My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/20/2015 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2015
>
03/20/2015 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/16/2018 4:21:34 PM
Creation date
7/29/2015 12:01:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
293
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
"The special magistrate shall hold hearings in order to define the area or <br />areas of dispute, to determine facts relating to the dispute, and to render a <br />decision on any and all unresolved contract issues." <br />Here, pursuant to Section 447.403(3), the Special Magistrate held a hearing to, <br />among other things, define the areas of dispute. And, considering the parties' <br />evidence and legal arguments, the Special Magistrate determined that Local <br />2201's union business bank proposal was not an issue that was properly before <br />him. As such, the Special Magistrate determined that he could not legally make a <br />recommendation regarding Local 2201's proposed union business bank. <br />Under the law, the BCC is not allowed to consider and/or take action on any issue <br />on which the Special Magistrate has not made a recommendation. In fact, the <br />BCC would commit an unfair labor practice in violation of the Florida Public <br />Employees Relations Act if it considered and/or took action on Local 2201's <br />proposed union business bank. As PERC explained in Communications Workers <br />of America, Local 3170 v. City of Gainesville, 20 FPER ¶25226 (1994), "a <br />recommendation as to the resolution of the disputed issues by a neutral third <br />party" is a "critical element of the impasse process," and is a "statutory <br />requirement" for the legislative body to take action. Going one step further, <br />PERC concluded that even if the special magistrate did not issue a <br />recommendation due to misunderstanding, as Local 2201 argues in this case, "the <br />debilitating impact upon the impasse process remains the same." <br />For these reasons, the BCC cannot, and should not, consider and/or take any <br />action regarding Article 6 — Union Activity. <br />2. ARTICLE 14 — UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT <br />Issue• <br />The only paragraphs of this Article that remain in dispute are ¶¶14.01 and 14.02. <br />Paragraph 14.01 currently contains a list of uniform items and equipment that the <br />County is required to provide to the bargaining unit employees. It also states that <br />in addition to the enumerated equipment (i.e., "protective clothing and devices; <br />bunker coat and bunker pants made of Nomex or similar material, boots, helmets, <br />shatter -resistant face shield, gloves, safety glasses for welding and metal cutting") <br />the County shall provide other safety equipment "deemed necessary by <br />management." The County is proposing to change the language of 1114.01 due to <br />the insistence by bargaining unit employees that the language of that paragraph <br />entitled them to a new complement of uniforms and equipment every year, instead <br />of replacing them only when they are worn out or damaged. Local 2201 proposes <br />that ¶14.01 remain status quo with the exception of deleting management's right <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.