SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 362, Charging Party,
V.
LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, [[1/ The Respondent's name has been changed to conform with the Commission's records. See Service Employees International Union, Local 362 v. Lake County School District, No. RC-95-059 (1996) (certification 1132).]] Respondent.
Case No. CA-96-095
GENERAL COUNSEL'S
SUMMARY DISMISSAL
Order Number: 96GC-244
Date Issued: December 11, 1996

Mike Duffy, Orlando, representing the charging party.
Melanie Young, Tavares, representing the respondent.

On November 21, 1996, Service Employees International Union, Local 362 (Local 362) filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Lake County School District (School Board) violated Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes, by refusing to bargain over changing job descriptions of employees in the bargaining unit Local 362 represents. Pursuant to Section 447.503(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 38D-21, I have reviewed the charge. From this review, I conclude that a prima facie violation has not been established.

Local 362's charge states, in its entirety:
The employer, since June 20, 1996, has refused to bargain collectively in good faith. Specifically, the employer refuses to bargain over job descriptions covering employees of the bargaining unit. The employer has stated at the bargaining table that it is their belief that job descriptions and issues related to them are not mandatory subjects of bargaining.

Section 447.503(l), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 38D-21.001(3), require a charge to contain a clear and concise statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair labor practice and to be accompanied by documentary evidence sufficient to support a prima facie violation. The requisite facts, which must be contained within the charge itself, must include the names of the individuals involved in the alleged unfair labor practice, and the time and place of occurrence of the particular acts giving rise to the dispute.  447.503(l), Fla. Stat. (1995); Fla. Admin. Code Rule 38D-21.001(3)(c). See also UFF v. BOR, 8 FPER  13187 (1982); Teamsters Local Union No. 444 v. City of Winter Haven, 14 FPER  19077 (G.C. Summary Dismissal 1988).

Local 362's charge is deficient because it does not identify the names of the individuals involved in the alleged unfair labor practice. Moreover, thy charge was not accompanied by sworn statements from persons having personal knowledge of the allegations in the charge sufficient to establish a prima facie violation of the applicable unfair labor practice provisions. See Staats-Seltman v. Pasco County Utilities, 15 FPER  20328 (G.C. Summary Dismissal 1989). While some information may be discernable from the supporting document, a factually deficient charge cannot be cured by resorting to that document. See Sarasota CTA v. School Board of Sarasota County, 14 FPER  19010 (G.C. Summary Dismissal 1987). Without the factual information set forth in the basis of the charge, it must be dismissed as conclusional.

Even though I am not obligated to do so, I have reviewed the document attached to the charge. According to that document, on June 20, 1996, as part of its proposals for a first collective bargaining agreement, Local 362 proposed Article 16 - Job Duties. On October 26, Melanie Young, the School Board's Chief Negotiator, told Mike Duffy, Local 362's President, that job descriptions were permissive subjects of bargaining and as such the School Board would not bargain over them. On November 7, Local 362 presented a second proposal to bargain over job duties. Young replied that she did not believe that the School Board was obligated to bargain over job descriptions but she would check with the School Board's legal counsel.

Section 447.209, Florida Statutes, delineates a public employer's rights. In pertinent part, it provides that each employer may unilaterally "exercise control and discretion over its organization and operations." Job descriptions fall within the category of "organization and operations." Thus, the School Board was not obligated to bargain over Local 362's proposals. See Professional Fire Fighters of Miramar, Local 2080 v. City of Miramar, 18 FPER  23066 (1992) (and cases cited therein). In contrast, the impact of a managerial decision to change job descriptions is negotiable if it impacts upon the collective interests of unit employees. Here, however, there is no evidence that the School Board is attempting to change the job descriptions and if so, that Local 362 made an effective demand to bargain over identifiable impacts. Id. at 116. Consequently, Local 362 has failed to demonstrate a prima facie violation of Section 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the charge is SUMMARILY DISMISSED. Local 362 may amend the charge or appeal this summary dismissal to the Commission. An amended charge or appeal must be received by the Clerk of the Commission within twenty days from the date of this summary dismissal.  447.503(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995); Fla. Admin. Code Rule 38D-21.002(3). An appeal to the Commission should briefly and concisely set forth the points of fact and law which Local 362 claims are sufficient to establish a prima facie violation of the applicable unfair labor practice provision.

ISSUED and SERVED on all parties this 11th day of December, 1996.

Stephen A. Meck
GENERAL COUNSEL