03/20/2015 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II. RECOMMENDATIONS ON ARTICLES REMAINING AT IMPASSE 1. ARTICLE 6 — UNION ACTIVITY Issue: As of the declaration of impasse in this matter, the only substantive changes to Article 6 that either party was proposing was the addition of the following language to Paragraph 6.4: "The three members of the Union's Negotiations Team who were allowed time off with pay shall return to duty immediately upon the conclusion of all bargaining meetings." [See Exhibit E hereto; Local 2201 5/24/14 Proposal.] While the parties had identical proposals on the table at the time impasse was declared, Local 2201 refused to sign off on the language it was proposing. As such, the County included Article 6 in its list of Articles at impasse with the understanding that only the above -referenced language of Paragraph 6.4 was properly at issue. At the Special Magistrate hearing, for the first time during more than a year of negotiations, Local 2201 presented an entire re -write of Article 6, which included a never -before presented union business bank. As it is well established under the law that a party cannot raise for the first time at a Special Magistrate hearing a matter that has not been previously negotiated at the bargaining table — Port Orange Professional Fire Fighters Association v. City of Port Orange, 37 FPER 1199 (2011) — the County argued both at the hearing and in its post -hearing brief that Local 2201's new union business bank proposal could not be considered by the Special Magistrate. Special Magistrate's Recommendation: The Special Magistrate agreed with the County, ruling that "[given] the absence of the Union's [business bank] proposal, prior to declaration of the impasse, [the proposal] should be excluded from the Special Magistrate process (i.e., City of Port Orange vs. IAFF, 37 FPER 99)." [Exhibit B, p. 3.] Moreover, the Special Magistrate concluded that, "The fact that Article 6 was not at issue when the impasse was declared, precludes the Special Master from making a recommendation relative to the merits of this issue." County Administrator's Recommendation: Local 2201 has rejected the Special Magistrate's conclusion, and seeks to have the BCC adopt its union business bank proposal. The County opposes this as the BCC cannot legally consider Local 2201's union business bank proposal. In this regard, Section 447.403(3), Florida Statutes, states: 3