THE FLORIDA EDUCATIONAL
NEGOTIATORS

(850)414-2587  (850)414-2585 FAX
SUNCOM 994-2587 SUNCOM FAX 994-2585


 Volume IV………………….Summer 2004

CA-2003-024; Final Order, April 27, 2004

Gilchrist Employees/United
            Charging Party

 v.

 School Board of Gilchrist County
            Respondent

On May 22, 2003, Gilchrist Employees/United (GE/U) filed an amended unfair labor practice charge alleging that the School Board of Gilchrist County (School Board) unilaterally changed the terms of the negotiated and legislatively imposed collective bargaining agreement in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2003). 

The controversy between the parties centered around negotiations over the performance pay plan.  GE/U wanted to limit the dollars set aside for the plan and make sure that the criteria used to determine who would be outstanding was rigorous, and not the criteria used by the school principal.  The school board’s team agreed to limit the dollars, but did not address the criteria issue.  The school board team’s position was that it was a management right to determine the criteria for identifying outstanding teachers.

After reaching impasse, the parties agreed to proceed directly to the school board for the legislative hearing.  The school board accepted the superintendent’s position and did not rule on the assessment criteria matter.  At a subsequent school board meeting, the school board ratified the collective bargaining agreement.  In addition, the school board approved the assessment criteria for outstanding performance as recommended by the superintendent.  GE/U ratified the collective bargaining agreement in January 2003. 

In its unfair labor practice charge, GE/U asserted that the school board had unilaterally imposed the criteria for “outstanding.”  The school board did not deny that, but took the position it was entitled to do so. 

The hearing officer found that the criteria for determining a teacher’s proficiency was a management right, and that the school board did not commit an unfair labor practice.  The recommendation to the Commission was to dismiss the charge.

On April 19, 2004, GE/U filed a motion to withdraw the unfair labor practice charge with prejudice and to file a new charge based upon the same facts and issues. Motion granted. Case closed.

CA-2003-077
CA-2003-090; Final Order No. 04U-093, April 2, 2004

 Hamilton County Education Association
            Petitioner

 v.

 School Board of Hamilton County, Florida
            Respondent

On February 19, 2004, the hearing officer assigned to this case issued a recommended order concluding that the School Board of Hamilton County, Florida (School Board) violated Section 447.501(1)(a), (c), and (f), Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with an arbitrator’s award.  The hearing officer also recommended that the Association be awarded its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of litigation.  On February 24, the School Board filed four exceptions to the recommended order and, on the following day, the Hamilton County Education Association (Association) filed a response to the exceptions.

The dispute giving rise to the grievance arbitration involved a contract provision which granted the Association time to conduct business at the end of any county wide in-service day during preschool planning.  The issue was whether or not the time given to conduct business fell within the confines of the seven and one-half teacher workday.  The arbitrator decided that it did.  The School Board did not comply with the arbitrator’s award at the next scheduled teacher workday on August 4, 2003.  Prior to the filing of the charges in these cases, the parties agreed to eliminate the subject contract language. 

The four exceptions filed by the School Board were either denied or dismissed.  However, the second exception relating to attorney’s fees remains unresolved.  The required posting of the notice has been certified.

In the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida

 Case No.  04-1647

 The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida
                        Plaintiff

v.

 James E. King, Jr. In his capacity as President of The Florida Senate; Johnnie B. Byrd, Jr., In his capacity as Speaker of The Florida House of Representatives; Jim Horne, In his official capacity as Commissioner of The Department of Education; Florida Department of Education; and State Board of Education
                        Defendants

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff contends that it is unable to adequately discharge its statutory and constitutional duties because the Defendants illegally and unconstitutionally reduced its educational funding.  The basis for the lawsuit is the new method of calculating the district cost differential (DCD).  The DCD has been calculated each year using the Florida Price Level Index (FPLI).  Based on a University of Florida report, this year the Legislature added the “amenities-based indices” to the formula.  The amenities-based approach included beaches, climate, scenery, public services and other desirable community features.  The financial impact to the Miami-Dade school district is approximately $24,500,000 for 2004-2005, $43,000,000 for 2005-2006 and $88,000,000 for 2006-2007.  Plaintiff further contends that as a result of the unlawful DCD funding decision, students in Miami-Dade County will be discriminatorily denied equal funding opportunity and that a uniform high quality education cannot be provided.

Four counts are listed in the lawsuit.
Count 1            Declaration Regarding Proper Interpretation of Section 1011.62 (2),
                        Florida Statutes, to Determine DCD for 2004-2005
Count 2            Violation of Article III, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution
Count 3            Violation of Article IX, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution
Count 4            Injunctive Relief

 Submitted June 30, 2004

 A copy of the filing may be obtained by contacting the FSLRS office.

The FSLRS office has received notification of salary settlements from seven school districts for 2004-2005.  If you have settled, please send your salary schedules to FSLRS so they may be shared with your colleagues.

        District                    Estimated                   Bachelors                               Step
                                        Percentage                 Range                                    Range

        Brevard                    5.48                           30,500-50,235                         0-21

        Broward                   3.00                           32,800-62,613                         1-21

        Collier                       3.00                           31,948-55,146                        0-21

        Hendry                      5.10                           30,200-47,160                         0-25

        Palm Beach                3.00              AC       33,494-38,868                         0-25

                                                                PSC     35,074-61,800                        3-25

        Seminole*                   5.25                           30,000-51,810                       1-34

        Pinellas                        2.70                           31,900-52,200                       0-23

 *Implementing a conversion schedule, does not include two additional longevity steps

CITATION DISCLAIMER  - The summary for any cases should not be cited.  For that purpose, the cases may be acquired by contacting FSLRS or PERC.  You are encouraged to contact labor relations officials or their attorneys for details on specific cases.

Information provided herein is with the understanding that FSLRS is not engaged in rendering legal service.  If legal advice or assistance is required, please contact your attorney.