United Teachers of Dade FEA/United, AFT, Local 1974, AFL-CIO v. Dade County School Bd., AFL-CIO

• Decision Date: 03 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. BG-39,AFL-CIO,BG-39
• Citation: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1656,472 So.2d 1269
• Parties: 26 Ed. Law Rep. 919, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1656 The UNITED TEACHERS OF DADE FEA/UNITED, AFT, LOCAL 1974,, et al., Appellants, v. DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; Superintendent Leonard Britton; and the State Board of Education of the State of Florida, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1269

472 So.2d 1269

26 Ed. Law Rep. 919, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1656

The UNITED TEACHERS OF DADE FEA/UNITED, AFT, LOCAL 1974, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants, v.DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; SuperintendentLeonard Britton; and the State Board of Education of the State of Florida, Appellees.

No. BG-39.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

July 3, 1985.

Elizabeth J. Du Fresne of Du Fresne and Bradley, Miami, and Thomas Young, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Frank A. Howard, Jr., and Gerald A. Williams of Haygood and Williams, Miami, for appelleeDade County School Bd.; Judith A. Brechner, General Counsel, and Leonard A. Carson and Richard T. Donelan, Jr. of Carson and Linn, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellee State Bd. of Educ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal seeks review of the judgment of the trial court holding that sections 231.533and231.534, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984)andrule 6A-4.46, Florida Administrative Code do not contravene article I, section 6, Florida Constitution.The decision of the trial court follows:

Plaintiff, a labor organization representing instructional and other personnel employed by the District School Board of Dade County, Florida, seeks a judicial declaration that Secs. 231.533and231.534andRule 6 A-4.46 of the Florida Administrative Code on their face contravene Article I, Sec. 6 of the Florida Constitution.At the hearing held on Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the parties represented that the constitutional issue raised in the complaint and answer was purely a matter of law and ripe for determination without the taking of testimony.Being of similar mind, the Court concludes that a judicial declaration in the premises is appropriate and that Plaintiff has stated an entitlement to such a declaration albeit, one that may not be to its liking.

The challenged statutory sections and the implementing rule speak to what has come to be known as the Master Teacher Program.Simply stated, this program would confer a three-thousand dollar grant/award on selected superior teachers who voluntarily satisfy certain statutory criteria.This amount is payable directly from the State Comptroller to the teacher twice each year in increments of fifteen-hundred dollars.Plaintiff asserts that such a program, bypassing as it does the collective bargaining process guaranteed public employees under Article I, Sec. 6 of the Florida Constitution and implemented under the provisions of Chapter 447, F.S., amounts to an abridgment of the right of those employees to bargain collectively.

The Master Teacher Program was enacted by the Legislature for the stated purpose of recognizing "superior ability among Florida's instructional personnel and to provide an economic incentive to such personnel to continue in public school instruction."Sec. 231.533, F.S. Subsection (5) of that section mandated the adoption by the State Board of Education of the implementing rule challenged in this litigation.

There can be little doubt that the Florida Legislature has the predominant role in Florida's scheme of public education.It must make "adequate provision by law"--"as the needs of the people may require" and appropriate funds for the "support and maintenance of free public schools."Article IX, Secs. 1and6.Statewide supervisory authority over public education by the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the State Board of Education is provided for in Sec. 2 of Article IX.Finally, local control over Florida's public schools is constitutionally reposed into several district school boards.Article IX, Sec. 4.

It is axiomatic that the Legislature and the State Board of Education, the latter acting at the direction of the former, subject only to constitutional limitation, have the constitutionally mandated authority, indeed the responsibility, to unilaterally establish, in the public interest, uniform statewide standards of quality for Florida's public school system.Thus, it is that Article I, Sec. 6 must co-exist with Article IX and all other constitutional provisions.All must be given affect [sic] to the extent possible under the doctrine of separation of powers.

Turning to the limited constitutional issue raised here, it seems clear that the Master Teacher Plan does not abridge the right of public employees to bargain collectively.

Plaintiff argues that a voluntary grant/award program of the type contemplated here is, regardless of its...