Findings Of Fact The Respondent caused the experience increments which had been in effect for all adult education teachers to be modified or terminated, and reduced the hourly wage amounts paid to adult education teachers. However, the real question presented is whether adult education teachers were included within the bargaining unit. The position of adult education teachers was not mentioned either in the inclusions or exclusions of the descriptions of the bargaining unit. Whether they would be included therefore turns upon whether adult education teachers are regularly employed certificated personnel." Adult education teachers were not required to be certificated, one primary requirement for inclusion in the unit. In addition, persons employed in the adult education program included both certificated day-time teachers and administrative personnel specifically excluded from the unit. Their employment was not contractual and could be terminated if a particular class was cancelled or dropped based upon lack of student enrollment. In such a case the adult education teacher's employment would be automatically terminated. Adult education classes were presented at night and the maximum number of hours that any adult education teacher would work would be six (6) hours per week. For both groups, employment as an adult education teacher was in addition to their regular employment. From a budgetary standpoint, adult education teachers were compensated from a separate functional breakout within the school budget to which that portion of their compensation earned as an adult education teacher was charged. No deductions were made from the adult education portion of a teacher's salary for retirement or Social Security. Based on the foregoing facts, the Hearing Officer finds that adult education teachers are not "regularly employed certificated personnel" and therefore, are not within the bargaining unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that no action be taken on the charges as stated in Paragraphs 10(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(J)(H) and Paragraphs 11(A) and (B). Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relating to Issue XI and Paragraph 10(H) of the complaint, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Commission enter its order requiring the Respondent to cease and desist its refusal to bargain upon request over mandatory items of collective bargaining. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Meyer, Esquire Frank & Meyer, P.A. Flagship Bank Building Tampa, Florida Norman J. Smith, Esquire Brinson and Smith, P.A. Post Office Drawer 1549 Kissimmee, Florida 32741 Austin Reed, Esquire Public Employee Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Leonard Carson, Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact John R. Sutton (Sutton) has been an employee of the Seminole County School Board (School Board) for approximately ten years. At the time of his suspension, he was working as an electrician's helper. Sutton's work hours were seven to three-thirty, including summers when school was not in session. Generally, his duties did not bring him into contact with students. To the extent possible, repairs and wiring work were done when the students were not around. Sutton lives in his own home with his two children, ages three and five, his sixty-eight-year-old mother, and his fifty-year-old mentally retarded sister, whom he takes care of. He needs his job. (Petitioner's exhibit 1, p.9) Sutton's property borders on a tree farm owned by Miami Land Division. On August 10, 1993, around five-thirty p.m., Sutton was in the woods behind his house examining three small marijuana plants when he was arrested by officers of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. He gave permission for them to search his home and they found some baggies of marijuana. Sutton was charged with cultivation of marijuana and possession of greater than 20 grams, a felony. He admits the charges. Sutton was not prosecuted, but rather was referred to the pretrial intervention program conducted by the State's Attorney. Under his pretrial intervention contract, he was required to be supervised for twelve months, submit to random drug testing, complete fifty hours of community service, and pay certain costs of investigation and supervision. He was also required to attend Narcotics Anonymous meetings. He has satisfied all of the conditions except for the full twelve months of supervision, which have not expired. After successful completion of his contract, the charges will be dismissed. On August 12, 1993, Sutton's charge of cultivation of marijuana appeared in the "News of Record" section of the Daytona Beach News-Journal, in small print, with the usual notices of criminal charges, suits filed, divorces, births and hospital admissions occurring recently in Volusia County. John Reichert performs duties of the personnel director for the Seminole County School District. He doesn't read the News-Journal, but his counterpart in Volusia County read it and told him of Sutton's arrest. Reichert obtained information about the arrest and presented the findings to the School Board's professional standards committee. The committee recommended that Sutton be terminated. He was placed on leave without pay, pending the outcome of this proceeding on the superintendent's recommendation to the School Board. Discipline of non-instructional personnel of the School Board is governed by the collective bargaining agreement dated July 1, 1992-June 30, 1995. This agreement provides, in pertinent part: REGULAR EMPLOYEES Section 4. * * * B. An employee who has been hired for four (4) or more years may only be terminated for just cause except as otherwise provided in A. above. [reduction in force] The decision not to renew the employee for the ensuring year shall be for just cause. * * * DISCIPLINE AND TERMINATION Section 5. A. Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) of the last five (5) years (without a break in service) shall not be disciplined (which shall include repri mands), suspended or terminated except for just cause. * * * An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including the following (or substantially similar offenses) providing just cause is present: Violation of School Board Policy Violation of work rules Insubordination--Refusal to follow a proper directive, order, or assignment from a supervisor While on duty, the possession and/or the use of intoxicating beverages or controlled substances after reporting for work and until after the employee leaves the work site after the equipment, if applicable, has been checked in. Endangering the health, safety or welfare of any student or employee of the District The conviction of a felony in the State of Florida or notice of conviction of a substantially parallel offense in another jurisdiction An act committed while off duty, which because of its publication through the media or otherwise adversely affects the employee's performance or duties, or disrupts the operations of the District, its schools or other work/cost centers Excessive tardiness Damage to School Board property Improper use of sick leave Failure to perform assigned duties Other infractions, as set forth from time to time in writing and disseminated by the Superintendent or designee. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, emphasis added) Counsel for the School Board stipulated at hearing that Sutton's termination is not based on any of the twelve items in paragraph Section 5, C., above. Rather, the School Board's position is that "just cause" is not limited to those items. The School Board has adopted a drug free work place policy, prohibiting possession, use, sale, distribution or being under the influence of alcohol or narcotic drug, marijuana or other controlled substance, before, during or after school hours, at school or in any other school district location. The record does not reflect when the policy was adopted; Sutton has never seen the policy. Further, it does not address Sutton's offense. Sutton knows of other non-instructional employees who have been arrested for felony offenses and are still employed. On the other hand, the School Board has disciplined other employees (teachers and non-instructional employees) for drug offenses committed off of school premises and off hours. However, the School Board did not, in this proceeding, establish its policy with regard to employees, such as Sutton, who are not teachers, who are arrested after their employment, and who are not convicted of a felony or are not guilty of any of the enumerated offenses in the collective bargaining agreement. Sutton has never been disciplined before. His supervisor considers him a "[d]ecent worker, maybe not the best, but definitely a good worker." (Transcript, p.28) His attendance record is fine or average; he has not been observed arriving to work or during work, "stoned" or otherwise intoxicated or impaired. Sutton freely admits that he owned the three plants and the marijuana found in his house. He smoked infrequently and did not sell or distribute the marijuana.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Seminole County enter its final order rejecting the recommendation for termination of John Sutton, removing him from suspension, and restoring back pay. DONE AND RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of May 1994. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 1. 3 & 4. Adopted in Paragraph 8. 5 & 6. Adopted in Paragraph 4. 7. Adopted by implication in Paragraph 2. But the more specific finding is that such contact was merely incidental, and not direct. 8-11. Addressed in Preliminary Statement as background of the proceeding. Respondent's Proposed Findings Respondent's "Findings of Fact" comprise a single paragraph outlining the background of this proceeding and stating his position, which position is generally accepted in the recommendation, above. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, Florida 32772-4848 Thomas C. Greene, Esquire Post Office Box 695 Sanford, Florida 32772-0695 Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Paul Hagerty, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 1211 South Mellonville Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Sheila A. Cunningham, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Florida Credit Union, on account of her race or due to retaliation for her opposition to an unlawful employment practice in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, who was at all times relevant to this matter an employee of Respondent, is African-American. There was no direct testimony as to the number of persons employed by Respondent. However, given the testimony describing a large financial institution with multiple departments, including a data scanning department and a call center, there is sufficient competent, substantial evidence to establish an inference that Respondent employs more than 15 full-time employees at any given time. Petitioner was first hired by Respondent on November 20, 2007. On February 2, 2008, she was transferred to the position of Courtesy Pay Credit Advisor (CPCA), a position held until her termination on March 21, 2014. From 2012 through the time of her termination, Jennifer Perez was Petitioner’s direct supervisor. Ms. Perez reported to Mr. Colson, who supervised the credit advisor department. Over the years, Petitioner received a number of certificates and awards for good performance in her position. CPCAs are responsible for collections on delinquent accounts of members by bringing the account to a positive balance within 60 days of delinquency. If a credit union member’s account is delinquent for more than 60 days, it must be written off, resulting in a loss to Respondent. Failure to timely write-off a negative account can subject Respondent to fines and negative audit ratings. A common way of bringing an account current is to arrange a loan with Respondent to pay the delinquent balance. Loan types include a “bounce-free” loan and a “work-out loan.” Both are designed to allow for payment of the negative account in installment payments. The bounce-free loan has only the negative account balance involved, while the work-out loan combines the negative balance with another existing loan. CPCAs receive additional compensation for such loans, known as “incentives,” of $10 to $15, though the record suggests that a dispute over an incentive of $40 was a triggering cause of the adverse employment action in this case. CPCAs are also responsible for “packing” loans, which includes taking the loan paperwork to the optical department to input and image the documents into Respondent’s system. The optical department periodically provides reports on loans for which documentation has not been submitted for input and imaging. Petitioner testified credibly that the optical department would occasionally neglect to scan loans that were submitted. However, there was no evidence to suggest that to be a frequent or pervasive problem. Respondent routinely employs one or two CPCAs at any given time. The CPCAs are assigned a “queue,” which is an alphabetical assignment of member accounts. The evidence suggests that Petitioner served as the CPCA for all delinquent member accounts for a period of almost one year, a practice that ended when Vikki Martello was hired as a CPCA on February 27, 2012. Upon her hiring, Ms. Martello was assigned the accounts of members with last names beginning with the letters A through K, and Petitioner was assigned the accounts of members with last names beginning with the letters L through Z. Ms. Martello was transferred to another position on July 11, 2013. Jennifer Munyan was hired as a CPCA on May 20, 2013, and was assigned the A through K queue. Since Petitioner’s termination, Ms. Munyan has handled all delinquent accounts. Petitioner mentioned several incidents over the course of her employment that she believed to be evidence of her poor treatment by Respondent. These incidents appear to have occurred more than one year before Petitioner filed her employment complaint of discrimination. They are cited here for purposes of background. Petitioner testified that starting in 2010 or 2011, Respondent began to hire younger credit advisors on the basis of their friendship with management. The new employees engaged in childish activities such as throwing paper clips and blowing bubbles. Petitioner indicated that they were “written up” for those activities. There was no suggestion that either the hiring or the write-ups were based on race. For a period of time, Petitioner was assigned what she believed to be a disproportionate share of holiday weekend shifts. Mr. Colson “corrected that and then that was okay.” There was no suggestion that the issues with scheduling were based on race. Shortly after Ms. Martello was hired on February 27, 2012, she was asked to accompany Mr. Colson and Ms. Perez to a branch office to train employees. Petitioner felt “that was not right,” and that she was being excluded from performing certain job tasks. She testified that Respondent’s assignment of training and other duties to persons other than herself led to a sympathetic nick-name of “invisible credit advisor.” Petitioner admitted that, in her opinion, Ms. Martello was an excellent employee. Mr. Colson testified credibly that Petitioner was not asked to assist in the new hire training since she was already behind on managing her accounts, and that “[t]here’s no compensation or award or anything for training another employee, it's just additional work.” There was no suggestion that the decision to have Ms. Martello assist with training was based on race. Petitioner alleged that despite her requests, she was not allowed to shadow other employees, particularly in the call center, so that she could learn the responsibilities of the member service representative position. She testified that in response to her requests, Ms. Perez would say “okay, we'll see about it, but nothing never happened. And I asked like three or four times and it was always we'll see about it.” Petitioner did not claim in her testimony that she was denied these opportunities because of her race. Petitioner generally claimed she was denied promotional opportunities because she was not allowed to train as a back-up. However, she failed to present any evidence of an open and available position for which she had applied, or for which she was denied. Furthermore, there was no suggestion that race played a role in any such denial. Respondent’s employees are informed of work performance issues in several ways, including informal discussions, e-mail communication, individual or group meetings, coaching reports, and annual evaluations. On March 19, 2012, Petitioner received her annual performance review. Although Respondent was complementary of Petitioner’s improvements in her work, and spoke favorably of her interpersonal relationships and work ethic, the review noted a number of “improvement opportunities and development areas” to be implemented over the course of the following year. Deficiencies in job performance included Petitioner’s practice of making initial contact with a delinquent member by letter, rather than the more effective practice of a phone call; the failure to provide sufficiently descriptive account notations; the failure to “charge off” loans correctly resulting in errors for others to correct; the failure to close checking accounts after workout options or loans were complete resulting in further delinquencies; and the failure to set up loan distributions correctly, resulting in unwarranted loan delinquencies and resultant customer complaints. The performance review also cited issues with Petitioner’s negative accounts extending beyond the required time frame, which was noted in Respondent’s quarterly audit report. The deficiencies noted in the performance review resulted in higher than normal charge-offs, and losses to Respondent. Petitioner improved her performance in some areas, but only for short periods of time. Mr. Colson did not issue Petitioner any coaching reports in 2012 because he believed that Petitioner’s mistakes were not intentional, that she had a positive attitude, that she had no attendance issues, and that “she seemed to like her job a lot.” It was Mr. Colson’s belief that with additional training and a cooperative approach, Petitioner’s performance issues could be corrected. On February 27, 2013, Petitioner received her next annual performance review. Petitioner was again complemented on her interaction with members, her teamwork, and her general positive work ethic. It was noted that Petitioner had responded well to coaching such that she rarely made mistakes in setting up automatic loan payments. The review noted, however, a number of areas for improvement, including some that had not been resolved from the previous year’s review. Of particular concern was the high number of missing loan packets, some of which were months past due; the failure to meet consecutive deadlines for submitting completed work; and the failure to begin work on accounts in an appropriate and timely manner. Petitioner was again instructed to make initial contact with delinquent members by phone or email, rather than by letter; and was advised of several of her accounts that were charged-off after missing the 60-day deadline. Finally, Petitioner was provided with a printout of the 142 overdrawn checking accounts in her queue, only 40 of which (28 percent), had been worked in the previous 60 days. Although some early-stage overdraft accounts carried a “high self-cure rate,” the low number of accounts worked was deemed unacceptably low. After receiving her 2013 performance review, Petitioner improved in some areas of her performance, but again only for a short period of time. Beginning on July 15, 2013, Petitioner, Ms. Martello (until she completed her transfer from the collections department), and Ms. Munyan (upon her assignment to the collections department) were provided with periodic email updates from Ms. Perez on the number of loan packets for which each was responsible that had not been submitted to the optical department. The updates and related correspondence between Petitioner and Ms. Perez revealed the following: July 15, 2013 Petitioner - 37 missing loan packets Ms. Martello - 4 missing loan packets July 19, 2013 Petitioner - 36 missing loan packets Ms. Martello - 6 missing loan packets July 30, 2013 Petitioner - 34 missing loan packets Ms. Martello - 5 missing loan packets August 5, 2013 Petitioner - 29 missing loan packets Ms. Martello - 2 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 1 missing loan packet August 14, 2013 Petitioner - 31 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 2 missing loan packets August 19, 2013 Petitioner - 38 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 5 missing loan packets August 27, 2013 Petitioner - 42 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 4 missing loan packets September 3, 2013 Petitioner - 38 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 5 missing loan packets September 10, 2013 Petitioner - 42 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 5 missing loan packets September 16, 2013 Petitioner - 32 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 4 missing loan packets On September 18, 2013, Ms. Perez sent an email to Petitioner and Ms. Munyan advising them that credit union auditors were scheduled to arrive on September 30, 2013. Thus, Petitioner and Ms. Munyan were instructed to “[m]ake sure all of your loan packets are up to date, so that no one comes to us requesting something that cannot be located.” October 1, 2013 (for loan packets through September 27) Petitioner - 38 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 3 missing loan packets The October 1, 2013, update further advised Petitioner and Ms. Munyan that “[t]he auditors are here for the next three weeks. If they review any of these loans, it will be a problem that we do not have them scanned yet and if we are missing documents. Please get these turned in this week!” On October 12, 2013, Petitioner sent Ms. Perez an email stating that “I worked on some loan packets on 10/12. Please don’t send email until I turn my loan packets in on 10/16.” October 25, 2013 Petitioner - 20 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 7 missing loan packets November 4, 2013 Petitioner - 28 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 4 missing loan packets November 12, 2013 Petitioner - 33 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 5 missing loan packets On November 15, 2013, Petitioner sent Ms. Perez an email stating that “Optical have some loan packets that were turned in today, please don’t send out list until after 11/18/13.” November 22, 2013 Petitioner - 35 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 7 missing loan packets December 11, 2013 Petitioner - 41 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 1 missing loan packet December 18, 2013 Petitioner - 32 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 2 missing loan packets On October 9, 2013, Mr. Colson met with Petitioner and Ms. Munyan to discuss the results of an attorney audit that was critical of several collections practices. In particular, too many accounts were not being worked until the later stage of delinquency; too much time was allowed to elapse between contacts with the members; and workflow notations were not properly completed. A spreadsheet provided during the October 9, 2013, meeting revealed that Petitioner had 92 accounts in her queue, 57 of which had never been worked. Ms. Munyan had 90 accounts in her queue, 25 of which had never been worked. In November of 2013, Petitioner spoke with Ms. Perez regarding an incident in which Petitioner alleged that Ms. Munyan claimed one of her incentive credits. Ms. Perez advised Petitioner to come back to her if it occurred again. Ms. Perez discussed the incentive issue with Mr. Colson. They determined that, due to a high volume of negative accounts anticipated over the upcoming holidays, and in recognition of the priority on not missing an opportunity to resolve negative accounts, a policy for incentives when a CPCA had to handle incoming calls and loan requests from members who were not in the CPCA’s queue was warranted. On November 19, 2013, Ms. Perez sent an e-mail to Petitioner and Ms. Munyan setting out the policy for handling calls when the other CPCA was not available. Outgoing calls and loan initiation were limited to customers within the CPCA’s queue. However, if a CPCA was not in the office or was unavailable to handle a customer request, the other CPCA was instructed to accept incoming calls from members not in their queue. The CPCA who first entered notes of a customer contact prior to a loan being booked was to receive the incentive. On December 9, 2013, Ms. Munyan received a communication from a member with a negative account, entered the first notes of contact with the member into the workflow history, and sent loan paperwork for a bounce-free loan to the member. On December 10, 2013, Petitioner spoke with the customer and took additional application information over the phone. Later that same day, Petitioner went to Mr. Colson to approve a refinance loan for the customer. Mr. Colson approved Petitioner to proceed with the refinance loan based on the customer’s income, but did not know at the time that Ms. Munyan had already started the loan process. Since Ms. Munyan made the first contact with the customer, the incentive was credited to Ms. Munyan. Petitioner proceeded to make several entries on the workflow history asserting her claim to the incentive. Petitioner apparently discussed the matter within the office, leading to her testimony that “[t]he department was upset about it because I showed it to them.” In December 2013, having been made aware of the workflow history comments regarding the disputed incentive; having received complaints regarding Petitioner from the manager of Respondent’s contact center; and having continuing issues with Petitioner’s failure to submit loan documents to the optical department, Mr. Colson prepared a series of coaching reports to individually address the issues. It was decided to issue separate coaching reports for each issue of concern, rather than a single lengthy report, in order to keep the issues separate. Respondent has previously issued multiple coaching reports to employees under comparable circumstances. On December 20, 2013, Petitioner was called into a meeting with Mr. Colson. She thought the meeting was to discuss the disputed incentive. Instead, she was presented with the coaching reports. The first coaching report was issued for Petitioner’s notations into the workflow system related to her intent to claim the disputed incentive credit. Petitioner had previously received training on the information to be entered in the workflow system. During the training sessions, which were conducted periodically, and which included the distribution of printed materials, it was stressed that the workflow notes should not be editorial or contain side comments. Mr. Colson explained that, in the event of a legal dispute with a member regarding their account, the collection record, including the notations entered into the workflow system, would be made part of a court record. As applied to Petitioner’s notations, Mr. Colson was concerned about having to testify about notations in the collection record regarding incentives or commissions for working on a work-out request. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Martello and other unidentified credit advisors made similar notations in the workflow system without being written up, but provided no evidence to support her assertion. Mr. Colson knew of no other instance of a CPCA making notations in the workflow system related to an incentive dispute or other internal employee dispute. Mr. Colson believed that the notations made by Petitioner regarding the incentive dispute were not pertinent to the collection record, thus violating Respondent’s policy and warranting the issuance of the coaching report. Petitioner signed the first coaching report, with the comment that “I thought that I was doing the right thing on this acct.” The second coaching report addressed Petitioner’s act of taking a fee refund voucher to Respondent’s contact center department for approval. The contact center has staff on duty beyond Respondent’s normal 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. business hours. The fee refund had to be done on November 25, 2013, since that was the 60th day of the negative account, after which the account would have to be written off. The fee refund was for an amount that exceeded Petitioner’s approval authority. Despite the time frame involved, Petitioner did not get the fee refund voucher approved by the clerk of the collections department, which would be the normal course, before the 5:00 p.m. close of business. During the December 20, 2013, meeting, Mr. Colson discussed the practice of taking vouchers to the call center for processing after 5:00 p.m. Mr. Colson had been approached by the assistant vice president of the contact center regarding Petitioner’s multiple visits after 5:00 p.m. to his department “to have transactions done, fees refunded, things of that nature on members' accounts.” As a result, call center employees were being pulled away from their normal tasks to do transactions that were not a normal function of their job. Petitioner alleged that other credit advisors went to the call center to have such transactions processed, including Ms. Martello, Melonice Lindsey, and Howard Miller, but provided no evidence to support her assertion. Mr. Colson had no knowledge of other credit advisors who engaged in this activity, or any other improprieties regarding the processing of fee refunds. The second coaching report addressed additional issues related to the November 25, 2013, fee refund transaction, including the fact that Petitioner did not work on the sixty-day negative account when she arrived to work that morning, and that she did not enter any notation in the workflow history regarding the fee refund. Mr. Colson believed that the issues regarding the fee refund transaction warranted the issuance of the coaching report. Petitioner signed the second coaching report, with the comment that “I didn’t do this intentionally. I forgot to get voucher back from Katie to give to [Mr. Colson] to sign.” The third coaching report addressed the ongoing problem of Petitioner’s failure to provide loan documentation to the optical department for input and scanning, the details of which are set forth in paragraph 22 above. Petitioner signed the report with the comment that “[s]ome of these loans have been turned into optical. I will review this matter.” Petitioner alleged that other employees had fallen behind on submitting paperwork, but were not written up or terminated. Petitioner did not identify, by name or race, any of the allegedly comparable employees, or establish that they had a comparable history of failing to submit loan documentation. The only evidence adduced at the hearing established that Ms. Martello and Ms. Munyan were not comparable to Petitioner in the number or frequency of late-submitted loan packets. Petitioner stated that she had previously advised Ms. Perez of her intent to work on Saturday, December 21, 2013, to catch up on her loan paperwork. Mr. Colson was not aware of Petitioner’s intent to do so but, given the length of time that the problem continued to exist, would still have issued the coaching report to Petitioner. At some point after January 2, 2014, during Mr. Colson’s daily review of compliance reports, he noted an account that was over 60 days, requiring that it be written off. The account was assigned to Petitioner, and Mr. Colson saw from the workflow history that Petitioner did not begin work on the account until it was 58 days past due. Working her accounts earlier in the delinquency stage had been previously addressed with Petitioner. On January 6, 2014, Petitioner was given a coaching report and placed on a 60-day probation for deficient work performance related to the written-off account. Petitioner signed the January 6, 2014, coaching report with the comment that “voucher was paperclip to another voucher by mistake. I usually check these daily.” Petitioner testified that other employees failed to timely charge-off accounts but were not counseled, but provided no evidence to support her assertion. The only comparator for whom evidence was received was Khrissy Adams, a Caucasian woman, who was given a coaching report and placed on a 30-day probation for failing to timely write-off an account. There was no evidence of Ms. Adams having received previous coaching reports so as to warrant a lengthier period of probation, as was given to Petitioner. As part of the process established after the December 20, 2013, meeting and coaching reports, Petitioner was to submit her loan packets to either Ms. Perez or Mr. Colson for review before they were sent to be scanned. That review revealed that a large number of the loan packets contained significant errors in the consumer lending plan, which is the contract a member signs to obtain a loan. Many of the consumer lending plans had missing signatures, and some packets had no consumer lending plan at all. Furthermore, Petitioner indicated that some members elected to purchase loan insurance when the member had, in fact, declined insurance, resulting in unapproved charges to a member. The errors noted by Respondent were serious, potentially resulting in the loan contracts being invalid and unenforceable. The errors could have been violative of Regulation Z, which governs fair lending practices and, if there were a sufficient number of instances, resulted in a class action lawsuit against Respondent, exposing it to considerable cost. Due to the ongoing performance issues, as well as the severity of the issues related to Petitioner’s completed loan packets, the decision was made that termination of Petitioner’s employment was appropriate. Petitioner was thereafter terminated from employment on March 21, 2014. Petitioner identified no instance of any racially- disparaging comments directed at herself or any other employee by anyone affiliated with Respondent. There was no non-hearsay evidence of any employee outside of Petitioner’s protected class who engaged in conduct similar to that of Petitioner, but without consequence, upon which to support a finding that the employee was treated more favorably. Mr. Colson testified credibly that Petitioner’s race had no bearing on the decision to terminate her employment. Rather, Mr. Colson testified convincingly that the decision was based solely on Petitioner’s continuing and increasingly poor job performance. Mr. Colson felt Petitioner’s poor performance was not due to a lack of trying on Petitioner’s part; it was simply the result of a lack of ability on her part. Petitioner asserted that she was written up, placed on probation, and subsequently terminated from employment in retaliation for complaining that Ms. Munyan improperly claimed her incentive. In that regard, she testified that: I know that by me going to management . . . it really started all this, I think, because I’m thinking to myself, if I would have just kept my mouth shut, maybe I would have had my job, but other employees have went to Mr. Colson before with problems like that . . . . But my thing is, after I went to management I get written up out of retaliation. I got blind-sided. I didn’t know that was going to happen. And, to me, that’s retaliation. Petitioner does not claim that she was denied the incentive credit because or her race. Finally, Petitioner complained that some of her personal belonging were damaged or not returned to her after her employment was terminated, testifying that “[t]hey broke up all of my things and, to me, that was not right. To me, that was discriminative.” Even if there were some evidence that Petitioner’s belongings had been damaged on purpose -- which there was not -- there was no evidence that such damage was the result of racial animus. A review of the entire record of this proceeding reveals not a shred of evidence that any of the employment actions of which Petitioner complains were the result of racial bias or discrimination. The only testimony that can be reasonably read as suggesting some racial bias behind the employment actions at issue are Petitioner’s testimony as follows: and I know that discrimination do exist. I do know that’s a problem all across the board in America . . . [a]nd if I did not feel that I was discriminated against I would never have did all this . . . but my thing is I know there’s favorites at that credit union. I know that certain people get away with things. To me, I was discriminated against, I'm gonna say for the record, because of my race, because if I think that I know within my heart if the tables were turned, if I was white and went to management, I would still had a job because to me it just got blown out of proportion by me going to management. And as everyone can clearly see, it all started from there, because if it wasn't started from there, why would I have gotten written up in first place for my work that happened prior to, you know, that -- you know, that year? So, that's what started that. So my point is, is that if I wouldn't have never said anything, I would have probably still been working there. In the absence of some corroborative evidence, Petitioner’s statements alone cannot provide the support to sustain a charge of racial discrimination. Ultimate Findings of Fact There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing to support a finding that the decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was made due to Petitioner’s race. Rather, the decision was based on Petitioner’s performance in her job as reflected in the employee coaching reports. Furthermore, there was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing that persons who were not African-American were treated differently from Petitioner, or were subject to dissimilar personnel policies and practices. There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing to support a finding that the decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was made in retaliation for Petitioner’s opposition to an unlawful employment practice. Rather, to the extent there was some retaliation involved, it was for bringing an internal employee complaint over a disputed incentive to management, a complaint that had no implication of race.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, Florida Credit Union, did not commit any unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Sheila A. Cunningham, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2014-00645. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 6th day of May, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Sheila Annette Cunningham 1835 Northwest 27th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34475 Tammy Scott Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 R. Michelle Tatum, Esquire John E. Duvall, Esquire Ford and Harrison, LLP 225 Water Street, Suite 710 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment by the Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Hodgson was employed by the School Board as a custodian. She has been so employed since 1981. In 1999, Hodgson became deficient in the most basic element of a custodian's job--the duty to show up for work at her assigned school, in this case Miami Park Elementary (Miami Park). By July 1, 1999, Hodgson had accumulated ten unauthorized absences, enough to draw the attention of Principal Henry N. Crawford, Jr. (Crawford), and enough, standing alone, to justify termination under Petitioner's contract with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME) the bargaining unit to which Hodgson belongs. At this time Crawford did not seek to terminate Hodgson's employment, although he could have. Instead, he counseled her regarding the School Board's reasonable and lawful requirement that she, like all employees, had the responsibility to inform the school's administration in advance of an absence, or as soon as practicable in an emergency. Nevertheless, on July 30, 1999, Hodgson left work at 6:46 p.m. instead of at the end of her shift at 11:30 p.m. Her area of the building was not cleaned properly and she was docked one half day's pay. For a considerable time after that incident, Hodgson's attendance improved. But in March 2000, her attendance again became a problem. Hodgson was absent 13 times between March 3 and March 20. Crawford again attempted to work with Hodgson, authorizing six of those absences. At the same time, he informed her of the obvious: that this level of absenteeism impeded the effective operation of the worksite. Crawford encouraged Hodgson to consider taking advantage of the School Board's generous leave-of-absence policy in order to preserve her good standing at work while taking the time necessary to deal with the issues which were causing her to miss work. Respondent neither replied to Crawford's proposal that she consider a leave of absence nor improved upon her by now sporadic attendance. Thereafter, Crawford requested assistance from OPS. On April 11, 2000, OPS wrote to advise Hodgson that she was absent without authority and that her absences were deemed abandonment of position. She was directed to provide written notification to OPS to review her situation or her employment would be terminated by the School Board. For a short time, Hodgson took this threat seriously enough to improve her attendance, but by now Crawford had a much shorter fuse with respect to Hodgson's disregard for workplace policies regarding attendance. When, on May 11, 2000, Respondent was an hour and a half late to work, Crawford sent her a memorandum the next day, again reminding her that she must report to work on time and that she was to report any absences or tardiness to school administration in a timely manner. Crawford wrote two additional warning memos to Hodgson in June 2000, but was unsuccessful in persuading her to improve her attendance or to discuss her situation, including the advisability of a leave of absence, in a forthright manner. Finally, Crawford directed Respondent to attend a disciplinary conference known as a Conference for the Record (CFR) on July 3, 2000, to discuss her absenteeism. At the CFR, Crawford again gave Respondent face-to-face directives to be present at work and when absences were unavoidable, to call the school in a timely manner. Two additional formal disciplinary conferences were held between the July 3 CFR and Respondent's termination. Crawford, having been unsuccessful in his efforts to generate honest communication with Hodgson about why a 20-year employee had stopped fulfilling her most basic job requirement, attempted to refer her to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (EAP). EAP offers employees assistance in resolving personal problems in a manner which allows the employee to also fulfill work obligations. If such accommodations cannot be made, EAP counselors assist in helping the employee separate from his employment in a manner which does not blemish his resume. Supervisors such as Crawford may make referrals to the EAP whenever they feel an employee can and should be helped, and EAP services are also available for the asking to any School Board employee who wishes to take advantage of those services. No one is required to use EAP services, and Hodgson declined to do so. Hodgson's by now chronic absenteeism persisted. Her colleagues on the custodial staff tried, some more graciously than others, to cover her assigned duties, but Crawford was fielding an increasing number of complaints from teachers regarding their classrooms not being serviced. Morale among custodians declined in the face of the administration's seeming inability to control Hodgson. During the last two years of Hodgson's employment, she had 175 unauthorized absences. Eighty-one of those occurred in the last 12 months prior to her termination. By way of defense, Hodgson said that she developed diabetes in the past three years and that most of her absences were medically necessary. She offered voluminous stacks of paper which she claims document legitimate medical problems which made it impossible for her to work. Additional exhibits relate to a young relative she felt obligated to drive to medical appointments during her work hours. These exhibits prove little, if anything. Individually and collectively they are neither self-authenticating nor self-explanatory, and many had not been previously provided to Crawford in connection with her failure to appear for work, nor disclosed to the School Board in compliance with the pre-hearing order in this case. But even if these documents had been properly authenticated and would have in fact justified an extended medical and/or family hardship leave of absence, the evidence fails to establish that they were tendered to Crawford at the time Hodgson was absent. Hodgson did not seek medical or disability leave, either individually or through her collective bargaining unit. Hodgson offered no testimony to contradict the School Board's evidence regarding the dozens of occasions on which she failed to show up for work. Neither did she offer any evidence that her repeated failure to comply with attendance policies was justified due to any misconduct on the part of any of Petitioner's employees. At all times material to this case, the School Board was in compliance with applicable statutory and contractual provisions concerning employee discipline and termination with respect to Hodgson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered, sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 14th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice E. Hodgson 14020 Northeast 3rd Court, No. 5 North Miami, Florida 33161 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Merrett R. Stierheim, Interim Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Patrick M. Hill, Respondent, is guilty of immorality and misconduct in office as more specifically alleged in letters of April 6, 1990 and May 18, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Patrick M. Hill held a professional services contract with the Polk County School Board as a remediation teacher at Lakeland High School. He also served as wrestling coach and cross country coach at Lakeland High School. During the spring break of the 1989-90 school year, Respondent told some students they could earn some extra money if they helped him paint his house. Erik Greatens, an 18 1/2 year old senior, agreed to help, and he, with a 25 year old man, John, and Respondent, worked all day painting. Around noon that day when all were hot and thirsty, Respondent told them there was beer in his refrigerator. Both Erik and John accepted the offer. Erik had one beer. When they stopped painting around 5 p.m., Respondent told them he would order pizza if they wanted to return later. Erik accepted and went home to shower and change clothes. He returned around 6:30 p.m. and shared pizza with Respondent. Erik testified that he had only the one beer that day at Respondent's home and that his father permitted him to drink an occasional glass of wine at home. He did not drink beer or any other alcoholic beverage while at Respondent's home that evening. Around 8:30 p.m., Erik left Respondent's residence and went to the Publix parking lot to meet some friends. At the parking lot that evening with his friends, Erik consumed 11 or 12 cans of beer before driving the four or five blocks to his home. When he arrived, his mother was up and considered her son was inebriated and that he had received the beer at Respondent's home. At the time, Erik told her he had only the one beer at Respondent's home, but, from his condition, the mother was sure he had drunk more than one beer. The following day, Mrs. Greatens called the Superintendent's office to complain about Respondent providing Erik with beer. Based upon that complaint, Respondent was suspended from his position as teacher at Lakeland High School. The professional Practices Council of the State Department of Education was notified of the charge so they could institute an investigation to determine if Respondent's state certificate should be disciplined. To date, no charges have been brought by the Department of Education. Subsequently, Petitioner learned that Respondent had pleaded guilty in New Jersey to a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in 1973. A copy of this court record was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. In 1973, Respondent was a tenured teacher in the school district of the Township of Pemberton, Burlington County, New Jersey. Charges were preferred against Respondent by the Board of Education, and an administrative hearing was held to determine if the charges and circumstances surrounding the charges warranted dismissal of Respondent from his position as a tenured teacher. Following that hearing, the hearing examiner submitted a report recommending the charge and evidence insufficient to warrant a dismissal or reduction in salary. The Commissioner of Education adopted the finding and recommendation of the hearing examiner. In the instant proceedings, Respondent testified to the facts regarding the 1973 incident. That testimony is essentially the same as found by the hearing examiner in 1973 reported in Exhibit 4 as follows: The testimony offered by the Superintendent of Schools and respondent's building principal was that respondent is a good teacher, as evidenced by his past evaluations, and his record has been unblemished since his employ- ment by the Board. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Commissioner solely because of an incident which occurred on March 8, 1972, and that incident alone is the basis for the Board's action. On the evening of March 8, 1972, respondent was returning to his home after working late at his school on some extra curricular project. The record shows that Respondent was very active in the school community, and that he coached sports activities, served on the executive board of the local P.T.A., and served as President of the Pemberton Township Police Athletic League, in addition to his regular teaching duties. Respondent testified that it was a rainy night. On his way home, he picked up a hitchhiker who told him that he had a job in north Jersey and was on his way to visit his father in the Tuckerton area (approxi- mately thirty miles away). Because of the late hour and the poor weather conditions, Respondent offered the hitchhiker a place to spend the night in his home and told him he would drop him off at the inter- section of Routes #9 and #37 the next morning on his way to school. The hitchhiker accepted the offer and spent the night in respondent's home. Respondent testified that he also offered the use of his telephone so the hitchhiker could call his father, but that he refused saying that he was not expected anyway. He testified fur- ther that nothing untoward happened that night and that he dropped the hitchhiker off at the named intersection the follow- ing morning on his way to school. Respon- dent did not know that the hitchhiker was a minor; neither his appearance, nor his conversation about holding a job in north Jersey, nor having a drink and avoiding the police, lead (sic.)Respondent to conclude that the hitchhiker was a minor. (Tr. 19-22) None of this testimony is refuted by the Board, nor were any witnesses pre- sented by the Board to give any other version about what allegedly occurred on the evening of March 8, 1972. The Board, however, grounds its action against Respondent on his subsequent arrest by the police and his later indictment by the Grand Jury of Ocean County. A change of plea to that indictment reads in pertinent part as follows: (P-1) The State moved under Rule 3:74 to amend the third count of the indictment to read `did contribute to the delinquency of a minor by permitting him to remain overnight without parental consent'. The Court so ordered. Patrick Hill sworn. (sic.) As a result of plea bargaining, the Defendant retracted his former plea of Not Guilty and entered a plea of Guilty to the amended third (3rd) count of [the Indictment). * * * In the hearing examiner's judgment, it would be wrong to speculate why Patrick Hill made the plea (P-1) rather than pursue some other defense of the original charges made against him. He testified that he made the change of plea because he did allow the youth to stay in his home overnight. Suffice it to say that he was represented by counsel and the record must now speak for itself. Respondent entered a plea of guilty (P-1) which the Commissioner must con- sider in making his determination. N.J.S.A. 2A:96-4 reads as follows: A parent, legal guardian or person having the legal custody or control of a child, who by any continued negligence or willful act, encourages, causes or con- tributes to the child's delinquency, or any other person who by any wilful act encourages, causes or contributes to a child's delinquency, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The hearing examiner found that the unrefuted testimony of respondent, and the absence of any proof of conduct unbecoming a teacher by the Board, leads to the conclusion that the only fact before the Commissioner is that respondent knowingly permitted a minor to remain in his home overnight without the consent of the minor's parents. Respondent testified without contradiction that he was told by his attorney that the conviction would be expunged and he could forget it. Accordingly, Respondent concluded, albeit erroneously, that he never would need to reveal this record. Respondent moved to Florida and was employed as a junior high school teacher at St. Joseph's School, Lakeland, Florida, from 1979 to 1986 when he was employed by the Polk County School Board to teach at Lakeland High School. While at St. Joseph's, Respondent continued his extracurricular activities similar to those in New Jersey coaching children in wrestling and track, and he was involved in national and statewide wrestling programs for children. When he started teaching at Lakeland High School, Respondent continued his coaching activities and his work with children. He has been involved with helping troubled adolescents at the Polk Correctional Institute, served on the Governor's Council on Health, Physical Education and sports, was awarded man of the year honors for the AAU Wrestling Division, took a group of young wrestlers to Germany two years ago (1988) in a cultural exchange program and coordinated a return visit of German youth wrestlers to Florida in 1989. Respondent has excellent rapport with his students and with the student's parents. The letters admitted into evidence in Exhibit 5 extolling the virtues of Respondent as a teacher, coach and individual are not the pro forma, perfunctory letters of recommendation usually presented, but clearly indicate heartfelt esteem, appreciation and admiration. Respondent has had no prior disciplinary actions brought against him while teaching in Florida schools.
Recommendation Considering the reputation of Respondent, his rapport with students and peers, the time he has devoted to developing children into responsible adults and the conclusions that the acts complained of do not constitute immorality but are minor infractions coming under the definition of misconduct in office, it is recommended that Patrick M. Hill be found guilty of misconduct in office and suspended without pay for four months. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire Post Office Box 2958 Lakeland, FL 33806 John A. Stewart Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent was a School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the Dade County school district. Such authority includes, but is not limited to, the employment of appropriate staff for the Dade County schools. Geographically, the Respondent's district covers a span of approximately seventy-eight miles. Petitioner is an unmarried 41 year old male citizen of the United States of America. In August of 1992, Petitioner applied for a teaching position with the Office of Personnel Staffing (the personnel office) in the Dade County school system. The personnel office is responsible for staffing instructional staff: teachers and teacher's aides. The personnel office receives approximately fifty thousand applications annually from individuals seeking employment with the Respondent. Many of the applications are for employment as teachers for the Dade County school system. The personnel office hires approximately three to four thousand people a year. Of that number, approximately two thousand people are hired as teachers. The operational procedures of the personnel office regarding the application and hiring process for teachers are set forth in the instructions for completing the teacher application package. The instructions are in the front of the application package. Completion of the teacher application process requires that all applicants submit a completed application package, including the submission of all official transcripts. An applicant's official transcripts are always required; all teacher applicants must submit these documents to the personnel office. In this case, Petitioner signed the application package attesting to the fact that he received the package in its entirety. Petitioner was familiar with all of the contents of the application package, including the instructions to the application package. Before submitting his application package to the personnel office, petitioner knew or should have known that official transcripts were a required portion of the application package. Petitioner failed to provide the personnel office with his official transcripts when he submitted his application package. Official transcripts are required to avoid the submission of transcripts that reflect altered and/or forged grades and subject areas. Additionally, the submission of official transcripts facilitates the analysis of the applicant's individual subject performances, possible secondary areas of certification, and additional experiences, subjects or classes that may enhance or decrease the written assessment of the applicant. Examination of an official transcript is the only reliable available means of receiving the information. The personnel office does not seek an applicant's official transcripts, nor does the office have the authority to request such documents from the Florida Department of Education. Official transcripts are confidential documents and once submitted to the State such documents will be released only to the applicant once the applicant's file has expired. Additionally, the Board does not have the capability, nor is it required, to confirm or cross reference the existence of an applicant's official transcript with another agency for purposes of assessing the applicant's qualifications. All applicants seeking employment as a teacher with the Board must meet the application criteria established by the personnel office. All of the requirements for completing an application package are chronicled in the instructions to the application package. Once an application is received, the personnel office has a standard procedure of immediately reviewing an application to verify that it is complete. In this case, Petitioner's application was deemed incomplete because it lacked Petitioner's official transcripts. Based on the preceding, Petitioner's application was not processed. Because the application was not completed, Petitioner was not eligible for employment. An applicant may call for an appointment for an interview after the applicant has submitted a completed application package and the applicant's file is processed. If the applicant's file is not completed and processed, the applicant cannot be scheduled or considered for an interview. The personnel office did not interview Petitioner because his application was incomplete and unprocessed. The only reason Petitioner was not interviewed was because his application was incomplete. No other factor influenced this matter. The Petitioner's marital status did not impact the decision to deem his employment application incomplete. The Board does not take issue with employing single men. Other than Petitioner's complaint, the Board has not received a charge of marital status discrimination in the last ten years. Staff from the personnel office spoke with Petitioner regarding his incomplete application package. The personnel office offered to assist Petitioner. Petitioner was advised that if he furnished the personnel office with his original set of official transcripts, that Dr. Garner would personally copy his originals, attest to their authenticity, return the originals to Petitioner, and proceed with Petitioner's interview (presuming the transcripts were as Petitioner represented). Petitioner never submitted the official transcripts for review and copying. Additionally, Petitioner did not seek a certified copy of his records from the Florida Department of Education. Only at the hearing was Petitioner willing to allow his set of the official transcripts to be reviewed. A statement of eligibility or certification from the Florida Department of Education does not make an applicant automatically qualified for, and entitled to, a teaching position with the Board. Completion of the teacher application package also includes the submission of a completed W-4 tax form. The information solicited on a W-4 form is not considered or even reviewed by the personnel office when they assess an applicant's credentials and overall qualifications for employment. The personnel office does not use a W-4 form to screen applicants by marital status. Additionally, the personnel office requests the tax information, along with other information, before the actual date of hire, in order to avoid operational delays. Past experiences have demonstrated that it is inefficient and impractical to have a newly hired employee mail the W-4 form to the wage and salary office after the individual's actual date of hire. The personnel office processes the paperwork but does not hire teacher applicants. The office is a clearing house that gets applicants ready for hire. The actual hiring of an applicant occurs at a school. The application procedures and all of its requirements have been in effect for approximately thirteen years. The application procedures and all of its requirements are essential in order to facilitate the procedure of hiring the most qualified personnel, regardless of their marital status. It is also essential in order to expedite the process for providing newly hired employees with immediate compensation and benefits. Administrative procedures, regulations, directives and guidelines are permissible methods of implementing School Board policies. The Board received notification from the EEOC that Petitioner had filed a charge of sex and marital discrimination against the School Board. On May 23, 1995, the EEOC issued a letter of determination as to the merits of Petitioner's allegations of sex and marital status discrimination, finding, in pertinent part, that Examination of the evidence of record shows that (Petitioner) was not considered for any position because he failed to submit all the material required with the application. Evidence further shows that all applicants must submit the required material to be con- sidered for vacancies. The (Petitioner) was unable to provide and the Commission's inves- tigation did not disclose any evidence which would show Respondent considered the (Petitioner's) sex or marital status when reaching its decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaint against the Dade County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-5316 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 37, 50, and 54 are hereby accepted and adopted by reference. Paragraph 5 is accurate but irrelevant to the resolution of the issue of this case. Paragraphs 19 and 20 are accurate but unnecessary to the resolution of the issue of this case. Paragraphs 24, 26, 28, 31, 32, 36, 38, and 44 are accepted. All other paragraphs not listed above are irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Heidi N. Shulman, Esquire School Board of Dade County, Florida School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Steve J. Longariello 9999 Summerbreeze Drive, Number 422 Sunrise, Florida 33322 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Building Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Building Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact The business of the Respondent. Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, created directly by the Constitution of the State of Florida and constitutes a Department or administrative arm of the government that is administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials or to the general electorate. At all times material herein, the Respondent is engaged in and has been engaged in the business of operating a county school system in Pasco County, Florida. The labor organization involved. Pasco Classroom Teachers Association is now, and has been at all time material herein, an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act. The issues. Whether the Respondent unlawfully refused to employ Ronald Eckstein on a continuing contract status; whether it unlawfully refused to reappoint him as department chairman and whether it unlawfully refused to grieve the above acts in violation of Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent unlawfully terminated Sharyn Disabato and also, whether the Respondent unlawfully failed to grieve the termination of Sharyn Disabato pursuant to Article 12 of the parties collective bargaining agreement. Whether the Respondent unlawfully terminated Fred Rydzik and whether it unlawfully refused to grieve the termination of alleged discriminatee, Fred Rydzik. Whether the Respondent unlawfully adopted a salary schedule which amounted to a 5 percent wage reduction for employees in the certified bargaining unit; whether it unlawfully froze every employee's increment steps and three; whether it unlawfully reduced all supplements paid to bargaining unit employees and also whether it unlawfully postponed previously scheduled preschool planning days. Whether the Respondent unlawfully refused to process dues authorizations card executed by bargaining unit employees in violation of Section 447.303 of the Act. Alleged unfair labor practices. (a) The Facts The Pasco Classroom Teachers Association, hereinafter sometimes referred to as PCTA, was certified by the Public Employees Relations Commission, hereinafter sometimes referred to as PERC, on April 17, 1975, as the exclusive representative of the certified personnel employed by the School Board, except those who hold supervisory authority specifically excluding the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendents, District Level Supervisors, Directors, Principals, Assistant Principals, and Curriculum Assistants from functioning as a second-in- command in the building. The PCTA and employer were as stated parties to a collective bargaining agreement which by its terms was effective August 6, 1974, through June 30, 1975. Larry Smith is PCTA's designated bargaining agent and Ronald Forguson is the Employer's designated bargaining agent. The Respondent employs approximately 2500 instructional employees throughout the county at 25 or more locations or school districts. The employer operates in a manner which is somewhat unique to most school districts in that a school year begins in approximately July of each year and the instructional personnel work a 45 day schedule and they are off approximately 15 days. This system is referred to as the Track system and there are 4 tracks described as A, B, C and D. Alleged discriminatee, Sharyn Disabato, was employed by the employer from the school year 1973 through June of 1975. Ms. Disabato testified that her duties consisted of providing an atmosphere for students to learn science, math, social studies, art, music and physical education at Schrader Elementary School, where she was employed. Schrader is an open school, which means that there are no classroom areas partitioned off and all student's and teachers are somewhat visible at all times. Disabato's students consisted of fourth, fifth and sixth graders. Her most recent employment contract was for a 196-day period beginning July 24, 1974 through June 30. She testified that she was very active in curricular activities as well as extracurricular activities. For an example, she testified that she served on the construction committee, which was a committee formulated to provide input for an addition to the facility. Ms. Disabato testified that she sponsored the bus patrol group and assisted several teachers on science projects and assisted new teachers in locating resource materials, filing cabinets, new books and to generally review the overall physical plant. During her last year of employment, she received the "Teacher of the Year" award for her school. Her principal at Schrader Elementary School gas Larry Robison. She also served as the building presentative, which meant that she handled grievances filed by the other teachers. She assisted Mr. Larry Smith in contacting her fellow employees to execute payroll deduction authorization forms. She was approached by her principal sometime in October of 1974 and was asked by him to form a committee of volunteers to make up the association's building committee. That committee was designed to present and resolve grievances that the other teachers were experiencing at the school. She also asked employees to serve on the committee to "maintain the collective bargaining agreement". She was the assistant committee chairperson and during committee meetings, Mr. Robison attended. Mr. Robison also asked her to schedule all building committee meetings. She joined the union at the inception of her employment with the employer. Beginning in January of 1974, she researched the contract and proposed and formulated several provisions which are now presently contained in the contract. She also served on the bargaining team during January of 1974; she conducted surveys and spent approximately 3 hours, 3 times each week for a total of more than 100 hours preparing contract proposals. According to her testimony, in addition to the above activities in which Mr. Robison would know of her union activities, she also indicated that her name appeared on several union flyers which were distributed throughout the facility and also, on one occasion, she was approached by Mr. Robison, who at that time told her that "bargaining wasn't what she thought it to be." At Schrader, during the school year 1974-75, there were approximately 580 students and approximately 26 instructional personnel. She testified that the building representative association meetings were conducted on a monthly basis and that she presented and resolved grievances which were filed by both union as well as non-union members and that she acted as a conduit for resolution of all employee grievances. Sometime prior to November, Disabato testified that she mentioned to Mr. Robison that all vacancies had to be advertised, whereupon Mr. Robison approached Mr. Smith and asked him if that was in fact the case. According to Disabato, Smith informed Mr. Robison that vacancies were to be advertised. During January 1975, Disabato began formulating new contract proposals and a flyer was distributed around the school building, which somewhat depicted her activities in this regard. She testified that Mr. Robison may have seen the flyer. The alleged discriminatee testified and the record reflects that she often criticized school and administration policies and in those instances in which she felt that the contract was being violated by the administration, she would immediately call such to their attention. She testified further that Mr. Robison did not take kindly to such criticism. She testified that during the school year 73-74, she received an outstanding rating and at no place on her evaluation form did there appear any teaching deficiencies. During school year 74-75, she indicates that she was evaluated by Mr. Robison sometime in February 1974. On that evaluation, she testifies that Mr. Robison informed her and noted on her evaluation form that she needed improvement as to her rapport with fellow employees. Also, that as to her personal qualities, she was uncooperative. Specifically, he mentioned an incident wherein she had interceded on behalf of another fellow teacher, Mayna Radacky, and that her interjection upset Mrs. Radacky. When she was presented with the evaluation form, the alleged discriminatee felt that she needed a witness present and at that meeting she took Mrs. Radacky along with her. On voicing her objections to the alleged deficiencies noted on the evaluation form Mr. Robison merely indicated to her that she lacked rapport with her fellow employees and aside there from, he was very unspecific. Upon receipt of this evaluation, Ms. Disabato wrote a letter to Mr. Robison indicating her dissatisfaction with the evaluation and she relayed this to him by giving a letter to his secretary. According to M. Disabato, Mr. Robison told her that her letter would be attached to her evaluation. By letter dated March 14, Ms. Disabato was informed that she would not be rehired. When asked the reason, Mr. Robison informed her that "he would hire someone to do a better all-around job." Ms. Disabato testified that she did not request a written list of reasons for Mr. Robison's refusal to rehire her. She testified that her attitude with Mr. Robison was very good prior to her participation in negotiations for the collective bargaining agreement, but thereafter Mr. Robison's attitude, in her opinion, changed. She testified that after her participation in negotiations, problems occurred on a daily basis for her to resolve. She testified that during a faculty meeting held sometime in November December 1974, Mr. Robison announced to the faculty members that "you do not have a guardian angel" and their problems should be addressed to him. During the beginning of the 1974-75 school year when all of the faculty personnel were introduced, Ms. Disabato indicated that Mr. Robison omitted introducing her to the other faculty members and that such omission was purposeful on his part inasmuch as he was reading from a printed list and further that the same situation occurred on another occasion. She indicates that after all the other instructors were introduced, Mr. Robison tried to pretend that the omission was inadvertent and he thereupon introduced her. Sometime in September or October of that year, Disabato testified that she was called in to a conference with Mr. Robison whereupon he indicated that she was insubordinate to him; that she did not respect him, and that he "should be respected." He also told her at that time that she was a "gutsy lady and that if this had occurred three years earlier, she'd be walking the streets. Upon learning of Ms. Disabato's discharge or nonrenewal of her contract, a petition was circulated by other teachers supportive of Ms. Disabato and approximately one-half of the instructional personnel signed such petition. In an effort to resolve her non-renewal grievance, Ms. Disabato first talked to Larry Smith and they completed a grievance form. On various occasions, Smith and Ms. Disabato attempted to meet with Mr. Robison in an effort to resolve the grievance to their satisfaction, and on each occasion, Mr. Robison refused to meet with them. Ms. Disabato, when asked, knew of no other contract teachers who were not rehired during the school year 1975-1976. On cross-examination, Ms. Disabato related two instances wherein grievances advanced by her to Mr. Robison were resolved. Specifically, she raised an objection to a janitor vacuuming the halls during school hours and this procedure was stopped. Also, with regard to posting vacancy announcements, Mr. Robison, subsequent to her protest, advertised all vacant positions. She also worked with and mutually resolved the problem or a problem regarding long distance phone calls and the utilization of subs during the school year. She also reiterated on cross-examination the fact that her name was deliberately omitted from other lists, but she was not specific in indicating other lists which her name was omitted from as she previously testified to on direct examination. Larry Smith, PCTA's Executive Director, testified that he attempted to grieve the non-renewal of Sharyn Disabato's contract by initially attempting to contact Mr. Robison by telephone sometime in mid-March, 1975. Thereafter he called Dr. Ferguson with no success. The next day he contacted Mr. Robison and Mr. Robison informed him that he would contact him the following Friday. On or about March 21, Smith called Dr. Forguson by telephone and he would not accept the grievance indicating the the grievance was invalid and the non-renewal of an annual contract teacher was not a grievable item. He was also, at that time, instructed by Mr. Robison to deal a with Dr. Forguson. Smith made several attempts to send a written grievance to Mr. Robison and Dr. Forguson and on each occasion the grievance was returned. The procedure of sending a grievance by certified mail was also futile. Finally, the association's president, David Suttle, was able to get the grievance served by the sheriff's department, but the Respondent, and/or its agents, would not hear the grievance. Smith testified that they failed to accept the grievance in order to "prevent binding arbitration." Smith states that Superintendent Thomas Wateman and their counsel, Mr. Joe McClain, gave this opinion. Smith testified that not only M. Disabato's grievance would be handled in a similar manner, but that Ronald Eckstein and Fred Rydzik's or any other grievance of a similar nature would not be a matter subject to the grievance provision of the collective bargaining agreement. Smith stated that they (the Respondent) made it clear to him that grievances dealing with renewal of a contract was not a grievable item under the contract. Thereafter, Smith indicated his opinion that the grievance was not appealed to level 3 because it would be futile to do so based on his prior attempts. Smith testified that employees voiced extreme concern about their job security after Ms. Disabato's contract was not renewed and that several employees, specifically the annual contract teachers who are non-tenured, asked to withdraw their authorizations for payroll deductions of their dues check-off. Larry Robison has served as the principal at Schrader Elementary School for approximately 3 years and he is in charge of the overall operation of the school. He testified that in the employment process, he makes what is essentially the final recommendation in that an employee cannot be hired, that is, an instructional employee, cannot be hired without recommendation by him to obtain a teaching position at the school. Robison testified that he evaluates new teachers approximately 3 times annually and that both annual contract teachers and continuing contract teachers are evaluated only once per year. Robison testified that the evaluation process consists of conferences, both informal and formal visits, and that in making his evaluation, he relies on mental notes primarily. He testified that in instances wherein he notes deficiencies in an instructor's teaching skills, he advises them of such deficiencies and provides ample time for them to correct any deficiencies that, in his opinion, are warranted. He testified that the amount allotted a deficient teacher varies according to the teacher's ability to correct the problem that he notes. Robison testified that he was aware of Ms. Disabato's position as the building representative in 1973 and that this fact was a matter of common knowledge throughout the school. He was also aware of her participation on the union's bargaining committee during school year 1973. He also admitted asking either Ms. Disabato or Richard Culp to formulate the building committee, which was in his opinion, a forum to resolve grievances. David Suttle, PCTA's vice president and an elementary teacher at Elfers School for approximately five years was called and testified that he was a "building rep" for the school year 1973-1974 and served on the negotiating team for 1974 and 1975. Suttle testified that the binding arbitration provisions included in the contract was based on passage of Florida Statute 74, Chapter 100 and Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. Suttle testified that PCTA attempted to grieve the matter of Ms. Disabato's separation, but that the Respondent refused to accept the grievance and that based on the fact that this grievance was not accepted and the employer failed to grieve it, the union felt that it would be futile and fruitless to attempt to grieve the discharges of the other two discriminatees contained in the consolidated Complaint. 2/ Suttle testified that the union received the letter from the sheriff's department indicating that they would no longer serve grievances filed by the union. Suttle testified that during a union meeting with management in mid-May, 1975, the employer indicated that they had the right to determine "what was or was not a grievable matter." Suttle testified that the subject charges were filed when it became clear that issues regarding the renewal or non-renewal of annual contract teachers would not be accepted. Suttle testified also that during this meeting in mid-May the employer was informed that unfair labor practices would be charged with PERC based on their failure to accept the grievance regarding the non-renewal of annual contract teachers. Suttle testified that various employees indicated to him that they felt reprisal would be taken if their union activities were known by the employer. Suttle testified that union deduction authorizations were cancelled and that salaries were unilaterally cut. Suttle testified that the fear of reprisals was not only confined to union members but also to non-union members as well. After Suttle was examined and excused, the general counsel and the charging party rested their case with regard to the allegations contained in Case No. 1040. At the outset of the defense to the charge in this case, the Respondent made a Motion to Dismiss which the undersigned denied, based on his opinion that the general counsel and charging party had presented a "prima facie" case. Respondent's Defense to CA-1040 3/ Minnie Kownach, secretary to Mr. Robison for approximately three years, testified that on March 24, 1975, Larry Smith visited the office at approximately 2:30 p.m. She advised Mr. Robison of Mr. Smith's presence. Mr. Robison was in the office interviewing another teacher; she buzzed Mr. Robison and he asked her to tell Mr. Smith that he would be glad to see him at another time. She testified that Mr. Smith stayed in the office and at approximately 2:45 on that day, Ms. Disabato came down and she and Mr. Smith stayed until approximately 3:00. She testified that Mr. Smith did not make an appointment to see Mr. Robison on that date, i.e., March 24. Marsetta Haspelhorn, assistant principal at Schrader since January, 1974, testified that she was on the team with Ms. Disabato and Sharyn Watson for a period of time and that she observed Ms. Disabato's teaching. She testified that she had a conversation with Ms. Disabato about the non-renewal of her contract when she learned about it, and during a break during April, 1975, in the teachers' lounge, she asked Ms. Disabato not to file unfair labor practice charges inasmuch as it would "ruin her reputation." She testified that Ms. Disabato informed her the "the union would take care of her." She testified that she and Ms. Disabato are friends. She testified that Ms. Disabato is an effective teacher; however, her discipline leaves something to be desired. She testified that Ms. Disabato sometimes stops a pupil and tells him that he should not be doing something and that she is "harsh with the students." She testified that Ms. Disabato is vocal if another employee or person expresses views contrary to her own. She testified that she was aware that Ms. Disabato had problems with some teachers; however, she "got along with others", She testified that she and Ms. Disabato were not on good terms and that she did not try to help new teachers, whereas other teachers helped. She testified that Ms. Disabato was antagonistic towards Mr. Robison and that this attitude was pervasive and increased as the year progressed. She noted no change in the attitude or demeanor of employees since Mrs. Disabato's separation and that employees of Schrader are "always open." She testified that the employees never expressed any fear or reprisal for voicing complaints. She acknowledged that Mrs. Disabato was the building committee representative. She testified that Mrs. Disabato always questioned school practices during faculty meetings and that she did so more frequently than other employees. She testified that she was not a union member because she felt that she did not "need the union's backing." She testified that although no teachers other than Mrs. Disabato complained to Mr. Robison, they were not afraid of him. She testified that she never observed Mr. Robison refusing to speak to Mrs. Disabato or to introduce her. She testified that Mr. Robison omitted her name in an open house meeting and that she did not take it as an insult. She testified that Mrs. Disabato and Mrs. Radacky had a good relationship and that Mrs. Disabato approached Mrs. Radacky about the problem regarding the students missing the bus. However, she testified that she did not overhear Mrs. Disabato tell Mrs. Radacky not to take the students home. She testified that the separation of Mrs. Disabato has had no effect on the employees' freedom of expression at the school and that Culp was a building "rep" during the time that Mrs. Disabato was a building representative and is still employed and continues to serve as a building representative. She testified that Mrs. Disabato has an "explosive personality" and that if she cannot get things her way, she would walk away with a "sarcastic" look. The charging party introduced a telegram into evidence which purports to be a message to Mrs. Disabato signed by Carolyn White, Mary Garrison, Sue Walsh, Jane Foteys, Karen Johnson, Russ Willie, James Baretti, Tom Barnard, Gene Turner, over the Respondent's objection. The hearing officer received the exhibit into evidence. On cross examination Mrs. Haspelhorn testified that she did not know whether Mrs. Disabato was well thought of by her peers. She testified that she purchased a home from Mr. Robison. She testified that the problems of Mrs. Disabato and Mr. Robison related to school policies, and that the problems were not union related. She testified that she was unaware of Mrs. Disabato's union activities. She testified that Mrs. Disabato complained of school practices and often disagreed with school policy and that her disagreement was aired in a "loud tone." She testified that Mrs. Disabato told her that she would be employed by the union. She also testified that the other employees have not talked to her about Mrs. Disabato's separation. Leona Supurka, an elementary teacher at Schrader for the past two years, was called and testified that she has been employed in Maryland and in Pennsylvania as a teacher for approximately 16 years. She testified that she did not work in close proximity to the alleged discriminatee, and that she (Mrs. Disabato) did not offer any assistance to her. She testified that Mrs. Disabato's attitude toward the principal was rude and it was the type of rudeness in which she had never experienced a teacher voice to a principal. She testified that she was presented with a petition supportive of Mrs. Disabato on two separate occasions; that she refused to sign it and also that she resented being approached on two occasions by employees who felt that she should sign the petition. She also testified that Mrs. Disabato was disruptive and not always with, and in fact, frequently questioned school policies. She testified on cross examination that Mrs. Disabato offered no assistance to her. However, she also testified that no occasion arose wherein the alleged discriminatee would have needed to assist her. She testified that Mrs. Disabato expressed rude manners in faculty meeting on two occasions that she could recall In late September or early October, 1974. She testified that on one occasion Mrs. Disabato disagreed with the arrangement or timing of the lunch schedule and that Mrs. Disabato was insubordinate at faculty meetings. She testified that in her opinion, the employer is the boss and the employee should go along; that if there is disagreement, it should be voiced in a private conference. She testified that she was of the opinion that Mrs. Disabato was a disruptive influence on the faculty at Schrader and that she probably discussed this fact with Mr. Robison during the school year. Catherine O'Conner, an employee of approximately ten months in Pasco County, testified that she does not know Mrs. Disabato as a teacher, but that she was approached on two occasions to sign a petition supportive of Mrs. Disabato. She also testified that she felt intimidated by being approached on two separate occasions, inasmuch as she had voiced her opposition to signing the petition. Mrs. O'Conner testified that she did not know whether or not Mrs. Disabato was irrational or not and she was very vague about meetings regarding the presentation of contract to teachers within the "required" 30-day period. She testified that the contracts were presented later and that she was upset that the contracts were not presented timely. She could not recall if Mrs. Disabato assisted her when she became a teacher at Schrader. Larry Robison, the principal at Schrader, was called and testified that he received an evaluation by PCTA in mid-May, 1975. He testified that he was unaware that Mrs. Disabato was a union officer. He testified that his decision to non-renew Mrs. Disabato's contract had nothing to do with union activities. He testified and the record evidence shows (see Respondent's exhibit no. 4, which is received in evidence) that his overall rating was 3.4 out of a possible 5. He testified that he received his lowest evaluation in the areas of (1) reacting positively to constructive criticism; (2) seeks to lessen the non-teaching burden by avoiding excessive paper work and supervises without favoritism by equalizing teaching loads and administrative assignments. He testified that he was aware that Mrs. Disabato was a building rep and that she was a union member. He testified that in early 1974, Mrs. Disabato was very active in the union. He testified that he could have discussed Mrs. Disabato with other faculty members. He testified that he discharged Mrs. Disabato based on her behavior, her rudeness to students, her poor rapport with peers and uncooperativeness. He also testified that he also discharged her based on her difficulty with regard to "getting along with the administration." He testified that the Radacky incident played a small part of his decision to non-renew Mrs. Disabato's contract. Mr. Robison testified that he was the party who upset Mrs. Radacky during the incident. He testified that he left a note to Mrs. Radacky indicating that he was sorry that he caused her to be upset and that he was sorry that he had created discord with one of her peer groups. However, in an affidavit given to the Public Employees Relations Commission dated on or about May 29, he testified that the reason he discharged Mrs. Disabato was based on her harshness, her lack of cooperation, and interference with other affairs of the building that's none of her business. He later testified on redirect that she was not rehired because she was a building representative, nor did he observe any increase in her union activity during the prior year. On re-cross examination, he testified that he made the decision independently not to rehire Mrs. Disabato. Gary B. Potts, teacher-coach and department chairman, social studies, Hudson High School, testified that he knew Ron Eckstein and that he did not tell Ron Eckstein or anyone how he got to be department chairman. He testified that he received more votes than anyone in the recommendation to the principal for the social studies department chairmanship. He testified that he did not vote in the election and that there were perhaps five or six employees in the social studies department who would have been eligible to vote for the recommendation. He testified that prior to the election, there was a lot of conversation regarding the vote and as to how the department was being run under Mr. Eckstein's chairmanship. He testified that he talked to approximately two of the four or five employees in the social studies department regarding their vote and the chairmanship election and that on one occasion Mr. Coy Pigman, the principal, called him in to ask him if he would assume the chairmanship if offered. He also testified that he spoke to a Mr. Ronald Clayback, an employee in the math department. He testified that he was a union member, however, there was some mix up in his dues authorization and the authorization had not been either executed on time or the Respondent was not deducting the dues pursuant to his dues check off authorization. Margaret Rose De Jong, a teacher at Hudson Senior High School from July 1974 through November 1974, testified that she resigned her duties at Hudson due to Ronald Eckstein; however the reasons cited in her resignation indicated that she resigned due to health reasons. She testified that she disagreed with Ronald Eckstein and Mr. Sinholtz, also an employee instructor in the social studies department and when she attempted to interject new ideas in the classroom, they were met with extreme criticism from Eckstein and Sinholtz. She testified that Mr. Eckstein attempted to utilize the inquiry method in a classroom setting of approximately 40 to 50 students and that that procedure was not a proper one in a class of that size. On cross examination she testified that she never spoke to Mr. Pigman regarding the stated reasons in her resignation letter. She also testified that she suffered a miscarriage approximately one month after leaving her duties at the school. She testified that health reasons played no part in her decision to resign. Case No. 1037 Jerry Morriss, an employee of Gulf High School since 1970 and the current PCTA vice president testified that he served on the negotiating team and he was the chief negotiator for the parties current collective bargaining agreement. Morriss testified that the contract contains specific language pursuant to Florida Statutes 74.100 regarding sick leave, grievance procedure, etc. He testified that he had filed grievances and that he has known Ronald Eckstein since the 1973-74 school year. He testified that Eckstein became a union member in the summer of 1973, and that Coy Pigman, Principal, knew of Eckstein's union activities based on the fact that Eckstein was a building representative. In March 1975, he testified that Pigman told him that his attitude towards him had changed. He testified that Eckstein was Instrumental in filing a grievance protesting the overlap in the teachers work schedule i.e., the 5 period vs. the 6 period day. He testified that during March, 1975, Eckstein showed him a copy of what in actuality is a renewal of his employment status only on an annual contract basis as opposed to a continuing contract. He testified that Eckstein accepted the annual contract status inasmuch as he felt that it was his only employment opportunity as Mr. Pigman was not recommending him for employment on a continuing contract basis. He testified that Eckstein asked for but was not given a list of deficiencies. Sometime in April of 1975, he testified that the issue regarding Ronald Eckstein's renewal on an annual contract basis was brought up and he was of the opinion that Eckstein was entitled to a list of reasons as to what area(s) he was deficient in. He testified that he discussed procedural due process requirements and to that Pigman did not respond. He testified that Pigman sought his advice regarding Eckstein and Pigman indicated to him that Mr. Eckstein was "riling up". According to Morriss, Pigman told him that teachers should come to him individually and not collectively. He testified that the principal told him that Mr. Weightman, the superintendent, attempted to abort his contract. On cross examination he testified that he had no direct knowledge that Eckstein applied to the county for a continuing contract but that he was present when Eckstein accepted the 4th year annual contract employment. He reiterated the fact that the principal sought his advice on many matters. He testified that Eckstein was a good teacher and his performance was better than some teachers that Pigman gave continuing contract status. He testified that he informed Mr. Pigman that he was as good as Don Roland (apparently an employee whom Mr. Pigman had given a continuing contract) and that Pigman nodded in approval. On redirect Morriss testified that as a result of Mr. Eckstein's separation, the union was experiencing a more difficult time signing members, that employees are concerned about their union activities and the union is concerned about its loss in membership. Morriss testified that he did not feel inhibited. Ronald Eckstein, the alleged discriminatee herein, was a teacher at Pasco County for approximately 3 years and testified that he was County Social Studies Chairman during the school year 1973-74 and he was a member of the skills committee during the school year 1974-75. During the school year 1973- 74, he received the "Teacher of the Year" award at Hudson Senior High, he was a member of the chess club, the faculty scholarship fund, co-sponsor of the student government association, a union member since 1973, an executive board member, a county parliamentarian, building representative during the school year 1973- 74, an FEA member during school year 1973, chairman of the constitutional revision committee and during school year 1974-75, senior building representative which required him to coordinate all building representatives. In addition, he presented grievances to the principal and organized the teachers to support the principal, Coy Pigman, to the school board. He also testified that he informed the principal of the elected members of the PCTA. He testified that on one occasion, Pigman asked him how the collective bargaining agreement negotiations were going. Be also distributed union materials in the school and his picture is on the inside cover page of the collective bargaining agreement which is Petitioner's Exhibit no. 3 received in evidence. During January 1974, Mr. Pigman, the principal, asked Eckstein why were problems relayed through him. He testified that he handled complaints for both union as well as non-union members. His testimony is that during the late part of the 1974-75 school year, the principal told him that PCTA was drawing lines and that the principal associated him with the "Uniter", which is a union publication. Eckstein was evaluated by Mr. Pigman on approximately March 21, and at that time Mr. Pigman informed him that he was "having difficulty filling out his evaluation. He testified that Mr. Pigman questioned him regarding Pigman's receipt of an anonymous letter written by a parent which was critical of some teaching practices allegedly attributed to Mr. Eckstein. He testified that Mr. Pigman failed to be specific regarding any deficiencies that he might have in his teaching abilities. He testified that overall he was graded either excellent, outstanding or not applicable, but he was rated needed improvement in the areas of not accepting comments favorably and that Pigman indicated to him that his teaching methods were good and he was knowledgeable, active and reliable. He testified that Pigman informed him that he did not like to rate teachers exceptional or outstanding. Eckstein asked Pigman if he would receive continuing contract and he replied that he was having a "difficult time". Specifically, that he had a "feeling" which he (Pigman) could not put in words. Eckstein testified that he was told by Pigman that he was more effective than others whom he had given continuing contract status. Eckstein testified that he accepted the annual contract offer because he had no alternative and that when he asked Mr. Pigman for the reasons, he replied that he "was not obligated to state reasons for denial of continuing contract status". Eckstein asked Pigman for a letter indicating the reasons for the denial of continuing contract status and also that he was extremely concerned about Pigman's "feelings". Pigman replied that he thought it would be a good idea for him to serve a 4th year on annual contract status. He testified that during a meeting during the early part of the school year he was given a letter noting that he "failed to meet the educational requirements of the community". (See Charging Party's Exhibit No. 19 received in evidence.) During that same year Eckstein was not awarded the social studies department chairmanship. Eckstein testified that he did not attempt to grieve the non-renewal of the continuing contract or of his failure to be awarded the chairmanship. He testified that he was told (apparently by Pigman) that he was "too enthusiastic". Eckstein testified that the "too enthusiastic" remark related directly to his union activities; that he has been ostracized since the non-renewal of his continuing contract; that this event inhibited other employees from freely associating with him especially the annual contract teachers and that based on this action he was declined to serve as building representative. Eckstein testified that he was asked by Pigman whether or not he wrote various articles of the "Uniter". Coy Pigman, Principal, Hudson Senior High School for the past 2 years and prior thereto served as guidance counselor for approximately 3 years, was examined as an adverse witness based on his position as principal. Pigman testified that in making the recommendation for a continuing contract teacher he consults with his curriculum advisor and evaluates classroom performance as well as other responsibilities. He testified that he also consults with his assistant principal as to whether or not a particular employee he has in mind should receive a continuing contract. He testified that if an instructor is not given verbal or written deficiencies, he would expect that that teacher would expect to be renominated on a continuing contract basis. He testified that he prefers dealing with teachers on a professional basis rather than a written basis or via written communications. He testified that in evaluating instructors he utilized day to day staff contacts. He testified that he made the recommendation regarding the departmental chairmanships during the first two weeks in April testified that he rated Eckstein strongly but that after the evaluation he told him to be "more tactful". Pigman testified that it was not uncommon for instructional personnel to have personality differences but that several employees were forced to resign due to differences that they had with Eckstein. Pigman testified that the problems with regard to personality differences were personal in some instances, for example, a Mr. Corvalis, but that as the differences related to other staff instructional personnel, the problem was significant. He related an incident regarding Ms. De Jong, who testified that she was harassed and that Mr. Eckstein made her appear immature in the presence of fellow teachers, and that the curriculum assistant and the assistant principal made similar remarks to him. He testified that according to the resignations records, Ms. De Jong resigned based on ill health, however, in actuality, she resigned due to her differences with Eckstein. Pigman also related an incident regarding a student who had been sent to see the dean by Mr. Eckstein and when the dean, Gus Manticus, was informed that the student had filled out her own discipline slip, Mr. Manticus sent the student back to Mr. Eckstein's class. There-after, Mr. Eckstein approached Mr. Manticus and shouted, "Why did you send her back to my class" Pigman testified that he asked Mr. Eckstein to refrain from yelling at his dean, Mr. Manticus. Pigman testified that he granted Eckstein leave to attend the FEA convention and the he told Mr. Eckstein to keep politics out of the school. He said he did this on a precautionary measure and that to his knowledge the witness did not engage in any politics during school hours. He testified that during Mr. Eckstein's evaluation he noted the resignations that had allegedly been occasioned by difficulties regarding personality clashes and the anonymous letter received from a parent. He testified that he thought that Eckstein was in fact the teacher whom the letter was directed to because Virginia Collins (also an instructor at the school) indicated that she was having a difficult time with students following her lesson plans and that when he visited Mrs. Collins' class, one of the students stated Mr. Eckstein and gasped and closed his mouth in a surprised manner, which in Mr. Pigman's opinion concluded that Mr. Eckstein had in fact made a statement that students should be able to choose their lesson plans; that the students outnumbered the faculty and that in a democratic society they should be able to voice their opinions. Pigman testified that he used the evaluation form as a motivational item and that he gave Eckstein a 4th year annual contract due to differing philosophies and actions. He acknowledged the fact that Eckstein was not the only teacher whom he had differing philosophies with. Be noted that Eckstein was above average and that he possessed outstanding teaching abilities and techniques, that he was not irrational or militant. He testified that he denied Eckstein the chairmanship for the social studies department based on his non-recommendation to him by his fellow instructors. He testified that he rated Eckstein as needing improvement regarding students making their own decisions with regard to what they do in class. He also acknowledged the fact that he told Eckstein that he was "over zealous". He testified that he was aware that PCTA opposed the superintendent, Mr. Weightman's, nomination. Be also testified that he knew that Mr. Eckstein was actively involved in union activities. He further recalled meetings he had with Mr. Eckstein regarding the resolution of grievances. Pigman testified that he and Eckstein had a good relationship until school year 1974-75. He testified specifically that Eckstein was not given the chairmanship due to personnel problems and recommendations in the social studies department. He also emphasized that Eckstein possessed good abilities and techniques. Pigman testified that he was unaware that the professional practices code required him to give any instructor who requests such a list of written deficiencies. On cross examination, Pigman testified that he made the decision independently regarding appointing Eckstein as a annual contract teacher rather than a continuing contract teacher. Kenneth B. Sennholtz, Jr., an employee in the social studies department was called and testified that he has known Mr. Eckstein for approximately three years. He testified that he was present during the meeting with Mr. Pigman and Mr. Eckstein in which Eckstein received his evaluation. He also testified that during that same time he received his evaluation he and Eckstein reversed roles as witnesses for receipt of their evaluations. He testified that he was impressed that the principal liked the teaching techniques, the professional preparation of developing the social studies curriculum but that the principal stated that he had "this feeling" about Eckstein. He testified that he did not quite understand what Mr. Pigman's "feelings" were but that he knew that as a teacher, Mr. Eckstein was "more effective than other teachers". He testified that Mr. Pigman informed him that employees had left and that he knew they left but it's not Mr. Eckstein's fault; that Mr. Eckstein was not to blame and that Mrs. De Jong had personal illness. He testified that Mr. Pigman later learned that it was due to the difficulties that Mrs. De Jong and Mr. Eckstein were experiencing. Sennholtz testified that he asked Mr. Pigman why he wasn't advised that other members on the social studies staff were having difficulties with him whereupon Mr. Pigman indicated that he felt that they were not that important. Sennholtz testified that Eckstein was rated outstanding or one below in most categories and that he was not aware of or knew exactly how to incorporate Pigman's "feelings" into the evaluation form. He testified that Pigman indicated reservations about filling in needs improvement on the evaluation but that he did not know where else to put it. He testified that Eckstein was not given his evaluation but he was permitted to look through his personnel file. He testified that Pigman informed him that form A was strictly an "inhouse" form and that it would not be placed in Eckstein's personnel file. On form B Eckstein was rated outstanding or exceptional in all ranges. Sennholtz testified that Eckstein asked Pigman if he would be considered for continuing contract and he replied that it was "a difficult question". Sennholtz testified that Mr. Pigman informed him that he intended to align himself with Mr. Weightman during the coming school board election and that he was aware that he, Eckstein and the union actively supported the incumbent superintendent Ray Stuart. Pigman advised Mr. Sennholtz that he would not hold his or Eckstein's political differences against them. He testified that Pigman's philosophy was one of "fitting students into the society" whereas Eckstein's philosophy was one of "developing students to their maximum potential; that society is dynamic and students should be so prepared". Sennholtz also testified that Eckstein and he had done an excellent job in dealing with controversial issues which Pigman noted and that he would handle such issues in a similar manner if he was in a classroom. Sometime during October, 1974, Pigman and Sennholtz had a conference regarding the anonymous letter which is charging party's exhibit no. 20 received in evidence. According to Sennholtz, Pigman called a conference to rebut or to be prepared for any charges that might arise as a result of the "anonymous" letter, and that he paid little credence to the letter inasmuch as the party failed to identify themselves and further that the comments would not be used against them in any manner. Sennholtz related an incident regarding a problem with the stage door during a play in which Mr. Eckstein was involved. He testified that Manticus slammed the door and the door fell down and Eckstein indicated to Manticus that the door was important whereas Manticus jokingly said that "he would fix it; it's simple to fix." Eckstein disagreed but remained calm according to Sennholtz. Sennholtz testified and the evidence is clear that the Pasco County Teachers Association supported the incumbent superintendent Steward whereas Corvalis, according to Sennholtz, stated that the union should not endorse a candidate but that if one was in fact endorsed, it should be Mr. Weightman. Sennholtz testified that Eckstein and De Jong had little or no contact but that he and De Jong worked together as a team. He testified that De Jong wasn't happy because there was a lack of independence with regard to the track program and that Eckstein modified the program to satisfy Mrs. De Jong. He testified as to problems, small problems, with Lucinda South but that they were basically political and philosophical differences and that as to the alleged difficulty with Virginia Collins, Eckstein and she are good friends. Sennholtz related his opinion that Eckstein's demotion inhibited the employee association; that they fear reprisals and that its difficult to recruit building representatives because they are fearful of criticizing board policies. He testified that he is more cautious in his dealing with school rules and regulations because he does not want to inadvertently violate a rule or regulation which could be regarded as "just cause" for his dismissal. On cross examination he testified that he had no knowledge of any family problems that existed between Eckstein and his wife and that they are mutual friends; that he (Eckstein) according to his information, was experiencing no financial difficulties, that he recently purchased a home and was thinking of purchasing a pool etc. He also testified that he attached little credence to the 'anonymous' letter and also the principal asked them to "forget about it." He testified also that Potts asked Eckstein why wasn't he selected chairperson inasmuch as Potts was only at the school approximately 1 year whereas Eckstein was a better teacher and that the opposition (to Mr. Weightman) resulted in discrimination, i.e., quasielective (appointive) positions were given to those who supported Mr. Weightman, i.e., the dean, the assistant principal, etc. He testified that no union member was given a higher position than they previously held after January, 1975. He testified that after Eckstein's nonrenewal of continuing contract, it is difficult to solicit union members. He also testified that Weightman advised employees to cancel their dues authorization forms. He testified that he noticed that Eckstein had gone through an entire school year receiving commendations and was suddenly "framed." He testified that Pigman asked Eckstein for a copy of the collective bargaining law in January and Eckstein gave a copy to Pigman. He testified that Pigman forced his respect and acknowledged the right of employees to have philosophical differences and that he (Pigman) advised that he noted "an appreciable increase in his union activities." He testified that he and Eckstein supported Mr. Pigman in obtaining the principalship at his school. He testified that Pigman felt that he was being put up to do things by Mr. Eckstein. He also testified that Pigman was given a copy of all union materials and that Mr. Eckstein was told to report directly to him. Respondent's defense to CA 1037 Richard Coot, Assistant Principal, Hudson Senior High School testified that he tallied the votes in the social studies department. The evidence surrounding the tally is reflected in Respondent's Exhibit no. 5 admitted into evidence over the objection of the Charging Party based on the fact that copies were not the "best evidence." Coot testified that he tallied the ballots on or about April 15. Coy Pigman was recalled and testified that he was aware that both De Jong and Kratovill resigned due to difficulties with Eckstein. He denied telling anyone that he placed instructor Rodey on continuing contract status although he was a better teacher than Eckstein. Pigman testified that he received an overall evaluation of 2.6 by PCTA. Pigman testified that Eckstein's union activities played no part in his decision to not renew his continuing contract. He testified on cross examination that Eckstein cooperated with him on filling out discipline slips and he also indicated he asked Rose De Jong to write a list of difficulties that she had with Ronald Eckstein. He testified that he was unaware of any health problems of Mrs. De Jong however in later testimony, he acknowledged that he was aware that health problems existed at the time of her resignation. He was unclear as to whether he was testifying that the health problem played a part but that the health reason would be the easiest way out rather than to cite the health reason which then would just be a pretext for the real reason i.e. the difficulty with Ronald Eckstein. He testified that in March, 1975, the determination was made that based on projections that at least two new teachers would be needed in the social studies department, however, the two individuals who allegedly would be permitted to vote (recommend) were not told that they would be in the social studies department. Specifically, the record tends to indicate that they were Mr. Carvealis and Mr. Manticus. He testified that he made an error in his affidavit and that there was no rating of the social studies department chairmanship recommendations. He states that he appointed Potts as chairmen of the social studies department because in his opinion "he was a better teacher than Eckstein." Case No. 1041 Fred Rydzik was employed by the county in September of 1973, as a substitute teacher and approximately 10 days later he was appointed a full time substitute teacher. Thereafter in January of 1973, he was appointed to a full time position and he was employed through June 30, 1975. His lest employment was at Gulf Jr. High School where his principal was James Campbell. Rydzik served as co-sponsor for the conservation club during the school year 74-75, he sponsored several field trips, managed the publication of the yearbook for the school year 74-75 end in order to do this, he gave up his planning period. He was also on the guidance committee, coach for the "powder puff" football team, chairman of the tutorial committee based on the selection by the guidance counselor, director of the energy management center and he taught power and industrial arts as a substitute teacher. As a full time instructor, Rydzik taught English and Personal Development. He testified that during his evaluation by Mr. Campbell, he was asked to sign blank evaluation forms in Spring 1974. He was evaluated as being effective. Rydzik refused to sign blank forms because in his mind it was not a proper thing to do based on his prior military experience. During the spring of 1974, he became involved with employees who were trying to form an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (a labor organization). He testified that several co-workers approached him about forming an affiliate and during the summer of 1974, in a conversation with Campbell, Campbell spoke to him about the union not being viable. Campbell, according to Rydzik concurred and suggested some building association (i.e. an in-house employee group) rather than a union. During the fall of 1974, he testified that Monique Lefebre, his department chairman, told him that he would have to wear a tie. Thereafter he was called into the office and was asked by Campbell "why wasn't he wearing a tie?" Campbell told him that "he would wear a tie." Rydzik testified that he was unaware of any rule or regulation which prohibited an instructor from coming to school without wearing a tie however he complied with Campbell's directive. The effort to form an affiliate of AFT was unsuccessful although Rydzik testified that he successfully solicited and obtained signed authorization cards for approximately 160 employees. He testified that the AFT president denied a charter to Pasco County, due to political infights. In late September, 1974, Rydzik spoke to PCTA's president Larry Smith about merging the solicited employees with PCTA and that conversation resulted in the solicited employees merging and joining PCTA as a joint group. Rydzik testified that Campbell was aware of his union activities based on conversations he had with him and because his name appeared on various flier's which were distributed throughout the school. Rydzik testified that during early spring 1975, he spoke at a faculty meeting regarding a union meeting and the principal told the faculty that they didn't have to remain whereas they had been asked to remain for other activities such as pitches for the sale of life insurance and cookware sales and other utensils on the school's proper. Rydzik testified that he was rated effective in most areas in his evaluation but that he was rated as needing improvement in the area of turning in his plan book. Rydzik testified that he asked Campbell what he meant about needing improvement and Campbell replied that "he heard that his plan book was on most occasions, turned in late." He testified that his plan book would be one or two days late. Rydzik testified that in order to rectify his problems regarding his plan book, he talked to various experienced teachers who shared ideas and that each teacher who observed his plan book indicated that his plan books were better than most. He testified that two week units, a planning period, was a requirement whereas he was required to submit three week units and that his percentages were always rejected whereas other teachers were not. Rydzik testified that he did not grieve his problems regarding his plan book because of his annual contract status and also because various teachers warned against grieving that matter. Rydzik testified that criticisms regarding his plan book grew worse as the year proceeded and although he tried to correct whatever problems he experienced, he was never able to do so. He testified that to his knowledge, he was never personally observed by Mr. Campbell or Mrs. Lefebre in the classroom. However, he testified that during his evaluation he was told that "he had a good class." During the evaluation he was criticized about not patrolling bathroom duties as scheduled, however, he testified that he in fact followed the schedule. Rydzik testified that he was tardy approximately six times during the school year (school started at 6:30 am.). He states that on two occasions he was late approximately 15 minutes, and four or five times he was late less then 10 minutes. He also testified that on two occasions he was late as much or more than an hour. 4/ On April 2, 1975, Rydzik returned to work after having been on a 15 day off duty track and was at the time told by Campbell that he would not be recommended for employment. Rydzik asked Campbell why he was not being recommended for employment for the coming school year and Campbell replied "he could get someone better all around." Rydzik testified that he and other union members including Larry Smith, had discussed this problem and Smith informed him that he would not file a grievance inasmuch as similar grievances had been rejected by Respondent. He testified that Campbell informed him that he would reply to his request for a written list of deficiencies but Campbell never replied. He testified that he was a member of the bargaining team, that proposals were formulated sometime in January, 1975, and the bargaining sessions commenced during the spring of that year. In addition to serving on the bargaining team, Rydzik ran for the union vice president but lost that election. Rydzik testified that he received his second evaluation which is Charging Parties no. 25 received in evidence on the date therein noted although the date of the writing is different from the date that he actually received it. That is, the observation period as reflected on the exhibit covers a period from June 1974 thru June 1975 whereas Rydzik received it on April 22, 1975. Rydzik testified that he was regarded as the information source regarding any contract problem and fellow employees constantly inquired of him the status of the contract. He testified that the Math Department Head, Mr. Gibson, inquired of him regarding suggestions during January thru March of 1975, and he was viewed by him as a leader regarding contractual knowledge. Charging Parties no. 26 is a petition supportive of Rydzik and is signed by approximately 35 of the 60 instructors. Rydzik testified that employees were fearful to associate with him especially the annual contract teachers due to their financial obligations. He testified that several employees indicated that "if the union could not protect its own certainly it could not protect them." Rydzik testified that Mike Thomas of PCTA cautioned against his taking an active role in the union inasmuch as he was on annual contract rather than other employees who had tenure and could provide the leadership. James Campbell, the principal since February, 1972, was called and examined as an adverse witness. Campbell testified that there are approximately 75 instructional personnel including the support personnel. He testified that he evaluates on the basis of his daily observation of employees end that he hired Rydzik based on a recommendation of a Mr. Tucker. He testified that he evaluated Rydzik at least once although according to regulations he was required to do so at least three times per year. Charging Parties no. 27 received into evidence is the evaluation of Fred Rydzik. Campbell testified that he rated Rydzik in the low to strong areas in most categories and that he was "satisfied with his work." He denied ever asking Rydzik to sign a blank evaluation form. He recalled calling Rydzik in to discuss the incident regarding his not wearing a tie during school hours. He testified that Rydzik informed him that he could grieve the matter but that he would wear a tie until the grievance was resolved favorably on his behalf. He recalled the faculty meeting wherein Rydzik was introduced as a union representative. He testified that he called Rydzik in to inform him of his tardiness and his failure to fulfill his bathroom duties. He testified that Rydzik was late as much as 5 minutes on two occasions and 30 minutes on several occasions; he also recalled the problem with regard to Rydzik's planbook. He testified that his rapport was somewhat weak in that he failed to speak with and listen to his department head. The only deficiency notes on his evaluation was lateness in turning in his planbook. He was aware of no other instructional personnel that Rydzik had problems with. Campbell testified that Rydzik inquired why he was not being recommended for employment for the coming school year whereupon he informed him that it was a personnel cutback. He testified that he lost a total of six employees and he filled three of those positions which included a Spanish instructor and an industrial arts instructor. He testified that Rydzik was not appointed or recruited for the industrial arts position inasmuch as he lacked state certification in industrial arts. Campbell testified that he did not respond to Rydzik's request for a written list of deficiencies because he felt that that was "within his discretion." Campbell testified that he did not personally observe Rydzik. He testified that he would see Rydzik in the hall and around the campus but he relied on the evaluations of his curriculum assistant and the assistant principal and it was his own decision not to rehire Rydzik based on his discretionary authority. Campbell testified that he retained teachers normally with effective evaluations. Campbell testified that from the period of March 21, which was the date of his first evaluation of Rydzik thru April 2, 1975, which was the period that he made the decision not to renew or rehire him, he witnessed no improvement in Rydzik's tardiness, his bathroom duties or his plan book difficulties. Campbell also denied that he told Rydzik that he preferred a local building representative rather than a union. With regard to Rydzik's protest of the failure to provide english books to each student, Campbell testified that he referred the letter to the language arts department wherein they advised that books would not be a worthwhile expenditure for the current year but the parties did agree to provide books for the coming school year. Campbell indicated however that he did not respond to the union's letter concerning this problem. He testified that he is of the opinion that he is an administrator and the department head can best determine the needs of students due to their daily contact. Campbell testified that he was never told by Dr. Forguson that the discharge of Rydzik was not a grievable matter. Campbell admits having knowledge of Rydzik's union activities and also of knowing that Rydzik and others were interested in breaking away from PCTA and forming an affiliate of FTA. Campbell testified that he was unaware of Rydzik's relationship with his peers or what they thought of him personally. Campbell testified that he did not personally observe Rydzik's plan book prior to his determination to not renew his contract. Campbell testified that he was rated by PCTA in June and that his overall rating was 3.6. Linda Elkins, an art teacher of approximately 5 years and who is on continuing contract has known Rydzik for approximately 1 year. Elkins testified that she approached Rydzik regarding forcing a union and that he attended several meetings with officials of AFT. She testified that Rydzik was very active in the union's organizational drive. Elkins testified that she had a son who was one of Rydzik's students end he rated Rydzik as the "top teacher" of the school. She testified that she taught some of the same students as Rydzik and she heard favorable comments from several students regarding his teaching ability. She testified that she observed Rydzik's plan book and it was more thorough then many others whose plan books were approved and she was accordingly led to believe that Rydzik was about to be "axed." She also testified that it was probably true that Rydzik should not have played an active role in the union drive. She testified that since the discharge of Rydzik, most employees without continuing contracts status are afraid to participate in collective activities. On cross examination, she testified that several employees informed her that inasmuch as they were on annual contracts they would not sign the petition supportive of Rydzik. She testified that over 100 students commended Rydzik on his teaching abilities. Elkins testified that she was late and she received a note cautioning her to not be late again. She reiterated the fact that morale seemed to drop after Rydzik's separation. Donald W. Livesey, an employee for approximately 5 years was called and examined as follows: Livesey testified that Rydzik assisted him in trying to bring an affiliate of AFT into the school. He testified that Rydzik solicited him to join the union and that Rydzik got along with most employees. He testified that Rydzik "could have had a problem with his department head, Monique Lefebre." He testified that Rydzik asked to borrow his plan book which he loaned to him. He testified that Rydzik took his plan book home and based on his observation of Rydzik's plan book, it was better than most teachers. He testified that Rydzik was one of the "better dressed teachers in the school," end the parents often expressed a desire to have him teach school there based on his good rapport with kids. He testified that Rydzik was very active in all the plans and extra curricular activities end that his plan beak was very good. He expressed the opinion that Rydzik was a "superior teacher" and does not remember Rydzik not being on bathroom duty. He testified that during early 1975, the tension mounted after the commencement of collective bargaining negotiations. He also testified that a co-employee, a Mrs. Snell, did not sign a petition supportive of Rydzik until she was informed that she would be recommended for employment for the coming school year. He stated that it is common knowledge throughout the school that employees fear reprisals for testifying and they are expressing tenseness due to Rydzik's separation. He expressed his opinion that Rydzik was terminated due to his union activities. On cross examination he reiterated basically the same testimony that he testified to on direct. Barbara Snell, an employee at Hudson High School for approximately 3 years was called next and examined as follows: Snell testified that she had been tardy approximately 6 times during the period from July 1, 1974 thru April 1, 1975. She testified that she arrived earlier on numerous occasions, approximately 10 minutes and she on occasions remained late. She testified that she shared bathroom duty with Rydzik and that because she knew that they were being watched, she made a special effort to avoid being remiss in her bathroom duties. She testified that she could overhear Mr. Rydzik's class lectures because their planning periods were staggered and in her opinion Mr. Rydzik was "one of the best teachers she had seen". She testified that she feared reprisals from her employer due to the fact that she is an annual contract teacher. She voiced her opinion that the atmosphere around the campus has been somewhat tense and the employees fear being critical of the principal, Mr. Campbell. She testified that she signed the petition supportive of Mr. Rydzik after she had been rehired for the current school year. Bruce Bluebaum, a math teacher of approximately 4 years was called and testified that he knew Mr. Rydzik and that their homerooms were on opposite sides of the hall facing each other. He testified that on numerous occasions he observed Mr. Rydzik on bathroom duty and he was always in and around the bathroom during the class period changes. He testified that students liked Rydzik very much and always "flocked around him". Bluebaum testified that Rydzik worked diligently about his planbook and in his opinion, his plan book was excellent. He testified that Rydzik's planbook would always be turned down based on the dislike that existed between Mrs. Lefebre, his department head, and he. He opined that Mrs. Lefebre would search to find a way of "axing him". He testified that Rydzik was regarded as the "leader in the school". As to Rydzik's teaching abilities, he related an incident wherein he put on a mock trial and he also generally stated that Rydzik was "very innovative and a very good teacher". He gave the opinion that Rydzik was dismissed because he was "too vocal" in union activities and due to the dislike of him by his department head. On cross examination, he also opined that the teachers around the campus felt that the principal, Mr. Campbell, was led astray and made the wrong decision with regard to discharging or, that is, not rehiring Rydzik. He testified that when a union meeting was announced, Mr. Campbell would make the announcement in a manner which tended to show that he somewhat disliked having union meetings held on the campus facility whereas employees were asked or "forced" to sit through meetings regarding sales of "pot and pans". He indicated this same procedure with regard to insurance sales. Bluebaum testified that grievances were not well accepted around Gulf High School. Ruth J. Morris, a community school manager and employed at Gulf Junior High for approximately 9 years testified that she has known Fred Rydzik for approximately 2 years. Morris is presently the school's building representative. She testified that she had dealt with the principal, Mr. Campbell, on numerous occasions and she has assisted in the development of evaluation forms. She testified that evaluations tend to lose their worth because "different standards are used" nor do principals place much reliance on evaluations but that a new teacher will tend to feel that if they are not evaluated highly, it will play some important role in whether or not they will be rehired the next year. She testified that she evaluated Mr. Rydzik's planbook and told him that it was excellent. She testified that the employees in her opinion were afraid of criticizing Mr. Campbell but in cross examination she also testified that complaints were received satisfactorily by him. Campbell, she noted, was rated very good in an evaluation conducted by PCTA. Respondent's Defense to CA-1041 Monique Lefebre, Department Chairman, Social Science at Crawford Junior High School, has served in that capacity for approximately 5 years. She was the alleged discriminatee, Fred Rydzik's department chairman. Lafebre testified that Rydzik turned in his planbook only once or twice and that she did not talk to him about not timely turning in his planbook. She testified that initially Rydzik failed to perform his bathroom duty but that after warning him, he fulfilled his duties in that regard. This was noticed by her particularly after Rydzik received his mid-term evaluation. Lefebre also testified that she noted certain deficiencies in Rydzik's planbook percentages and that based or the manner in which she criticized them, there was no way that he could correct the deficiencies inasmuch as the time period had passed wherein such deficiencies could have been corrected. She testified that during a faculty meeting at the early part of the school year, male instructional personnel were told to wear a tie during school hours and to refrain from walking out of the faculty lounge with coffee. She testified that she observed Rydzik not wearing a tie for a period of approximately 15 days after this rule was announced and when she spoke to him about not wearing a tie and he failed to heed her advice, she then spoke to the principal. She testified she was aware that other teachers violated the coffee rule also although she did not personally see them. She testified that this was an unwritten rule and to the best of her recollection Rydzik was not present when the principal announced the rules regarding males wearing a tie or that they were not to walk out of the faculty lounge with coffee. She testified that the problem with regard to Rydzik not performing his bathroom patrolling occurred during the early part of the year, perhaps in late August or early September but that after he was evaluated during the early part of the year she did not notice him failing to perform his bathroom duty. James Campbell, the principal at Gulf, indicates that the sign in sign out sheets have been in effect for quite some time at the school. Respondent's exhibit no. 9 reflects inter alia, the sign in - sign out records of Rydzik and other instructional personnel at the school. He testified that he noted on a few occasions Rydzik would write in or drawn in a "smiling face" in the spot where he was to sign in. Campbell testified that based on his calculation Rydzik was late on approximately 51 occasions during the school year and that 3 occasions his secretary called him and he was late for as much as one hour. Campbell was rated by PCTA and on that evaluation form he was rated 3.6 of a possible 5. (See Respondent's exhibit no. 10, received in evidence). Campbell testified that union activities played no part in his decision to not rehire Rydzik nor did he have any knowledge as to Rydzik's serving as a building representative or running for any union office. On cross examination, Campbell testified he evaluated Rydzik on or about September 22 and his final evaluation came approximately 3 weeks later. He testified that in his opinion, 3 weeks was sufficient for Rydzik to correct any deficiencies noted on his evaluation. Campbell testified that school officially starts at 6:30 and homeroom begins approximately 6:45 a.m. He also testified that during the early part of the school year the time clock was not working and a small clock was used to apprise the employees of the correct time. A casual or cursory look at the time sheets indicates that there were a number of instructors who were late and that the correct time was not always adhered to nor was there any rigid policing of the time sheets. That is to say that instructors would often record that they would come in at say 6:30 a.m. whereas they might in fact arrive at 5:30 a.m. or on the other hand they might arrive at 6:45 a.m. and the same is true for signing out. Specifically employees may sign out at 2:00 and leave the building at say 1:30 or they may leave as late as 4:00. Campbell testified that he did net regard the fact that employees signed in when in fact they arrived earlier than that period as being violative of the "sign-in" rule and that the only objection he had to such procedure was a situation where for example a faculty member would leave the school say at 1:40 and sign out at 2:00. The records reflect that other employees were late a number of times. One case in point is Lucia Adkinson. Her time sheet reflects that she was late as much as 27 times during the past school year for a total of 665 minutes. The record also reflects that there was no method whereby one could determine whether employees were late or whether they were out on school business. Campbell's testimony regarding the sign-in, or time sheets reflect that a number of employees were late and this can be established by looking at the time sheets for Gene Lydman, Debbie Snyder, Mrs. Fisk, William Lynch, and a number of other employees, too numerous to recite herein. It was also noted that the time sheets are recorded in pencil and are easily distorted and difficult to determine if in fact an alteration has been made. Testimony was also heard by Campbell that on the PCTA evaluation form his lowest rating was in the area of "evaluating objectively after sufficient observation". Dr. Ferguson was called and testified that based on an examination after the hearing in the subject case commenced, he was able to determine that 5 employees were promoted to managerial or non-unit positions after Mr. Weightman was nominated. He testified that one employee was put on 4th year continuing contract and served as a building representative rather than on annual contract. He testified that throughout the county, approximately 19 annual contract teachers were not rehired and that 7 teachers were put on 4th year annual contracts. He testified that an examination of the school boards records indicate that on June, 1975, there were approximately 590 employees on dues check off and that on July 28th the number was 429 employees and the 429 figure does not reflect those employees who were serving on D track. Ferguson testified that the only alleged discriminatee that he knew was Ron Eckstein and this knowledge came from observing his picture in the collective bargaining agreement which is charging parties exhibit no. 3 received in evidence. At the conclusion of case numbers 1037; 1040 and 1041, counsel for Respondent asked the hearing officer to take official notice of the official regulations of the Department of Education and official notice of Florida Statutes 447. Thereafter Respondent rested as to cases 1037; 1040 end 1041. General Counsel end Charging Party's rebuttal in cases 1037, 1040 and 1041 Ronald Claybeck, an unemployed male teacher who served the previous school year at Hudson Senior High testified that his prior experience included serving as a teacher in New York State's school system for approximately 12 years. Claybeck testified as to conversations preceding the election and subsequent to the election of the social studies chairmen at Ronald Eckstein's school. Claybeck testified that there were conversations regarding the number of possible ballots to be cast regarding the recommendation to the principal for the social studies chairmanship and there was some discussion as to whether two deans who were working in the social studies or other departments would be permitted to vote. Those individuals are a Mr. Carvealis and a Mr. Menticus. He said the conversation was generally that the two deans would be permitted to vote in the election. He testified that Carvealis indicated that he would vote for Potts who in fact received the chairmanship due to a personality clash that Carvealis had with Eckstein. Clayback expressed a reluctance to testify end in fact testified under subpoena because he "feared his wife's job (an elementary teacher at Hudson Elementary School)." Claybeck testified that he and Potts are neighbors and that Potts told him that Eckstein was "a competent teacher end that he (Potts) indicated as much to the principal, Coy Pigman". He testified that Potts indicated to him that he was called in by Pigman and asked if he wanted the chairmanship. Clayback testified that Potts remained neutral as to the chairmanship because Eckstein was a good teacher although he differed with him regarding his teaching methods. Clayback testified that it was obvious that Carvealis and Eckstein did not agree with each other. Clayback testified that another factor leading to his reluctance to testify was occasioned by the fact that he was called approximately two days before his appearance and he had an unlisted phone number. He testified that he was told that if he testified, "his wife's job would be in jeopardy". On redirect examination Clayback testified that he attended the union hall and was given a subpoena by Mr. Matthew, charging parties' attorney and he also gave his phone number to Larry Smith, union president. Fred Rydzik was also recalled and testified that he was not given a new school book by his department head, Mrs. Lefebre. Rydzik also testified he was not evaluated by Lefebre, nor did she assist or advise him of his duties nor did she tell him that he was deficient. Rydzik testified that he turned his planbook in approximately 12 times at 3 week intervals as per the schedule and that to the best of his recollection he failed to turn the planbook in only on two occasions meaning that he in fact turned the planbook in approximately 10 times. He testified that his planbook was never approved by Mrs. Lefebre. He testified that he was unaware of any dress code relating to males wearing a tie. He also denied that he failed to wear a tie on 15 occasions as testified to by Mrs. Lefebre. Mr. Rydzik also denied taking coffee to areas other than the yearbook planning and production area and that he served his bathroom duty daily. Rydzik testified that the schedule relating to patrolling the bathroom and the hall was "a loose schedule". Rydzik testified that on 3 occasions the office secretary called and informed him that he forgot to sign in and in those instances, his entry for signing in remained blank. He testified that he was late on no more than seven occasions and this was for a period of 5 minutes or so. He testified that there were approximately 3 times that he was late as much as 1 hour and that his examination of the time sheets indicate that there were approximately 12 alterations. On redirect examination, Rydzik testified that sometime in January, 1975, Campbell told the employees that they would not sign others out and that he obeyed this mandate. Josephine Lofland was also called to testify and testified that it was common practice to sign in at the proper time even though employees did not always arrive at the time recorded. She testified that on example of this was Art Engle, a curriculum coordinator who was late on several occasions according to a Mrs. Williams. This concluded the evidence taken in cases 1037, 1040 and 1041. Case Number Ca-1062 and Case Number CA-1082 Larry Smith, the union president was called and testified that he assisted in the negotiations for end ratification of the current collective bargaining agreement. (Charging Parties' exhibit no. 3). Smith testified that both parties were pleased to ratify the contract and they discussed the amiable relationship that existed based on the contract. Smith testified that good faith bargaining existed through November, 1974, end that the union supported the incumbent superintendent, Ray Stewart, actively. Smith testified that he started working with the newly elected superintendent Weightman, late in November, 1974. Smith testified that in late January or early February, 1975, the negotiations and the atmosphere appeared to, in his opinion, "breakdown." He testified that he requested voluntary recognition and that he presented to Dr. Ferguson, the Respondent's designated collective bargaining agent, approximately 90 percent of the employees who had executed authorization forms. He testified that Dr. Ferguson recommended recognition be granted on a voluntary basis. Accordingly, PCTA was certified by PERC on April 17, 1975. Negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement began on or about April 24, 1975, and a mediator was assigned approximately 60 days thereafter, after the parties had reached an impasse. Smith testified that he contacted a mediator and the mediator indicated that he would be pleased to assist the parties at arriving at a settlement but based on his experience in the mediation field, it would be fruitless to do so unless he was requested jointly by both parties. Smith testified that a special master was assigned sometime in early July, 1975. Smith testified that he received a written authorization from Mr. Weightman designating Ferguson as the school board's agent for collective bargaining. Smith testified that he was present at all the negotiations and acted as the union's chief spokesman. The proposal submitted by the union included salary and increment proposals, planning days etc. Smith testified that at a school board meeting on or about May 6, 1975, the school board, over his objection, adopted the proposed schedule as provided in the old collective bargaining agreement i.e., (Charging Parties' exhibit no. 3). Smith indicated that this objection came through oral objection and by a letter sent to Mr. Ferguson prior to May 6. Smith testified that Ferguson was not prepared to and did not present salary proposals, based on a claim that the parties or the school board did not know its true financial condition. Smith testified that at no time did the union waive its right on salaries, planning days or salary increments. He testified that increments were cut by approximately 5 percent and instructional personnel salaries were frozen at the old rate. Smith recalls making an objection after he was shown charging parties' exhibit no. 33 which was received in evidence. Smith testified that he had no indication that check off authorizations would be revoked prior to the cut off by the school board. Charging parties' exhibit no. 33 received in evidence is a reflection of the evidence regarding dues check off. Smith testified that he advised Ferguson that the dues authorizations were continuous in nature and that article 2, section 2, page 3 of charging parties' exhibit no. 3 in fact provides for continuous check off. Smith testified that he was afforded a short period i.e., from July 28th thru August 5th to sign the D Track teachers and this is evidenced by charging parties' exhibit no. 34 received in evidence. He testified that he expressed concern about the short period of time to Dr. Ferguson. The testimony indicated that D Track teachers were off duty during the period In question and therefore they had to be contacted either at their homes or through other means. Smith testified that he thereafter contacted PERC regarding the dues check off problem and PERC indicated its opinion which in essence is an advisory opinion indicating that in its opinion the dues check off authorizations were not in violation of Florida Statutes, 74, Chapter 100. On cross examination Smith reiterated the fact that after Mr. Weightman took office the bargaining relation ship appeared to "breakdown." Smith testified that on July 2, Dr. Ferguson advised him that if employees were not signed by the date indicated in his letter i.e., August 5, they would not be deducted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions I hereby recommend that the Public Employees Relations Commission enter an order finding that the actions by Respondent, as set forth above and more specifically in the subject administrative complaints, constitute unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, as alleged. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Polk County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause for terminating the employment of Respondent, David McCall.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner under a professional services contract as a classroom teacher at Lake Region High School, a unit of the Polk County Public School System. On Wednesday, October 3, 2007, a student entered the Respondent’s classroom approximately ten minutes after class had commenced. The student’s tardiness was apparently related to her participation as a donor in a blood drive occurring at the school on that date. At the time the student entered the classroom, the Respondent was engaged in administering a standard quiz, and the time allotted for the quiz was about to end. The Respondent directed the student to remain outside the classroom and take the quiz. The student advised the Respondent that she donated blood and, feeling dizzy, had hit her foot on a doorway. She told the Respondent that she injured her toe and requested that she be allowed to go to the school clinic. The Petitioner presented a statement allegedly written by the student asserting that her toe was bleeding at the time the Respondent observed the toe. The student did not testify, and the written statement is insufficient to establish that the toe was bleeding at the time she entered the classroom. The Respondent testified that he observed the toe and saw perhaps a minor abrasion but saw no evidence of serious injury. The Respondent declined to refer the student to the clinic and again instructed the student to remain outside the classroom and complete the quiz. The student remained outside the classroom and presumably began taking the quiz. Shortly thereafter, another teacher walking in the hallway observed the student sitting outside the Respondent’s classroom with a paper towel under her foot. The teacher observed the student shaking and blood on the towel and asked the student about the situation. The student advised the teacher of the circumstances, stating that she felt like she was going to “pass out.” The teacher, with the assistance of a third teacher, obtained a wheelchair, retrieved the student’s belongings from the Respondent’s classroom, and advised the Respondent that the student was being taken to the clinic. After the student was transported to the clinic, her mother was called. The mother came to the school and retrieved her daughter, observing that the toe was bloody and swollen. The mother subsequently took her daughter to a doctor and testified that the student was referred for x-rays of the injured toe. Later on October 3, 2007, the student’s mother contacted the school principal, Joel McGuire, to inquire as to the manner in which the matter had been handled by the Respondent. The principal advised the mother he would follow up on her inquiry. On Thursday morning, October 4, 2007, Principal McGuire sent an email to the Respondent and asked him to come to Principal McGuire’s office during a planning period or after 2:30 p.m. “to confirm some information” about the student. The Respondent did not respond to the email and did not comply with Principal McGuire’s request to meet at that time. After receiving no response from the Respondent, Principal McGuire left a copy of the email in the Respondent’s mailbox at approximately 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 4, 2007, with a handwritten note asking the Respondent to come to the principal’s office on the following Friday morning “before school.” The Respondent did not respond to the note left in the mailbox and did not appear at the principal’s office prior to the start of Friday classes. Based on the lack of response, Principal McGuire sent another email to the Respondent on Friday, October 5, 2007, and asked him to come to the principal’s office at 6:30 a.m. on Monday. The email advised that the meeting was “to discuss the situation which occurred on Wednesday, October 3rd” so that the principal could respond to the mother’s inquiry. Although the Respondent was routinely present on the school campus by 6:30 a.m. on school days, the Respondent replied to the principal and declined to meet at that time, stating that the “proposed meeting time is not within my contracted hours.” The principal thereafter emailed the Respondent and requested that he come to the principal’s office at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, October 8, 2007. The email stated as follows: Mother is really needing information concerning the situation which took place in your class. I do need to meet with you and provide a response to her. I believe 10:30 a.m. is during your planning period. Thanks for coming by my office. The principal received no response to this email and the October 8, 2007, meeting did not occur. The principal thereafter sent a letter to the Respondent dated October 12, 2007, which stated as follows: I am requesting a meeting with you Monday, October 15, 2007, at 8:00 a.m. I will provide a substitute in your classroom in order for you to meet with me. The meeting will be very brief. I need some information about [student], a student you had in 2nd period geometry, in order to inform her mother. This is the sixth request for a meeting. Failure to comply with my request will be deemed insubordination and will require additional actions. The Respondent attended the meeting, but refused to provide any information, stating, “I am not going to respond to you.” By letter dated October 22, 2007, the Respondent received a written reprimand for his “refusal to assist in the investigation of an incident involving [student] on October 3, 2007." The letter advised that the first step of progressive discipline, a verbal warning, was being omitted because of the “seriousness of your actions and the possible consequences.” In relevant part, the letter provided as follows: Attached to this letter is my memorandum setting forth the events and facts as I have best been able to determine. As indicated, you have been uncooperative in our effort to investigate the facts surrounding this incident. Most significantly, when we were finally able to meet in my office on October 15, 2007, you refused to discuss the circumstances surrounding [student’s] situation and you stated specifically, “I am not going to respond to you.” This situation involved an injured student and our school’s response to that incident. Your refusal to assist or participate in the investigation is contrary to your obligation as a teacher to respond suitably to issues of a student’s health and welfare, is adverse to the school’s obligation to address concerns of the parents, and is completely contrary to your obligations as an employee of the Polk County School Board. Please understand that this letter of reprimand is addressed solely to your refusal to participate, cooperate or assist in the investigation of this incident. Should the outcome of the investigation indicate that your conduct in dealing with the student was inappropriate, I am reserving the right to request further disciplinary action by the Superintendent. Please note that a suspension without pay is the next step in progressive discipline as set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. In conclusion, the letter directed the Respondent to prepare a signed “full written report” of the incident, including “your recollections and observation of the events and your justification for your actions you took in response to this incident.” The letter directed the Respondent to deliver the report within five days of the Respondent’s receipt of the letter and, further, stated that “refusal to take such action and to cooperate in the investigation may have serious consequences regarding your employment.” The memorandum attached to the letter provided a chronology of events identifying all participants and specifically referencing the principal’s multiple attempts to obtain information from the Respondent. The Respondent failed to provide the written statement as required by the October 22, 2007, letter of reprimand and failed to otherwise provide information to the Petitioner. By letter dated November 15, 2007, from Principal McGuire to Superintendent Dr. Gail McKinzie, the principal requested that the superintendent issue a five-day suspension without pay to the Respondent for “gross insubordination.” The letter misidentified the date of the incident as October 4, 2007. By letter dated November 29, 2007, the superintendent suspended the Respondent without pay for five days. The letter, repeating the misidentification of the date of the incident, stated in relevant part as follows: On October 4, 2007, you denied a student’s request to go to the school clinic. It was determined that the student had a broken toe. Your administrator, Joel McGuire, has made six verbal requests and two written requests for information on this incident. The last request was made on October 22, 2007, in a formal letter of reprimand which stated “your refusal to take such action and to cooperate in this investigation may have serious consequence for your employment. This recommendation for a five day suspension without pay is provided for in Article IV section 4.4-1 of the Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement and is a result of your continued insubordination and refusal to follow the requests of your immediate supervisor. Please be advised that future incidents of this nature may result in additional disciplinary action. The letter of suspension advised the Respondent that the suspension would be in effect from December 5 through 7, 10, and 11, 2007, and that he should report back to work on December 12, 2007. The Respondent served the suspension without pay. In a letter dated December 13, 2007 (“Subject: October 4, 2007, incident”), from Principal McGuire, the Respondent was advised as follows: I have made repeated verbal and written requests from you for your explanation of the events in which you participated on October 4, 2007, involving a student requiring medical attention. This is my final request to you for a written explanation of those events. You are herby directed to report to my office at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, December 17, 2007, and you are instructed to have with you at that time a written explanation of the events in question. You shall also be prepared to answer any questions regarding what occurred on that day and the actions you took. You should not have any classes at that time, but I will provide coverage for you if for any reason that is required. Please understand that this is a very serious matter, and you have previously received a five day disciplinary suspension. The next step in progressive discipline is termination, and insubordination can be just cause for termination. I hope that you will conduct yourself appropriately, if you wish to remain an employee of the Polk County School Board. On December 17, 2007, the Respondent appeared at the principal’s office at the appointed time, but asserted that he had not been involved in any incident on October 4, 2007, and declined to otherwise provide any information. Although the date of the incident, October 3, 2007, had been misidentified as October 4, 2007, in the referenced series of letters, there is no evidence that the Respondent was unaware of the specific event about which the information was being sought. It is reasonable to presume that the Respondent was fully aware of the matter being reviewed by Principal McGuire. In response to the December 17, 2007, meeting, Principal McGuire issued a letter dated December 18, 2007 (“Subject: October 3, 2007, incident”), essentially identical in most respects to the December 13, 2007, letter and correcting the referenced date. The letter scheduled another meeting for 10:30 a.m. on December 19, 2007. On December 19, 2007, the Respondent appeared at the principal’s office at the appointed time and declined to answer any questions, stating that he was invoking his rights under the Constitutions of the State of Florida and the United States of America. By letter to Superintendent McKinzie dated January 2, 2008, Principal McGuire recommended termination of the Respondent’s employment. Principal McGuire restated the chronology of the October 3, 2007, incident and wrote as follows: I have made repeated verbal and written requests of Mr. McCall to provide an explanation of the circumstances in order to include them in our investigation of the events. He refused to comply with each of those requests. He received a formal letter of reprimand and a five-day suspension without pay for his gross insubordination. Since his suspension, I have made written requests of Mr. McCall to provide an explanation of those events, and he has blatantly refused to do so. By letter also dated January 2, 2008, Superintendent McKinzie notified the Respondent that he was being suspended with pay and that she would recommend to the full school board that his employment be terminated. The letter set forth the grounds for the termination as follows: Since the incident on October 3, 2007, you have refused repeated verbal and written requests by the school administration to provide an explanation of the events which occurred on that date or to otherwise participate in the investigation of those events. As a result of your refusal to provide an explanation or participate in the investigation, you have received a formal written reprimand and a five-day suspension without pay. Since your suspension, you have again refused specific requests by your principal to provide an explanation of these events. Based on these facts, it is my opinion that you have intentionally violated the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education in Florida by failing to make reasonable efforts to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety (Rule 6B-1.006 FAC). Further you have engaged in ongoing, gross insubordination by repeatedly refusing to take certain actions which are a necessary and essential function of your position as a School Board employee. Progressive discipline, as specified in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, has been followed in this case, and the next step of progressive discipline is termination. Therefore, it is my conclusion that "just cause" exists for your termination as an employee of the Polk County School Board. The Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing to challenge the termination, and the Petitioner referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Prior to the instant hearing, the Respondent made no effort to provide any information to the Petitioner regarding the events of October 3, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the employment of David McCall. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 20th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 David McCall 3036 Spirit Lake Drive Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Dr. Gail McKinzie, Superintendent Polk County School Board Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33831-0391 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
