Local 532 of Am. Federation of State, County, and Municipal Emp., AFL-CIO v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County

• Decision Date: 21 February 1973
• Docket Number: AFL-CIO,No. 72-343,72-343
• Citation: 273 So.2d 441
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: 83 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2254, 70 Lab.Cas. P 52,994 LOCAL 532 OF the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,, a voluntary unincorporated association, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

Page 441

273 So.2d 441

83 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2254, 70 Lab.Cas. P 52,994

LOCAL 532 OF the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, a voluntary unincorporated association, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-343.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 21, 1973.

Thomas A. Capelle, of Hardee, Hamilton, Douglas & Sierra, Tampa, for appellants.

Dean Andrews and Ronald B. Sladon, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

MAGER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment entered against Local 532, et al., plaintiffs below, and in favor of the City of Fort Lauderdale, defendant below. The plaintiff had filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel collective bargaining between the plaintiff-Local 532 and the defendant-City.

From a review of the record in this case we are of the opinion that the controversy between the parties as set forth in the pleadings and as reflected in the testimony is of such a nature as to necessitate the entry of a declaratory decree. Platt v. General Development Corporation, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 48; Sheldon v. Powell, 1930, 99 Fla. 782, 128 So. 258. See also State ex rel. Fraternal Order of Police, Orlando Lodge No. 25, et al. v. City of Orlando, 269 So.2d 402, Fourth District Court of Appeal, opinion filed November 22, 1972.

The final judgment does not dispose of the case on the basis that the cause was not a proper one for declaratory relief; on the contrary, the final judgment undertakes a Disposition of the controversy but then falls short of resolving the questions presented. See Jacksonville Roofing Assoc. v. Local Union No. 435, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 416. In 92 Fla.Jur. Declaratory Actions § 56, it is stated:

'A declaratory judgment must clearly define the rights of the parties which are in controversy, and sufficient evidence must be received, and findings of fact made, to accomplish this. The judgment should not decide matters not presented for decision, but should decide all questions within the pleadings and properly before the court.

'The court's judgment in an action for declaratory relief may be either affirmative or negative in form. If the court finds against the contention of the plaintiff, it will, instead of dismissing the proceeding, render a judgment in favor of the contention of the defendant, consistent with the rights of the parties as determined.'

The trial court, therefore, erred in entering final judgment for the defendant without a declaration of the rights of the parties.

In fashioning an order which will determine the rights of the respective parties the following comments may be helpful. The complaint seeks to have the court declare that Local 532 should be recognized by the City 'as the authorized collective bargaining representative for all those employees of the defendant City who have so designated Local 532'; and to direct the City to enter into collective bargaining discussions with Local 532 with respect to salaries and other terms and conditions of employment. In Dade County Classroom Teachers' Ass'n, Inc. v. Ryan, Fla.1969, 225 So.2d 903, 905, 906, in commenting upon collective bargaining by public employees, under Section 6 of the Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., and F.S. § 839.221(2), F.S.A., the Supreme Court clearly held:

'. . . (T)hat with the exception of the right to strike, public employees have the same rights of collective bargaining as are granted private employees by Section 6.

'. . . A delicate balance must be struck in order that there be no denial of the guaranteed Right of public employees to bargain collectively with public employers without, however, in any way trenching upon the Prohibition against public employees striking either directly or indirectly or using coercive or intimidating tactics in the collective bargaining process.' (Emphasis added.) ¹

The aforementioned constitutional and statutory provisions establish a twofold proposition: the right of public employees to collectively bargain And the prohibition against strikes by public employees. The difficulty, however, lies not in the recognition of this principle but rather in its application. Invariably the factual circumstances are such, as in the instant case, where it sometimes seems impossible to maintain this so-called 'delicate balance'; often times the result does not give the appearance that the delicate balance is being maintained but rather that the scale is being tipped in one direction or another.

Bearing in mind the importance of balancing these propositions within the contemplation of the constitution and statutes we make the following observations. Where an organization asserts the right to strike governmental bodies should not be compelled to recognize such organization as the bargaining organization for public employees. The guaranteed right of public employees to become members of labor organizations or to bargain collectively through such organizations does not mandate a governmental body to recognize such organization if the right to strike is a concomitant of such organization's existence. Public employees are prohibited from striking and prohibited from becoming members of organizations Asserting a right to strike; to compel governmental bodies to recognize organizations asserting a right to strike would disregard the spirit and letter of the law and would lead to an intolerable situation.

This observation is, we feel, consistent with the following language in Section 839.221(2): 'All employees Who comply with the provisions of this section . . . shall have the right to present proposals relative to salaries and other conditions of employment through representatives of their own choosing. . . .' An employee who participates in a strike or is a member of an organization which asserts a right to strike is not in compliance with Section 839.221; consequently, such employee, whether individually or through a labor organization, does not have the right to present proposals relative to salaries and conditions, i.e., collectively bargain, nor does such employee have the...