VOL. XXVI  . . . . . . . . . . . . March 27, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO. 09

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

 

**CA-2002-016; Order 02GC-063 (March 6, 2002)

BEVERLY WALKER, Charging Party,

v.

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Respondent.

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the employer violated the Act by dismissing Walker from employment.

AThe charge asserted that additional supporting documents would be submitted.  However, supporting documents were not attached to the charge or subsequently filled ...

The scope of the Commission's jurisdiction over disputes between a public employee and her employer is limited to ensuring that the rights provided employees by Chapter 447, Part II, are not abridged.  If a charge fails to allege that the violative action was taken as a result of the charging party=s exercise of rights set forth in section 447.301, Fla. Stat., the Commission lacks jurisdiction to remedy that action, whatever it may be.@

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

UC-2002-001; Order 02E-064 (March 6, 2002)

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FIREMEN & OILERS, SEIU, LOCAL 1227, Petitioner,

v.

CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, Respondent.

ALocal 1227 seeks the inclusion of seven "new" classifications into a bargaining unit of City of Boynton Beach (City) non-supervisory operational services (blue-collar) employees it currently represents [certification 138].  Local 1227 also sought to move employees in the classification of service writer from the non-supervisory white-collar unit it represents [certification 1211], to the non-supervisory blue-collar unit.@

PERC accepts the hearing officer=s recommendation which determined that local 1227 failed to provide evidence to satisfy the Commission=s threshold criteria for entertaining a unit clarification petition.  The petition is dismissed.

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

UC-2002-002; Order 02E-065 (March 6, 2002)

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FIREMEN & OILERS, SEIU, LOCAL 1227, Petitioner,

v.

CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, Respondent.

ALocal 1227, filed a unit-clarification petition pursuant to Section 447.307, Florida Statutes, seeking to include the animal control supervisor, communications shift supervisor, customer relations supervisor, and housing rehabilitation inspector classifica­tions in a bargaining unit of non-supervisory white-collar employees of the City of Boynton Beach [certification 1211] which it currently represents.

AThe threshold question in consideration of the unit clarification petition is whether the unit clarification procedure has been properly invoked.  The Commission will consider a petition for unit clarification only when the position at issue has been created or substantially altered after certification of the bargaining unit, or the position was included or excluded from the unit inadvertently or through misunderstanding.  See Sarasota County PBA v. City of Sarasota, 7 FPER & 12339 at 680 (1981); Seminole Education Association v. School Board of Seminole County, 27 FPER & 32268 (2001).@

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

CB-2002-003; Order 02GC-066 (March 7, 2002)

ROSEVELT HUGHES, Charging Party,

v.

LOCAL 2957, IAFF, AFL-CIO, CLC, Respondent.

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the union violated the Act by failing to represent him fairly during a grievance hearing.  An examination of the charge reveals that it is conclusional and lacks factual specificity.

ATo demonstrate that Local 2957 violated its duty of fair representation, the charge contends that Jacobs was not going to allow Hughes, at the meeting, to compare his offense to offenses committed by other firefighters.  This assertion is based on an alleged statement by Brian Bowers ...

A charge must be accompanied by sworn statements from persons having personal knowledge of the allegations in the charge.@

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

CA-2002-018; Order 02GC-067 (March 7, 2002)

JOE FERRARA, Charging Party,

v.

CITY OF WEST MIAMI, Respondent.

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the employer violated the Act by transferring Ferrara from his detective position and by Ferrara=s not properly receiving disability benefits or consideration for light duty assignments in connection with an April 2000 on-duty car accident because as a union representative he refused to coerce a fellow officer into resigning in October 1999.  The charge is untimely.

AThe charge indicates that Ferrara was transferred in January 2000 and his alleged disability and other problems from the car accident occurred in April 2000.  These dates are more than six months prior to the filing of this charge.  Without more, all of the allegations in the charge appear to be untimely.@

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

CB-2002-005; Order 02GC-068 (March 8, 2002)

MICHAEL MOAKLEY, Charging Party,

v.

LIUNA, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES= LOCAL 678, Respondent

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the union violated the Act by unfairly handling the ratification process for an agreement.  The charge is untimely because it misses the 6 months deadline.

AEven if I consider the charge timely, this allegation does not demonstrate a violation of the of the duty of fair representation.@

Resubmitting a previously rejected agreement for a second ratification vote is not illegal.

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

CB-2002-004; Order 02GC-069 (March 11, 2002)

ANTHONY ZITNICK, Charging Party,

v.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 2292, Respondent.

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the union violated the Act by refusing to represent Zitnick in a grievance.

AZitnick asserts that he was employed by the City of Pembroke Pines and was a member of Local 2292.  Zitnick was terminated by the City for disseminating a coloring book to a class of kindergarten students and for conducting a City-sponsored coloring contest among the students.  Zitnick sought to grieve the termination but Local 2292 declined to assist him, indicating the Zitnick would not prevail in the grievance in its opinion.@

The requisite facts necessary to prove a prima facie violation were neither stated in the charge or filed as an evidentiary document.  In addition, the charge is untimely.

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

CA-2002-019; Order 02GC-070 (March 11, 2002)

ANTHONY ZITNICK, Charging Party,

v.

CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES, Respondent.

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the employer violated the Act by terminating Zitnick for disseminating a coloring book to a class of kindergarten students and for conducting a City-sponsored coloring contest among the students.  The charge also alleges the City refused to allow Zitnick's grievance concerning his dismissal to proceed to arbitration because Zitnick's union declined to handle the grievance.

A ... the charge lacks the specificity as to when the events at issue occurred.  This is problematic because it does not allow for determination as to whether the charge was timely filed.@

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

RC-2002-012; Order 02E-071 (March 11, 2002)

LEE COUNTY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, Petitioner,

v.

LEE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Respondent.

The petition to represent blue-collar employees is dismissed.

A...  These employees are currently not represented.  Upon review of the petition pursuant to Section 447.307(3(a), Florida Statutes, we conclude that the petition is deficient for the following reason.

Section 447.307(3)(d), Florida Statutes provides:

No petition may be filed seeking an election in any proposed or existing appropriate bargaining unit to determine the exclusive bargaining agent within 12 months after the date of a commission order verifying a representation election...

An administrative review of the Commission's records reveals that a representation­

certification election was held in a unit similar to the proposed unit on February 28 and March 1, 2001.@

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

**VP-2001-011; 012; 013; 014 and 015; Order 02VP-072 (March 13, 2002)

ANDREA J.B. CAGLE, Complainant,

v.

ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.

PERC remands the cases to the hearing officer, granting Cagle=s exceptions.

AIn a recent case the Commission considered whether a veteran lost his preference by virtue of his continued employment with a state agency after his preference arose under the veteran's preference statute.  Yount v. Lee County, (Fla. PERC Feb. 22, 2002).  Yount was ineligible for a hiring preference when he applied for and was hired by a state agency because he was not a Florida resident.  We ruled that Yount's continued employment after he established state residency and became eligible for an employment preference did not extinguish his preference because "[t]he plain meaning of Section 295.101 does not allow for extinguishing an employment pref­erence by a veteran's continued employment in a position into which the veteran was hired without a preference entitlement."  Id. at page 3.  The same rationale applies in the instant case, that is, Cagle's continuous employment with Duval School District does not extinguish the employment preference she acquired in 1996, because she was not eligible for a preference when she applied for and was hired into a position with the Duval School District in 1989.

For these reasons, we reject the hearing officer's conclusion that Cagle's employ­ment preference expired by virtue of her continued employment with Duval School District after 1996.  Accordingly, we grant Cagle's exceptions and conclude that Cagle had a preference at the time she applied for the teacher positions at the St. John School District.

As we noted in Yount the intent of the veteran's preference statute has been inter­preted by the courts and the Commission as being to provide veterans with only one opportunity to obtain regular government employment.  Our ruling today appears to subvert that purpose by allowing a veteran's spouse who currently holds government employment to receive a preference to assert in seeking further government employment.  However, Chapter 295, Florida Statutes, does not permit an interpretation that would extinguish Cagle's employment preference.  As stated in Yount, we leave it to the legislature to amend the statute should it wish to change the outcome of factually similar cases in the future.@

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

CA-2002-021; Order 02GC-073 (March 14, 2002)

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CITY EMPLOYEES, INC., Charging Party,

v.

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, Respondent.

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the employer violated the Act by refusing to adopt the ratified contract between the previous bargaining agent and the employer that is scheduled to expire in 2003.

AThe City is under no obligation to adopt its prior contract with AFSCME or to recognize PACE=s unilateral adoption of the contract.  Thus, even if the city agreed to adopt the contract and then changed its mind prior to the formal adoption its conduct was not unlawful.  Therefore, PACE=s unfair labor practice charge does not state a prima facie violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) Florida Statutes.@

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

VP-2001-010; Order 02VP-074 (March 15, 2002)

WILLIAM R. MISKIEWICZ, Complainant,

v.

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Respondent.

AThe parties have entered into an agreement to settle this case.  Upon considera­tion, the Commission hereby accepts their agreement and incorporates it as a part of this final order.

Notwithstanding our acceptance of the parties' settlement agreement, the Commission declines to be bound by the agreement's provision permitting the Complainant to appeal to the Commission any dissatisfaction he may have regarding the Respondent's compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.  See Professional Association of City Employees v. City of Jacksonville, 28 FPER & 33022 (2001).  As a matter of policy, the Commission does not enforce its final orders even when they incorporate the parties' agreement to settle the case.  Rather, in its final order approving settlement agreements, and as we do here, the Commission advises parties to those settlement agreements that enforcement lies in circuit court pursuant to Section 447.5035, Florida Statutes.  Accordingly, this complaint is DISMISSED.@

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

CA-2002-013; Order 02GC-075 (March 15, 2002)

FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COUNCIL 79, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Charging Party,

v.

THE HONORABLE JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR, Respondent.

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the amended charge that the employer violated the Act by advising employees of a monthly union dues increase.

AIt is now clear that the statements in the challenged e-mail were accurate.  That is, Council 79 did raise its dues by $1.90 per month and the members had already been notified.  Thus, the electronic notice from the DOR >coordinator/benefits and payroll= was neither a threat nor did it interfere with or coerce union members in the exercise of collective bargaining rights, especially since they already knew of the dues increase.@

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

VP-2001-010; Order 02VP-076 (March 18, 2002)

WILLIAM R. MISKIEWICZ, Complainant,

v.

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Respondent.

Identical order as >074' above, but the Complainant=s counsel was inadvertently omitted as attorney of record.

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

CA-2002-024; Order 02GC-077 (March 18, 2002)

FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COUNCIL 79, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Charging Party,

v.

THE HONORABLE JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the employer violated the Act by refusing to bargain in good faith by failing to honor a memorandum of agreement that implements a negotiated wage increase for abuse registry counselors.  The charge fails to name the AFSCME representative which contacted the state representative to ask about increasing that rate.  There is also no evidence that the members of the AFSCME statewide bargaining unit have ratified this memorandum of agreement.

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

CA-2002-023; Order 02GC-078 (March 19, 2002)

ANGELO CRUZ, Charging Party,

v.

HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT, Respondent.

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the employer violated the Act when Cruz was dismissed from employment with HARTline in June 2001 and September 2001 ...  when Cruz=s civil rights were violated because he was not given an opportunity to tell his version of what occurred either through witnesses or challenges made at hearings.  Cruz has failed to provide any evidence that he was engaged in an activity protected by chapter 447, Part II, or that his activity was a substantial or motivating factor in Hartline=s decision to dismiss him from employment.

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

CB-2002-006; Order 02GC-079 (March 19, 2002)

ANGELO CRUZ, Charging Party,

v.

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 1593, Respondent.

The General Counsel summarily dismisses the charge that the union violated the Act by not meeting with Cruz nor defending him when charges were made against him that resulted in termination.

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.  It appears that the charge is untimely.

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

CA-2001-033; Order 02U-080 (March 20, 2002)

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS, AFL-CIO, Charging Party,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Respondent.

PERC finds that the state violated the Act by unilaterally changing law-enforcement officers work schedules and refusing to bargaining the changes.  However, contrary to the hearing officer=s conclusions, the factual findings persuaded PERC that the union failed to meet its burden of proving that the state did not provide it with a reasonable opportunity to negotiate the impact of the work assignment changes.  PERC found that the record showed that all the union was required to do was to identify the impacts of safety and workload, yet it failed to do so from April 2^nd through May 8^th, 2001.

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

RC-2002-015; Order 02E-081 (March 21, 2002)

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

v.

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

PERC dismisses the petition to represent operation supervisor, utility supervisor, maintenance supervisor, road supervisor, and foreman.  The Commission has  previously defined a unit for non-professional supervisor employees for this employer and absent a showing of changed circumstances, such as substantial changes in the job duties of the joint employees, the previously define unit is presumed to be correct.

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

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

[From Attorney General=s Appellate Alert]

U.S. Supreme Court

AFamily and Medical Leave - required notice ...  The government cannot require employers to notify workers when the leave time they use might be counted against the period allowed by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court held.

Ruling 5-4 in favor of employers, the court struck down a U.S. Labor Department regulation that required employers to tell their workers how their leave policies affect the time authorized by the FMLA.  The decision was a defeat for former Arkansas factory worker Tracy Ragsdale, who developed cancer and used up the 30 weeks of leave allowed by the company. Ragsdale argued that she should still be able to use the 12 unpaid weeks allowed by the FMLA, but the Supreme Court said the company was within its bounds to include the FMLA leave within the more lenient period of time it had already given Ragsdale.

"Ragsdale has not shown that she would have taken less leave or intermittent leave if she had received the required notice," Justice Kennedy wrote for the court.  "Even if Wolverine had complied with the notice regulations, Ragsdale still would have taken the entire 30-week absence.  Blind to this reality, the (regulation) required the company to grant Ragsdale 12 more weeks of leave - and rendered it liable ... when it denied her request and terminated her."  [Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 3/19/02]@

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

11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

**ALiability for arrest and strip search of student ...  A school board and county cannot be held liable for an allegedly unlawful arrest and strip search resulting from a zero tolerance school violence policy that required school officials to report criminal behavior to police, the 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held.

Liliana Cuesta and eight other high school students were arrested for anonymously distributing a publication titled "First Amendment," which singled out the school's principal and teachers for contempt and threats of violence.  Fearing for his safety shortly after the pamphlet was distributed around the school, the principal followed the Dade County School Board's zero tolerance policy and called police.  Cuesta, who was at least 18, was booked and strip searched at a Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Facility, or TGK.  Four days later the state attorney's office decided not to file criminal charges against any of the students because recent court decisions had rendered the statute in question unconstitutional and unenforceable.  Cuesta sued the school board for the arrest and the county for the strip search, claiming they violated her First and Fourth Amendments rights, but the 11^th Circuit ruled against her.

Addressing the strip search, the 11^th Circuit concluded, "Cuesta's constitutional rights were not violated because TGK officers had reasonable suspicion to search based upon the violent and threatening language and imagery contained in the pamphlet.  The record makes evident that TGK personnel knew about the violent contents of the pamphlet."  [Cuesta v. School Board of Miami-Dade County, et al., 3/14/02]@

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

Florida Supreme Court

AInitiative for slot machines at pari-mutuels rejected ... A proposed constitutional amendment to allow slot machines at pari-mutuel facilities will not appear on the November ballot because it violates the single-subject requirement and its ballot language is misleading, the Florida Supreme Court held.

The court, by a 4-3 margin, concluded that the proposal improperly seeks to combine the two disparate provisions, authorizing the approval, licensure and taxation of slot machines while simultaneously creating a limited exception to the constitutional requirement that new state taxes be added to the Constitution by a two-thirds vote.  Either proposition would be acceptable, the court said, but they cannot be combined into a single initiative.  For similar reasons, the court said, the initiative's ballot summary is invalid.

"The initiative considered here purports to create a mechanism for authorizing and taxing slot machines for a particular purpose in the same proposal which would effectively amend article XI, section 7, to remove this new state tax from the ambit of that provision.  Because it thus fails to comport with the constitution's single subject limitation, it is disapproved for inclusion on the ballot," the court said.  The majority consisted of Chief Justice Wells and Justices Harding, Lewis and Quince.  [Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re; Authorization for County Voters to Approve or Disapprove Slot Machines within Existing Pari-Mutuel Facilities, 3/14/02]@

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

5^th District Court of Appeal

**A"Relation-back" doctrine - government agencies ...  Two separate government agencies are not necessarily sufficiently connected for the "relation-back" doctrine to be used to fix an error in which the wrong entity was named as a defendant in a lawsuit, the 5^th DCA said.

A teenager who severely broke her legs in a fall on school grounds filed suit against Volusia County, rather than the county school board.  The plaintiff attempted to amend the complaint after the statute of limitations had expired, but the trial court dismissed her complaint.  The plaintiff argued on appeal that the relation-back doctrine should apply because the error was merely a misnomer, but the DCA disagreed.

"An amended complaint does not relate back to the original filing date where it has the effect of adding a new party to the cause of action," the DCA said.  "We affirm the trial court here because we do not find that the School Board and the County are sufficiently related to justify application of the relation-back doctrine.  Although both are subdivisions of the State, they are independent agencies and the required identity of interest is not present."  [Patel v. School Board of Volusia County, 3/8/02]@

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

PART IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPECIAL MASTER

 

SM-2002-002 (Louis M. Thomson, Jr.) (March 11, 2002)

FLORIDA BOARD OF EDUCATION, Employer,

AND

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 79, union.

ISSUE:  THE SPECIAL MASTER WOULD FIND THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM IS: "IS THE STATE OF FLORIDA FINANCIALLY ABLE, WITH THE CURRENT BUDGET/ ECONOMIC PROBLEMS, TO FUND ANNUAL ACROSS THE BOARD INCREASES TO THE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES?

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT: 

[1]  THE PARTIES UTILIZE A WAGE PROPOSAL BASED UPON THE CONVENTIONAL SYSTEM THE PARTIES HAVE USED IN THEIR CURRENT CBA UNTIL THE "NEW" SYSTEM BEFORE THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE BECOMES A REALITY.

[2]  AN ACROSS THE BOARD WAGE INCREASE FOR THE BARGAINING UNIT OF 1.5% BE ENACTED FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE1, 2002 TO JUNE 1, 2003, WITH A MINIMUM OF $500.00 PER EMPLOYEE.

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

 

MISCELLANEOUS

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