City of Opa-Locka v. Dade County Police Benev. Ass'n, OPA-LOCK

• Decision Date: 24 November 1992
• Docket Number: No. 92-272,OPA-LOCK,F,92-272
• Citation: 610 So.2d 518
• Parties: 17 Fla. L. Week. D2647 CITY OFlorida, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, etc., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 518

610 So.2d 518

17 Fla. L. Week. D2647

CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, Florida, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, etc., Appellee.

No. 92-272.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

Nov. 24, 1992.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1993.

Kubicki, Draper, Gallagher & McGrane and George F. Knox and Manuel A. Mesa, Miami, for appellant.

Slesnick & Lober and Don Slesnick, Miami, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ.

NESBITT, Judge.

The City of Opa-Locka (City) appeals an order confirming an arbitration award reinstating a police officer employed by the City. After the officer had been terminated for disciplinary reasons, the Dade County Police Benevolent Association (PBA), the union representing the Dade County police officers, resolved the dispute through arbitration, the grievance procedure contained in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in effect between the City and the PBA. The PBA claimed disciplinary matters were subject to arbitration. We disagree and vacate the order under review for the following reasons.

Officer Charles Jones received a notice of possible termination from the City by letter dated October 12, 1989. The PBA filed a grievance against the City seeking to have the dispute resolved through arbitration. The acting chief of police denied the grievance and terminated Jones. Thereafter, the PBA filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association. Over objection by the City, arbitration was set for May 14, 1990. On that date, the City Attorney faxed a letter to the arbitrator advising her that the City was not going to participate in the arbitration, repeating its objection that arbitrators were not empowered to hear disciplinary matters.

After a hearing, the arbitrator issued an award requiring the immediate reinstatement of Officer Jones, including retroactive compensation for all lost wages and benefits. The City refused to comply with the award, whereupon Officer Jones filed an action in circuit court to confirm the arbitration award in accordance with sections 682.12 and 682.17, Florida Statutes (1991). The City filed a response, and moved both to vacate the arbitration award and to have the trial court declare that disciplinary matters were not subject to the instant CBA. Officer Jones, in turn, moved for summary judgment which was ultimately denied, after a hearing. The City's motion to vacate the award was also denied. After a hearing, the court confirmed the arbitration award, denied the City's motions to vacate the award and for declaratory judgment, and awarded Officer Jones attorney's fees and costs. On appeal, the City contends that disciplinary action is not grievable pursuant to the CBA and argues that the lower court acted improperly in confirming the arbitrator's award.

In her award, the arbitrator noted that language in articles 15 and 23 in the CBA triggered the grievance procedure rights set forth in article 32. Article 15 section 7 provides Employees shall not be dismissed or disciplined resulting in loss of pay or benefits except for just cause and due process as provided in this agreement.

(Emphasis added).

Article 23 provides in pertinent part:

The City shall have the right to determine unilaterally the purpose of the police department, set standards of service to be offered to the public, and exercise control and discretion over the police department and its operations. The City shall have the right to direct the police employees, taking disciplinary action for proper cause and to relieve any police employee from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reason. Except as otherwise provided in this agreement, the City shall manage, control and administer the police department.

(Emphasis added).

Article 32 section 2 provides:

A grievance shall be defined as any disagreement over the interpretation and application of the terms of this agreement.

The City contends that the arbitration process was never intended to be used for disciplinary matters. Rather, the power to discipline rests solely with the City under its Civil Service Rules and Regulations, Code of Ordinances, and City Charter. Thus, argues the City, the order confirming the arbitrator's award should be vacated in accordance with section 682.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1991), which provides that the court shall vacate an arbitration award when there is no provision for arbitration in the parties' agreement. We agree.

First, the CBA does not divest the City of its right to discipline its employees, as the PBA argues. Article 15 section 7 and article 23, when construed, require that as a matter of policy before it seeks disciplinary action against a police officer, a...