School Bd. of Indian River County v. Indian River County Ed. Ass'n, Local 3617, AFT/FEA United, 78-1687
| Decision Date | 25 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1687,78-1687 |
| Citation | 373 So.2d 412 |
| Parties | 102 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2941 SCHOOL BOARD OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, Appellant, v. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 3617, AFT/FEA UNITED, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
G. Kendall Sharp, Vero Beach, for appellant.
Sidney L. Matthew, Tallahassee, for appellee.
R.T. Donelan, Jr., Tallahassee, for Public Employees Relations Commission.
This is an unfair labor practice suit initiated by appellee as the certified bargaining representative for the classroom teachers and related personnel of Indian River County. Pursuant to appellee's charge a complaint was filed alleging that the appellant, School Board of Indian River County, had engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1977) by refusing to bargain collectively. More specifically, the appellant was charged with unilaterally altering the number of periods into which the school day is divided at several county schools. Appellant denied that it had violated the collective bargaining statute or been guilty of any unfair labor practice.
The matter was heard before a Hearing Officer who filed a Recommended Order finding in favor of the appellee. The Public Employees Relations Commission adopted the Hearing Officer's findings of facts, and pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), Florida Statutes (1977), it substituted its own conclusions of law. In the final analysis the Commission concluded the appellant had been guilty of an unfair labor practice and ordered appellant to desist from unilateral attempts to adjust the school schedule.
The parties had previously negotiated a Collective Bargaining Agreement for the 1976-77 and 1977-78 school years. During those negotiations among the various questions bargained was the number of periods in a school day. No agreement was reached and this issue remained unresolved; consequently the contract is silent in that regard. At the time said contract was negotiated the schools in question had seven periods per school day of which five were fifty minute teaching periods, one twenty-five minute supervised study period and one ten minute homeroom period, for a total of 285 minutes. On April 25, 1977, the appellant unilaterally adopted a policy which provides seven periods per school day in the schools in question, six of which are to be forty-seven minute instructional periods with one fifteen minute homeroom period for a total of 287 minutes.
In the order appealed from the Commission held, and appellee of course argues, that the duty of the parties to bargain applies to issues that are not contained in the existing contract. On the other hand, appellant contends that the number of periods in a school day is a decision for the School Board pursuant to its statutory authority enabling it to set standards of service. Section 447.209, Florida Statutes (1977). Appellant concedes the issue was bargainable, but apparently feels that, since no agreement was reached on the particular point, it then became a management determination free of any obligation to bargain further.
It seems to us that appellant's contention is rather clearly answered by one of the Public Relations Commissioners quoted at length with approval in the recent decision of this court in The School Board of Orange County v. Palowitch, 367 So.2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Among other things the Commission stated:
The same policy considerations underlying the prohibition of unilateral changes during negotiations are equally applicable to unilateral changes in subjects not covered by an existing agreement. Terms and conditions not discussed by the parties in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Miami v. F.O.P. Miami Lodge 20
...conditions of employment.' This change falls within the purview of that provision even though it may not be a change of great moment." 373 So.2d at 414 (emphasis We also reject the City's contention that compulsory drug testing should be viewed as a fundamental decision concerning the direc......
-
U.S. v. City of Miami, Fla.
...bargaining on the subject or unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of employment. See School Bd. v. Indian River County Educ. Ass'n Local 3617, 373 So.2d 412 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980); School Bd. v. Palowitch, 367 So.2d 730, 731 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979). Our reading of the Florida public e......
-
Palm Beach Junior College Bd. of Trustees v. United Faculty of Palm Beach Junior College
...must negotiate with the certified bargaining agent prior to changing them; and School Board of Indian River County v. Indian River County Education Association, Local 3617, 373 So.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), holding that management's obligation to bargain extends even to a de minimis change......
-
City of Orlando v. Florida Public Employees Relations Com'n, 82-103
...the bargaining unit and the failure to bargain on such mandatory items is an unfair labor practice. School Board v. Indian River County Education Ass'n, 373 So.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); School Board of Orange County v. Palowitch, 367 So.2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). No definition of the phr......