Galbreath v. School Bd. of Broward County
| Decision Date | 26 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 63203,63203 |
| Citation | 446 So.2d 1045 |
| Parties | 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2645, 16 Ed. Law Rep. 995 Ruel A. GALBREATH, Petitioner, v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Harold D. Smith, Hollywood, for petitioner.
Gordon Dean Rogers of Muller, Mintz, Kornreich, Caldwell, Casey, Crosland & Bramnick, Miami, for respondent, The School Bd. of Broward County, Florida.
Richard H. Frank, Mark F. Kelly and Richard T. Donelan, of Frank & Kelly, Tampa, for respondent, The Broward County Classroom Teachers Ass'n, Inc.
Phillip P. Quaschnick, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for respondent, Public Employees Relations Com'n.
This case is before us to review a district court decision, Galbreath v. School Board of Broward County, 424 So.2d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), which certified the following question as being of great public importance:
Where the certified bargaining agent retains contractual control over the arbitral step of the grievance procedure and it declines to process a grievance to arbitration because it believes the grievance to be without merit, is the public employer still obligated to arbitrate the dispute if the grievant submits it to arbitration because the certified bargaining agent has declined to "represent the grievant?
Id. at 838. This Court has jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. We answer the certified question in the negative and approve the decision under review.
Ruel Galbreath is a public school teacher in Broward County. His employer, the School Board of Broward County, and the Broward County Classroom Teachers Association are parties to a collective bargaining agreement. This agreement covers all teachers including those who, like Galbreath, are not members of the Classroom Teachers Association. Galbreath filed a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement in an attempt to secure payment for certain overtime work. The Classroom Teachers Association represented Galbreath through the first two steps of the three-step grievance procedure but refused to further process his grievance through the final arbitration step. The Classroom Teachers Association based this decision not on Galbreath's non-union status but rather on the lack of merit in his grievance. The school board then rejected Galbreath's demand for arbitration because the collective bargaining agreement gave control over the arbitration step to the Classroom Teachers Association. Galbreath subsequently brought unfair labor practices charges with the Public Employees Relations Commission against both the school board and the Classroom Teachers Association. The Public Employees Relations Commission summarily dismissed these charges and Galbreath appealed.
The district court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Galbreath could be foreclosed from individual arbitration under section 447.401, Florida Statutes (1979). In affirming, the district court adopted the majority opinion of the Public Employees Relations Commission in Heath v. School Board of Orange County, 5 FPER 10074 (1979), and the "Declaratory Statement" portion of In re Leon County School Board, 7 FPER 12286 (1981). We agree with the district court and approve the following portions of In re Leon County School Board, set out in the appendix of the opinion under review, as dispositive of the issues presented in the certified question.
A union's right to exclusivity over the administration of a collective bargaining agreement includes not only the right to settle a grievance short of arbitration, but also the right to decline to process a grievance when it believes the grievance lacks merit. In either case, the union is deemed to have represented the grievant even though the grievance was not pursued to the final stage of the procedure, binding arbitration. Once the bargaining agent chooses to represent a grievant, regardless of the grievant's union membership status, the manner with which it handles the grievance, including a decision not to process the grievance for lack of merit, is subject to the statutory duty of fair representation. See Heath v. School Board of Orange County, 5 FPER p 10074 (1979); Gow v. AFSCME, Local 1316, 4 FPER p 4168 (1978).
However, unlike other jurisdictions, Florida law permits a certified bargaining agent to refuse to represent a grievant who is not a member of the certified organization. Section 447.401, Florida Statutes (1979), provides, in pertinent part:
All public employees shall have the right to a fair and equitable grievance procedure, administered without regard to membership or nonmembership in any organization, except that certified employee organizations shall not be required to process grievances for employees who are not members of the organization. (Emphasis added)
The Commission has concluded that this provision does not serve as a limitation upon the certified bargaining agent's exclusive right of representation. Heath v. School Board of Orange County, 5 FPER p 10074 at 92. Rather, the proviso simply affords the organization the right to determine whether it desires to exercise its right of exclusive representation on behalf of nonmembers.
When a certified bargaining agent declines to represent a grievant because he or she is not a member of the certified organization, the grievant is entitled to pursue the grievance to arbitration, and the public employer is under a concomitant obligation to process the grievance in accordance with the terms set forth in the agreement. See generally, Blanchett v. School Board of Leon County, 378 So.2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Manatee County Municipal Employees Local 1584 v. Manatee County School Board, 6 FPER p 11188 (1980). Therefore, the grievant's right to a fair and equitable grievance procedure mandated by Section 447.401 is protected by allowing the grievant to either represent himself or to seek outside representation, for the purpose of pursuing the grievance in accordance with the procedures set forth in the collective bargaining agreement.
... Our rejection of the proposition that Section 447.301(4) guarantees an individual unfettered access to the arbitral process is supported by the substantial weight of authority in other jurisdictions interpreting statutory provisions which are identical in all material respects to Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Browning v. Brody
...not to process the grievance for lack of merit, is subject to the statutory duty of fair representation." Galbreath v. School Bd. of Broward County, 446 So.2d 1045, 1047 (Fla.1984),appeal dismissed 469 U.S. 801, 105 S.Ct. 55, 83 L.Ed.2d 6 (1984). Additional support for our conclusion is fou......
-
Public Health Trust v. Hernandez
...compel arbitration should have been denied. Accordingly, we reverse the order compelling PHT to arbitrate. See, Galbreath v. Sch. Bd. of Broward County, 446 So.2d 1045 (Fla.1984); City of Miami v. Del Rio, 723 So.2d 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), review denied, 733 So.2d 515 (Fla.1999); City of Mi......
-
Tracy v. Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs.
...the statutory duty of fair representation" which is in turn subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of PERA. Galbreath v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cty., 446 So. 2d 1045, 1047 (Fla. 1984) (emphasis added). Plaintiff's claims against the union Defendants amount to an allegation of an unfair labor pr......
-
Paul v. SCHOOL BD. OF MIAMIDADE COUNTY, 3D99-1898.
...SHEVIN and RAMIREZ, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 682.13, Fla. Stat. (1997); Galbreath v. School Bd. of Broward County, 446 So.2d 1045, 1049 (Fla.1984)("where the parties['] collective bargaining agreement reserves to the certified bargaining agent the exclusiv......