STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appealed a trial court order confirming an arbitrator's decision in a labor dispute with a police union. The court reversed, holding that the dispute involved a unilateral change in employment terms—within PERC's exclusive jurisdiction—rather than interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, and therefore could not be arbitrated without PERC's prior determination.
The dispute does not involve interpretation or application of specific collective bargaining agreement provisions but rather concerns a unilateral change in employment terms, placing it within PERC's exclusive jurisdiction. A party may not bypass PERC and proceed directly to arbitration; only PERC has the authority to determine whether to defer to arbitration.
[1] Disputes involving unilateral changes in terms or conditions of employment fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC).
[2] A party may not bypass the Public Employees Relations Commission's (PERC) jurisdiction and proceed directly to arbitration.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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.”
Establishes that unilateral changes in employment terms are within PERC's exclusive jurisdiction, not arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state and the International Union of Police Associations had a collective bargaining agreement providing for arbitration of 'grievances,' defined …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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 final 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Hollywood v. Perrin (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…or practices.’” Id. (quoting § 447.503, Fla. Stat. (2009)). If a subject matter falls within PERC’s exclusive jurisdiction, “[a] party may not bypass PERC’s jurisdiction and proceed directly to arbitration.” State v. Int’l Union of Police Ass’ns, 927 So. 2d 946, 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). “Case law interpreting the jurisdictional scope of [PERA] has broadly included, as falling within PERC’s exclusive jurisdiction, those activities which ‘arguably’ constitute unfair labor practices as defined by section 447…
Authorities Cited
- Commc'ns Workers OF Am. & Local 3180 CWA v. Indian River Cnty. Sch. Bd., 888 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- City OF Miami v. Fraternal Order OF Police, 511 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1987)