City of Orlando v. International Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 1365, 78-1295

Decision Date18 June 1980
Docket NumberNo. 78-1295,78-1295
Citation384 So.2d 941
Parties109 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2708 CITY OF ORLANDO, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 1365, Appellee. /NT4-86.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Norman F. Burke of van den Berg, Gay & Burke, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

Michael M. Switzer, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Susan E. Koch, Staff Atty., for William E. Powers, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for the Public Emp. Relations Commission.

HERSEY, GEORGE W., III, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), which order finds appellant, The City of Orlando, in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1975); that it so say, guilty of an unfair labor practice. The particular section invoked by the Commission states:

447.501

(1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from

(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part.

This provision and other pertinent sections were substantially unchanged in Florida Statutes, 1977, and for the purpose of clarity references will be to the 1977 section numbers.

As a consequence of having been found in violation, the City was required to post a notice for a period of time stating, in effect, that the City would refrain from similar unfair labor practices in the future.

During the latter part of 1976 and continuing in early 1977, the Employer Relations official (for the City) and representatives of Local # 1365, The International Association of Firefighters (the union for the public employees involved) were engaged in negotiating an employment agreement. The areas that became troublesome involved wages, overtime and special compensation related to education. Unable to successfully negotiate these items, the parties submitted the matter to a special master as provided for by Subsection 447.403(2), Florida Statutes. The special master's report, received by the parties on January 6, 1977, was the subject of a meeting of the negotiators for the parties on January 14, 1977, at which time the City rejected the special master's recommendations.

On January 31, 1977, the City Council conducted a public hearing pursuant to Subsection 447.403(4)(d). No final action resulted from that meeting and negotiations continued, apparently with the consent of both parties, until February 21, 1977. On that date, at a meeting of the City Council, a representative of the union demanded that the City take immediate unilateral action to resolve the disputed impasse items with finality. Thereafter, the City Council passed the following motion:

Moved by Commissioner Keith, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy that City Council ratify the proposal of its Employee Relations Official of February 15th to-wit: it would be a 3.5% salary increase for Grades 43 and over upon execution of the contract and 5% for all those grades effective October 1, 1977; time-and-a-half would become effective after 192 hours and a 28-day cycle and EMT II's would receive $50 per month in addition to their regular salary. If this is not acceptable to the Fire Fighters within 10 days City Council hereby postpones any further decisions on the matter until the 77/78 budget is considered.

On February 28, 1977, the union voted to accept the terms offered by the City and thereafter a collective bargaining agreement was signed by representatives of both parties.

Pursuant to an unfair labor practice charge filed by the appellee union, counsel for PERC issued a complaint alleging that the City of Orlando had engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Sections 447.501(1) (a) and (c) by failing to take action as required by Section 447.403(4)(d) to resolve certain impasse items and by conditioning its resolution of such impasse items on the union's total acceptance of the City's bargaining proposal. The complaint alleged, in essence, that on January 31, 1977, the City conducted a public hearing pursuant to Section 447.403(4)(d); that at such hearing, and thereafter, the City failed to resolve the remaining impasse items; that on or about February 15, 1977, an agent of the City offered a bargaining proposal on the impasse items which proposal was rejected by the union; and that on February 21, 1977, following the union's demand that the City take immediate unilateral action to resolve the disputed impasse, the City, following the recommendation of its agent, conditioned its resolution of the impasse items on the union's total acceptance of the City's February 15th bargaining proposal.

The hearing officer issued his recommended order in which he concluded that following its rejection of the special master's recommended decision, the City was under a duty, pursuant to Section 447.403(4)(c) and (d), to forthwith conduct a legislative hearing and take legislative action to resolve the impasse issues with finality. Nevertheless, the hearing officer concluded that the union had waived performance by the City of its statutory duty to resolve the impasse issues by voluntarily participating in and requesting bargaining after January 31, 1977, and by subsequently accepting the City's offer and ratifying and signing a contract. Because of that, the hearing officer concluded that the City's failure to take the required legislative action on January 31, 1977, was not an unfair labor practice. PERC issued its decision and order which adopted the hearing officer's findings of fact. While concurring with the hearing officer's conclusion that the City was under a duty pursuant to Section 447.403(4)(c) and (d) to conduct a hearing and take legislative action to resolve the impasse issues, the Commission differed with the hearing officer on the waiver issue, instead concluding that, although the union waived prompt performance of the City's statutory duty by participating in and requesting bargaining between January 31, 1977 and February 21, 1977, the waiver ended on February 21, 1977, when the union demanded that the City take legislative action to resolve the impasse issues with finality. The Commission concluded that the City's failure to thereafter respond in the proper fashion interfered with, restrained, and coerced public employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Part II of Chapter 447, Florida Statutes, and constituted an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 447.501(1) (a). The subsequent acceptance by the union of the City's offer and the signing of a contract was held not to have waived the City's failure to take legislative action as demanded. In addition to ordering the City to cease and desist from such conduct in the future, the City was ordered to post a notice in all fire stations which admitted the violation.

The City's appeal is based upon four grounds.

The City maintains that Section 447.403(4)(d), Florida Statutes, authorized but did not require the City Council to legislate the terms and conditions of the firefighters' employment. While this is an accurate analysis of the statute, it does not answer the real question involved.

Section 447.403 of the Public Relations Employment Act contemplates the use of three distinct impasse resolution techniques. Should negotiations result in an impasse, a mediator may be called in to assist. In the absence of resolution in that manner, special master proceedings may be instituted. If the special master's recommendations for settlement of the contract talks are rejected by either party, the matter is referred to the legislative body for final disposition. The public body must, and the bargaining agent may, submit its recommendations for impasse resolution to the legislative body, and the legislative body thereafter takes "such action as it deems to be in the public interest, including the interest of the public employees involved." United Faculty of Florida, FEA/United, AFT, AFL-CIO, Local 1880 v. Board of Regents, 365 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The issue for consideration is whether a legislative body may, where it deems such action to be in the public interest, authorize further negotiations....

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Hogelin v. City of Columbus
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • November 16, 2007
    ...386 N.E.2d 1240 (1979); Wright v. City of Santa Clara, 213 Cal.App.3d 1503, 262 Cal. Rptr. 395 (1989); City of Orlando v. Intern. Ass'n of F.F., etc., 384 So.2d 941 (Fla.App. 1980). Cf. Matter of ABC v. Roberts, 61 N.Y.2d 244, 461 N.E.2d 856, 473 N.Y.S.2d 370 (1984) (waiver of statutory rig......
  • Palm Beach Junior College Bd. of Trustees v. United Faculty of Palm Beach Junior College
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 30, 1982
    ...or rejection as they were required to do by section 447.403, Florida Statutes (Supp.1980). See City of Orlando v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 1365, 384 So.2d 941 (Fla.App. 5th DCA 1980), which held that it was an unfair labor practice to delay the resolution of a bargaining impasse.......
  • Peckham v. Idaho State Bd. of Dentistry
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 21, 2013
    ...of fact and conclusions of law, rather than stating them anew in the final agency order. See City of Orlando v. Int'l. Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 1365, 384 So.2d 941, 946 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980). We agree and find no error with the Board's procedure.B. The district court's order upholding......
  • Schomer v. Department of Professional Regulation, Bd. of Optometry, 81-1805
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 10, 1982
    ...report in an agency order is sufficiently expositive to satisfy statutory requirements, City of Orlando v. International Association of Fire Fighters, Local, 384 So.2d 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Gentry v. Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, 283 So.2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 197......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT