to negotiate with its employees concerning all terms and conditions unless a specific statutory provision prohibits negotiations on a particular item. See for example, Board of Education of Union Free School District #3 of the Town of Huntington v. Associated Teachers of Huntington, 30 N.Y. 2nd 122 at 129. First of all it is clear in this case that there has been no bargaining on this item and further that there has been no express waiver to bargain regarding the employment term. It is also clear that the employees in question had been granted 12 month contracts during previous years and that they were not advised of the alteration of the term of their contracts until Respondent had unilaterally made its decision to employ said teachers on a 10 month plus extended contract basis. Finally, there is no specific statutory provision which prohibits the parties from negotiating the term of the employment contract other than Section 447.209(5), F.S., which is inapplicable here. Based thereon, I find that the Respondent's actions in unilaterally adopting a year round instructional program by terminating the 12 month contract status of teachers-adult full-time and teachers-adult basic education by placing such teachers on 10 month plus extended contract status was a unilateral alteration of a term and condition of said employees' employment relationship in violation of Sections 447.501(1)(a) and (c) and is a derivative violation of Section 447.301(a) of the Act.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondent has violated the Act as stated above, I shall therefore recommend that it: Bargain collectively upon request, with the Orange County Classroom Teachers Association as the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit described above. Such duty to bargain shall extend to all mandatory subjects of bargaining including changes in the term of the contract year of said bargaining unit employees. Post at its facilities, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are usually posted, on forms to be provided by PERC, a notice substantially providing: that it will not refuse to bargain, upon request, with the Orange County Classroom Teachers Association, as exclusive representative of the employees in the unit described above; and that its duty to bargain shall extend to all mandatory subjects of bargaining including, but not limited to, any changes in the term of the employment contracts of bargaining unit employees. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Rowland, Petruska, Bowen & McDonald by John W. Bowen, Esquire 308 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire Staff Attorney for the Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John W. Palowitch, President Orange County Classroom Teachers Association 6990 Lake Ellenor Drive Orlando, Florida
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.
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
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
