Impasse Timeline - 3/14/17

Share This

Impasse declared in negotiations November 8, 2016

Parties notify PERC that there is an impasse- November 14, 2016 (SM16027)

November 15, 2016 received the list of seven potential Special Magistrates -If the parties do not jointly request the appointment of a specific individual, the Chairman or his designated agent shall furnish the names and biographies of seven individuals listed on the Special Magistrate Roster. Received list of Special Magistrates

December 6, 2016 the parties agree to select from the list Robert Hoffman as the Special Magistrate and notify PERC of the selection -Within 20 days after the date of the letter transmitting the list of choices, each party shall notify the Chairman in writing of its rejection of three choices or its preference for one choice.

December 9, 2016 the parties agreed to select January 25, 2017 as the date for the Special Magistrate Hearing before Mr. Hoffman -Upon appointment by the Commission, through the Chairman, the special magistrate shall set, and notify all parties of, the time and place of the hearing(s). Special Magistrate Hoffman offered two dates, January 23 or January 25.

December 16, 2016 - Within ten (10) days after the date of appointment of a special magistrate, each party shall serve upon the special magistrate a written list of issues at impasse, simultaneously serving a copy of the list upon each other party. MEA provided a list of issues to Special Magistrate Hoffman on December 16th.  We have not yet received the District list of issues.

January 11, 2017 – The Special Magistrate requested that the parties provide responses to his requests for background information either individual parties or as a Joint Stipulation.  The District declined MEA’s request to submit the Joint Stipulation.  Both parties submitted separate responses on January 11, 2017.

January 25, 2017 in the MCSB Board Meeting Room - Special Magistrate Hearing

Florida Statutes Section 447.405 Factors to be considered by the special magistrate.—The special magistrate shall conduct the hearings and render recommended decisions with the objective of achieving a prompt, peaceful, and just settlement of disputes between the public employee organizations and the public employers. The factors, among others, to be given weight by the special magistrate in arriving at a recommended decision shall include:

(1) Comparison of the annual income of employment of the public employees in question with the annual income of employment maintained for the same or similar work of employees exhibiting like or similar skills under the same or similar working conditions in the local operating area involved.

(2) Comparison of the annual income of employment of the public employees in question with the annual income of employment of public employees in similar public employee governmental bodies of comparable size within the state.

(3) The interest and welfare of the public.

(4) Comparison of peculiarities of employment in regard to other trades or professions, specifically with respect to:

(a) Hazards of employment.

(b) Physical qualifications.

(c) Educational qualifications.

(d) Intellectual qualifications.

(e) Job training and skills.

(f) Retirement plans.

(g) Sick leave.

(h) Job security.

(i) Availability of funds.

Briefs were filed by both parties on February 17, 2017 and the Special Magistrate transmitted his recommendations to the parties on February 22, 2017.  This was within the requirements of law.  Within fifteen (15) calendar days after the close of the hearing(s), the special magistrate shall transmit his recommended decision to the Commission and to representatives of both parties, by registered mail, return receipt requested.

The Parties met on March 9, 2017 to discuss the SM Recommended Decision and to attempt to reach agreement.  No agreement was reached.  The Superintendent rejected in part the SM Recommended Decision on March 10, 2017.  The recommended decision of the special magistrate shall be deemed accepted by the parties except as to those recommendations which a party specifically rejects, by filing a written notice with the Commission and serving a copy on the other party, within twenty (20) calendar days after the date the recommended decision was received by that party. The written notice shall include a statement of the cause for rejection of each recommendation.

Legislative Body Hearing before the School Board of Manatee County is scheduled for March 27, 2017 at 5:00 pm in the SDMC Board Room.

Florida Statutes Section 447.403 Resolution of impasses.—

(4) If either the public employer or the employee organization does not accept, in whole or in part, the recommended decision of the special magistrate:

(a) The chief executive officer of the governmental entity involved shall, within 10 days after rejection of a recommendation of the special magistrate, submit to the legislative body of the governmental entity involved a copy of the findings of fact and recommended decision of the special magistrate, together with the chief executive officer’s recommendations for settling the disputed impasse issues. The chief executive officer shall also transmit his or her recommendations to the employee organization;

(b) The employee organization shall submit its recommendations for settling the disputed impasse issues to such legislative body and to the chief executive officer;

(c) The legislative body or a duly authorized committee thereof shall forthwith conduct a public hearing at which the parties shall be required to explain their positions with respect to the rejected recommendations of the special magistrate;

(d) Thereafter, the legislative body shall take such action as it deems to be in the public interest, including the interest of the public employees involved, to resolve all disputed impasse issues;

 

Following the resolution of the disputed impasse issues by the legislative body,

 Florida Statutes Section 447.403 Resolution of impasses.—

(4)  (e) Following the resolution of the disputed impasse issues by the legislative body, the parties shall reduce to writing an agreement which includes those issues agreed to by the parties and those disputed impasse issues resolved by the legislative body’s action taken pursuant to paragraph (d). The agreement shall be signed by the chief executive officer and the bargaining agent and shall be submitted to the public employer and to the public employees who are members of the bargaining unit for ratification. If such agreement is not ratified by all parties, pursuant to the provisions of s. 447.309, the legislative body’s action taken pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (d) shall take effect as of the date of such legislative body’s action for the remainder of the first fiscal year which was the subject of negotiations; however, the legislative body’s action shall not take effect with respect to those disputed impasse issues which establish the language of contractual provisions which could have no effect in the absence of a ratified agreement, including, but not limited to, preambles, recognition clauses, and duration clauses.