School Bd. of Orange County v. Palowitch

• Decision Date: 21 February 1979
• Docket Number: No. 77-2469,77-2469
• Citation: 367 So.2d 730
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: 109 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2137 The SCHOOL BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY, Florida, Petitioner, v. John PALOWITCH, Orange County Classroom Teachers Association, and the Public Employees Relations Commission, Respondents.

Page 730

367 So.2d 730

109 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2137

The SCHOOL BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY, Florida, Petitioner, v. John PALOWITCH, Orange County Classroom Teachers Association, and the Public Employees Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 77-2469.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 21, 1979.

John W. Bowen of Rowland, Petruska & Bowen, Orlando, for petitioner.

Mark F. Kelly and Richard H. Frank of Law Offices of Richard H. Frank, P. A., Tampa, for respondents, John Palowitch and Orange County Classroom Teachers Association.

Thomas W. Brooks, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Public Employees Relations Commission, Tallahassee, for respondent PERC.

Peter J. Hurtgen, Miami, and R. Theodore Clark, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for amicus curiae Florida Public Employer Labor Relations Association.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This case involves a ruling by the Public Employees Relations Commission (P.E.R.C.) that the appellant violated Section 447.501(1)(c) Florida Statutes (1977) and thus committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain collectively. We agree with the order of P.E.R.C. and deny certiorari.

John Palowitch is a teacher and is represented by the Orange County Classroom Teachers Association which is the duly certified bargaining representative for Palowitch and his colleagues. The appellant decided it would institute a quinmester system which is a year-round school period instead of the former two semester plus summer school system. When this decision was made another was made to change Palowitch and others from twelve month contract status to ten month contract status. The commission, P.E.R.C., found "such change in contract status carried with it changes in the number of total work days, changes in compensation and changes in leave and holiday benefits." It also quite properly reasoned "whether these changes are viewed as beneficial or detrimental is irrelevant to the determination Vel non (sic) of whether there was a unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment. A unilateral increase in benefits could foreseeably do more to undermine the bargaining representative's status than would a decrease." As to this last sentence it is quite important that the bargaining representative maintain the confidence and respect of its members in order to adequately represent them. If it is best to have bargaining representatives then they should be as effective as possible to promote the good of the membership. It has been determined best for both the employers and the employees for the employees to have bargaining representatives, also known as unions, guilds, labor organizations and other similar names. This is so as to the employer so that he is faced with one party representing all of a group instead of all members of the group clamoring around negotiating individual contracts which contracts can be quite detailed and complex.

When the decision to change the conditions of Palowitch's employment was made Palowitch was under contract and the appellant was negotiating with the bargaining representative for the next contract. Under Section 447.309(1), Florida Statutes (1977) it is required that "After an employee organization has been certified pursuant to the provisions of this part, the bargaining agent for the organization and the chief executive officer of the appropriate public employer or employers, jointly, shall bargain collectively in the determination of the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of the public employees within the bargaining unit." We agree with the determination of P.E.R.C. that ". . . unilateral action taken by an employer to change the length of the work year is a Per se violation of the duty to bargain collectively." Like the commission we do not question petitioner's authority to change from a semester to a quinmester system nor do we question the right of the employer to ultimately change the length of the service of various employees during the year. Section 447.209, Florida Statutes (1977). We do not agree with the petitioner's position that the right of ultimate decision making instills the right of unilateral action without bargaining because to hold that would effectively gut the life of the...