1. Erin G. Jackson Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A. ejackson@tsghlaw.com

2.  Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of rights under Ch. 447  Encouraging or discouraging membership in any employee organization by discrimination  Refusing to bargain collectively, failing to bargain collectively in good faith, or refusing to sign a final agreement  Discharging or discriminating against public employee for filing charges or giving testimony  Dominating, interfering with, or assisting in the formation, existence, or administration of a union, or contributing financial support  Refusing to discuss grievances in good faith with union or employee

3.  Interfering with, restraining, or coercing either public employees in exercise of rights or managerial employees in performance of duties  Discrimination against employee because of membership or non-membership in Union  Refusing to bargain collectively or failing to bargain in good faith  Discriminating against employee because of affidavit, petition, complaint, or testimony  Participating, instigating, or supporting a strike (penalties)  Instigating or advocating support for Union from students

4.  Duty to Bargain in Good Faith (employer or union)  Unlawful unilateral change (employer)  Refusal to discuss grievances (employer or union)  Denial of representation (union)  Employee must raise  Breach of duty of fair representation (union)  Employee must raise

5. OVERVIEW OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEDURE

7. HOT TOPICS

8. Issue: Can you change or introduce new proposals at impasse?

9.  Port Orange Professional Fire Fighters Association, IAFF, Local 3118 v. City of Port Orange, 37 FPER 99 (2011), aff’d per curiam, 86 So.3d 1121 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2012)  PERC ruled that reduction in pay was not a ULP because the parties are allowed to change their positions at any point during impasse provided that the amended proposals do not touch on a topic that was not previously negotiated at the table

10.  Issue: Is refusal to ratify a ULP?

11.  International Union of Police Associations v. Sheriff of Lee County, 41 FPER 342 (2015) Facts: The Union and employer bargained for 6 months. The parties reached a tentative agreement but failed to reach a final agreement. The employer refused to sign the tentative agreement and refused to send the agreement to ratification vote. Union’s Position: The employer committed ULP because the employer bargained in bad faith. Employer’s Position: The employer did not commit ULP because it was attempting to maintain consistency with its policies and tentative CBA.

12.  International Union of Police Associations v. Sheriff of Lee County, 41 FPER 342 (2015) Issue: Did the employer engage in ULP when it refused to sign the parties’ tentative agreement or send the agreement to ratification vote? Recommendation: Yes. However, the employer did not engage in ULP by maintaining a “hard bargaining” position.

13.  City of Port Orange v. Port Orange Professional Fire Fighters Association, IAFF, Local 3118, 38 FPER 244 (2011) The City filed a ULP alleging that it was unlawful for the Union to refuse to sign and submit an agreement reached through impasse process PERC: The purpose of Section 447.403(4)(e), Florida Statutes, is to bring collective bargaining to an end at a point certain. PERC held that the refusal to submit for ratification was unlawful.

14.  Daytona Beach Fire Rescue Local 1162, IAFF v. City of Daytona Beach, 39 FPER 28 (2012), aff’d per curiam, 121 So.3d 1058 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2013)  PERC held that a ratification vote is not a condition precedent to imposition of legislatively resolved impasse issues

15.  International Union of Police Associations v. City of Groveland, 41 FPER 350 (2015) Facts: The police detective received satisfactory performance ratings before becoming involved in Union activities. She was elected Union president. On the same day, the employer opened an administrative investigation into her activities. The employer terminated the detective for alleged deficient investigations, insubordination and union solicitation. Union’s Position: The employer engaged in ULP because the employer dismissed the detective based on her Union activities. Employer’s Position: The employer did not engage in ULP because the detective was dismissed for poor performance.

16.  International Union of Police Associations v. City of Groveland, 41 FPER 350 (2015) Issue: Did the City engage in ULP when it terminated a police detective when she became union president? Recommendation: Yes. The detective received satisfactory performance ratings before her union involvement. The City began investigating her alleged job deficiencies on the day she became union president.

17.  Orange County Classroom Teachers Ass’n, Inc. v. School District of Orange County, 40 FPER 323 (2014) Facts: The CBA provided that in-service training for a non- duty day would be compensated at $50 per day. The employer made online professional development modules available during the summer and intended to pay teachers $50 per day. Union’s Position: The employer engaged in ULP because the employer was required to provide the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain. Employer’s Position: The employer did not engage in ULP because it was following the terms of the CBA.

18.  Orange County Classroom Teachers Ass’n, Inc. v. School District of Orange County, 40 FPER 323 (2014) Issue: Did the school district commit ULP when it decided to pay teachers who took professional development courses over the summer $50 per day without giving the union notice and an opportunity to bargain? Recommendation: No. No ULP. This action comported with the existing terms of the CBA.

19.  Marion Education Association v. School District of Marion County, 40 FPER 177 (2013) Facts: The school hired “substitute teachers” to replace 19 vacant teaching positions. The school did not recognize them as covered by the CBA and paid them half as much as entry-level teachers. Union’s Position: The school engaged in ULP because the “substitute teachers” were indistinguishable from the teachers they replaced. Employer’s Position: The school did not engage in ULP because the “substitute teachers” were not covered by the CBA.

20.  Marion Education Association v. School District of Marion County, 40 FPER 177 (2013) Issue: Did the school district commit ULP when it hired substitute teachers, failed to recognize them as covered under the CBA and paid them approximately half of the amount paid to entry-level teachers? Recommendation: Yes. The substitute teachers performed all of the duties and responsibilities of the teachers they replaced.

21.  Levy County Education Ass’n v. School District of Levy County, 38 FPER 336 (2012) Issue: Did the school district engage in ULP in failing to bargain in good faith when it took the position that it did not want to include certain mandatory subjects of bargaining in the CBA? Ruling: No. The Union did not demonstrate a prima facie case of bad faith bargaining, premature declaration of impasse or direct dealing.

22.  United Teachers of Monroe, Local 3709 v. School District of Monroe County, 38 FPER 288 (2012) Facts: The school sought to modify the CBA due to budget constraints. After several meetings, the parties finalized two letters of understanding (LOU). After notice that the LOUs may violate the Sunshine Laws, the school refused to recognize them. Union’s Position: Rejecting the LOUs that were agreed upon was ULP. Employer’s Position: The school did not engage in ULP because of the potential Sunshine Law violations.

23.  United Teachers of Monroe, Local 3709 v. School District of Monroe County, 38 FPER 288 (2012) Issue: Did the school district engage in ULP by rejecting letters of understanding, which it had negotiated with the Union, after receiving notice of potential Sunshine Act violations? Recommendation: Under the circumstances, there was no ULP and the school district fulfilled its duty to bargain in good faith.

24.  Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Ass’n, Inc. v. School District of Palm Beach County, No. CA-2011-014, 2011 WL 2275546 (2011) Facts: The CBA provided that the school could refuse to recognize prior years of service when rehiring retired teachers. For years, the school considered prior years of service in compensating rehired retired teachers. The school decided to discontinue this practice and revert back to what was permitted under the CBA. Union’s Position: The school was required to engage in bargaining before making this change. Employer’s Position: The school was not required to engage in bargaining because it was permissible under the CBA.

25.  Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Ass’n, Inc. v. School District of Palm Beach County, No. CA-2011-014, 2011 WL 2275546 (2011) Issue: Did the school district engage in ULP when it unilaterally changed its past practice and reverted back to contractual language allowing it to pay rehired retired teachers without consideration of prior years of service? Ruling: No. The employer did not alter a mandatory subject of bargaining.

26. Erin G. Jackson Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A. Tampa, Florida ejackson@tsghlaw.com