PLEASE COPY TO SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AND ADMINISTRATORS AS NEEDED
**School Board Cases
VOL. XXVII . . . . . . . . . . . June 25, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO. 2
CA-2003-038; Order 03GC-140 (June 18, 2003)
CA-2003-041; Order 03GC-141 (June 20, 2003)
EL-2003-017 (Relates to RC-2002-079) (June 23, 2003)
WB-2003-003; Order GC-142 (June 23, 2003)
EL-2003-015 (Relates to RC-2002-065) (June 23, 2003)
EL-2003-016 (Relates to RC-2002-065) (June 23, 2003)
EL-2003-028 EL-2003-029: Order 03E-143 (June 23, 2003)
EL-2003-031; EL-2003-032; Order 0E3-144 (June 23, 2003)
**CA-2003-038; : Order 03GC-140 (June 18, 2003)
FEDERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, A DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, Charging Party,
v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, Respondent.
The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the employer violated the Act by non-renewing Thomas Fiore as a security specialist at Seminole Middle School.
"Fiore was hired to assist with security at the middle school. He was on staff for two years, but was notified by Patire on April 4 or 5, 2003, that he would not be renewed. Fiore alleges Principal Patire had just received a copy of a collective bargaining contract grievance filed by the Federation on his behalf over a 'reminder' letter, interpreted by Fiore as a reprimand, from an assistant principal about his job duties. This letter, dated April 3, appears to have been caused by Patire's belief that Fiore had been eating breakfast for an hour at a staff meeting during which the school was burglarized on March 31. Fiore further asserts Patire told him during their April 4 or 5 meeting that she did not trust him in part because he went 'outside the school' to resolve problems.
However, the charge is insufficient. According to Fiore's affidavit, Patire told another employee, Michael Bennett, 'approximately March 30' that she was going to hire him to replace Fiore. She asked him not to apply for any other positions. Bennett was then hired to replace Fiore on April 4 or 5, immediately after Fiore was given notice of non-renewal.
Thus, the fact that Fiore faxed a request for a grievance to his union representative over the assistant principal's April 3 letter could not have been a factor in Principal Patire's decision to non-renew him even if she surreptiously learned of the fax from her secretary, as Fiore implies. Patire had already made the decision to non-renew Fiore and notified his replacement.
Fiore admits he and Patire had previous 'numerous problems ... because she misconstrues or misinterprets my job description' before the March 31 burglary. Some of these incidents may have involved protected activity.
However, Section 447.503(1), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6000-5.001, 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 must include the names of the individuals involved and the time and place of occurrence of the particular acts giving rise to the dispute. § 447.503(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code Rule 60005.001. See also UFF v. BOR, 8 FPER 113187 (1982); Teamsters Local Union No. 444 v. City of Winter Haven, 14 FPER 119077 (G.C. Summary Dismissal 1988).
The only grievance-related activities described in the instant charge that could have been a factor in Fiore's non-renewal are Fiore's use of his union representative to 'discuss' with Patire what his job duties actually were and to intervene on his behalf in a dispute over whether he had to attend a training session. When these meetings occurred is unclear, other than that they happened sometime 'in the last school year, 2001-2002....'"
**CA-2003-041; Order 03GC-141 (June 20, 2003)
AFSCME PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COUNCIL 79, MARY YANCEY, AND TERESA RICHARDSON, Charging Parties,
v.
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Respondent.
The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the employer violated the Act by ‘repudiating the collective bargaining agreement by requiring multiple arbitrations of the same issue'.
"The Charging Parties contend that the School Board's repeated arbitration of the issue of working out of classification, its failure to comply in the past, and its continued insistence upon working food service assistants as cooks or cashiers without appropriate compensation constitutes a violation of Section 447.501(1)(f), Florida Statutes. The Charging Parties also ask the Commission to order the School Board to cease and desist from violating Article 14(F).
The assertion in the charge that the School Board has repudiated its collective bargaining agreement obligation is inconsistent with the documents supporting the charge...
... The School Board agreed to pay back pay to those food service assistants who worked out of classification after July 1, 2001, the effective date of the current collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the grievance procedure worked as to those employees, and AFSCME was not required to arbitrate their grievances.
However, the School Board refused to pay back pay to those employees who worked out of classification before the effective date of the current collective bargaining agreement. The School Board also denied the grievance as to some food service assistants because they had not satisfied the cooking requirements. Other grievants were denied compensation because there was insufficient evidence that they had worked out of classification as cooks. That is, some of the worksites had cooks present on the same days that the food service assistants were alleging they were working as cooks. Thus, the charge, when read with the supporting documents, fails to establish sufficient evidence that would lead to the objective conclusion that the School Board has repudiated the collective bargaining grievance procedure as it pertains to Article 14(F)."
EL-2003-017 (Relates to RC-2002-079) (June 23, 2003)
UNITED FACULTY OF FLORIDA, Petitioner,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Respondent.
Election results and order certifying unit 1399 for the following employee classifications: "All employees in the following position classifications holding regular, visiting, provisional, research, affiliate, or joint appointments: 9001 - professor; 9002 - associate professor and program director for international education and programs; 9003 - assistant professor; 9004 - instructor; 9005 - lecturer; 9009 - eminent scholar; 9053 - librarian; 9054 - associate librarian; 9055 - assistant librarian; 9121 - assistant in; 9161 - associate scholar/scientist/engineer; 9166 - research associate; 9173 - counselor/advisor; 9199 - counselor/advisor, and employees in the above classifications with the following administrative titles: coordinator (N1), program director (G1), associate program director (G2), and counselor/advisor (B1)."
325 eligible voters cast 199 ballots for and 18 against the union.
WB-2003-003; Order GC-142 (June 23, 2003)
KANDY A. NICHOLS, Complainant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Respondent.
Nichols filed a career service appeal with the Commission alleging that she was dismissed from Department of State (Agency) because of discrimination and retaliation for whistle-blowing. The General Counsel summarily dismisses the complaint.
"Nichols states, in a conclusionary fashion, that she was "wrongfully discharged based upon discrimination and being a whistle-blower...." This complaint lacks specificity.
In addition, Nichols' complaint cannot be referred to the Commission for hearing absent an investigation by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR).
Specifically, Section 112.31895(4)(a),
Florida Statutes (2002), states:
Not more than 60 days after receipt of a notice of termination of the investigation from the Florida Commission on Human Relations, the complainant may file, with the Public Employees Relations Commission, a complaint against the employer/agency regarding the alleged prohibited personnel action. The Public Employees Relations Commission shall have jurisdiction over such complaints under Sections 112.3187 and 447.503(4) and (5).
As Nichols' whistle-blower complaint does not indicate that she filed it previously with the FCHR and that she is now filing her complaint with the Commission after the termination of a FCNR investigation, Nichols' complaint is summarily dismissed."
EL-2003-015 (Relates to RC-2002-065) (June 23, 2003)
KISSIMMEE PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 4208, Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF KISSIMMEE, Respondent.
Election results and order certifying unit No. 1400 for the following classifications: All full-time certified firefighters in the job classifications of Engineer, Firefighter/EMT, and Firefighter/Paramedic.
61 eligible voters cast 47 ballots for and 6 against the union.
EL-2003-016 (Relates to RC-2002-065) (June 23, 2003)
KISSIMMEE PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 4208, Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF KISSIMMEE, Respondent.
Election results and order certifying unit 1401 for the following classifications: All full-time certified firefighters in the job classifications of EMS Supervisor and Lieutenant.
12 eligible voters cast 11 ballots for and 1 against the union.
Order 03E-143; EL-2003-028 EL-2003-029 (Relates to RC-2000-010 and RC-2000-015) (June 23, 2003)
PALM BEACH COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner,
v.
SHERIFF OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, Respondent.
PERC denies the sheriff's office motion for an onsite election.
"Upon consideration of the parties' arguments, we conclude that mail ballots elections are appropriate in these cases. There are over 1100 voters in these two bargaining units who work in a large County on different days and shifts. In our view, mail ballots collections will best insurer that eligible voters have a reasonable opportunity to tell in the elections. In addition, "mail ballots elections have not proven to be unreliable" and "conducting an election by mail does not produce a substantial delay in outcome." Professional Association of Independent Government Employees for a vs. School District of Broward County, 18 FPER ¶ 23268 (1982)."
Order 0E3-144; EL-2003-031 (Relates to RC-2003-014); EL-2003-032 (Relates to RC-2003-015) (June 23, 2003)
PINELLAS LODGE NO. 43, INC., Petitioner,
v.
PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Respondent.
PINELLAS LODGE NO. 43, INC., Petitioner,
v.
PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Respondent,
v.
PINELLAS COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., Intervenor.
"Upon consideration of the parties' arguments, we conclude that mail ballots elections are appropriate in these cases. There are over 900 voters in these two bargaining units who work in a large County on different days and shifts. In our view, male ballots collections will best insurer that eligible voters have a reasonable opportunity to tell in the elections. In addition, "mail ballots elections have not proven to be unreliable" and "conducting an election by mail does not produce a substantial delay in outcome." Professional Association of Independent Government Employees for a vs. School District of Broward County, 18 FPER ¶ 23268 (1982)."
[From Attorney General's Appellate Alert]
"Limits on campaign donations... The government's interest in preventing corruption of the political process outweighs free-speech concerns and allows laws that ban advocacy groups from making campaign contributions to federal candidates, the U.S. Supreme Court held.
The court rejected an appeal from North Carolina Right to Life, which argued that it – and other tax-exempt not-for-profit interest groups – should be able to make campaign contributions. In a 7-2 decision, the court said advocacy groups may solicit donations for political action committees, which must meet specific reporting requirements, but may not donate directly themselves.>
"Any attack on the federal prohibition
of direct corporate political contributions goes against the current of a century
of congressional efforts to curb corporations' potentially 'deleterious influences
on federal elections,' which we have canvassed a number of times before," Justice
Souter wrote for the court.
[Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont, 6/16/03]"
CITATION DISCLAIMER - This summary should not be cited. For that purpose, the cases may be acquired by contacting FSLRS, PERC, FEN district representatives, FPELRA representatives, jurisdiction labor relations officers or their attorneys for particular cases.
Publications on this site are designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to public employee labor relations and collective bargaining. This information is provided with the understanding that FSLRS is not engaged in rendering legal service. If legal advice or assistance is required, contact your attorney.
This site maintained for educational organizations by
The Florida School Labor Relations Service
a Joint Venture of the
Florida School Boards Association
and the
Florida Association of District School Superintendents
for the
Florida Educational Negotiators
Suggestions, critique and e-mail to FSLRS