State v. International Union of Police Associations

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. International Union of Police Associations

927 So. 2d 946, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3500, 2006 WL 617802

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 2006

DocketNo. 1D05-2353

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 927 So. 2d 946 (State v. International Union of Police Associations) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. International Union of Police Associations, 927 So. 2d 946, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3500, 2006 WL 617802 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state seeks review of a final order confirming an arbitrator’s decision, over the state’s objections, in a labor dispute. The state raises three issues, only one of which we find necessary to address. Because we conclude that the proper forum for resolution of the dispute was the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) rather than an arbitrator, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court set aside its final order confirming the arbitrator’s decision and enter an amended [947]*947final order granting the state’s application to vacate that decision.

The collective bargaining agreement between the parties provides for resolution by arbitration of “grievances.” The term “grievance” is defined in that agreement as “a dispute involving the interpretation or application of the specific provisions of th[e] agreement.” From the outset, the state has argued, we believe correctly, that the dispute does not involve the interpretation or application of any specific provision of the collective bargaining agreement. We agree with the state that, if anything, the dispute involves whether a unilateral change in a term or condition of employment has occurred. As such, the dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of PERC pursuant to the provisions of chapter 447, Florida Statutes. See Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. Indian River County Sch. Bd., 888 So.2d 96, 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that, because the union’s complaint was arguably covered by chapter 447, absent deferral by PERC, it was subject to PERC’s exclusive jurisdiction). While PERC may have the power to defer to arbitration, only it may make that determination. Id. See also City of Miami v. Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, 511 So.2d 549 (Fla.1987). A party may not bypass PERC’s jurisdiction and proceed directly to arbitration. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 888 So.2d at 101. Because this is precisely what appellee did here, we are constrained to reverse and remand with directions that the trial court set aside its final order confirming the arbitrator’s decision and enter an amended final order granting the state’s application to vacate that decision. Our resolution of this issue renders it unnecessary for us to address the state’s remaining two issues relating to alleged improprieties on the part of the arbitrator.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

BARFIELD, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The state seeks review of a final order confirming an arbitrator’s decision, over the state’s objections, in a labor dispute. The state raises three issues, only one of which we find necessary to address. Because we conclude that the proper forum for resolution of the dispute was the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) rather than an arbitrator, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court set aside its final order confirming the arbitrator’s decision and enter an amended [947]*947final order granting the state’s application to vacate that decision.

The collective bargaining agreement between the parties provides for resolution by arbitration of “grievances.” The term “grievance” is defined in that agreement as “a dispute involving the interpretation or application of the specific provisions of th[e] agreement.” From the outset, the state has argued, we believe correctly, that the dispute does not involve the interpretation or application of any specific provision of the collective bargaining agreement. We agree with the state that, if anything, the dispute involves whether a unilateral change in a term or condition of employment has occurred. As such, the dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of PERC pursuant to the provisions of chapter 447, Florida Statutes. See Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. Indian River County Sch. Bd., 888 So.2d 96, 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that, because the union’s complaint was arguably covered by chapter 447, absent deferral by PERC, it was subject to PERC’s exclusive jurisdiction). While PERC may have the power to defer to arbitration, only it may make that determination. Id. See also City of Miami v. Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, 511 So.2d 549 (Fla.1987). A party may not bypass PERC’s jurisdiction and proceed directly to arbitration. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 888 So.2d at 101. Because this is precisely what appellee did here, we are constrained to reverse and remand with directions that the trial court set aside its final order confirming the arbitrator’s decision and enter an amended final order granting the state’s application to vacate that decision. Our resolution of this issue renders it unnecessary for us to address the state’s remaining two issues relating to alleged improprieties on the part of the arbitrator.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

BARFIELD, WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

927 So. 2d 946, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3500, 2006 WL 617802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-international-union-of-police-associations-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack