Findings Of Fact David G. Tracy is, and at all material times has been, an employee of the Respondent, and a public employee within the meaning of Florida Statutes s. 447.203(3). The Firefighters Union is, and at all material times has been, an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes s. 447.203(10). The Respondent is a public employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes s. 447.203(2). The Respondent and the Firefighters Union have been engaging in the collective bargaining process since prior to October, 1973. The parties first entered into a collective bargaining agreement on October 16, 1973. 1/ A second agreement was adopted on March 4, 1975. 2/ This latter agreement was retroactively effective from the first day of October, 1974 until October 1, 1975. The collective bargaining relationship that existed between the Firefighters Union and the Respondent, and the contracts promulgated by them were undertaken in accordance with the Firefighters Bargaining Act, Florida Statutes (1973) 447.20 et seq. In 1972, the Respondent adopted a merit pay plan as a part of its general pay plan. The merit pay plan was adopted by ordinance of the City Commission, but it was not immediately funded. The merit pay plan was funded by the Respondent for the first time in March, 1975, retroactive to October 1, 1974. The merit pay plan as adopted, and as funded, applied to all employees of the Respondent. The merit pay plan was specifically included as part of the second agreement between the Respondent and the Firefighters Union. 3/ In accordance with the second agreement, which was then in effect, the Firefighters Union advised ,the Respondent that it wished to renegotiate 12 of the 36 articles contained in the agreement by letter dated May 22, 1975. 4/ Negotiations commenced during the month of June, 1975. Mr. John Kooser, the Respondent's Assistant City Manager, represented the Respondent at the initial bargaining sessions. Among the articles which the Firefighters Union was seeking to renegotiation was Article 14, Wages. Article 14 included the reference to the merit pay plan. At the initial sessions the Firefighters Union indicated that it was requesting an across-the-board pay increase, and a grade increase for rescue drivers. The Firefighters Union did not mention the merit pay plan at the sessions. Mr. Kooser did not respond to the specific requests pertaining to wages, and raised nothing respecting the merit pay plan. During July, 1975, Diane Schiffman, the Respondent's Personnel Director, became the Respondent's chief negotiator. During the time that Ms. Schiffman served as chief negotiator, the merit pay plan was not raised as an issue at bargaining sessions. Herbert Mintz, an attorney, became the Respondent's chief negotiator on July 31. The merit pay plan was not raised as a subject for bargaining during any of the negotiating sessions attended by Mr. Mintz prior to October 3, 1975. The merit pay plan was discussed at a negotiating session on September 10, 1975; however, it was not discussed as a subject for bargaining. A City Commission meeting had been conducted on September 9, 1975, and on September 10, 1975 Mr. Mintz asked the Firefighters Union representative what had transpired at that meeting respecting the merit pay plan. On or about August 15, 1975 John Kooser, then acting city manager of the Respondent, presented his budget submission message to the Mayor and City Commission for the fiscal year 1975-76. 5/ Mr. Kooser therein stated: "I recommend that merit increases for FY 75-76 be suspended and to support this action they have not been budgeted in the FY 75-76 budget." A copy of the proposed budget was delivered to the Charging Parties. Mr. Tracy in turn delivered the proposed budget to a private consulting firm. The merit pay plan was not budgeted in the proposal; however, neither Mr. Tracy nor any other representative of the Firefighters Union deciphered that fact from the proposed budget. The consulting firm did not so advise the Charging Parties. Whether the merit pay plan would be implemented for the 75-76 fiscal year was a topic for discussion at a City Commission meeting on September 9, 1975. Mr. Gauthier, as a representative of the Firefighters Union, addressed the City Commission at that meeting, and argued forcefully in favor of maintaining the merit pay plan. It is apparent that Mr. Gauthier was aware that the Respondent was considering suspending the merit pay plan for all employees, including firefighters. Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Tracy testified that they believed the Respondent was considering suspending the merit pay plan only for employees other than firefighters. It is apparent, however, from the comments that he made at the City Commission meeting on September 9, that Mr. Gauthier did know that the Respondent was considering suspending the plan for all employees. From other comments made at the meeting and from the totality of the circumstances, Mr. Gauthier should have known what the Respondent was planning, and his testimony that he did not is not creditable. At a meeting conducted on October 1, 1975 the Respondent's City Commission suspended the merit pay plan for the 1975-76 fiscal year, effective on that date. No impasse had been reached in negotiations respecting the merit pay plan on October 1, and indeed, the merit pay plan had not been actively negotiated. It has not been shown that suspension of the merit pay plan was a matter of fiscal necessity for the Respondent. The Charging Parties did not learn of the action until October 3. A negotiating session had been scheduled for October 3, 1975. The parties met on that date. Mr. Tracy, representing the Firefighters Union expressed outrage at the Respondent's action. He expressed the position of the union that only those matters raised in General Counsel's Exhibit 2 were open for negotiation, and that the merit pay plan was not among those items. Mr. Mintz, as the Respondent's chief negotiator, expressed the Respondent's position that all issues were open for negotiation. No specific discussion was had respecting future reinstatement of the merit pay plan. The meeting did not last long. It terminated when Mr. Tracy walked out. Since October 3, 1975, the parties have engaged in several negotiating sessions. The Respondent has made no specific proposals respecting the merit pay plan other than to note in a proposed contract that the plan had been suspended. 6/ The Respondent has not, since October 3, 1975, either formally or informally refused to bargain respecting the merit pay plan, and has, in fact, been willing to do so. The Charging Parties have not requested that the merit pay plan be negotiated, but have rather rested on their earlier position that the merit pay plan is not properly a matter for negotiation, and should be reinstated retroactively to October 1, 1975. At the time that the complaint was filed by the General Counsel, the merit pay plan had not become an active matter of negotiation. The parties may have reached an impasse as to whether the merit pay plan is properly a subject for negotiation. Contracts negotiated between the Firefighters Union and the Respondent for the 1973-74 and 1974-75 years were not adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Public Employees Relations Act. Florida Statutes s. 447.201 et seq. The Act became effective during December, 1974. On or about September 2, 1975, the Respondent and the Firefighters Union filed a voluntary recognition petition with the Public Employees Relations Commission. On or about January 13, 1976, the Public Employees Relations Commission certified the Firefighters Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the Respondent's Fire Department. The Firefighters Union had not been certified by PERC at the time that the Respondent suspended the merit pay plan.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Douglas Porter, should be terminated for his third absence without leave in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Petitioner, Seminole County School Board, and the non-instructional personnel of Seminole County.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing in this matter and the joint stipulation submitted April 24, 2007, the following Findings of Facts are made: Respondent, Douglas Porter, is, and has been, employed by the School Board of Seminole County since July 13, 1993. Paul Hagerty and William Vogel have been Superintendents of Public Schools for the School District of Seminole County, Florida, for all times material to the occurrences relevant to this case. Pursuant to Section 4, Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Sections 1001.30, 1001.31, 1001.32, 1001.33, 1001.41, and 1001.42, Florida Statutes (2006), the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, is the governing board of the School District of Seminole County, Florida. The relationship of the parties is controlled by Florida Statutes, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and School Board policies. Respondent is an employee of Petitioner's Grounds Maintenance Department, 100 Division ("maintenance department"). He began his employment in that division at the entry level position of Grounds Laborer I and worked his way up to Grounds Laborer II, prior to becoming a mechanic crew leader. As a mechanic crew leader, Respondent supervised three employees on his crew and interacted with principals and assistant principals to determine the landscaping needs of various schools. Respondent held the position of mechanic crew leader for approximately two years. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner for more than three years and is a "regular" employee and subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, copies of which he receives annually. Article VII, Section 15, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, provides, in pertinent part: Employees shall report absences and the reason for such absences prior to the start of their duty day in accordance with practices established at each cost center. An employee who has been determined to have been AWOL shall be subject to the following progressive discipline procedures: 1st Offense - Written reprimand and one day suspension without pay. 2nd Offense - Five day suspension without pay. 3rd Offense - Recommended for termination. Each day that an employee is AWOL shall be considered a separate offense. However, any documentation of offenses in this section shall be maintained in the employee's personnel file. Article VII, Section 15, has consistently been construed to apply to an employee's absence from his or her assigned duties for any portion of the day, as well as the entire day. An employee who is absent from his or her assigned work duties without the permission of the employee's supervisor is considered to be absent without leave. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires that an employee call in before the start of the work day if he or she is going to be absent; historically, maintenance department employees are given a 15-minute grace period after the start of the work day to call in. Although not reduced to a written directive, this practice is well-known within the maintenance department. An employee in the maintenance department who calls in sick, is reported to the payroll clerk who checks the employee's timesheet; if the employee has time on the books, he or she is approved for pay for the sick time. If the employee does not have time on the books, he or she is charged with a sick day with no pay. An employee who fails to call in, or calls in late, is considered absent without leave if he or she does not physically report for work that day or for the portion of the day missed due to tardiness. If the employee reports for work, he or she is subject to discipline, but is paid for the hours worked. If the employee calls in during the 15-minute grace period and is late, he or she is not subject to discipline, but is paid only for the time worked. Respondent had used 13 days of annual leave, 16 days of sick and personal leave, and 27 days of unpaid leave in the 2000 school year. This prompted Respondent's supervisor to indicate that his attendance needed improvement in Respondent's annual evaluation. As reflected in each of Respondent's annual assessments during his employment, Respondent's absenteeism created a hardship on his department and his attendance needed improvement. Normally, an employee is not required to provide proof of illness. In instances where an employee has excessive sick days, validation of illness is required. Concern with Respondent's excessive sick days prompted his supervisor to require, by letter dated October 1, 2001, medical certification of future illness that required missing work. By October 1, 2001, for the 2001 school year, which began on July 1, 2001, Respondent had used six days of vacation, eight days of paid leave, and four and a-half days of leave without pay. This "abuse of sick leave" resulted in a letter of reprimand dated October 1, 2001, which was clearly intended to warn Respondent to improve his attendance and required validation of illness as referenced in the preceding paragraph. Respondent was absent on September 1, 2002. He did not provide a medical validation of the illness causing the absence and, as a result, the absence was treated as an absence without leave. On September 18, 2002, Respondent received a letter of reprimand and a one-day suspension without pay due to his failure to provide medical verification for this unpaid leave day. This invoked the first step of progressive discipline as contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. On March 20, 2005, Respondent called in during the late evening and left a message on his supervisor's voicemail stating that he would not be at work the following day. The message was vulgar and unacceptable. Respondent did not report to work on March 21, 2005, and did not produce medical verification for his absence. On March 28, 2005, his supervisor recommended that he be suspended from work without pay for this absence without leave, his second offense in the progressive discipline system. On April 7, 2005, Respondent received a letter from the Superintendent notifying him that he would be following the supervisor's disciplinary recommendation for Respondent's absence without leave. The Superintendent's letter clearly references Respondent's failure to give appropriate prior notice of absences "in accordance with practices established at each cost center," and warns that future failure to comply "with procedures established at the Facilities Center to properly report and receive approval for future absences" would result in discipline in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. On September 7, 2006, Respondent voluntarily entered South Seminole hospital, a psychiatric facility. He was discharged on or about September 25, 2006. Respondent's condition required that he again be hospitalized on October 31, 2006, for four days. Respondent was diagnosed as suffering from bipolar disorder. During his hospitalizations, Respondent was administered various medications to treat his condition. Following release from his second hospitalization, Respondent's prescriptions were changed due to adverse side effects he was experiencing. In addition to being diagnosed with bipolar disorder, Respondent also voluntarily sought treatment for substance abuse at the Grove Counseling Center through the outpatient drug/substance abuse program. Respondent returned to work in November 2006, but was still suffering from problems related to his medication. He was late on November 8, 2006, and absent on November 9, 2006. Respondent had a meeting with his supervisor on November 10, 2006; it was the supervisor's intention to recommend Respondent for termination for the tardiness of November 8, 2006, and absence of November 9, 2006. On November 10, 2006, Respondent advised his supervisor that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in September 2006 and that he was having problems with his medication. As a result of this conversation, instead of being recommended for termination, Respondent was given time off to adjust his medications, and it was agreed that Respondent would return to work on January 2, 2007. On January 9, 2007, approximately a week after returning to work, Respondent called in at approximately 7:10 a.m., his work day begins at 6:30 a.m., to advise that he had overslept and would be late to work. Respondent arrived at work at 7:28 a.m., 58 minutes after the start of his work day. As a result of this tardiness, Respondent's supervisor recommended suspension and termination to the Superintendent for a third offense of being absent without leave.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent, Doug Porter, guilty of the allegations stated in the Petition for Termination and that his employment be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeanine Blomberg, Interim Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Bill Vogel, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Pamela Hubbell Cazares, Esquire Chamblee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 200 Brandon, Florida 33511
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Pinellas County is a public employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(2). The Charging Party is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(10). During December, 1975, the Charging Party filed a representation petition with the Public Employees Relations Commission seeking to represent a unit of employees of the Public Employer. Proceedings were conducted in accordance with the petition, and on February 2, 1976, the Public Employees Relations Commission, through its chairman, issued a Direction Of Election. A copy of the Direction was received into evidence at the hearing in this case as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The appropriate collective bargaining unit is therein described as follows: "Included: All eligible employees of the Pinellas County School Board employed in the ground maintenance, transportation, plant operations, warehouse and food-service departments. Excluded: All other non-instructional, instructional, and clerical employees; and all managerial/confidential employees of the Pinellas County School Board. See Attachment A." The election as conducted on or about March 11, 1976, and a majority of the employees in the unit described in the Direction of Election voted in favor of representation by the Charging Party for purposes of collective bargaining. The Public Employer thereafter filed objections to the conduct of the election (Respondent's Exhibit 4). The chairman of the Public Employees Relations Commission entered a report on objections on March 31, 1976 (Respondent's Exhibit 5). The chairman dismissed the objections on the grounds that they were not timely filed. On May 12, 1976, the Public Employees Relations Commission certified the Charging Panty as the exclusive bargaining agent for the unit of employees described in the Direction of Election and in the Erratum issued by the chairman of the Commission on February 26, 1976 (Respondent's Exhibit 3). The Public Employer filed a request for review of the chairman's dismissal of the objections (Respondent's Exhibit 6). By decision issued September 7, 1976, the Commission dismissed the objections (Respondent's Exhibit 7). The Public Employer thereafter filed a Petition For Re-Hearing. Further proceedings respecting certification of the bargaining unit were not made a part of the record in this case; however, it is assumed for the purposes of this Recommended Order that the Public Employer is in the process of appealing the Commission's decisions. Following the election, on April 2, 1976, the Charging Party wrote to the Public Employer requesting that negotiations be opened (General Counsel's Exhibit 1). The Public Employer responded by letter dated April 27, 1976 (General Counsel's Exhibit 2), as follows: "As you know, the school board, through the superintendent and my office, has taken appropriate steps to appeal certain procedures relating to the election held in the above matter. Until that procedure has been finalized before the Commission, we will not be in a position to enter into negotiations. It is further noted that you have not received an official notice that you are now the bargaining agent on behalf of a segment of the supporting services of the school board. Until such time as all the proper procedures have been taken before the Commission and a final determination has been made by the courts of the State of Florida, and you have been recognized by the school board as the bargaining agent on behalf of the supporting services employees, we would respectfully deny your request at this time." Following its certification as the collective bargaining representative, by letter dated May 17, 1976, the Charging Party again requested that negotiations be opened (General Counsel's Exhibit 3). Further requests were made by letters dated August 5, 1976, and August 26, 1976 (General Counsel's Exhibits 4, 5). The Public Employer has not responded either in writing or verbally to the requests to open negotiations, other than through its letter of April 27, 1976. The Public Employer has refused to enter into collective bargaining negotiations with the Charging Party, and continues to refuse to enter into negotiations until a final determination is made by the courts respecting the Charging Party's certification, and until the school board has recognized the Charging Party.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Public Employees Relations Commission enter an order requiring the School Board of Pinellas County to recognize the Pinellas County Custodial Union, #1221 as the exclusive bargaining agent of the unit of employees certified by the Public Employees Relations Commission; that the School Board of Pinellas County cease and desist from refusing to engage in collective bargaining negotiations with the Pinellas County Custodial Union, #1221; that the School Board of Pinellas County forthwith enter into good faith collective bargaining negotiations with the Pinellas County Custodial Union, #1221; and that the School Board of Pinellas County advise the Public Employees Relations Commission in writing of what steps it has taken to comply with the final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission between 30 and 45 days following entry of an order by the Commission. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: B. Edwin Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Austin Reed, Esquire Public Employee Relations Commission Suite 300 - 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward Draper 5400 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Sarasota County School Board (Petitioner or School Board), had just cause to terminate Ernest Curry (Respondent) for misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for operating, controlling, and supervising the public schools in the School District. See § 1001.32(2), Fla. Stat. At all times material, Respondent was employed as a groundskeeper for the School Board. Groundskeepers are educational support employees. On September 2, 2020, while at work at Tuttle Elementary School, Respondent submitted to a reasonable-suspicion urine drug screen. The final test results returned positive for marijuana. As an educational support employee, Respondent’s employment with the School District is governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 1 Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 is a copy of an excerpt of the Classified Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association and the School Board of Sarasota County, FL (Collective Bargaining Agreement). The undersigned takes official recognition of the entire Collective Bargaining Agreement, which may be accessed at https://www.sarasotacountyschools.net/cms/lib/FL50000189/Centricity/Domain/143/2019- 20%20Classified-Final-Rev%20052620.pdf. (Last visited Jan. 6, 2021).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JODI-ANN V. LIVINGSTONE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Ernest Curry 3408 16th Court East Bradenton, Florida 34208 Robert K. Robinson, Esquire Rob Robinson Attorney, P.A. 500 South Washington Boulevard, Suite 400 Sarasota, Florida 34236 (eServed) Dr. Brennan W. Asplen, III, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34321-3365 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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 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
Findings Of Fact The Orlando Police Department is organized on paramilitary lines and headed by a Director of Public Safety. Directly under him comes the Chief of Police who is the principal administrative officer of the department. His immediate staff which consists of 1 captain, 7 lieutenants, sergeants and patrolmen, includes an Administrative Aide who holds the rank of lieutenant and attends all staff meetings conducted by the Chief. In such position he is privy to all classified information received by the Chief and would appear to fit the definition of "confidential employee" under Section 447.02(5), Florida Statutes. Also in the Chief's Staff is a Research and Development Section and a Special Investigative Services Division. The former is headed by a lieutenant and is primarily responsible to research, develop and prepare all directives, regulations and general orders for the Department. The Special Investigative Services Division is headed by a Captain and contains an Internal Affairs Section, a Staff Inspection Section and an Intelligence Section, each headed by a lieutenant. The Internal Affairs Section handles all internal investigations of a confidential nature and monitors all disciplinary cases involving the police department. The staff Inspection Section conducts routine inspections of police units to insure compliance with guidelines and orders of the department. The Intelligence Section gathers information on organized crime and criminal acts on a larger scale than those routinely handled by the C.I.D. They interface with law enforcement agencies of the Federal government and keep the Chief apprised of developments. The Administrative Service Bureau is headed by a major and staffed with two captains, two lieutenants, 3 sergeants, seven patrolmen, sixteen civilians, cadets, and recruits for training. From this Bureau is assigned a patrolman as aide to the Mayor. This Aide attends all meetings involving the Mayor and the police department and is privy to all disciplinary actions within the police department that reach the attention of the Mayor. He also acts as courier between the Mayor and Police Department for confidential police records. Within the Administrative Services Bureau are numerous divisions and sections. The Personnel and Training Division handles personnel accounting, payroll records, training and records of personnel in detached service. Under this division is the Community Relations Section, Training Section and Personnel Section. The general function of the Community Relations Section is to handle public relations for the police department. This involves presentations at schools, civic associations, press releases, etc. The Training Section conducts recruit training and provides range the target practice ranges. Recruits are graded by the training officers, and these grades are based upon written exams given to all recruits. Similarly, the scores attained on the firing range are certified by the range officer and become part of the personnel record of the individual. The staff Support Bureau is headed by a major and includes two captains, one lieutenant, five sergeants, 14 patrolmen and 70 civilians. A forthcoming reorganization will reduce the number of patrolmen to two. Numerous divisions and sections come under the staff Support Bureau. In all of the above Bureaus, the personnel of which the City seeks to have excluded from the approved bargaining unit, the police officers generally wear civilian clothes and work a regular 40 hour workweek, 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. In this regard they differ from the uniformed personnel in the Field Operations Bureau who maintain personnel on duty 24 hours per day 7 days per week. The Field Operations Bureau contains the majority of the sworn officer personnel and is comprised of 1 major, 2 captains, 15 lieutenants, 44 sergeants and 285 patrolmen. In addition, there are 18 civilian positions consisting of secretarial personnel and parking meter attendants. A patrolman is assigned as aide to the major. He prepares written orders and letters put out by the major and reviews all disciplinary actions within the Bureau. One patrolman is assigned as court liaison and assists the State Attorney's office in scheduling witnesses and performing general liaison between the department and the State Attorney's office. The Field Operations Bureau consists of the Criminal Investigative Division (C.I.D.) and the Uniform Division. The former are plain clothed police officers divided into a youth section, vice section, crimes-again-person section, crimes-against-property section and the general assignment section. The latter encompasses the control section, jetport section, special operations section, and traffic section. Watches are maintained with 60-80 patrolmen assigned at one time who stand an 8-hour tour of duty with three watches assigned daily. Each watch has seven squads or sections with a sergeant in charge of each squad. The Detention Bureau has 1 lieutenant, 6 sergeants, and 61 civilians assigned. The sergeants work regular 8-hour shifts and review every arrest report to determine appropriateness and legality. One sergeant is responsible for the protection and custody of evidence in criminal cases and control of lost and found property. They supervise the performance of the assigned civilians. Since the duties and responsibilities of the various ranks are a necessary ingredient in the determination of their exclusion or inclusion in the appropriate bargaining unit, the evidence relating thereto will next be presented. Sergeants are the lowest rank the City contends should be excluded for the reason that there would be a conflict of interest between sergeants and patrolmen if they are in the same bargaining unit. Accordingly these duties and responsibilities will be first discussed. Sergeant's duties and responsibilities are generally contained in Section 100, Regulations of the Orlando Police Department Exhibit (7) which list them under Supervisory Members of the Department. Supervisors are therein described as employees having as one of their major responsibilities the general authority in the interest of the Orlando Police Department to direct other employees or members, to review grievances or the recommendations of such action, and to make effective recommendations regarding disciplinary matters, transfers, dismissals, etc. In carrying out their assignments sergeants prepare evaluation reports on patrolmen assigned under them. In order for patrolmen drawing specialist pay to continue to do so they must receive satisfactory performance ratings. Unfavorable efficiency reports affect eligibility for promotion exams and rank certification. Sergeants have authority to mete out punishment for minor transgressions. The highest level of punishment that can be awarded by a sergeant is a letter of censure which is placed in the personnel record of the recipient. The sergeant in charge of a patrol section prepares the zone assignment sheet (Ex. 31) wherein he assigns sectors and duties to the patrolmen in his section. In making these assignments independent judgment is exercised. In the event a patrolman reports out of uniform or is otherwise unprepared for assignment to duty the sergeant has the authority to relieve the man from duty without pay and send him home to get into proper uniform. Personnel requests such as transfers, leave, etc. are endorsed by those in the chain of command until they reach the approving authority. The sergeant's endorsement is effective in approving or disapproving the request. Sergeants can submit recommendations for commendation of the patrolmen under him. He also has authority to authorize up to one hour overtime without higher approval and to grant compensatory time off. Sergeants and above do not qualify for overtime pay. When the Lieutenant Watch Commander is absent from duty the senior sergeant assumes command and exercises the watch commander's authority. Sergeant's uniforms were changed from brown to white shirts in late 1974. At the same time they were authorized to discipline patrolmen for minor transgressions. Uniforms of lieutenants and above have consisted of white shirts for many years. On the other hand all members of the police force are paid at the same interval, have the same fringe benefits, all must maintain the same basic training standards, all are classified by the Civil Service System as "police officers", all are eligible for revenue sharing incentive pay from the State, all are paid from the wage classification plan, and all have the same powers of arrest. Article XIII of the Orange County PBA By-Laws provides for grievance procedures whereby a patrolman could file a grievance against a fellow member in the same union who disciplined the patrolman and seek to have the fellow member removed from the union. Art. XIII Section 2 provides: Any member of this association who voices criticism of another member, group of members or the association itself, without first seeking recourse through the provisions of Section 1 of this Article, shall be sub- ject to suspension of his membership, or ex- pulsion from the association..." This provision has not been exercised in the Orlando Police Department and the president of petitioner stated the interpretation of the bylaw provision is that grievance there refers to social rather than departmental action. Other members of petitioner testified that they didn't feel that membership in PBA would interfere with their carrying out duties that involved disciplining a fellow member of the PBA. With respect to those ranks above sergeant, little evidence was presented of specific duties and whether these duties required a finding that these officers are managerial employees. The general duties of these ranks were presented in Section 100, Exhibit 7. Furthermore, throughout the testimony was the clear import that majors had more authority and responsibility than captains who had more authority and responsibility than lieutenants who had more authority and responsibility than sergeants.
Recommendation In The Matter of City of Bridgeport (Police Department) and Bridgeport Local No. 1159, Selected Decisions [paragraph 49,868] the Connecticut Board held that the fact that sergeants, lieutenants, and captains of a city's police department exercised supervisory functions did not exclude them from the benefits of Connecticut's Municipal Employees Relations Act (MERA). Here these same officers had voted a year earlier not to be included in the overall bargaining unit and the Board appears to have affirmed the prior determination that the MERA did not preclude supervisory employees from being in the same bargaining unit as rank and file employees. The provisions of the MERA so construed does not appear in the decision. In Town of Stratford and Stratford Police Union, No. 407, 63 LRRN 1124 (1966) the Board determined that an election was proper for the captains and lieutenants to vote whether they wanted to be included in an overall police unit or to be separately represented by a unit of supervisors. The expressed policy of the Board in determining appropriate bargaining units is that the unit should be the broadest possible which will reflect a community of interest. At the same time it respects the special interests of certain groups of employees. I am not aware that such a policy has been announced by PERC. In the Matter of Borough of Rockway and Patrolmans Benevolent Association, Local 142, LLR paragraph 49,999 A.22 the New Jersey Board held that lieutenants and sergeants were properly included within a bargaining unit with patrolmen. The Board found that the lieutenants and sergeants lacked an authority to effectively hire, fire or discipline patrolmen. In the Matter of Kalamazoo Township and Lodge No. 98 F.O.P., L.L.R. paragraph 49,996.20 (1969) the Board held that although corporals had the authority to suspend patrolmen for breach of department duties this was always reviewed by higher authority; and since corporals were engaged in the exact same work as police patrolmen for the majority of their working time, they did not identify or align themselves with management. Therefore, they were not supervisors and were properly included within the proposed unit with the patrolmen. In accordance with Section 447.009(3)(a), Florida Statutes, no recommendations are submitted. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1975. K. N. Ayers Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida
Findings Of Fact Jurisdiction The complaint alleges, the Respondent admits and I find that it is a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2) of the Act. The Employee Organization Involved The complaint alleges, the parties admit, and I find that the Charging Party is now and has been at all times material herein, an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act. In addition, the complaint alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find that the Charging Party is now, and has been at all times material herein, a certified representative for the purposes of collective bargaining for all employees employed by the Duval County School Board in the following described unit: INCLUDED: Classroom teachers: nursery, kindergarten, elementary (primary 1-3), elementary (intermediate 4-6), elementary (1-6), junior high (7-9), senior high (10-12), driver education, exceptional (special education), remedial, resource (art, music, etc.), vocational-home econo- mics, vocational distributive, vocational agriculture, vocational trade and indus- trial, vocational technical, office educa- tion, industrial arts, manpower and diver- sified (DCT), guidance counselors, occupa- tional specialists, media specialists, specialists-other, instructional, TV instructor, other instructional (except administrative assistants). EXCLUDED: Associate superintendents, general directors, directors, supervisors, coordi- nators, specialists, community school "coordinators", principals and assistant principals, and administrative assistants. The Charging Party was certified as representative of the above named employees on March 24, 1975, following voluntary recognition by Respondent. The Charging Party and Respondent were parties to a collective bargaining agreement effective July 1, 1975, which expired June 30. On March 16, Duval Teachers United's President, James W. Geiger (DTU) called Respondent's superintendent, Herb A. Sang and requested that collective bargaining for a successor agreement begin as soon as possible. Geiger suggested that bargaining commence during the first week in April which was rejected by Sang. After two other suggestions by Geiger, the parties agreed to meet on April 22, and the session opened with the introduction of the respective bargaining team members and an introductory statement by Robert B. Bates, Chief Negotiator for DTU. At the outset, Bates initially alluded to the fact that a few days prior, superintendent Sang had publicly attacked him as a "outside agitator and hired gun and that the DTU was coming to the table to pick the pockets of the taxpayers." Bates advised the Respondent's team that despite the public attack, mutual trust was essential to the negotiation process and that both sides should refrain from making such attacks in the future. Thereafter negotiations began by discussion of the ground rules which had been presented by Respondent and had been used in the previous year's negotiations. The first ground rule proposal stated that each negotiating session would be scheduled at a mutually agreeable date, time and place which would be determined at the preceding session. Bates expressed reservations about daily scheduling in light of his commitment to negotiate an agreement in St. Louis, Missouri. After some discussion with DTU President Geiger, Bates agreed with the day to day scheduling rule as proposed by Respondent. Bates also advised Respondent's team that he would like to take a vacation sometime in July, if negotiations had not been completed by that time and that he would want to clear it with Respondent's team prior to scheduling any time during that month. Respondent voiced no objections to Bates' suggestions and indicated that hopefully an agreement would be consummated prior to June 30. Thereafter the parties agreed to meet on April 28, 29 and 30, for the purpose of clearing up ground rules and according to DTU, to proceed into negotiations on the union's proposals. The parties met, as agreed, on April 28 and after three hours of discussion, the language of ground rules which had not been agreed to on April 22, was finalized. Andrew J. Knight, Respondent's chief negotiator, announced that since the ground rules stated that the parties' final proposals were to be submitted by May 10, and since all of the union's package was not in, no bargaining on proposals already submitted would occur until May 10. In this regard, the record reflects that approximately 80 percent of the DTU proposals had been submitted on April 28. When Respondent refused to commence substantive bargaining, the DTU team left the meeting with Bates advising the Respondent's team that DTU would resume bargaining when management submitted its proposals. The remainder of the DTU's proposals were submitted on May 10. Respondent's team submitted five proposals to the DTU on May 11. The parties again met on May 12, at which time Respondent's chief negotiator advised Bates that the five proposals was its entire response to the DTU's package. When Bates complained about not receiving counter proposals as to all of its proposals, the Respondent's team advised DTU that it should not look forward to receiving responses to all proposals. At this meeting the parties agreed to the Purpose and Agreement clauses submitted by Respondent. The parties agreed to meet the following day and they placed on the agenda proposals dealing with Discipline and Discharge, Tenure, Personnel Files, Reprimand or Criticism, Grade Reporting, Personal Rights, Academic Freedom and Transfer. When the parties met on May 13, and DTU attempted to negotiate concerning Discipline and Discharge, Personal Rights, Academic Freedom, and Transfer, Knight stated that these subjects were "inherent rights of management" and therefore nonnegotiable. Respondent's counter proposals on the other agenda items were those extracted from the previous years contract. Bates tried to schedule future sessions and was told by Knight that such scheduling could not be done in view of the language of ground rule 1. (See joint exhibit 4). Bates attempted to secure a commitment from Respondent that it would meet on Saturday, May 15, since he had a plane ticket on Friday that he would cancel in order to negotiate on that Saturday. Knight responded that it would "probably be OK" but refused to categorically state that it would negotiate on the 15th because the strict interpretation of ground rules precluded such commitment a day in advance. The parties agreed to and met on May 14. On May 13, Bates attempted to place items the Respondent had declared nonnegotiable back on the agenda whereupon Respondent's negotiator insisted that agendas must be "mutually agreed to" and refused to put those items on the agenda. The following day, Bates again attempted to begin discussions of the DTU proposals that he wanted on the agenda and again Knight insisted that the DTU items were not on the agenda and therefore could not be negotiated. Near the close of the session and when it was too late for Bates to depart on his flight as scheduled, Respondent declined to meet on Saturday, May The next session was held on May 19 and at that time Bates insisted that the ground rules did not provide for a mutually agreed to agenda as Respondent insisted and he (Bates) thereupon demanded that the alleged nonnegotiable items be placed on the agenda for that date. Since this item did not appear on the agenda prepared by Respondent for the 19th, Respondent refused to negotiate and Knight responded that the Board counters would be given on each issue as it came up on a "mutually agreed to agenda". The DTU team left the meeting and Bates replied that the DTU would return when management's proposal package was forthcoming. On May 28, Knight and Geiger had a phone conversation in which the parties agreed to resume bargaining on June 3. Geiger questioned whether Knight and the remainder of the Board's team were serious about bargaining and Knight replied affirmatively and that they would move "immediately into their calendars". The parties met on June 3 at 5:00 P.M. at which time the Respondent presented the expired contract as its counter proposal package. No counter proposals were given on any item in the union package which was not contained in the expired agreement. Bates again attempted to negotiate the alleged nonnegotiable items with no success. Knight replied that the Board team was there only to transmit its package and not to bargain since no agreement to meet on that date had been achieved pursuant to the ground rules and no mutually agreed to agenda had been set up. Knight advised however that the Board's team was willing to sit with the DTU's team but not to bargain. The parties eventually agreed to meet on June 8. At the outset, Bates advised the Board's team that the DTU was unavailable for negotiations from June 19 to June 22 because of schedule conflicts but that the DTU was available for five days preceding June 19. No agreements were reached on June 8 except an agreement to meet on June 14. On June 8, Geiger asked the Respondent's team whether it intended to predetermine bargaining concerning the calendar by its adoption of the 76-77 school year calendar which had been put into effect. The Board's response was that the calendar could be modified at the bargaining table respecting any dates that affected students. Thereafter they met daily from June 14 - 19. During this period, one agreement was reached on June 16, when a "salesman" article was signed. Thereafter Respondent maintained its prior stand on issues of summer school assignment, student discipline, and a fair treatment clause stating either that the subject items were inherent management rights or that they were matters which were nonnegotiable in that they "infringed student rights". Respecting the DTU's attempt to produce dialogue on a DTU proposal on fair treatment, Respondent made the comment that the union only represented incompetent teachers, and that competent teachers had no problems concerning the meaning of "fair and equitable". Knight said that if the union was in charge of student discipline, "the firing squad would come into existence", and that he would "take it all the way to the supreme court before this would ever go into a collective bargaining agreement". Other items such as disruptive student policy, school nurse, and evaluations were labeled nonnegotiable by Respondent. During the June 18 session, Respondent's team advised the DTU's team that any agreement reached thru negotiations after the expiration of the current agreement would not be retroactive and that if the DTU did not meet on Saturday, June 19, the Board "just might have to file an unfair labor practice charge." The parties met again on June 19, and the entire discussion centered around the grievance procedure proposal. Knight, while admitting that employees were required to follow Board rules and policies, indicated that the Board would not put them into a contract. Near the end of the June 19 meeting, Respondent's team indicated that they desired to meet on Sunday, June 20, which was Father's Day. Bates declined, citing his previous commitment in Tampa to which the Respondent had been informed and when the Board's team insisted that a meeting take place on the 20th or 21st notwithstanding previous DTU commitments, the parties engaged in a lengthy discussion about both teams' failure to meet as scheduled. According to Bates, he was told that the Board's team was available to meet on Wednesday, June 23, and when Bates advised that the DTU's team would be available, Respondent's team indicated its availability. The DTU team, believing that a meeting was setup for Wednesday, June 23, arrived for the session at 9:00 A.M. but the Respondent's team did not appear. The next meeting was held on June 24, the following day. Geiger states that he advised Knight that the DTU's team wanted to commence serious bargaining at the next session and on this, he was assured by Knight that serious negotiations would occur. Geiger received a memo from Knight stressing his version which in essence was that the June 24 meeting was solely to set a date, time and agenda, pursuant to the ground rules. (See GC Exhibit 4a). Knight, as evidenced by his memo, refused to bargain at the June 24 session, insisting that to do so would violate the ground rules since in his opinion, no agreement had been reached at the prior meeting. After some exchange of words, Knight suggested that the meeting be adjourned for an hour, and officially reconvened after agreement pursuant to the ground rules. Geiger commented that such a move was "silly" and that he thought Respondent was "playing games". The next session took place on June 25 which centered almost exclusively around a budget presentation by school board member, Mssr. Clemmons. Respondent submitted its first counter proposals on salary on June 3, which was identical to the then existing current salary schedule. During his testimony, Kennedy admitted that that proposal was not submitted in earnest. Respondent's second salary proposal was submitted on July 1 which was the existing salary schedule plus $100 across the board. Geiger testified that he and other DTU members had heard of this offer on the radio the previous Saturday i.e., June 26, and that they had expected it to be offered at the earlier sessions prior to July 1. At the July 2nd meeting, DTU requested from Respondent information regarding the employee benefits article it submitted to which Knight responded that "no cost estimates had been prepared and that DTU could work out the costs as easily as the Board could". Knight advised that the board was of the opinion that DTU did not feel serious about the Board's being able to afford the proposals and therefore no estimates were prepared. Estimates however were provided at the next meeting which, according to Geiger, were prepared by Messr. Simmons, of the Board's team. In submitting them, he advised that they were not detailed estimates. Also discussed at the July 2nd meeting was the issue of the sick leave bank. The Board team expressed no objection in principle to the foundation of a bank but expressed its opinion that it was illegal. Then advised that such a bank existed in Dade County, Knight testified that he still questioned its legality since Kennedy had made inquiries of the Dade County School Board and when he inquired as to the authority for such a bank, he was told that it was not expressly sanctioned by any statute, rule or regulation. On July 1, Respondent's team requested the assistance of a mediator and DTU responded that on July 2, it had not objection to the appointment of a mediator. DTU expressed its opinion that the appointment of a mediator at that time was premature but that they had no objection based on the Respondent's commitment that they were really "ready to get down to meaningful bargaining". Geiger conversed with Bates about the DTU's availability during the following week whereupon they agreed that they would have their team there and would be at the bargaining table. The DTU's team cancelled its vacation plans and agreed to be prepared to negotiate the next week. Geiger testified that negotiations were carried on during the week July 5 - 9 and that it was a fruitless exercise in futility". On July 9, after the DTU's team was unable to obtain counter proposals from Respondent, and when they refused to schedule the next meeting date or to agree to any time after the 26th of July, a period to which Respondent had agreed to in view of the DTU's advance statements that it would be gone for the three week period during July 2 thru July 26, the Union declared impasse. Mr. Kazin, the mediator, indicated that of the two following weeks he was not available for one of those weeks since he would be out of town and the DTU's team suggested that the remaining week be spent to resume bargaining for the teacher aide unit. It should be noted that the DTU was certified to represent the regular unit in addition to the teacher aide unit and that Respondent's team was used to negotiate on behalf of the school board for both units. Geiger testified without contradiction, that Superintendent Sang had released to the press) a copy of what he termed to be "nonnegotiable issues". When the DTU's team asked Respondent's team for such a list, they were advised that no such list existed initially and after pressing for approximately three to four hours, Mr. Knight produced a list which coincided with the list which had been distributed to the press and to which Respondent indicated that it would refuse to bargain over. (See General Counsel's Exhibit 5, received in evidence and made a part hereof). No bargaining took place between the period July 9 thru August 2. Bargaining resumed on August 3, at which time the DTU demanded that Respondent place on the table the salary schedule which had been released to the press by Respondent on July 22. Respondent refused to present the schedule which had never been submitted at the table. The demand was renewed at bargaining sessions on August and 5 and it was finally submitted by Respondent on August 10. The schedule was unilaterally adopted by Respondent September 13. During the August 10 session, Bates questioned whether Kennedy and the remainder of the Respondent's team had the authority to negotiate issues reported to be nonnegotiable by Respondent. Kennedy admitted that while there was some overlap between management rights and working conditions, he refused to negotiate those areas. A special master hearing was held on August 20 and his report was received by the parties on September 1. (See General Counsel's Exhibit #6). On August 21, negotiations resumed under a court order following the issuance of an injunction which was petitioned for against the Respondent for allegedly engaging in bad faith bargaining and against the Union for allegedly participating in unlawful strike activity. On August 21, the parties reached an agreement on the language on a discipline and discharge article, however the Respondent indicated that it would not include such agreement in the collective bargaining agreement but rather would append it to the contract. Messr. Kennedy of the Respondent's team advised that a transfer proposal would be included in the contract which was the first time that such a proposal had been introduced since negotiations started in April, if the Union accepted Respondent's proposal on discipline and discharge. The Union rejected the package as unacceptable following Respondent's notice that the agreed language was not for inclusion in the collective bargaining agreement. During a circuit court hearing on the progress of the parties' negotiations on August 27, DTU offered to accept school board language on two issues, grade reporting and court or jury duty. No further negotiations were held after September 9. A final package offer was made to DTU which was essentially the same package offer of August 21 with the exception of the transfer/discipline and discharge proposal and with a retroactive effective date of July 1. When this package was offered on September 9, the Respondent was at the same time rejecting the special master's report in toto. As stated, in its answer, Respondent takes the position that it has not refused or failed to bargain collectively in good faith in that the items listed in the Acting General Counsel's complaint are items which are vested in Respondent by Chapter 230, Florida Statutes and Section 447.209, Florida Statutes and it is therefore precluded as a matter of law from negotiating said items. Section 447.209, F.S., gives public employers the right to unilaterally determine the purpose of its constituent agencies, to set standards, to exercise control, to take disciplinary action for cause and to relieve employees from duty due to lack of work or for other legitimate reasons. That statute goes on to read that employees aren't precluded from raising grievances where decisions have the practical consequence of violating terms and conditions of any collective bargaining agreement in force or any civil or career service regulation. It seems glaringly apparent therefore that the legislature foresaw instances wherein public employers and employee organizations would reach agreements on the very matters on which Respondent would urge that it has no obligation to include or bargain about. Collective bargaining as defined in the Public Employees Relations Act, Section 447.203(14) is: "the performance of the mutual obligations of the public employer and the bargaining agent of the employee organization to meet at reasonable times, to negotiate in good faith, and to execute a written contract with respect to agreements reached concerning the terms and conditions of employement, except that neither party shall be compelled to agree to a proposal or be required to make a concession unless otherwise provided in this part". The undersigned could find no Florida cases in which this issue had been decided, however there are numerous federal and state cases in other jurisdictions in which collective bargaining has been defined by judicial and other administrative bodies. Section 447.203(14), F.S., is strikingly similar to Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151, et-seq. Respondent does not dispute the fact that it approached the negotiation table with a fixed and preconceived determination on its part to never reach agreement on those issues listed in the complaint filed herein. It maintained this position in the negotiations without doing anymore than listen to Union arguments on those points and by so doing it engaged in surface bargaining on those as well as other issues, without any attempt to explore the arguments thereon with a sincere desire to reach agreement on them. Court decisions too numerous to cite here have stated that "good faith bargaining takes more than mere surface bargaining or "shadow-boxing to a draw" or "giving the union a run around while purporting to be meeting with the union for the purpose of collective bargaining". On the subjects listed in the complaint, it is patent that by the third negotiating session, the Union had brought out and repeated all its main arguments for those subjects. Throughout the sessions, Respondent stood fast on its position that it would never include those subjects into a collective bargaining agreement. Its position on this had hardened even at the outset of the negotiations when it maintained that it had customarily appended said subjects to the collective bargaining agreement such that they would not be subjected to the grievance arbitration provision of the collective bargaining agreement and further that those items were among those rights exclusively vested to it by Section 447.209, F.S. Respondent maintains that it released information to the public through its agent which was an exercise of its right of free speech pursuant to Section 447.501(3), Florida Statutes, and/or that it was its legal duty imposed on it by Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. The Respondent apparently overlooked the fact that the employee organization (the Charging Party here) is certified to be the exclusive bargaining agent for purposes of bargaining. This means of course, that as agent for unit employees, it is charged with the responsibility of negotiating with the public employer in an attempt to reach agreement on all matters affecting wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. This also means that Respondent is obliged to do more than merely listen to the various proposals advanced without any attempt or effort to reach an agreement on basic terms which are customarily included within collective bargaining agreements. As previously stated, the Act does not require concessions by either side during bargaining nor the surrender of convictions of alterations of philosophies, provided such convictions or philosophies are not made operative in such manner as to foreclose bona fide consideration of bargainable issues. Duro Fittings Company, 121 N.L.R.B. 377, 383. Throughout these sessions, DTU was repeatedly rebuffed on minor problems such as establishing an agenda and obtaining agreement for future negotiating sessions. Respondent maintained its stand on all the items alleged by it as "nonnegotiable" which left the Union in a situation wherein, in order to make any movement, it was forced to submit counters to its own proposals without any movement on management's part. The failure on management's part to submit any counter proposals on those items lends support for an inference that they were not bargaining in good faith. Further support for this inference lies in the fact that Respondent publicly denounced the DTU's chief negotiator as a hired gun and as a person who wanted to pick the pocket of the taxpayers and by publicly releasing to the press items which the employees' exclusive bargaining representative had been repeatedly pressing for at the negotiating table. I recognize it is not usually the obligation of the employer to make suggestions when it takes a position and maintains it in good faith, and that refusal by an employer to aid a Union by acceding is not sufficient, standing alone, to permit an imputation of an intent to frustrate final agreement. This is true only if the refusal is supported by reasons of substance which are advanced in good faith and to further legitimate business interests, while indicating that it still maintained an open mind on the issue. Hence, where the Union had displayed a disposition to be flexible and make concessions on the deadlock issues and Respondent itself indicated publicly to the unit employees that it had in mind a possible raise for them, it was incumbent upon Respondent, as evidence of its good faith, to broach the alternatives formally to the Union immediately after, if not before, said information was released to the press, especially when the Union questioned its stand, if it was at all sincere in its desire to resolve those issues in an effort to reach a final agreement. Also the thrust of the article released to the press which in essence indicated that the Union had lost a 6.25 percent raise because their Union forced negotiators to an impasse, while failing to advise the Union even after the details of such had been released to the press, strongly indicated that the Respondent was treating the Union, not as a certified bargaining agent of the workers, but as an interloper seeking to gain some advantage for itself, in any dealing between Respondent and its employees. This attitude ignored the fact that Respondent was in fact and in law dealing with the employees themselves, when it talked to the Union as their bargaining agent. This is strong indication of bad faith bargaining, for in effect Respondent was announcing to the employees, during and after bargaining, that while it would give them benefits as workers it would not consider a grant of certain benefits, because they were asking for them through their bargaining agent. See for example Kayser-Roth Hosiery Company, 176 N.L.R.B. 999, 1000, 1001. Considering the totality of its conduct vis-a-vis the employees and their chosen agent before, during and after the negotiations, I am constrained to conclude that Respondent's standing attitude of hostility toward the Union, including its blunt threats against the bargaining team's members, pervaded and controlled its attitude in bargaining and its adamant opposition to those subjects was the primary cause of the impasse reached. In this respect, Respondent failed to meet its obligation to bargain in good faith with the Union in violation of 447.501(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Additional indicia of Respondent's bad faith bargaining appears in its dealing with the press when it released the fact that the union had been instrumental in losing a 6.25 percent raise because it (the Union) forced negotiations to an impasse while knowing that it had never offered such to the Union and when requested for such proposals, it initially denied that it existed and after repeated requests only grudgingly released such. The same is true with respect to the failure to submit to the DTU's negotiating team a list of items which Respondent labeled "nonnegotiable" by its taking the position initially that no such list existed and after repeated requests to find out if such a list existed, the Respondent belatedly released such to the DTU's team. The Respondent's contention that its purpose in issuing the letter to the press was not to make a proposal but to (a) avert a strike and (b) to allow the Union a face saving means of returning to the bargaining table is unpersuasive and is regarded by the undersigned as incredible in view of the entire course of conduct by the Respondent's team throughout the negotiating process. This was further clear indication of surface" or "sham" bargaining in bad faith in violation of the Act. 2/ The evidence indicates that on at least two occasions after the information had been released to the public, Respondent refused to grant those releases to the DTU's team at the negotiating table. I find that such conduct on the part of the Respondent is coercive in nature because, when stated in the terms released to the press without explanation, they tended to demonstrate to employees the futility of further negotiations on salaries, as well as an adamant and apparent unreasoning attitude on it, which is some evidence of bad faith bargaining. I find that Respondent thereby violated Chapter 447.501(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Additional indicia of Respondent's bad faith bargaining is found in the fact that it refused to reduce and include in written form in its collective bargaining agreement, those items to which it reached agreement on. By engaging in such conduct, I find that the Respondent thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Additional indicia of Respondent's bad faith bargaining lie in its insistence on agreeing to schedule sessions on a daily basis and by its refusal to discuss items which, although not on the agenda, were related and the only reason Respondent advanced for not discussing such items was based on that fact. At one session, when DTU attempted to discuss a non-agenda subject, management suggested that the session be adjourned for one hour and reconvene so that the additional non-agenda items could be placed on the agenda and discussed. In each case in which the Respondent is charged with having failed to satisfy its duty to bargain in good faith, the entire course of conduct at the bargaining table has to be judged and considered by the totality of the circumstances. The term good faith has been held to mean that parties must approach the bargaining table with an open mind and with the intent to reach agreement. See for example N.L.R.B. v. Herman Sausage Company, 275 F.2d 229 (CA5, 1960); N.L.R.B. v. Reed and Prince Manufacturing Company, 205 F.2d 131 (CAl, 1953). Turning to the outset of the negotiation process in this case, prior to the first session, Bates testified without contradiction that superintendent Sang publicly attacked him as Charging Party's national representative as a "hired gun" and a person who was seeking to "pick the pockets of the taxpayers". Concerning his memo of April 19, Kennedy testified that "this document reads like history written in the spring as to what occurred not". See General Counsel's Exhibit #7 received into evidence. As that exhibit reflects, Respondent seemed calculated and more concerned with establishing rules and creating other subterfuges by which it could refuse to bargain than it was with performing its obligation to bargain in good faith. For example, evidence reveals that bargaining did not commence until approximately five weeks after the DTU's initial request. The first session centered around clearing up a ground rules proposal which as the evidence reveals, were the previous years ground rules. It took more than two negotiating sessions to finalize ground rules. This pattern continued throughout the negotiating process and clearly evinces Respondent's strategy of putting form over substance. Management does not deny and in fact admits that it termed various subjects "nonnegotiable". However it urges that it would include such subjects as appendages to the collective bargaining agreement. By so doing, the enforceability of such appendages would indeed be questionable. Furthermore, Section 447.001, F.S., requires the parties to negotiate a grievance procedure which shall be final and binding on the parties. By appending traditional subjects of collective bargaining such as discipline and discharge to the collective bargaining agreement, the employer would obviate its obligation to submit any disciplinary action to the grievance machinery and the collective bargaining agreement and would make a nullity of the proviso to Section 447.209, F.S. Also, Section 447.309(5), F.S., provides in pertinent part that "any collective bargaining agreement ... shall contain all of the terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the bargaining unit The evidence clearly shows in this regard that Respondent, after having agreed on certain proposals, refused to put them in the collective bargaining agreement thereby obviating any obligation to grieve them by the grievance machinery. Without going through each of the subjects listed in the complaint, some discussion on some of the items is worthy of mention in this decision. The Respondent termed discipline and discharge, seniority, transfer, summer school assignment, student discipline and disruptive student policy nonnegotiable subjects. However it agreed to append such subjects to the collective bargaining agreement. It is ludicrous to even suggest that discipline, discharge, seniority and transfer are not matters which affect an employee's employment relationship. As the evidence indicates, Respondent has a rule which states that violations of its policies subject a teacher to disciplinary action including discharge. Thus, for example, if a teacher fails to discipline a student who is disruptive in a manner which, according to Respondent, violates its policy, said teacher is subject to disciplinary action which often may lead to discharge. Another subject, seniority, has been held by numerous jurisdictions to be a mandatory subject of bargaining in that it, among other things such as merit, determines which teachers are eligible for promotion to various positions which become vacant during the school term. This necessarily affect a teacher's employment conditions and is therefore a term and condition of employment within the meaning of Section 447.309, F.S. Additionally, numerous jurisdictions have held that the impact of a managerial decision on terms and conditions of employment is a mandatorily negotiable subject. See for example, West Irondequoit Teachers Association v. Helsby, 315 N.E. 2d 775(Ct of App., 1974). Based on the foregoing, and by offering only the prior contract language as its counter proposals on the vast majority of issues, by refusing to tie logically related issues together in negotiations, by unreasonably delaying discussion on money issues, by attempting to denigrate the DTU's representative in the press and by attempting to deal directly with the employees and thereby bypassing the employees designated exclusive bargaining representative, and by unreasonably delaying discussion on money issues, Respondent effectively refused to bargain throughout the entire course of negotiations. Based on the above conduct and in light of Respondent's continual insistence on appending agreed upon proposals to the collective bargaining agreement and thereby avoiding the enforceability thereof by arbitration, Respondent thereby violated Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), F.S.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as found above, I shall therefore recommend that it take the following action, which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the above-named union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit described above and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement and recognize and deal with said union as such exclusive bargaining agent. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact The City and Charging Party executed their first collective bargaining agreement on November 5, 1974. This agreement under its terms was made retroactive to October 1, 1974. Among the provisions of the agreement is Article 9, which sets forth the grievance procedure. Its last step is final and binding arbitration. Paul Williams, a firefighter employed by the City and covered under the agreement, had apparently had a history of pay problems going back to 1973 when Williams was allegedly placed in the improper pay classification based upon his years of service. The exact nature of the difficulty was not explored because it is not material to the issue present in this case. However, Williams subsequently sought to correct this situation, which apparently adversely affected his pay, by various means to include discussing the matter with various superiors in both the fire department and city administration. This matter was never officially resolved or a decision reached which was satisfactory to Williams. In December 1974, Williams received his first check under the newly negotiated contract. He went immediately to his union representative and complained that he was not being paid in accordance with the contract's terms and the service which he had. In short, the alleged error about which Williams had complained nearly 18 months had been continued under the computation of Williams' pay under the newly negotiated contract. Williams filed a grievance under the contract in December 1974, disputing his pay classification and seeking adjustment to his wages from October 1, 1974, the effective date of the contract. His grievance was therefore filed within six months of the date the alleged dispute arose regarding his classification and wage under the contract. The grievance was approved by the union grievance committee, as the first step in the grievance procedure. Thereafter, the grievance was submitted to the fire chief, who requested that he be given several days to check around and see what he could do. On or about December 20, 1974, the fire chief advised the men that he lacked authority to change the pay status of Williams, thus leaving the matter unresolved at the second level. The matter was pursued to the third step, referring it to the city manager. During the latter part of December and January, the city manager discussed the Williams' grievance with the union representative. By January 14, 1975, there had been no progress in resolving the matter, and the union representative notified the City of its intent to invoke Step 4 of the grievance procedure outline in Article 9, supra. The City has refused to move to Step 4, which is submission to a grievance committee whose decision is final and binding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends the Commission order the Employer to cease and desist from refusing to take Williams' grievance to the final step in the grievance procedure set out in the collective bargaining agreement. Further, the Hearing Officer recommends that an appropriate public notice to employees of the Public Employer be posted in conspicuous placed where notices to employees are usually posted for a period of time determined by the Public Employees Relations commission. This report is respectfully submitted this 26th day of March, 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: Allen M. Blake, Esquire Alley and Alley, Chartered Post Office Box 1427 Tampa, Florida 33601 Tom Brooks, Esquire Staff Attorney Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert W. Vause, President Tarpon Springs Professional Fire Fighters, Local 2353 1408 Ledgestone Drive New Port Richey, Florida
