On May 18, 2004, Catherine Hayes filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Leon County School Board (School Board) violated Sections 447.501(1)(a) and 760.11(b), Florida Statutes (2003).  On May 27, the General Counsel dismissed the charge concluding that it was untimely filed.

On June 4, Hayes appealed the General Counsel’s summary dismissal to the Commission.  Hayes did not dispute the facts upon which the charge was dismissed, but contended that the letter she received on April 20, 2000, informing her she would not be re-employed the following school year was signed only by her principal.  A year later she found the letter in her personnel file, but this letter was also signed by her assistant principal.  The disparity was immaterial as to whether the charge was timely filed since she knew she would not be re-employed on April 20, 2000. 

The unfair labor practice charge was untimely since it was based on events that occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge.  The Commission concluded that the unfair labor practice charge failed to demonstrate a prima facie violation of the applicable unfair labor practice provisions.

 Florida Education Association
            Respondent

On May 18, 2004, Catherine Hayes filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Florida Education Association (Association) violated Sections 447.501(2)(a) and 760.11(b), Florida Statutes (2003).  On May 27, the General Counsel dismissed that charge concluding that it was untimely filed.

On June 4, Hayes appealed the General Counsel’s summary dismissal to the Commission.  Again, Hayes did not dispute the facts upon which the charge was dismissed.  Hayes’ appeal stated that she applied for other jobs within the school system and that the Association knew this, but failed to tell her that her former principal had effectively “blackballed” her through a negative reference.

For all of the same reasons, the outcome of this case was identical to the charge filed in the previous case against the Leon County School Board.

On October 7, 2003, the Charging Parties filed unfair labor practice charges alleging that the Palm Beach County School Board (School Board) violated Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2003), by unlawfully transferring the individually named Charging Parties.  The Commission’s General Counsel found the charges sufficient.  An evidentiary hearing was conducted on April 5 and 6, 2004 before a PERC hearing officer.

On June 24, the hearing officer issued an order in which he concluded that the School Board had not committed an unfair labor practice by transferring the individually named Charging Parties.  Neither party received an award of attorney’s fees and costs of litigation.

This case centered around whether the individual Charging Parties were engaged in protected activities.  If the School Board did not retain these teachers at Forest Hills High School due to their protected activity, the School Board had committed unfair labor practices.  Several changes were made at Forest Hills as a part of the No Child Left Behind Act performance evaluation.  The school received an FCAT grade of “F” for the 2001-02 school year.  A supervising principal was brought to the school to assist and advise the principal in an effort to obtain a passing grade.  The strategies included a process for all teachers in the bargaining unit reapplying for their jobs at Forest Hills for the 2003-04 school year.

The central issue in these cases was whether the School Board did not rehire the individual parties because of their union activities.  The School Board disputed this and argued that most of the events that occurred concerning the allegations predated the six month limitation period in Section 447.503(6)(c), Florida Statutes.  The limitation period was not considered a problem since the School Board’s action in not rehiring the Charging Parties at Forest Hills was within the six month period, and those events could be used to shed light upon the events occurring within the limitation period.

 In order to demonstrate that their non-renewal was the result of discriminatory retaliation, the Charging Parties had to show the existence of anti-union animus in the form of an admission of improper motive, or by circumstantial or inferential evidence.  The evidence showed that Forest Hills had a credited nondiscriminatory reason to not rehire any of the Charging Parties.

Testimony was also given that there was a higher percentage of CTA members rehired than non CTA members.  Even if the reverse was true, that fact alone would not equate to a finding of discrimination because of union membership.

The Charging Parties protected activities were not considered a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to not retain them at Forest Hills. 

The Commission adopted the hearing officer’s recommended order as the final order, and the unfair labor practice charges were dismissed.

On September 10, 2004, the Union of Escambia ESP (Union) filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the School District of Escambia County (School District) violated Section 447.501(1) (a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2004).

This case involved an accounting specialist, Terri Best, who had previously been employed in a light duty position and as a school bus operator.  Best was informed that she had been overpaid since November 2001 because of technical error in the payroll system, and that her salary would be corrected beginning on March 26.  She was told that the error might have occurred due to a re-numbering of the steps on the salary schedule or it might have been related to her placement in the light duty position.  Later, the beginning date of overpayment was corrected to April 2002.  On May 7 the School District began deducting $25 from Best’s bi-weekly paycheck.  On May 13 the Union filed a grievance challenging the School District’s recoupment of the overpayments. 

During the grievance process the School District relied upon Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.052 and Section 1010.02, Florida Statutes, as well as its past practice of collecting overpayments from employees.  The Union believed that the Rule did not authorize the School District to recoup overpayments, and the contract needed language to address issues of overpayment.  Also, the Union took the position that the School District had been put on notice as early as April 20, 2004; and therefore, it was no longer a past practice.

After review General Counsel concluded that the Union had failed to demonstrate that the School District had committed an unfair labor practice.  The School District had the authority to change Best’s salary to be in conformance with the contractual salary schedule.  Since the contract did not have a provision regarding overpayment, it was appropriate for the School District to rely on its past practice.  In addition, the School District did not have to change its past practice simply because the Union said it should be stopped.

The summer report contained salary settlement information for seven school districts.  Since that time FSLRS has received notification of settlements from the following districts.

District                         Estimated                    Bachelors                        Step
                                     Percentage                     Range                          Range

Lee                                 3.9                       30,473-51,233                           1-17