Hillsborough Cty. Gea v. Hillsborough Cty. Aviation Auth.
522 So. 2d 358 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public employer must implement provisions of a ratified collective bargaining agreement concerning wages, hours, or terms of employment, even if they conflict with civil service board rules. Granting a civil service board veto power over such an agreement, as applied through section 447.309(3), Florida Statutes, unconstitutionally abridges public employees' fundamental right to bargain collectively under Article I, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution.
Facts:
- The Hillsborough County Governmental Employees Association (GEA) and Police Benevolent Association (PBA) collectively bargained with the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority (Authority).
- The parties reached a collective bargaining agreement that was ratified by the employees.
- The agreement contained provisions on personal holidays, funeral leave, and seniority that were inconsistent with existing rules of the Hillsborough County Civil Service Board (Board).
- The Authority requested that the Board amend its rules to align with the terms of the newly ratified agreement.
- The Board refused to amend its rules to conform to the agreement's provisions.
- As a result of the Board's refusal, the Authority notified its employees that it would not implement the conflicting provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- The PBA and GEA filed unfair labor practice charges against the Authority with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC).
- PERC issued an order finding that the Authority had committed an unfair labor practice.
- The Authority and the Board appealed PERC's decision to the Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed PERC's order, holding that the Authority could not have committed an unfair labor practice by following existing law.
- The Second District Court of Appeal then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a civil service board's authority under section 447.309(3), Florida Statutes, to refuse to amend its rules to conform with a ratified collective bargaining agreement unconstitutionally abridge the public employees' right to bargain collectively guaranteed by Article I, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Kogan, J.
Yes, the statute as applied unconstitutionally abridges the fundamental right of public employees to bargain collectively. The right to collectively bargain, guaranteed by Article I, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution, is a fundamental right that extends to public employees. Allowing a civil service board absolute veto power over provisions of a negotiated and ratified agreement renders that agreement a nullity and violates the right to effective collective bargaining. Any state action infringing upon this fundamental right must survive strict scrutiny, which requires a compelling state interest. The Board's asserted interests in maintaining uniformity and equal pay for equal work are not sufficiently compelling to justify the abridgement of this constitutional right. The court's holding is limited to conflicts between collective bargaining agreements and civil service rules, not statutes or ordinances.
Dissenting - Overton, J.
No, the statute is constitutional as applied and should be upheld. The majority's decision effectively eliminates civil service systems, which are expressly authorized by Article III, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution. The constitutional provisions for collective bargaining and civil service systems should be construed together to protect public employees, not to make one superior to the other. The purpose of civil service is to maintain a uniform personnel system and protect employees from political cronyism. This ruling undermines that purpose and will lead to disparity and animosity among different employee groups within the same government. Section 447.309(3) is a rational legislative act designed to ensure uniform treatment of public employees.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the supremacy of public employees' constitutional right to effective collective bargaining over the administrative rulemaking authority of local civil service boards in Florida. By applying a strict scrutiny standard, the court significantly strengthened the power of public employee unions, ensuring that their negotiated agreements cannot be unilaterally undone by a non-negotiating third-party board. This precedent solidifies the principle that a ratified collective bargaining agreement is legally binding and enforceable, even against conflicting board rules, thereby giving true force to the bargaining process. The decision carves out an important distinction, upholding the legislature's power to limit bargaining via statutes or ordinances while prohibiting the delegation of such veto power to an administrative body.
