Walter E. Headley, Jr. v. City of Miami, Florida
2017 WL 819740, 215 So. 3d 1, 42 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 236 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a public employer declares a financial urgency under Florida Statute § 447.4095 to modify a collective bargaining agreement, it must demonstrate that funds are unavailable from no other possible reasonable source and must complete the full statutory impasse resolution process before implementing any unilateral changes.
Facts:
- Miami Lodge No. 20, Fraternal Order of Police (the Union) and the City of Miami (the City) had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) covering police officers from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2010.
- On July 28, 2010, the City declared a "financial urgency" under Florida Statute § 447.4095, notifying the Union of its intent to implement changes regarding wages, pension benefits, and other economic terms of employment.
- On August 31, 2010, the City's legislative body voted to unilaterally alter the terms of the CBA, imposing wage reductions, eliminating education pay, converting supplemental pay, freezing step and longevity pay, and modifying retirement and pension benefit formulas.
- The City presented evidence that its budget faced a $140 million deficit for the 2010/2011 fiscal year, had already implemented hiring freezes and layoffs, and that labor costs comprised 80% of its expenses, making it unable to provide essential services without additional action.
- The Union suggested alternative measures such as raising the millage tax rate or imposing non-union employee layoffs, but the City deemed these inadequate to address the shortfall or believed they would increase long-term financial obligations.
Procedural Posture:
- The Union filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), arguing the City improperly invoked the statute and unilaterally changed the CBA before completing the impasse resolution process.
- A PERC hearing officer issued an order recommending dismissal of the Union's ULP charge, finding the statute was properly invoked and impasse procedures were not required before implementing changes.
- PERC issued a final order dismissing the ULP charge, defining 'financial urgency' and interpreting section 447.4095 not to require completing impasse procedures before implementing changes.
- The First District Court of Appeal affirmed PERC’s final order, finding no error in its interpretation or application of section 447.4095.
- The Union (Petitioner) sought review from the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the First District's decision expressly and directly conflicted with a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
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 Florida Statute § 447.4095 allow a public employer to unilaterally modify a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) due to a financial urgency without demonstrating that no other reasonable funding alternatives exist, or without first completing the statutory impasse resolution process?
Opinions:
Majority - Quince, J.
No, a public employer cannot unilaterally modify a collective bargaining agreement due to a financial urgency without demonstrating that no other reasonable funding alternatives exist, and it must complete the full statutory impasse resolution process. The Court held that section 447.4095 codifies the strict scrutiny standard from Chiles v. United Faculty of Florida, requiring the employer to show a dire financial condition (compelling state interest) and that modification is 'required' because funds are available from 'no other possible reasonable source.' The First District erred by lowering this standard for the constitutional rights of collective bargaining and contract. Furthermore, the statute's plain language dictates that if negotiations fail after a financial urgency, the parties 'shall then proceed pursuant to the provisions of s. 447.403,' referring to the comprehensive impasse resolution process. The term 'negotiate the impact' does not allow for unilateral implementation of changes before this process concludes, as the alterations directly modify the agreement itself, not just its impact. To allow earlier changes would violate the principle that legislative direction on how to do something implies it cannot be done another way (expressio unius, est exclusion alterius).
Concurring - Polston, J.
I agree with the majority's conclusion that a local government, once it has declared a financial urgency, does not have the ability to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement before completing the procedures required by the Legislature in sections 447.4095 and 447.403, Florida Statutes. I would decide this on the plain requirements of the statutory provisions rather than any constitutional grounds.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the constitutional protections for collective bargaining agreements and the rights of public employee unions in Florida. It establishes a high bar for public employers seeking to unilaterally modify existing CBAs due to financial hardship, requiring them to exhaust all other reasonable funding alternatives and strictly adhere to the statutory impasse resolution process. This ruling reinforces the stability of public sector contracts and ensures that any government-imposed changes are only made after a thorough, statutorily prescribed negotiation and review process, limiting arbitrary governmental action.
