OSCAL ROUSSEAU
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY

Fla. 3d DCA | 2021-06-16
No. 21-0057
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2021) Positive Treatment

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.


Holding

An employee bound by a collective bargaining agreement must exhaust the contractual grievance procedure before pursuing a breach of contract claim in court.


Headnotes

[1] A party bound by a collective bargaining agreement must exhaust administrative remedies provided by the agreement before resorting to litigation.

[2] Disputes involving the interpretation or application of a collective bargaining agreement are generally subject to the agreement's grievance and arbitration procedures.

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“No principle is more firmly established than the requirement that, before resorting to the courts, one must pursue and exhaust any extrajudicial or administrative remedy which may provide the relief sought.”

Opening statement of the court's reasoning regarding exhaustion of remedies.

Facts & Procedural History

Oscal Rousseau, an employee of Miami-Dade County bound by a collective bargaining agreement with the American Federation of State, County and Municipa…

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.


Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 16, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-0057 Lower Tribunal Nos. 19-224AP, 17-16088CC

________________

Oscal Rousseau,

Appellant,

vs.

Miami-Dade County,

Appellee.

An appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Gina Beovides, Judge. Torricella Law PLLC, and Maurice J. Baumgarten, for appellant. Geraldine Bonzon-Keenan, Miami-Dade County Attorney, and Leona N. McFarlane, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. MILLER, J. Appellant, Oscal Rousseau, challenges an order dismissing his breach of contract lawsuit against appellee, his employer, Miami-Dade County, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “No principle is more firmly established than the requirement that, before resorting to the courts, one must pursue and exhaust any extrajudicial or administrative remedy which may provide the relief sought.” City of Miami v. Fraternal Ord. of Police Lodge No. 20 of City of Miami, 378 So. 2d 20, 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (citations omitted). Here, bound by the expansive terms of a collective bargaining agreement between the County and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, General Employees, Local 199, Rousseau, before resorting to the courts, was first required to attempt and exhibit “use of the contract grievance procedure agreed upon by employer and union as the mode of redress.” Miami Ass’n of Firefighters Local 587 v. City of Miami,

Footnotes
87 So. 3d 93, 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citation omitted); see Roberts v. Miami- Dade Cnty., 249 So. 3d 1309, 1311 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“It is a well settled princip[le] that a party, when bound by a collective bargaining agreement, must exhaust any administrative remedy prior to litigating in court.”) (quoting Public Health Tr. v. Hernandez, 751 So. 2d 124, 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)); Deshazior v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 217 So. 3d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding “the trial court properly determined that [the County employee’s] claim was barred by his failure to timely initiate the grievance process as mandated by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, and his failure to exhaust that administrative remedy”) (citation omitted); Koenig v. Tyler, 360 So. 2d 104, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (“[T]he applicable law is clear that plaintiffs, having designated the Union to be their agent for collective bargaining purposes, are bound by agreements made by the Union on their behalf. To hold otherwise would make a shambles of all labor negotiations and would be a refutation of long experience in that field.”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the decision under review. Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw