VOL. XXVI  . . . . . . . . . . September 18, 1002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO. 28

PART I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ORDERS ISSUED BY PERC

 

CA-2002-069; Order 02GC-215 (September 10, 2002)

THADEUS M. DEPUSOIR, Charging Party,

v.

LYNX TRANSIT (C.F.R.T.A.), Respondent.

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the employer violated the Act by refusing to process a grievance.  The charge was not concise enough to make a determination, nor was it accompanied by any documentary evidence sufficient to support a prima facie violation.  There were no names of the individuals representing management, no dates relating to the three grievance hearings nor any indication of what the grievance was about.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

CA-2002-067; CB-2002-021; Order 02GC-216 (September 10, 2002)

LAURENCE H. RINEHART, Charging Party,

v.

VOTRAN, Respondent.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

LAURENCE H. RINEHART, Charging Party,

v.

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 385, Respondent,

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the employer and the union violated the Act by the manner in which Rinehart was required to take an unpaid leave of absence, seek counseling and treatment through the employee assistance program, and be examined by an independent psychiatrist in retaliation for filing unfair labor practices against both respondents.  Rinehart also alleged that upon returning to work he was harassed by his supervisors.  He contends that VOTRAN has not fired but is Atrying to make me quit by starving me out.@

AThe 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.@

The charge does not provide sufficient specificity to make a determination of a violation.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

MS-2002-001; Order 02E-217 (September 12, 2002)

IN RE:  PETITION OF PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS OF NAPLES,

EVOKING IAFF, LOCAL 2174.

AUpon consideration, we are in agreement with the hearing officer=s analysis of the dispositive legal issues, his conclusions, and his recommendations.  Accordingly, certification 403 is revoked.@

Local 2174 is certified as exclusive bargaining representative for the following bargaining unit of rank-and-file firefighters (Certification No. 1371).  The exclusive bargaining agency rights for a unit comprised of the lieutenants (Certification No. 1372) is also granted to Local 2174.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

EL-2002-027 (Relates to RC-2002-026) (September 13, 2002)

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FIREMEN & OILERS, SEIU, LOCAL 1227, AFL-CIO, Petitioner,

v.

PALM TRAN, INC. AND PALM BEACH COUNTY, Respondent.

Election results and order certifying unit 1373 for full-time nonprofessional supervisory employees.  31 eligible voters cast 26 ballots for and 5 against the union.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

CA-2002-072; Order 02GC-218 (September 13, 2002)

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CITY EMPLOYEES, INC., Charging Party

v.

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, Respondent

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the employer violated the Act by threatening to refuse to deduct union dues.

ASection 447.303, Florida Statutes, requires a political subdivision of the state to deduct union dues from employee paychecks for those employees who authorize deductions and disburse that money to the union the employees have selected as their representative ... 

...  The alleged threat to withhold the distribution of dues deductions was made by two persons who were not City employees.  Rather, they are union employees.  In addition, this was not a threat made to union officials to retaliate against one or more City employees.  Instead, the threat was to the union itself.

Therefore, I do not need to decide whether the alleged threat would interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the bargaining unit if it had been made to an employee.  A statement that the City intends to stop dispersing dues to the union made to the non-employee union president and/or vice-president does not constitute interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the bargaining.@

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

EL-2002-022; 023 (Relates to RC-2002-025; 030) (September 16, 2002)

PALM BEACH COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner,

v.

CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, Respondent,

v.

FLORIDA STATE LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, Intervenor.

Election results and order revoking certification 895 (police lieutenants) and certification 728 (police sergeants).  Six eligible voters in the lieutenants unit cast six ballots for the union.  Certification No. 1374 is issued to the PBA (OR-86-155).  Twenty-two eligible voters in the sergeants unit cast 21 ballots for the union.  Certification No. 1375 is issued to the PBA (OR-86-155).

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

PART II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court Orders

[From Attorney General=s Appellate Alert]

11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

AFree-speech rights of police employees ...  A city police officer went well beyond the bounds of legitimate employee speech when he helped to design a secret plan to overthrow his superiors, and his actions are not protected by the First Amendment or other federal law, the 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held.

The court reversed a $452,000 jury award won by former Riviera Beach Police Lt. Edward Brochu, who helped create a "business plan" to support city council candidates who would replace the city manager, who would in turn replace a police chief opposed by Brochu and others.  When the plan became public, Brochu was placed on leave with severe restrictions; eventually he resigned.  Brochu sued the city, alleging that his actions were part of a plan to root out corruption within the police department.  He contended that his actions were protected by the First Amendment and federal law, and the conditions of his administrative leave were so intolerable they caused him to involuntarily resign in what amounted to a constructive discharge.  A jury sided with Brochu, but the 11^th Circuit reversed.

"Although it is well-established that an employer may not discharge a public employee in retaliation for the employee's exercise of his right to freedom of speech, that right is not absolute," the court said. "(Brochu) was a major player in the creation and dissemination of a virtually secret plan to overthrow the existing police administration and put himself and his friends in charge.  This was not the sort of public speech activity engaged in by an employee as a citizen which is protected by the First Amendment.  This was back-room maneuvering by an employee as an employee which, even if tangentially related to the political process in Riviera Beach and even if motivated by a sincere desire to reform the police department, is not the sort of public discourse which the First Amendment was intended to protect.

"The fact that Brochu might have been legitimately politically active would not give him license to disrupt the operations of the police department," the 11^th Circuit added.  "Brochu crossed the line when he went beyond political activity as a citizen and created a secret plan, as an employee, to overthrow his superiors and then shared that plan with a few civilians in the community, actually enlisting their assistance in effectuating the >coup.="  [Brochu v. City of Riviera Beach, 9/5/02]@

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

PART VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MISCELLANEOUS

NOTICE OF PETITION FOR DECLARATORY STATEMENT

**The Public Employees Relations Commission has received and will consider the following Petition for Declaratory Statement [DS-2002-001].  In Re:  Petition for Declaratory Statement of The School Board of Monroe County, Florida.

The issue for resolution is whether the Big Pine Neighborhood Charter School, Inc., will become the public employer of the charter school employees?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Tentative Agreement Reports

FEN Calendar

==================================================================

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.

The Florida School Labor Relations Service

is a joint venture of the

Florida School Boards Association

and the

Florida Association of District School Superintendents".

Its publications 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.

==================================================================

Marcus Johnston, Executive Director

Florida School Labor Relations Service

203 South Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

850/414-2587 - SUNCOM 994-2587

FAX - 850/414-2585 - SUNCOM 994-2585