Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Matthew, Tallahassee, for respondent Pasco County Classroom Teachers Ass'n. ERVIN, Judge. The Pasco County School Board has filed its petition to review an order of the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) finding it committed certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Public Employees Relations Act (PERA)....

...t. Kidd v. Jacksonville, 97 Fla. 297, 120 So. 556 (1929); State ex rel. Packard v. Cook, 108 Fla. 157, 146 So. 223 (1933). PERC concluded that the Board's decisions not to rehire Disabato and Rydzik or to promote Eckstein were violations of Sections 447.501(1)(a) [2] and (b). [3] Section 447.501(1)(b) reflects the strong influence of Section 8(a)(3) of the NLRA (61 Stat....

...rred as it affected the discriminatees, and by remanding to the hearing officer for an appropriate determination of the question. IV. WHETHER THE BOARD VIOLATED ITS DUTY TO BARGAIN WITH THE PCTA. PERC's order sustaining the charge the Board violated Section 447.501(1)(c) by committing a unilateral act during bargaining negotiations requires that we again compare the pertinent provisions of PERA with the NLRA. Section 447.501(1)(c) prohibits public employers from "refusing to bargain collectively, failing to bargain collectively in good faith, or refusing to sign a final agreement agreed upon with the certified bargaining agent for the public employees in...

...Those regulations had been in effect for some time prior to the June 3rd meeting and the Board was not suddenly confronted with the prospect that its operating budget for the next succeeding year might be less than the preceding year. The Board was statutorily mandated by Sections 447.309(1) and 447.501(1)(c) to bargain collectively with the union's negotiator in good faith....

...Independent of any consideration whether substantial proof was presented that the Board's unilateral action was a refusal to bargain in good faith, we sustain PERC's conclusion that a subjective showing of bad faith was not necessary to find a violation of Section 447.501(1)(c), requiring that the parties bargain collectively....

...nfair labor practice to refuse to bargain collectively. We approve the following language from Katz and believe the principles there stated should apply with equal force to an unfair labor practice charge alleging a unilateral action in violation of Section 447.501(1)(c): "The duty `to bargain collectively' enjoined by § 8(a)(5) is defined by § 8(d) as the duty to `meet ....

...The day before, September 30, 1980, the plaintiffs were discharged. 7 The FOP filed Unfair Labor Practice charges on September 10, 1980, with the State of Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC). They charged violations of Florida Statute Sec. 447.501(1)(a), (b) and (c), alleging that the Town refused to meet with FOP representatives to negotiate a successor collective bargaining agreement and by unilaterally, and in response to the employees' protected activities, contracting out their work so as to avoid bargaining and otherwise dealing with the FOP....

...new collective bargaining agreement with the FOP, to discourage membership in the FOP, and to retaliate against the FOP and its members for having filed grievances against the Town, the Town engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (b) Florida Statutes 1979." PERC ordered full reinstatement and back pay....

...The practices enumerated in the Act as unfair labor practices are substantially the same as those enumerated in the NLRA, with one addition. That addition is the act of "refusing to discuss grievances in good faith pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement." Section 447.501(f), Florida Statutes (1977). We note in passing that the PERC hearing officer seemed to feel that a breach of the arbitration provisions of a collective bargaining agreement is per se an unfair labor practice under subparagraph (f) of Section 447.501....

...Hurtgen, Miami, and R. Theodore Clark, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for amicus curiae — Florida Public Employer Labor Relations Association. DAUKSCH, Judge. This case involves a ruling by the Public Employees Relations Commission (P.E.R.C.) that the appellant violated Section 447.501(1)(c) Florida Statutes (1977) and thus committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain collectively....

...nd providing remedies for violations of such prohibition." *179 One of the primary duties and responsibilities of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) is to investigate and resolve charges of unfair labor practices, as defined under sec. 447.501, F.S....

...In this respect, there is a marked similarity between the functioning of PERC and the National Labor Relations Board; to some extent the provisions of Part II, Chapter 447, have been patterned after the provisions of the federal law creating the NLRB (see, for example, the similarity between sec. 447.501 and 29 U.S.C.A....

...to come within the protection afforded by that Act, the state court must decline jurisdiction... ." *180 In the instant situation there can be no doubt that PERC has exclusive jurisdiction over statutorily enumerated unfair labor practices. See sec. 447.501, F.S. The consideration for this court is whether the trial court could reasonably have found, on the record before it, that the activity complained of as set forth in Counts I through IV "arguably" constituted an unfair labor practice as defined by section 447.501, F.S....

...Accordingly, the order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the complaint subject to such further action and proceedings as may be consistent herewith. CROSS, J., concurs. WALDEN, C.J., dissents without opinion. APPENDIX A 447.501 Unfair labor practices....

...n enacted, was remedial in nature. The School Board was charged with interfering with the exercise of employee rights guaranteed by F.S. 447.301(1) and (2) of Chapter 447, Part II, Florida Statutes 1975 and engaging in unfair labor practices under F.S. 447.501(1)(a)....

...erted activities", F.S. 447.016(1)(a) did state that Public Employers were prohibited from interfering with rights guaranteed public employees "under this act". However, when F.S. 447.016 appeared in the 1974 Supplement to the Florida Statutes (as F.S. 447.501) the phrase "this act" had been modified to read "this part", a change apparently made by the statutory revision service....

...(2) Assuming that pension plans covered by a city ordinance are permissive subjects of bargaining, if a collective bargaining agreement is silent on the specific subject of pensions, can the employer make a unilateral change in city ordinances covering pensions without violating Section 447.501, Florida Statutes, or the law as developed by the PERC decision in Orange County School Board, 3 FPER 280 (1977)? (3) Assuming that a pension plan covered by a city ordinance is a permissive subject of bargaining and that consent to b...

...en discharged because of his involvement in protected union activities; that the disciplinary action had been motivated by anti-union animus and not for the reasons specified in the discharge notice, and that the City had therefore violated sections 447.501(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1979)....

...g to take into account circumstantial evidence which the commission felt bore heavily on the issue of motivation for discharge. The commission rejected the hearing officer's ultimate finding of motivation and found that indeed, the City had violated section 447.501(a) and (b)....

...74-274, Laws of Florida, throw any illumination on the legislative intent and purpose pertinent to this legislation. It is of interest that the courts have expressed their difficulty in ascertaining the powers and functions of the board and have complained of the vagueness of the statute. [2] § 447.501, Fla....

...GRIMES, Judge. The City of Clearwater seeks review of a determination by the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) that it committed an unfair labor practice with respect to the termination of one of its employees. The city was charged with violating section 447.501(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1977), by refusing to permit John J....

...sentative would not do him any good, since the decision to terminate Lewis' employment either by dismissal or by Lewis' resignation had already been made. In so conducting this meeting, Chief Pitts engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979)....

...We agree with PERC that the issue was waived and that it was not fundamental error which could be reviewed for the first time by PERC. See Pasco County School Bd. v. PERC, supra. The hospital next argues that administrator Muse's letter to all hospital employees was not violative of Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), making it an unfair labor practice for public employers to interfere with, restrain or coerce public employees in the exercise of any of their rights guaranteed by PERA....

...evidence supported a finding that some did in fact make such request. It also observed that Muse's letter was sent to all employees and that Muse testified his intention was for all employees to revoke their authorization cards. It noted that while Section 447.501(3) protects employers in expressing their opinions, nevertheless an employer may not by its conduct interfere with employees in the exercise of their organizational rights. Section 447.501(1)(a)....

...The thrust of the company's mailing was to undermine employee support for the union." We believe the facts in Deutsch Company are distinguishable from those here and that PERC employed too strict a test which severely limited the employer's pre-election comments permitted by Section 447.501(3)....

...assistance in withdrawing their authorization cards. In fact the letter specifically advised them that "no pressure would be brought by this office requesting that you do this." It is clear that the contents of the letter alone were not violative of Section 447.501(1)(a)....

...Two later opinions of the NLRB held no unfair labor practice occurred when the employees initiated the request to withdraw their authorization cards and the employer assisted in the mechanics of revocation. E.g., Aircraft Hydro-Farming, Inc., 221 NLRB 581 (1975); Jimmy-Richard Company, Inc., 210 NLRB 802 (1974). Whether Section 447.501(1)(a) is violated by communications from an employer to his employees relating to union membership depends upon the particular circumstances of each case. Both the employer and the employee organization have a constitutional right to freedom of expression in making pre-election comments so long as the comments do not violate the Gissel standards, enacted in Section 447.501(3), which forbids promise of benefits or threat of reprisal or force....

...The trial court's decision to confirm or vacate the arbitration award is reviewed for an abuse of extremely limited discretion. See Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Devecht, 820 So.2d 378, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); CAP Cons., Inc. v. TGSV Cons., Inc., 698 So.2d 1299, 1299 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). *100 Section 447.501(1)(c), Florida Statutes, defines, in relevant part, an unfair labor practice, which is covered by the act, as: "[r]efusing to bargain collectively, failing to bargain collectively in good faith." "A unilateral change in a term or cond...

...School Board of Broward County, 330 So.2d 177, 179-80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), this court stated: One of the primary duties and responsibilities of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) is to investigate and resolve charges of unfair labor practices, as defined under sec. 447.501, F.S.......

...thin the statutory scope of bargaining, [ ] properly raised before the Special Master, or lawfully determined by the legislative body. Finally, the arbitrator lacks authority to determine whether the School Board's conduct constitutes a violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...Brooks, Tallahassee, for respondent Public Emp. Relations Commission. SMITH, Judge. The Columbia County Board of Public Instruction petitions for review of an order of the Public Employees Relations Commission finding the Board committed an unfair labor practice, in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) *129 and (b), Florida Statutes (1975), [1] by not rehiring Jack W....

...." We are here concerned with the extent of the Board's vicarious responsibility, in an unfair labor practice proceeding before PERC, for its agent's motive to discourage membership in employee organizations "by discrimination in regard to hiring, tenure, or other conditions of employment," Section 447.501(1)(b); and we must determine the circumstances in which employee discharge may be justified on a legitimate ground although anti-union motive was a factor leading to the discharge decision....

...Lacking guidance from Florida court decisions construing controlling provisions of the relatively new Public Employees Relations Act, we have examined decisions applying Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, [2] from which the relevant provisions of Section 447.501 were drawn....

...Fibers Int'l Corp., 439 F.2d 1311, 1312 (1st Cir.1971) (requiring proof that "the employer's dominant motive was not a proper business one, but union animus."; See a discussion of the federal cases in Escamilla v. Marshburn Bros., 48 Cal. App.3d 472, 482-84, 121 Cal. Rptr. 891, 896-97 (1975). The purpose of PERA's Section 447.501(1)(a) and (b), like that of the corresponding NLRA provisions, is to ensure that public employees engaged in protected collective bargaining activities are treated no differently from other public employees....

...However, PERC will take action appropriate to restore or allow the employer credit for unemployment compensation benefits received by Adams before his reinstatement. The petition for review is DENIED. PERC's petition for enforcement of its order is GRANTED. MILLS, Acting C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 447.501 provides in part: "(1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part....

...§§ 447.17(1) and (2), providing for civil compensatory and injunctive remedies to "any person who may be denied employment or discriminated against in his employment on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor union or labor organization." That provision parallels closely the unfair labor practices enumerated in Section 447.501(1)(a), (b) and (2)(a), (b), for which the administrative remedies under Section 477.503 are available....

...Following the hearing, the hearing officer determined that the City was under a duty to bargain with the PBA concerning the standards and criteria for promotion to the position of lieutenant and that its refusal constituted an unfair labor practice under section 447.501(1)(a), (c), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...Hamilton Electric, Inc., of Florida, 666 F.2d 509, 514 (11th Cir.1982). The final order appealed from is reversed with directions that an order be entered dismissing the unfair labor practice charge. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 447.501, dealing with unfair labor practices, provides: (1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part....

...the classroom teachers and related personnel of Indian River County. Pursuant to appellee's charge a complaint was filed alleging that the appellant, School Board of Indian River County, had engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1977) by refusing to bargain collectively....

...(2) Assuming that pension plans covered by a city ordinance are permissive subjects of bargaining, if a collective bargaining agreement is silent on the specific subject of pensions, can the employer make a unilateral change in city ordinances covering pensions without violating Section 447.501, Florida Statutes, or the law as developed by the PERC decision in Orange County School Board, 3 FPER 280 (1977)? (3) Assuming that a pension plan covered by a city ordinance is a permissive subject of bargaining and that consent to b...

...The college either would not or could not provide a list of matters to which the proposed waiver clause might apply. Under the "take it or leave it attitude" evidenced by the employer, PERC correctly held that Palm Beach refused to bargain collectively in good faith with United Faculty in violation of Section 447.501(1)(c), Florida Statutes....

...The contract became effective October 1, 1980. On September 30, 1980 the Plaintiffs were discharged. The FOP filed timely Unfair Labor Practice charges with the State of Florida, Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC) charging violations of Florida Statute 447.501(1)(a)(b) and (c)....

...new collective bargaining agreement with the FOP, to discourage membership in the FOP, and to retaliate against the FOP and its members for having filed grievances against the Town, the Town engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (b) Florida Statutes 1979." PERC ordered full reinstatement....

...ent with Plaintiffs' labor organization, to discourage Plaintiffs' membership in a labor organization and to retaliate against Plaintiffs and their labor organization for filing grievances against the defendant, TOWN, in violation of Florida Statute 447.501(1)(a) and (b) and Art....

...Approximately 1,800 graduate assistants, who teach at least 12% of the undergraduate courses in the state university system, are within the proposed collective bargaining unit. The Board moved to dismiss the petition on grounds that, as a matter of law, students were not under PERC's jurisdiction due to the provisions of § 447.501(2)(f), Fla....

...remedy, we treated the petition as one seeking review of intermediate agency action under § 120.68(1). The proceedings were stayed, except of PERC's hearing and order, finding that graduate assistants are both students and public employees and that § 447.501(2)(f) does not impede "organization of graduate assistants by an employee organization." The Board argues that PERC's order misconstrued statutory law by determining graduate assistants were "public employees" within the definition in § 447.203(3), since they were not barred from collective bargaining by the provisions of § 447.501(2)(f)....

..., while a public employee, defined by § 447.203(3), is one "employed by a public employer," subject to certain specific exceptions which do not include graduate assistants. The Board argues that since the graduate assistants are primarily students, § 447.501(2)(f), pertaining to unfair labor practices on behalf of public employee organizations, excepts them as public employees....

...As noted by the majority, this section does not specifically exclude graduate assistants or, as they are also known, graduate research associates, graduate research assistants, graduate teaching associates or graduate teaching assistants. The last, Section 447.501(2)(f) describes a prohibited unfair labor practice and, specifically, provides that: "(2) A public employee organization or anyone acting in its behalf, its officers, representatives, agents, or members are prohibited from: * * * * *...

...yees" is the Legislature's specific characterization of a public employee organization's instigating or advocating support, in any positive manner, for its activities from such students in institutions of higher learning as an unfair labor practice [447.501(2)(f)]. Looking to the intent of the Legislature in enacting Section 447.501(2)(f), the Commission declared in its final order: "The clear purpose and intent of Section 447.501(2)(f) is to prohibit employee organizations, and those acting on their behalf, from seeking student support for union activities....

...There is strength in numbers and greater strength in greater numbers. Notwithstanding these students' desire to better their financial positions, I perceive that the pressures of the collective bargaining system have the potential for making "unwilling pawns" of these very students that Section 447.501(2)(f) was designed to protect....

...tudent whose position and stipend were entirely dependent upon his or her continued status as a graduate student. [1] *645 In the absence of specific language declaring graduate assistants to be "public employees", I feel the specific prohibition of Section 447.501(2)(f) must control and that the intent of the Legislature to protect the students of the State from the potentially coercive and exploitative influences of the collective bargaining system must prevail....

...Counsel, Tallahassee, for Public Employees Relations Commission. SCHEB, Judge. The City of Bartow seeks review of a final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) finding the City guilty of unfair labor practices. PERC ruled that the City violated Sections 447.501(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1977), [1] by terminating the employment of Marion O....

...ctivities. The Chief retained the right to express an opinion on unionization. His exercise of that right did not constitute and was not evidence of an unfair labor practice as long as he made "no promise of benefits or threat of reprisal or force." § 447.501(3), Fla....

...union had not clearly waived its right to bargain about drug testing, finding the provision about implementing an internal security program to be ambiguous; and (3) found that the City had committed an unfair labor practice proscribed by section *33 447.501(1)(a), (c), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...lic. For the reasons expressed, we approve the district court's en banc decision that compulsory drug testing is a managerial prerogative under these limited circumstances and its finding that the City did not commit any unfair labor practices under section 447.501(1)(a), (c), Florida Statutes (1983)....

...s of the proposed changes to the collective bargaining agreement or of the date, time and place of the ratification meeting and that they had received no personal notice of the proposed revisions. Appellee contended that the Union's conduct violated section 447.501(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), by excluding from its ratification procedures the employees of the unit who were not union members....

...s and the Union filed exceptions. On May 5, 1980, PERC issued its final order in which it found, inter alia, that: (1) Appellee had standing to file the instant unfair labor practice complaint; (2) The Union engaged in an unfair labor practice under section 447.501(2)(a), [3] Florida Statutes, by failing to notify non-union employees of the date, time and place of the ratification election, of their eligibility to vote, and of the terms of the proposed agreement; and (3) by engaging in the above acts the Union interfered with, restrained and coerced non-union public employees in the free exercise of the rights guaranteed them by section 447.301(1), [4] Florida Statutes, thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice under section 447.501(2)(a)....

...violated this rule by failing to provide adequate notice to non-union employees. The Commission also found that the Union discriminatorily failed to provide notice to non-union members while providing notice to its own members and that this violated section 447.501(2)(a)....

...Since this conclusion is based on competent, substantial evidence, we find no error. Lastly, appellant complains of error in the award to appellee of attorney's fees under section 447.503(6)(c). [12] The Commission determined that the Union "knew or should have known that its conduct was in violation of section 447.501(2)(a)," and determined that an award of attorney's fees was appropriate....

...DAUKSCH, C.J., and COWART, J., concur. NOTES [1] Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(1)(C); Section 447.504(1), Florida Statutes (1979). [2] One of appellee's other witnesses, Karen Connell, who also worked at Madison Middle School, testified she also voted. [3] Section 447.501(2) provides: A public employee organization or anyone acting in its behalf ......

...but may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the complete record ... that the findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial evidence... . [9] Title 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., (1974). [10] 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A), which is the counterpart to section 447.501(2)(a), Florida Statutes....

...Union of Operating Engineers, Local 653. Ann Cowles-Fewox, Tallahassee, for appellee Public Employees Relations Com'n. SMITH, Judge. The County appeals a Final Order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) which found that the County violated section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1991) by changing contractually based terms and conditions of employment....

...Counsel, Tallahassee, for the Public Emp. Relations Commission. HERSEY, GEORGE W., III, Associate Judge. This is an appeal from an order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), which order finds appellant, The *943 City of Orlando, in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1975); that it so say, guilty of an unfair labor practice. The particular section invoked by the Commission states: 447.501 (1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part....

...by representatives of both parties. Pursuant to an unfair labor practice charge filed by the appellee union, counsel for PERC issued a complaint alleging that the City of Orlando had engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Sections 447.501(1)(a) and (c) by failing to take action as required by Section 447.403(4)(d) to resolve certain impasse items and by conditioning its resolution of such impasse items on the union's total acceptance of the City's bargaining proposal....

...The Commission concluded that the City's failure to thereafter respond in the proper fashion interfered with, restrained, and coerced public employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Part II of Chapter 447, Florida Statutes, and constituted an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a)....

...resolved in that manner constituted an unfair labor practice. Under some circumstances, it is obvious that delay might be construed as a refusal by the public entity to bargain collectively and in good faith but this would seem to be a violation of Section 447.501(1)(c) rather than Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes....

...Finally, appellant contends that the portion of the Commission's order which requires the City to cease bad-faith bargaining is unsupported by a finding of substantial evidence, and hence exceeds the Commission's remedial powers. The City was found to be in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes....

...BERANEK, Associate Judge, concurs. JOHN H. MOORE, II, Associate Judge, dissents with opinion. MOORE, JOHN H., II, Associate Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. Even assuming the appellant is guilty of an unfair labor practice by having violated Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), a conclusion I do not believe is supported by the record, I would hold that appellee has waived its right to complain by agreeing to a contract and accepting its benefits....

...into compatible groupings, UFF filed a petition seeking to represent graduate *1057 assistants. PERC ruled that graduate assistants were public employees within the meaning of Chapter 447, and that the prohibition against solicitation of students in Section 447.501(2)(f), Florida Statutes (1975) did not prevent graduate assistants from organizing....

...The goal is, of course, to raise the quality of the educators and those being educated. Because, in Florida, public employees are prohibited *1060 from striking, the universities need not accept bargaining proposals that are inconsistent with quality education. Appellee asserts that Section 447.501(2)(f) (1981) makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to involve students in institutions of higher learning in union activity. This urging was dealt with and dismissed as being without merit in UFF v. Board of Regents, 3 FPER 304 (1977) when it held: The clear purpose and intent of Section 447.501(2)(f) is to prohibit employee organizations, and those acting on their behalf, from seeking student support for union activities....

...es whose support is solicited. The economic interests in question are the economic interests of the very people who are the subject of the solicitation. Whether such solicitation be desirable or undesirable, it does not transgress the prohibition of Section 447.501(2)(f)....

...Also on January 7, 2003, both FSUBOT and UWFBOT gave notice that payroll deductions for union dues would cease for their employees, including faculty. In response, AFSCME and UFF, the unions whose dues were involved, filed unfair labor practice charges against FSUBOT and BOGSUS (Case Nos. CA-2003-008 and CA-2003-011) under section 447.501(1)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes (2003)....

...Cagle's annual contract expired May 25, 2005, and she was not rehired for the following school year. Ms. Cagle then filed a pre-hearing statement with PERC in a new veterans' preference case. In the statement, Ms. Cagle alleged, among other things, that the School District had retaliated against her, in violation of section 447.501(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2004), by discharging or otherwise discriminating against her through a series of unfair labor practices, including an unlawful suspension and violations of personnel laws. PERC transferred and docketed Ms. Cagle's retaliation claim as an unfair labor practice charge. Ms. Cagle subsequently filed a separate unfair labor practice charge against the School District. In addition to alleging violations of section 447.501(1)(d), Ms. Cagle also alleged that the School District violated section 447.501(1)(a), which prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or coercing a public employee in the exercise of any rights guaranteed by chapter 447 of the Florida Statutes....

...Cagle felt that the School District had not complied with the settlement agreement, she should seek enforcement of that settlement agreement in the circuit court. Ms. Cagle appealed to PERC, amending her charge and alleging eleven incidents that constituted violations of section 447.501(1)(d)....

...Cagle's protected activity to the School District's actions. Ms. Cagle again appealed to PERC, alleging ten "exceptions" to the General Counsel's summary dismissal of the amended charge, which she claimed were sufficient to establish a prima facie violation of section 447.501(1)(d)....

...MILLS, Acting Chief Judge. Petitioner, School Board of Escambia County, Florida (Board), seeks review of an order of the respondent, Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), which found that the Board had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...nt", its failure to attend scheduled meetings and habitual lateness, and its failure to provide the EEA with relevant information, were inconsistent with the Board's duty to bargain in good faith. PERC therefore concluded that the Board had violated Section 447.501(1)(c)....

...The hearing officer found that the Board made no attempt to utilize the photos for retaliation. PERC concluded that the photographic surveillance of the pickets was coercive and violated the employees' rights to engage in union activities, and therefore was an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a)....

...jected by the employees in the unit. PERC found that by refusing to bargain in good faith on dues deductions and by threatening its employees with one lump sum deduction, the Board had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 447.501(1)(a) and (c)....

...od faith on dues deductions or with threatening its employees by promulgating the 2 October memorandum. The complaint only alleged that the Board refused to deduct dues as required by Section 447.303, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1974), thereby violating Section 447.501(1)(a)....

...However, since the Board does not assert that the variance between the charge and the finding was error, we will not address that issue. We agree with PERC that the Board failed to bargain in good faith on dues deductions, and that under the circumstances of this case, the memorandum on dues deductions violated Section 447.501(1)(a)....

...At the close of the evidence, the hearing officer issued a recommended order finding that the Union had fulfilled all the *727 necessary requirements in order to require the District to engage in impact bargaining and that the District's failure to do so constituted an unfair labor practice as defined in section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2008)....

...edule change. The hearing officer found that the County did not retaliate against the protocol officers by implementing the work schedule change or reprimanding Balarezo. However, in a rather puzzling move, the hearing officer inexplicably relied on section 447.501(1)(c) of the Florida Statutes, to find that the County committed an unfair labor practice because it implemented the schedule change without bargaining with the local union....

...Accordingly, we reverse the orders on appeal to the extent that they find that the County committed an unfair labor practice by changing the work schedules of the airport protocol officers. Reversed. NOTES [*] Did not participate in oral argument. [1] Section 447.501(1)(c) of the Florida Statutes, which prohibits a public employer from refusing to bargain collectively, is identified at the foot of the charge form and in the final sentence of the attachment thereto as one of three statutory bases supporting the charge, the other two being subsections (a) and (b)....

...However, a fair reading of the charge reflects that it is a retaliation claim. This conclusion is supported by union counsel statements at the administrative hearing, a review of the evidence presented and the fact that the union did not propose any conclusions in their proposed final order relating to a section 447.501(1)(c) claim. To the contrary, the union's case rested primarily on sections 447.501(1)(a) and (b), which involve interfering with or discouraging union membership.

...Meck of the Public Employees Relations Commission, Tallahassee, for appellee Public Employees Relations Commission. DAUKSCH, Judge. This is an appeal from a final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC or Commission). Appellee filed an unfair labor practice charge against appellant alleging a violation of section 447.501(1)(a) and (c)....

...up food and supplies while on duty. The County also refused to permit tape-recorders to be used during bargaining sessions. The Union filed a charge on that basis, too. The hearing officer's recommended order found that the County violated sections 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1981), by refusing to collectively bargain over wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment so long as the Local, as represented by its certified bargaining agent, sought to tape-record the negotiations. The officer also found that the County violated section 447.501(1)(c) by unilaterally changing, after a request for bargaining, an established term or condition of employment without using the impasse resolution procedure required by section 447.403, Florida Statutes....

...In reversing on this point, PERC refused to hold that parties had a right under section 286.011 to tape-record negotiation sessions but instead resolved the matter by examining the parties' total conduct in deciding whether one party has placed an "unreasonable restriction" on the other in violation of section 447.501(1)(a) and (c)....

...Board of County *1025 Commissioners of Orange County, Respondent, 9 FPER § 14272 at 771-784. The order of PERC is devoted at great length to the tape-recorder issue. That is not an issue on appeal here. The Commission found that "The County, acting through its duly authorized agents, violated Section 447.501(1)(c) by unilaterally changing the store visitation policy that had been in place since the County became the public employer of the fire fighting employees represented by Local 2057." The County has challenged that finding, saying it is not supported by the evidence....

...After being enjoined by a court order from striking, the officers returned *468 to work. They subsequently entered into a stipulated order regarding their discipline which is not here appealed. II In determining whether the PBA had supported the Homestead police officers' strike and had thereby violated sections 447.501(2)(e) and 447.505, Florida Statutes (1979), [1] the hearing officer applied common-law principles of agency....

...ed if unions were permitted to avoid liability for strike activity by union agents on the grounds that the activity was "unauthorized." Based on the foregoing, I would affirm the order under review as well as the compensatory damage award. NOTES [1] Section 447.501(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1979), provides: A public employee organization or anyone acting in its behalf or its officers, representatives, agents, or members are prohibited from: ......

...Appellants, hereinafter "Coalition," [1] appeal a Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) order dismissing their unfair labor practice charges against the Escambia County Civil Service Board and the Escambia County School Board [2] alleging that each entity had violated Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1979), by refusing to bargain collectively in good faith and to implement the final negotiated agreement and their petition to amend unit clarification to reflect the Escambia County Civil Service Board as a joint employer....

...Under the Act, the Legislature created PERC, and empowered that administrative agency "to settle disputes regarding alleged unfair labor practices." § 447.503, Fla. Stat. (1999). The activities prohibited as being "unfair labor practices" are defined in section 447.501 of the Florida Statutes (1999), with subsection (1) applying to employer activities and subsection (2) applying to union activities. [2] Case law interpreting the jurisdictional scope of the Act has broadly included, as falling within PERC's exclusive jurisdiction, those activities which "arguably" constitute unfair labor practices as defined by section 447.501 "or the type of labor matter or dispute *1193 within the contemplation of Part II, Chapter 447." Maxwell v....

...[3] The Union moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction maintaining that PERC possessed exclusive jurisdiction over the matter because the Union's alleged breaches of the duty of fair representation constituted unfair labor practices as set forth in section 447.501(2)(a) of the Florida Statutes. The trial court agreed and dismissed with prejudice Browning's claim against the Union. Browning challenges this ruling, contending that her claim against the Union does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of PERC because section 447.501(2) does not expressly list a breach of the duty of fair representation as being an "unfair labor practice;" and also, because nowhere in Chapter 447, Part II, Florida Statutes does it state that a breach of the duty of fair representation falls within the confines of the statute. We disagree because, in granting the Union's motion to dismiss, the trial court properly concluded that the Union's actions as alleged in Browning's complaint, constitute labor activities "arguably" embraced within the provisions of section 447.501(2); therefore, jurisdiction over this dispute is pre-empted in favor of PERC. Maxwell, 330 So.2d at 180. In reaching this conclusion we are first persuaded that the broad language of section 447.501(2)(a) is meant to include violations of the duty of fair representation as alleged in Browning's complaint....

...Additional support for our conclusion is found in this court's previous ruling that a breach of the duty of fair representation violates the unfair labor practice section of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), section 8(b)(1)(A), [4] which is the counterpart to section 447.501(2)(a) of *1194 the Florida Statutes (1999)....

...COBB and PLEUS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to rule 9.110(k) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Behavioral Healthcare Options, Inc. v. Charter Behavioral Health System of Tampa Bay, Inc., 727 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). [2] Section 447.501(2) provides: 447.501 Unfair Labor Practices.— * * * (2) A public employee organization or anyone acting in its behalf or its officers, representatives, agents, or members are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the...

...Individual employees are afforded access to their own work sites and grounds (including parking lots), but not to other DCPS work sites unless they are at those sites on official DCPS business. DTA filed unfair labor practice charges against the School Board and UTD under section 447.501(1)(a) and (2)(a), Florida Statutes (1979)....

...in prohibiting teachers from soliciting at parking lots of other schools (on the theory they were "nonemployees" of such schools); and, (2) removal of DTA materials from all-purpose school bulletin boards was an unfair labor practice in violation of section 447.501(2)(a)....

...nfair labor practices had occurred with respect to both the bulletin board policy and the "other-school" parking lot policy. The question raised by this appeal is whether the two School Board rules are unfair labor practices within the definition of section 447.501(1)(a) and (2)(a)....

...deference by this court. City of Clearwater v. Lewis, 404 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Pasco County School Board v. PERC, 353 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The unfair labor practice charges against the School Board and UTD in this case stem from section 447.501(1)(a) and (2)(a), which prohibits both public employers and employee organizations (unions), or their agents or representatives, from "[i]nterfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guarant...

...ty of an unfair labor practice in the process of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement for the bargaining unit's City police officers. [1] We agree with the hearing officer who concluded that the City committed an unfair labor practice under Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1981) [2] by insisting to the point of impasse upon the exclusion of disputes regarding discharge and demotion from a grievance procedure which ends in binding arbitration....

...question of attorneys' fees and the hearing officer's recommendation regarding same. Reversed and Remanded. [7] SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] PERC's order and the hearing officer's recommended order are reported at 9 FPER ¶ 14120. [2] 447.501 Unfair labor practices....

...Although the reduction did not affect the actuarial soundness of the plan or detrimentally affect either employee benefits or employee contributions, the Public Employees *1097 Relations Commission (PERC) found that the City's action was an unfair labor practice (section 447.501, Florida Statutes (1983)), and ordered the City to negotiate with HCPBA....

...1st DCA 1983). In the absence of a waiver, an emergency or an impasse action (section 447.403, Florida Statutes (1983)), a public employer who unilaterally alters any of these mandatory subjects of collective bargaining commits an unfair labor practice. § 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Fla....

...mance of her duties and her refusal or inexcusable failure to discharge those duties, the circuit court found it unnecessary to pass on Seitz' substantive defense to the insubordination charge: that the Florida Public Employees Relations Act (PERA), Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), prohibits public employers from interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in their exercise of the right to engage in "concerted activities for ......

...thority of the Public Employees Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as PERC or the Commission), to delegate an unfair labor practice charge to an arbitrator. When such a charge is, in fact, based on an unfair labor practice as set forth in section 447.501, Florida Statutes (1985), PERC has no authority to delegate its responsibility....

...tes regarding alleged unfair labor practices." (emphasis added). However, the question as certified also refers to "an arbitrator's contract interpretation," which involves an issue separate and distinct from an unfair labor practice as specified in section 447.501....

...decision." International Brotherhood of Police Officers v. City of Hollywood, 7 F.P.E.R. ¶ 12293 (1981). After the city announced the premium increase at issue here, the unions filed an unfair labor practice charge with PERC, alleging violations of section 447.501(1)(a) and (c)....

...PERC's position is that in addition to the explicit arbitration requirements of section 447.401, its policy of deferring to arbitration is supported by other provisions of Chapter 447, Part II: section 447.301(2) and (4) provide for the right to representation in grievance proceedings; section 447.501(1)(f) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to discuss grievances....

...ted fairly and regularly, or (b) The dispute was not resolved by the arbitration award, or (c) The result reached by the arbitrator was repugnant to Chapter 447, Part II, FS. Specific Authority 447.207, FS. Law Implemented 447.201, 447.107, 447.401, 447.501, 447.503, FS....

...the certified bargaining agent has declined to advance the grievance because of its belief that the grievance lacks merit. Indeed, if the public employer does process such a grievance to arbitration at the individual's request it might well violate Section 447.501(1)(a), (c), Florida Statutes (1979)....

...The Commission concluded that drug testing was a subject of mandatory collective bargaining, but, contrary to the hearing officer, found that FOP had not clearly and unmistakably waived its right to bargain about drug testing. Finding that the City had committed the unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1983), [4] the Commission ordered, inter alia, that the City "cease and desist from ......

...ng should be permitted. IV. Our conclusion that compulsory drug testing is a subject for mandatory collective bargaining does not answer the question whether the City's failure to bargain on the subject is, ipso facto, an unfair labor practice under Section 447.501(1)(c), Florida Statutes....

...The Commission concluded that drug testing was a subject of mandatory collective bargaining, but, contrary to the hearing officer, found that FOP had not clearly and unmistakably waived its right to bargain about drug testing. Finding that the City had committed the unfair labor practices proscribed by *1321 Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1983), [5] the Commission ordered, inter alia, that the City "cease and desist from ......

...See generally Dunham, Lewis & Alpert, Law Enforcement: Testing the Police for Drugs, 24 Crim.L.Bull. 155 (1988) (suggesting alternatives to drug testing); Symposium, Testing for Drug Use in the American Workplace, 11 Nova L.Rev. 291-890 (1987). [3] The alleged cocaine user submitted to the test after his dismissal. [4] Section 447.501 provides: "Unfair labor practices....

...d overtime as a penalty for his disobedience to the order. [4] The results of the tests on these two officers have not been released pending the outcome of this litigation. Neither of the officers was disciplined, and both remain on active duty. [5] Section 447.501 provides: Unfair labor practices....

...Maness, Jacksonville, for respondents. MILLS, Acting Chief Judge. Petitioner, Duval County School Board (Board), seeks review of an order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) finding that the Board had committed an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...The case was tried before a hearing officer, a recommended order was issued, and exceptions to the recommended order were filed by the Board. After considering the record, briefs, and oral arguments, PERC entered its amended order finding the Board *1246 guilty of violating Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c)....

...Patterson, of Patterson and Traynham, Tallahassee, for appellee. BARFIELD, Judge. The Lee County School Board appeals from a final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) finding the school board committed an unfair labor practice, in violation of section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...The school board argues PERC applied an incorrect evidentiary standard in finding this violation. For the reasons explained below, we reverse the final order with directions for further proceedings. We hold that the standard adopted by the hearing officer and by PERC is incorrect. In proving a violation of section 447.501(1)(a), an employee must show that his or her otherwise protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the employer's decision or action which constituted the alleged violation....

...He told her that she was not the "straw boss." He said he was tired of her causing trouble and with her being a troublemaker. Cook told her not to discuss problems in the cafeteria with her coworkers. In his recommended order, the hearing officer held that a party charging a violation of section 447.501(1)(a): "must establish by the preponderance of competent record evidence that, under the circumstances existing, the affected employees could reasonably conclude that the employer's action has a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of Section 447.301 rights....

...PERC adopted the hearing officer's recommended order in almost all respects; the only modifications are not relevant to this appeal. PERC rejected the school board's argument that the hearing officer did not apply the correct standard in finding a violation of section 447.501(1)(a). The school board maintained there must be a showing of an anti-union motivation in its conduct before such a violation may be proved. In its order, PERC stated that whereas anti-union motivation is essential to establish a violation of section 447.501(1)(b), no such discriminatory motivation need be shown in order to prove a violation of section 447.501(1)(a)....

...then an employer would be prohibited from taking actions with respect to its employees for legitimate business reasons, as guaranteed under section 447.209. To hold that the employer's motive is not a critical element in establishing a violation of section 447.501(1)(a) conflicts with the public employer's rights under Chapter 447, Part II. Under section 447.501, Unfair labor practices, (1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part....

...heir operations and to direct and discipline employees for proper purposes. § 447.209. In Pasco County School Board v. PERC, 353 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), this court reviewed a PERC order finding unfair labor practices in violation of sections 447.501(1)(a), (b) and (c)....

...PERC's order found violations in the refusal to rehire three teachers who had been active in the union and in an arbitrary reduction in salaries. The court looked to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in construing the recently-enacted Florida Public Employees Relations Act. The court noted that section 447.501(1)(b) reflected the strong influence of a section of the NLRA that provided it was an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate in hiring or any term or condition of employment so as to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization....

...is not deemed entitled to formal proceedings pursuant to Section 120.57(1). In pertinent part, the College's objections to the election are: (a) that BCCFT threatened not to bargain in good faith, (b) that BCCFT solicited employees in violation of §§ 447.501(2)(a) and 477.509(1)(a), (c) that BCCFT mailed pre-election letters to twenty-six employees indicating that their ballots may be challenged, thereby discouraging those employees from voting, and (d) *19 that BCCFT made various pre-election misrepresentations which the College did not have adequate time to refute....

...urt. School Board of Pinellas County v. State, etc., 354 So.2d 909 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978). Accordingly, PERC was correct in ordering the College to bargain with the BCCFT. Finally, the College maintains that PERC erred in finding it guilty of violating Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1975), for denying BCCFT access to an administrative publication, the INTERCOM, and to campus bulletin boards....

...or any hiatus following the 2001-2002 CBA. Though the resulting CBA was presented for ratification to the Union, it was not presented to the bargaining unit employees. The Union then filed an unfair labor practice charge, alleging Appellant violated section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes by imposing the "pay freeze" language and the management rights article through the impasse process....

...right to impact bargain. Imposition of the "Pay Freeze" Language The court must determine whether imposing "pay freeze" language in a subsequent CBA following impasse resolution proceedings, constitutes an unfair labor practice within the meaning of section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes....

...Appellant correctly notes that PERC itself has ruled that after the special master process has been completed and the special master's recommendation issued, parties may change their positions before the legislative body without violating the mandatory duty to bargain in good faith pursuant to section 447.501(1)(c), provided the position is a topic which has been previously negotiated at the bargaining table....

...Such was the case here, when the Winter Springs City Council sat as the legislative body. [2] The statute provides that a public employer is prohibited from interfering with the collective bargaining rights of public employees, and is further prohibited from refusing to bargain collectively in good faith. § 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2004)....

(PERC). They charged violations of Florida Statute § 447.-501(l)(a), (b) and (c), alleging that the Town refused

...Phillips, Holly E. Van Horsten of Phillips & Richard, P.A., Miami, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. The appellant, the Sheriff of Broward County, appeals an order of the Florida *641 Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC) finding that the Sheriff violated sections 447.501(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, when it declined to rehire appellee Jeffrey Stanley. The Sheriff raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether PERC's finding that the Sheriff violated section 447.501(1)(a) was error because Stanley was a job applicant, not an employee, when the Sheriff declined to rehire him; and (2) whether PERC erred in finding that the Sheriff violated section 447.501(1)(b) by not rehiring Stanley because of his union activities as opposed to his political involvement. We hold that Stanley as a job applicant is not a public employee within the plain meaning of section 447.501(1)(a) and that PERC lacked competent substantial evidence to support its finding that Stanley was not rehired because of his union involvement in violation of section 447.501(1)(b)....

...Q: Did he say anything else during that conversation? A: Yes, he did. He blamed the Union, for me listening to the Union and doing the things the Union asked me to do. On January 26, 2010, PERC issued a final order concluding the Sheriff violated sections 447.501(1)(a) and (b) for failing to rehire Stanley because of his Union activities. PERC ordered the Sheriff to cease and desist from declining to rehire Stanley. Whether the Sheriff Violated Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes The Sheriff argues that because section 447.501(1)(a) only applies to public employees and Stanley was not a public employee when the Sheriff declined to rehire him, the Sheriff could not have violated section 447.501(1)(a). Section 447.501(1)(a) provides that, (1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part....

...tate university students who conduct part-time work for the university. Contrary to PERC's finding, at the time of his application for rehire, Stanley was not a public employee within the section 447.203(3) definition. While PERC's interpretation of section 447.501(1)(a) is entitled to deference, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc....

...ncy's interpretation conflicts with the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute." Florida Hosp. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 823 So.2d 844, 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Under the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "public employee" as used in section 447.501(1)(a), "interfering with, restraining, or coercing" a job applicant who *643 is not a public employee does not violate section 447.501(1)(a). Because Stanley was not a public employee at the time the Sheriff declined to rehire him, PERC erred by finding the Sheriff violated section 447.501(1)(a)....

...ion of a public employee for the purposes of Chapter 447, Part II, for refusing to discriminate against subordinates who belonged to a union. Id. at 189. Under those facts, PERC held that the dismissal or discipline of a managerial employee violates section 447.501(1)(a) when it indicates restraint and coercion of employees who are public employees under Chapter 447, Part II. Id. at 193; see also § 447.203(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (noting that managerial employees do not meet the definition of public employees). PERC held that in order to establish a violation of section 447.501(1)(a), the charging party must show that public employees know the individual was disciplined or discharged for unlawful reasons. Id. We reject the rationale in Southwest Florida for two reasons. First, PERC's interpretation in that case conflicts with the plain and ordinary meaning of section 447.501(1)(a). In Southwest Florida, PERC looked to the National Labor Relations Act for guidance in its interpretation; however, the Florida Legislature knows how to extend protection to job applicants, see § 447.501(1)(b), Fla. Stat., but it specifically limited the application of section 447.501(1)(a) to public employees....

...such damages as he or she may have sustained and the costs of suit.... . . . . (3) The remedy and relief provided for by this section shall not be available to public employees as defined in [Chapter 447, Part II.] § 447.17, Fla. Stat. The existence of this separate remedy further demonstrates that section 447.501(1)(a) does not apply to job applicants such as Stanley. Finally, we decline to follow Southwest Florida because the policy rationale in that case is not present here. Southwest Florida held that an employer violates section 447.501(1)(a) by dismissing or disciplining an employee who is not a public employee if doing so interferes with, restrains, or coerces public employees....

...xperienced interference, restraint, or coercion as a result of the Sheriff's decision not to rehire Stanley. Therefore, because Stanley was not a public employee and because we decline to follow Southwest Florida, we find the Sheriff did not violate section 447.501(1)(a) by declining to rehire Stanley. *644 Whether the Sheriff Violated Section 447.501(1)(b), Florida Statutes The Sheriff's Office argues that because it declined to rehire Stanley due to Stanley's support of Scott Israel, and not because of Stanley's Union activities, PERC erred by finding it violated section 447.501(1)(b). We review findings of fact made by an agency under a competent substantial evidence standard. § 120.68(10), Fla. Stat.; Legal Envtl. Assistance Foundation, Inc. v. Clark, 668 So.2d 982, 987 (Fla.1996). Section 447.501(1)(b) prohibits employers from, among other things, discouraging membership in any employee organization through discrimination in hiring: (1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: . . . (b) Encouraging or discouraging membership in any employee organization by discrimination in regard to hiring, tenure, or other conditions of employment. Therefore, in order to establish a violation of section 447.501(1)(b), a party must show that the employer engaged in discrimination in hiring decisions, tenure, or other conditions of employment that was intended to encourage or discourage membership in a union....

...law. Because we conclude that Stanley was not a public employee and he failed to show by competent substantial evidence that the Sheriff declined to rehire him as a result of his Union activities, PERC erred by finding the Sheriff violated sections 447.501(1)(a) and (b)....

...een cheating on overtime pay; that the union had written a letter to the wage/hour division requesting an investigation; and that after the investigation was complete, the employees would receive back pay. The election was set aside. Florida Statute § 447.501(2) proscribes conduct on the part of an employee organization "interfering with ... public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed" under Chapter 447, and § 447.501(3) provides that although expressions of argument or opinions are protected rights of free speech, expressions containing "promise of benefits" are not....

...The hearing officer further found that the creation of each of the three positions outside of the bargaining unit was not merely a re-titling of the bargaining unit positions abolished. Thus, the hearing officer concluded that the City did not violate section 447.501(1)(a) and (c) "by unilaterally transferring bargaining work." The hearing officer did find, however, that the City committed an unfair labor practice when it refused to provide information to JSA about the job duties of the positions abolished as well as the positions created....

...Section 110.227(2), Florida Statutes, which became effective on May 14, 2001 and superceded Rule 60K-17, F.A.C. Therefore, the DOT did not violate Article 8 of the Master Contract." The union filed a ULP alleging that the state had violated sections 447.501(1)(a), (c) and (f), Florida Statutes (2001)....

...See the newly enacted Rule 60L-33.004, effective January 1, 2002. Thus, we agree with the union that, in alleging that the state failed to follow Chapter 60K-17 in laying off the DOT toll collection employees while the former layoff rule was still in effect, its ULP has stated a prima facie violation of section 447.501....

...The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority (the Authority) and the Hillsborough County Civil Service Board (the Board) appeal from an order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC). The order found that the Authority had committed unfair labor practices in violation of sections 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1983), "by refusing to implement certain provisions in the 1984 ratified collective bargaining agreement between the ......

...inance, rule, or regulation. Unless and until such amendment is enacted or adopted and becomes effective, the conflicting provision of the collective bargaining agreement shall not become effective. The Authority had a duty to bargain in good faith. Section 447.501(1)(c)....

...We also do not address the argument of the Board in this case that the Escambia County Civil Service Act was materially different from the Hillsborough County Civil Service Act. As we have said, this case simply turns upon whether the Authority committed unfair labor practices. Types of unfair labor practices are listed in section 447.501(1). The principal type potentially involved in this case is described in section 447.501(1)(c), which proscribes on the part of public employers "[r]efusing to bargain collectively, failing to bargain collectively in good faith......

...They were handed over on February 21. On March 6, 2006, the Union initiated the Unfair Labor Practice Charge, which has become the subject of this appeal. The focus of the charge is the February 17 conversation. The charge alleged that the City, through Brown, violated sections 447.501(1)(a), (c), and (d) of the Florida Public Employees Relation Act, ch....

...tion 120.57(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006). On June 20, the hearing officer issued a recommended order, in which he concluded the City, through Brown, had made an "unambiguous threat" to the officer corps through its bargaining agent in violation of section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), which prohibits public employers, their agents, or representatives from "[i]nterfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under [the Florida Public Employees Relations Act, chapter 447, part II "the Act"]." The hearing officer rejected as "premature" the Union's claim under section 447.501(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2006), [2] wherein the Union alleged the City was not bargaining in good faith in pending impasse proceedings in the successor collective bargaining agreement discussions. Finally, the hearing officer rejected the Union's claim that the City, again through Brown's action, had engaged in retaliation against the represented police corps in violation of section 447.501(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), [3] for the filing by their union bargaining representative of the January 12, 2006 unfair labor practice charge, brought to secure compliance with the earlier grievance settlement....

...d, protected activity. Brown's threat has the foreseeable effect of instilling in the employees a reasonable belief that further participation in protected activity might also result in future adverse employment consequences; thus, the City violated Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes. On July 3, 2006, the City filed three exceptions to the hearing officer's recommended order. First, the City argued that the hearing officer erred in finding a violation of section 447.501(1)(a), because the only "right" with which the City arguably interfered was a contractual right based on the terms of the parties' settlement of an unfair labor practices charge, which is not a right protected by statute....

...Each of these exceptions to the general principle of administrative review that we customarily follow is applicable to this case. ANALYSIS This appeal focuses on the Commission's determination that the City unlawfully coerced the Union in violation of section 447.501(1)(a) of the Florida Public Employees Relations Act. As previously stated, this provision of the Act prohibits a public employer from "[i]nterfering with, restraining, or coercing" its employees "in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them" by chapter 447, part II. § 447.501(1)(a), Fla....

...The "rights guaranteed" public employees are enumerated in section 447.301, Florida Statutes (2006), and include "the right to engage in concerted activities not prohibited by law, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." § 447.301(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). In support of its section 447.501(1)(a) claim, the Union's charging document alleges that Brown's statements at the February 17, 2006 meeting had instilled in the member employees a "reasonable belief" that protected conduct would henceforth be punished: "Mr....

...may result in adverse employment consequences, and by doing so interfered with, restrained and coerced employees in the exercise[ ] of their Section 447.301 rights." (emphasis added). Contrary to these allegations, however, a successful claim under section 447.501(1)(a) does not hinge on the employee's "reasonable belief." Rather, a successful claim under this provision requires proof that the exercise of statutorily protected conduct motivated the employer to make a threatening or coercive decision or a decision against the employee's interest....

...Thus focused, the hearing officer concluded that "Brown's threat ha[d] the foreseeable effect of instilling in the employees a reasonable belief that further participation in protected activity might also result in future adverse employment consequences; thus, the City violated Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes." See supra pp....

...Misapplying Lee County and a fortiori, its progenitor, Pasco County, the Final Order rendered by the Commission states: In School Board of Lee County v. Lee County School Board Employees Local 780, AFSCME, 512 So.2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the First District Court of Appeal held that, in proving a violation of Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes, an employee must show that his or her otherwise protected activity was of a substantial motivating factor in the employer's decision or action constituting the alleged violation....

...Instead, we conclude the Commission's decision to retreat from Lee County was plainly improper. First, the "unambiguous statement" exception articulated in City of Orlando, see City of Orlando, 13 FPER ¶ 18218 at 517, is directly contrary to established law. In Lee County, the First District Court of Appeal interpreted section 447.501(1)(a) as requiring a showing that the employer was motivated by protected conduct. The court stated: "In proving a violation of section 447.501(1)(a), an employee must show that his or her otherwise protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the employer's decision or action which constituted the alleged violation." Lee County, 512 So.2d at 239 (emphasis added)....

...Union's contractual right — at the moment — to receive pension reimbursements checks. Any shred of remaining doubt about the City's liability is erased by the recommended order itself. In rejecting the Union's contention that the City had violated section 447.501(1)(d) of the Act, the hearing officer found that, "Brown's threat to retaliate against the employees was motivated by his disagreement with Gibbons' interpretation of the contract and the ramifications stemming from that disagreement, not because the FOP filed the unfair labor practice charge." (emphasis added)....

...ining agreement grievance," is not supported. See § 120.68(10), Fla. Stat. The record in this matter — and in particular the hearing officer's explicit findings of fact regarding Mr. Brown's motive — settles the question whether the City violated section 447.501(1)(a)....

...Commission, remand for further proceedings is unnecessary. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of the Florida Public Employee Relations Commission with directions that the unfair labor practice charge brought against the City pursuant to section 447.501(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes be dismissed....

...NOTES [1] A change of union leadership occurred one year after the negotiation of the 2003-2005 collective bargaining agreement. According to the City, prior union leadership clearly understood and acknowledged that the pension contribution component of the 2003-2005 collective bargaining agreement was unconditional. [2] Section 447.501(1)(c) prohibits public employers, their agents or representatives from "[r]efusing to bargain collectively, failing to bargain collectively in good faith, or refusing to sign a final agreement agreed upon with the certified bargaining agent for the public employees in the bargaining unit." [3] Section 447.501(1)(d) prohibits public employers, their agents, or representatives from "[d]ischarging or discriminating against a public employee because he or she has filed charges or given testimony under [chapter 447, part II]." [4] Article I, se...

...[5] Remarkably, the Commission seems to have long misapplied the Pasco/Lee County evidentiary standard. See, e.g., IAFF Local 2771, New Smyrna Beach Prof'l Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of New Smyrna Beach, 10 FPER ¶ 15215 at 436 (1984) (maintaining that an employer violated section 447.501(1)(a) if the effect of the conduct "was ....

...3d DCA 3 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 447.501 ‘or the type of labor matter or dispute within the contemplation of Part II, Chapter 447.” Browning, 796 So....

...City of Ocala[City] appeals a consolidated final order issued by the Florida Public Employees Relation Commission [PERC] after separate hearings and recommended orders by two members of the Commission on claims by the two appellee unions. PERC's order found City guilty of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...*29 PERC further found that the merit program was a part of the status quo which these employees might have reasonably expected to continue without interruption. PERC concluded that City's unilateral alteration of the status quo during the pendency of collective bargaining negotiations constituted a per se violation of Section 447.501(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1977), and a violation of Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...led November 9, 1977. On January 11, 1978, City refused to engage in collective bargaining negotiations with PBA pending resolution of the decertification petition. PERC found that City's refusal to bargain constituted an unfair labor practice under § 447.501(1)(c) and (a), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...on is accordingly approved. Board of Regents *33 v. PERC, supra . We therefore affirm PERC's order finding that City's refusal to bargain with PBA during the pendency of the decertification petition constituted an unfair labor practice prohibited by § 447.501(1)(c) and (a), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...) based on the holding in Christiansburg Garment Company v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). We affirm. On May 5, 1982, Nancy Pittman and the union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the hospital had violated Section 447.501(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1981), by terminating Pittman's employment as an operating room technician because of her protected activities on behalf of the union....

...An evidentiary hearing was conducted by a commission hearing officer, during which all parties had the opportunity to appear, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses. The hearing officer issued an order recommending that the commission find the hospital had not violated Section 447.501(1), either subsection (a) or (b), by terminating Pittman's employment....

...Under the Act, the Legislature created PERC, and empowered that administrative agency "to settle disputes regarding alleged unfair labor practices." *814 § 447.503, Fla. Stat. (1999). The activities prohibited as being "unfair labor practices" are defined in section 447.501 of the Florida Statutes (1999), with subsection (1) applying to employer activities and subsection (2) applying to union activities. Case law interpreting the jurisdictional scope of the Act has broadly included, as falling within PERC's exclusive jurisdiction, those activities which "arguably" constitute unfair labor practices as defined by section 447.501 "or the type of labor matter or dispute within the contemplation of Part II, Chapter 447." Maxwell v....

...attorney hired to represent a teacher in an administrative dismissal proceeding was providing services as part of that union's duty of fair representation in a collective bargaining activity). This is an unfair labor practice "arguably" embraced by section 447.501(2) [2] of the Florida Statutes falling within PERC's exclusive jurisdiction....

...f against a school board, and to cooperate with her private attorney is a breach of the duty of fair representation and an unfair labor practice, and holding that such actions "constitute labor activities `arguably' embraced within the provisions of section 447.501(2)" thereby pre-empting jurisdiction in PERC)....

...Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition and quash the order denying the motion to dismiss, but withhold issuance of our writ confident in our knowledge that the trial court will follow the mandate of this court. NOTES [1] Wojcicki is a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD), a local FEA affiliate. [2] Section 447.501(2), provides, in relevant part: (2) A public employee organization or anyone acting in its behalf or its officers, representatives, agents, or members are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employee...

...The issues in both actions are the same: (1) Does PERC have authority under § 447.507, Florida Statutes to enforce or implement Section 447.505 in the absence of an unfair labor practice charge having been lodged with it which alleges a violation of § 447.501(2)(a), Florida Statutes? (2) If the answer to "(1)" above is in the affirmative, may PERC act to enforce or implement the above statute without having itself adopted specific rules governing the procedure for such? The trial court and PERC both ruled in the affirmative as to both of the above points....

...in violation of § 447.505, Florida Statutes. PERC obtained an injunction against CTA and thereafter the strike was terminated. The public employer, the Broward County School Board, did not file an unfair labor practice charge alleging violation of § 447.501(2)(e) and PERC, therefore, had the choice of either doing nothing or initiating proceedings on its own to investigate the alleged violations and impose sanctions provided for in Chapter 447 if it found a violation had occurred....

...as defined in the statutes, has violated F.S. 447.505, prohibiting an employee organization from participating in a strike against a public employer. The Court is further of the view that procedures under F.S. 447.507 are distinct from those under F.S. 447.501, dealing with unfair labor practices, and that the making of a charge of an unfair labor practice is not a prerequisite to procedures under F.S....

...d effectively emasculate the constitutional and statutory prohibitions against strikes. This, in the opinion of the Commission, would frustrate legislative intent. In this case, no charge has been filed by the public employer alleging a violation of Section 447.501(2)(e)....

...ic Commission Rules. Division of Administrative Hearings has promulgated rules which provide the necessary procedural safeguards." Article I, Section 6, of the Florida Constitution provides: "... Public employees shall not have the right to strike." Section 447.501, Florida Statutes, lists and defines numerous unfair labor practices....

...From this, CTA concludes and argues that since a strike is an unfair labor practice, PERC is limited to dealing with it to only investigating and acting upon charges that are filed and in the absence of a charge PERC has no power to proceed. We must look not only to § 447.501 and § 447.503 for answer to this question, however....

...Commission). We reverse, holding that the Commission's decision that changes in the manner of distribution of the Florida Teacher Lead Program (FTLP) funds affects the teachers' terms and conditions of employment was not a reasonable construction of section 447.501(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2007). Because of our holding, we need not address the School District's other arguments. On October 3, 2007, the Martin County Education Association (the Teachers) filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the School District violated section 447.501(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2007), by failing to bargain its decision to distribute FTLP funds to teachers through Visa debit cards, in lieu of distribution through traditional check....

...She questioned Koren about whether he believed that the contents of the Morris complaint were true, and if that was why his behavior toward Leal had changed. Koren filed a charge against the School Board of Miami-Dade County alleging unfair labor practices violations pursuant to sections 447.501(l)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes (2008)....

...Koren appealed the summary dismissals to the Third District. The Third District affirmed, stating that “[a]fter a thorough reading of the record, we cannot say that the events set forth in Koren’s complaints rise to the level of retaliation or employment discrimination contemplated by sections 447.501(l)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes (2008) and conclude that the record reveals no basis for finding a prima facie violation of that statute.” Koren, 46 So.3d at 1093 (citing Sch....

...practices as set forth by statute and case law.” Id. (citing Lawrence v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 236 F.Supp.2d 1314 (M.D.Fla.2002)). Because we find that the actions alleged in Koren’s claim were sufficient to establish a prima facie violation of section 447.501 we conclude that the Third District incorrectly affirmed PERC’s dismissal of Koren’s charges. Koren’s complaint filed against the School Board of Miami-Dade County alleged violations pursuant to sections 447.501(l)(a) and (d). Section 447.501 (l)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), provides: Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part. § 447.501(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). Section 447.501(l)(d) provides: Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from discharging or discriminating against a public employee because he or she has filed charges or given testimony under this part. § 447.501(l)(d), Fla....

...We do not disagree that this is the appropriate standard to be applied before an administrative tribunal. See also School Bd. of Lee Cnty. v. Lee Cnty. School Bd. Employees, Local 780, AFSCME, 512 So.2d 238, 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (“In proving a violation of section 447.501(l)(a), an employee must show that his or her otherwise protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the employer’s decision or action which constituted the alleged violation.”)....

...However, this heightened standard is not appropriate when first determining whether a claimant has stated a prima facie violation in his or her charge. The only court to provide an explanation of the requirements to establish a prima facie charge alleging a violation of section 447.501(l)(a), (d) has been the Second District Court of Appeal in Gibbons v. State Public Employees Relations Commission, 702 So.2d 536, 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“We have been unable to find an opinion from a Florida court setting forth the requirements necessary to establish a prima facie charge alleging a violation of section 447.501(a), (d) and section 447.301(3), (4).”)....

...e is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Id. at 587 . We find this standard appropriate and apply it here. We find that the record demonstrates that Koren established a prima facie charge of a violation of section 447.501....

...inst an employee for engaging in protected activity. Koren’s first complaint stemmed from Leal’s alleged reaction to his helping Morris draft a complaint. Assisting a fellow employee in drafting a ULP charge is clearly a protected activity under section 447.501....

...onunionized City employees. As a result, the Union, in November 2007, filed an unfair labor practice charge against the City, alleging a violation of section 1.016(1)(a) and (c) of the Lakeland Public Employees Relations Ordinance, which is based on section 447.501, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...By not providing newly unionized employees with this wage adjustment, the City failed to maintain the status quo. In doing so, the City committed an unfair labor practice, as defined in section 1.016(1)(a) and (c) of the Lakeland Public Employees Relations Ordinance and section 447.501(1)....

...awfully interrogating and discharging three police officers—Lts. Pfefferkorn and Gilles and Officer Peterson— all of whom were PBA representatives, for their involvement in union activities. At the hearing, appellants argued that the City violated Section 447.501(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, by discharging the three officers for engaging in protected, concerted activities on behalf of the PBA....

...SCHOONOVER, Judge. The Sarasota County School Board (school board) challenges a decision of the State of Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC). The decision held that the school board committed an unfair labor practice within the meaning of section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1989), by unilaterally discontinuing the payment of step pay increases to employees during the pendency of negotiations between the school board and Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association (CTA)....

...ot agree to bargain the amount of money the school board had appropriated. On August 7, 1991, the CTA filed an unfair labor practice charge with PERC. According to the charge, the school board committed an unfair labor practice within the meaning of section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1989), by unilaterally discontinuing the payment of step increases during the pendency of negotiations between the parties....

...The commission concluded that the section is inapplicable to an employer's action during a hiatus and, therefore, cannot shield the school board from liability for unilaterally terminating the step increases. Based upon its interpretation of section 447.309(2), PERC entered an order finding that the school board violated section 447.501(1)(a) and (c) by unilaterally discontinuing salary step increments during the hiatus between collective bargaining agreements....

...l. See Lakeland, Fla., Code of Ordinances, No. 3663, § 1.017 (1995). Because, by past practice, the City had given wage increases to its employees, the Union alleged that the City's unilateral change in practice, disrupting the status quo, violated section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...The appellant, United Teachers of Dade (UTD), insists the District acted alone. The teacher appellee, Shawn Beightol, argues the District did not act alone, but rather UTD "caused" the District's action, and UTD's actions were unlawful within the meaning of sections 447.501(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (2010)....

...tside the hearing room. At the CFR on October 7, Beightol's non-attorney PEN representative was refused entry to the hearing room. Beightol's unfair labor practice charges followed. Analysis The charges in this case were brought pursuant to sections 447.501(2)(a) and (b) of the Florida Public Relations Act, Chapter 447, Part II, of the Florida Statutes....

...guaranteed them under [Chapter 447, Part II, of the Florida Statutes].... (b) Causing or attempting to cause a public employer to discriminate against an employee because of the employee's membership or non-membership in an employee organization.... § 447.501(2)....

...Here, UTD fails to appreciate its legal obligation to the bargaining unit. UTD is the bargaining agent for all employees in the bargaining unit, union members and non-union members alike. [1] UTD may not prefer its dues-paying members over non-dues-paying members in its representation and negotiations. See § 447.501(2)(b). By the same token, it cannot in good faith negotiate, maintain or condone a contract provision which it knows to create and perpetuate a system which requires employees to become UTD members to obtain a benefit. See § 447.501(2)(b); Spiegel v....

...ng a labor organization. See art. I, § 6, Fla. Const.; see also § 447.301, Fla. Stat. (2010). The Florida legislature has enacted laws expressly designed to protect public employees from interference and coercion in the exercise of this right. See § 447.501(2)(a)....

CLARK, J. The Sheriffs Office of Palm Beach County appeals the final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission which determined that the Sheriffs Office violated section 447.501(1), Florida Statutes by refusing to process a former deputy’s grievance to arbitration....

...Brooks of Meyer, Brooks & Cooper, Tallahassee, for appellee Support Personnel Ass'n of Lee County. ZEHMER, Judge. The School Board of Lee County appeals a final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission finding it guilty of unfair labor practices in violation of section 447.501, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...— Neither the pupils, the staff, the facilities nor the grounds of any school may be used in any manner for advertising or otherwise promoting the interest of any commercial, political or non-school agency, individual or organization. SPALC filed a claim under section 447.501, [4] alleging that the school board had, because of the above described conduct, committed unfair labor practices by unlawfully restricting the right of school district employees to solicit new members and distribute labor organization literature....

...nded awarding SPALC attorney's fees and costs. PERC accepted (with two minor exceptions not material to this appeal) the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the recommended order, and concluded that the School District of Lee County "violated section 447.501(1)(a) by maintaining and enforcing a policy which prevented its employees from soliciting union membership and support and from distributing organizational literature to fellow employees during nonwork time and in nonwork areas." PERC's order further concluded that the school district "violated Section 447.501(1)(a) by removing SPALC material from the general purpose employee bulletin board [located in the operations building] where it had been placed by a SPALC supporter" and that the school district "knew or should have known that its actions violated section 447.501(1)(a), and therefore the SPALC is entitled to appropriate attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 447.503(6)(c), in an amount to be determined." PERC's order directed, in paragraph (1), that the school district cease and desist from: (a) Violating Section 447.501(1)(a) by preventing employees from exercising their right to engage in supporting an employee organization of their own choosing through maintenance and enforcement of a policy whereby employees are prohibited from soliciting union membership and support or from distributing literature for this purpose during nonwork times and in nonwork areas. (b) Violating Section 447.501(1)(a) by removing or causing the removal of any organizational material placed upon the School District's general purpose bulletin board by employee supporters of SPALC....

...n the board's premises. THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE The school board's challenge to PERC's jurisdiction to hear this case is based on the contention that SPALC's unfair labor practice charge, although couched as an unfair labor practice in violation of section 447.501(1)(a), is actually an attempt to prohibit the board's imposition of restrictions on solicitation and distribution authorized by section 447.509(1)....

...proven in this case, and that PERC's exercise of jurisdiction does not conflict with either of the cited decisions. The charges alleged that the board had committed an unfair labor practice by depriving SPALC employee members of rights protected by section 447.501(1)(a)....

...protection. Public employees shall also have the right to refrain from engaging in such activities. An employer's interference with free exercise of the right to organize therein recognized is unquestionably an unfair labor practice in violation of section 447.501(1)(a)....

...Dade Teachers Association, 421 So.2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Nothing in the language of section 447.509 suggests that the circuit court possesses exclusive jurisdiction to redress the deprivation of an employee's right of solicitation and distribution protected by sections 447.501 and -.503, even though the scope of that right is circumscribed by section 447.509....

...We hold, therefore, that when an employer is wrongfully prohibiting lawful solicitation or distribution by its employees in the exercise of their rights to collective organization, the employee organization may enforce its member employees' rights by filing an unfair labor practice charge with PERC pursuant to section 447.501. DISTRIBUTION IN WORK AREAS The school board argues next that PERC erred in finding that the board's prohibition of the distribution of literature in working areas during nonworking hours violated section 447.501(1)(a), and urges us to hold that the restrictions imposed on such distribution were permissible under section 447.509(1)(b)....

...of the order is so general and overbroad that it purports to prohibit all restrictions on solicitation and distribution by SPALC member employees, including activities that may properly be restricted under 509. The commission, finding a violation of section 447.501 in respect to the distribution of certain literature, ordered the school board to cease and desist from ... violating section 447.501(1)(a) by preventing employees from exercising their right to engage in supporting an employee organization of their own choosing through maintenance and enforcement of a policy whereby employees are prohibited from soliciting union me...

...The employee break room *1293 and the bathrooms are not working areas, and solicitation and distribution in these areas is allowed in nonworking time, e.g., during lunch and before and after work. BULLETIN BOARD USE The school board also argues that the commission erred in concluding that section 447.501(1)(a) prohibits the board from removing SPALC material from one of the bulletin boards in the maintenance building, and in ordering that SPALC be given access to this bulletin board....

...icy to union activities such as those involved in this case. ATTORNEY'S FEES The record supports the finding that the board's supervisory personnel knew or should have known that at least some of the actions taken against employee Barnhouse violated section 447.501(1)(a), and that SPALC is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 447.503(6)(c)....

...in setting the amount of fee. Since the board has prevailed in substantial part on this appeal, SPALC's motion for appellate attorney's fees will be denied. CONCLUSION Although we find no merit to the board's objection to PERC's jurisdiction of the section 447.501 charges made in this case, and affirm, in part, the finding that the school board violated section 447.501 in prohibiting certain of the labor-organizing activities by its employees, we conclude that some of the board's restrictions were proper under section 447.509....

...ature distribution in work areas. I agree with appellee, Support Personnel Association of Lee County, in their view that Appellant's point misconstrues the order. The order did not find as urged by appellant, but found that the School Board violated Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), by prohibiting not only literature distribution in work areas but in nonwork areas during non working hours as well....

...[2] The commission's finding that SPALC is an employee organization within the meaning of section 447.203(11), Florida Statutes (1983), is not challenged on appeal. [3] The abbreviated name for another employee organization, American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO. [4] Section 447.501 provides in pertinent part: (1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part....

...n employee supporter of the Charging Party. Upon being questioned, Soucie told this employee that he would not permit any of the Charging Party's literature anywhere within the building. The above-described conduct constitutes a blatant violation of Section 447.501(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), and the School Board knew or should have known that such conduct was violative of the law....

...awarding SPALC attorney’s fees and costs. PERC accepted (with two minor exceptions not material to this appeal) the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the recommended order, and concluded that the School District of Lee County “violated section 447.501(l)(a) by maintaining and enforcing a policy which prevented its employees from soliciting union membership and support and from distributing organizational literature to fellow employees during nonwork time and in nonwork areas.” PERC’s order further concluded that the school district “violated Section 447.501(l)(a) by removing SPALC material from the general purpose employee bulletin board [located in the operations building] where it had been placed by a SPALC supporter” and that the school district “knew or should have known that its actions violated section 447.501(l)(a), and therefore the SPALC is entitled to appropriate attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 447.503(6)(c), in an amount to be determined.” PERC’s order directed, in paragraph (1), that the school district cease and desist from: (a)Violating Section 447.501(l)(a) by preventing employees from exercising their right to engage in supporting an employee organization of their own choosing through maintenance and enforcement of a policy whereby employees are prohibited from soliciting union membership and support or from distributing literature for this purpose during non-work times and in nonwork areas. (b) Violating Section 447.501(l)(a) by removing or causing the removal of any organizational material placed upon the School District’s general purpose bulletin board by employee supporters of SPALC....

...ard’s premises. THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE The school board’s challenge to PERC’s jurisdiction to hear this case is based on the contention that SPALC’s unfair labor practice charge, although couched as an unfair labor practice in violation of section 447.501(1)(a), is actually an attempt to prohibit the board’s imposition of restrictions on solicitation and distribution authorized by section 447.509(1)....

...roven in this case, and that PERC’s exercise of jurisdiction does not conflict with either of the cited decisions. The charges alleged that the board had committed an unfair labor practice by depriving SPALC employee members of rights protected by section 447.501(l)(a)....

...rotection. Public employees shall also have the right to refrain from engaging in such activities. An employer’s interference with free exercise of the right to organize therein recognized is unquestionably an unfair labor practice in violation of section 447.501(l)(a)....

...Dade Teachers Association, 421 So.2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Nothing in the language of section 447.509 suggests that the circuit court possesses exclusive jurisdiction to redress the deprivation of an employee’s right of solicitation and distribution protected by sections 447.501 and -.503, even though the scope of that right is circumscribed by section 447.509....

...We hold, therefore, that when an employer is wrongfully prohibiting lawful solicitation or distribution by its employees in the exercise of their rights to collective organization, the employee organization may enforce its member employees’ rights by filing an unfair labor practice charge with PERC pursuant to section 447.501. DISTRIBUTION IN WORK AREAS The school board argues next that PERC erred in finding that the board’s prohibition of the distribution of literature in working areas during nonworking hours violated section 447.501(l)(a), and urges us to hold that the restrictions imposed on such distribution were permissible under section 447.-509(l)(b)....

...of the order is so general and overbroad that it purports to prohibit all restrictions on solicitation and distribution by SPALC member employees, including activities that may properly be restricted under 509. The commission, finding a violation of section 447.501 in respect to the distribution of certain literature, ordered the school board to cease and desist from ... violating section 447.501(l)(a) by preventing employees from exercising their right to engage in supporting an employee organization of their own choosing through maintenance and enforcement of a policy whereby employees are prohibited from soliciting union me...

...The employee break room *1293 and the bathrooms are not working areas, and solicitation and distribution in these areas is allowed in nonworking time, e.g., during lunch and before and after work. BULLETIN BOARD USE The school board also argues that the commission erred in concluding that section 447.501(1)(a) prohibits the board from removing SPALC material from one of the bulletin boards in the maintenance building, and in ordering that SPALC be given access to this bulletin board....

...o union activities such as those involved in this case. ATTORNEY’S FEES The record supports the finding that the board’s supervisory personnel knew or should have known that at least some of the actions taken against employee Barn-house violated section 447.501(l)(a), and that SPALC is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 447.503(6)(c)....

...ing the amount of fee. Since the board has prevailed in substantial part on this appeal, SPALC’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees will be denied. CONCLUSION Although we find no merit to the board’s objection to PERC’s jurisdiction of the section 447.501 charges made in this case, and affirm, in part, the finding that the school board violated section 447.501 in prohibiting certain of the labor-organizing activities by its employees, we conclude that some of the board’s restrictions were proper under section 447.509....

...The commission’s finding that SPALC is an employee organization within the meaning of section 447.203(11), Florida Statutes (1983), is not challenged on appeal. . The abbreviated name for another employee organization, American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO. . Section 447.501 provides in pertinent part: (1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part....

...ee *1288 supporter of the Charging Party. Upon being questioned, Soucie told this employee that he would not permit any of the Charging Party’s literature anywhere within the building. The above-described conduct constitutes a blatant violation of Section 447.501 (l)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), and the School Board knew or should have known that such conduct was violative of the law....

...In response, the city commission legislatively imposed the provision that neither party would have the right to appeal the arbitrator’s decision. Following the impasse resolution proceeding, the Union filed unfair labor practice charges against the City alleging that the City had violated Section 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1983), by permitting the city attorney and city manager to converse privately during the hearing and by resolving that neither party could appeal an arbitration award concerning supplemental compensation....

instigated or supported a strike in violation of § 447.-501(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1975); (3) That DTU

...Government Supervisors Ass’n of Florida, OPEIU AFL-CIO Local 100, 907 So.2d 591, 593 (Fla. 3d DCA2005). We affirm. Koren filed a complaint against the School Board of Miami-Dade County [“School Board”] alleging unfair labor practices violations pursuant to sections 447.501(l)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes (2008)....

...Dade Teachers Ass’n, FTP-NEA, 421 So.2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). After a thorough reading of the record, we cannot say that the events set forth in Koren’s complaints rise to the level of retaliation or employment discrimination contemplated by sections 447.501(l)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes (2008) and conclude that the record reveals no basis for finding a prima facie violation of that statute. See Sch. Bd. of Lee County v. Lee County Sch. Bd. Employees, Local 780, AFSCME, 512 So.2d 238, 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (holding that, in proving a violation of section 447.501(1)(a), an employee must show that his or her otherwise protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the employer’s decision or action which constituted the alleged violation). “A successful claim under section 447.501(l)(a) does not hinge on the employee’s ‘reasonable belief.’ Rather, a successful claim under this provision requires proof that the exercise of statutorily protected conduct motivated the employer to make a threatening or coerci...

...5th DCA 2001) (holding that case law “interpreting the jurisdictional scope of the [Public Employees Relations] Act has broadly included, as falling within PERC’s exclusive jurisdiction, those activities which ‘arguably’ constitute unfair labor practices as defined by section 447.501 ‘or the type of labor matter or dispute within the contemplation of Part II, Chapter 447’ ”) (quoting Maxwell v....

...CURIAM. This is an appeal from an order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), which found that a union time pool, contained in a collective bargaining agreement, and applicable to all bargaining unit members, was violative of Sections 447.501(l)(a) and 447.301(1), Florida Stat *373 utes. We adopt the order of PERC, the pertinent parts of which state as follows: “On January 27, 1983, Edwin S. Delaney filed an unfair labor practice charge which alleged that the City of Hialeah had violated Section 447.501(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), by implementing a pool time provision contained in the collective bargaining agreement entered into by the City and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 3032....

...here were no disputed issues of material fact. Consequently, no evidentiary hearing was conducted. On July 14,1983, the hearing officer issued his recommended order in which he concluded that the maintenance of the union time pool provision violated Section 447.501(l)(a). ⅝ ⅝ ⅜ ⅝ ⅜ ⅜; In concluding that the City committed an unfair labor practice, the hearing officer relied upon Sections 447.501(l)(a) and 447.-301(1)....

...Local 1625, Retail Clerks International Association, 141 So.2d 269 (Fla.1962), aff'd, 373 U.S. 746 , 83 S.Ct. 1461 , 10 L.Ed.2d 678 (1963); Florida Education Association United v. PERC, 346 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Therefore, a construction of Sections 447.501(l)(a) and 447.-301(1) which permits a certified union and a public employer to negotiate a provision which requires nonmembers to contribute to the union something of value as a condition of their employment would render these provisions constitutionally suspect....

...s case is not based upon a determination that the contract provision at issue conflicts with Article I, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution. Rather, our order in this case is limited to a finding that maintenance of the contract provision violates Section 447.501(l)(a)....

Justice, he alleged that the Department violated section 447.501(l)(a),(d), Florida Statutes (1995), and section

...re transfer of the city employees to PSTA in ATU’s effort to begin representing those employees through accretion. As a result of those agreements, IBF & O filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge against PSTA alleging various violations of section 447.501, Florida Statutes, in regard to IBF & O’s contract with the city employees....

in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 447.-501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1974)

...Herrington, Assistant to the President for Employee Relations, was called to testify on behalf of the College. On 22 December 1980, the Faculty Association, on behalf of the seven employees it had subpoenaed, filed against the College an unfair labor practices charge pursuant to Section 447.501, Florida Statutes, alleging that these seven employees had been docked one day’s pay for appearing on behalf of the union, while individuals who testified on behalf of the employer suffered no such loss of pay....

...vidence supported a finding that some did in fact make such request. It also observed that Muse’s letter was sent to all employees and that Muse testified his intention was for all employees to revoke their authorization cards. It noted that while Section 447.501(3) protects employers in expressing their opinions, nevertheless an employer may not by its conduct interfere with employees in the exercise of their organizational rights. Section 447.501(l)(a)....

...The thrust of the company’s mailing was to undermine employee support for the union.” We believe the facts in Deutsch Company are distinguishable from those here and that PERC employed too strict a test which severely limited the employer’s pre-election comments permitted by Section 447.501(3)....

...stance in withdrawing their authorization cards. In fact the letter specifically advised them that “no pressure would be brought by this office requesting that you do this.” It is clear that the contents of the letter alone were not violative of Section 447.501(l)(a)....

...Two later opinions of the NLRB held no unfair labor practice occurred when the employees initiated the request to withdraw their authorization cards and the employer assisted in the mechanics of revocation. E. g., Aircraft Hydro-Farming, Inc., 221 NLRB 581 (1975); Jimmy-Richard Company, Inc., 210 NLRB 802 (1974). Whether Section 447.501(l)(a) is violated by communications from an employer to his employees relating to union membership depends upon the particular circumstances of each case. Both the employer and the employee organization have a constitutional right to freedom of expression in making pre-election comments so long as the comments do not violate the Gissel standards, enacted in Section 447.501(3), which forbids promise of benefits or threat of reprisal or force....

...We now review the remaining claim, PERC’s finding that the Board must include the subject of employee discipline in the collective bargaining agreement so that disputes involving discipline are resolved through the agreement’s grievance and arbitration procedures. The question presented is whether a section 447.501(l)(a) violation occurs when a public employer insists in the collective bargaining process that it will not include employee discipline as a subject covered by the collective bargaining agreement....

...vision. See § 447.403(4)(d). 3 The Union does not possess the right under Part II of chapter 447 to compel the inclusion of discipline in a collective bargaining agreement. In the absence of such a right, there can be no unfair labor practice under section 447.501....

determined that the School Board violated Section 447.501(1)(a), (c) and (f), Florida Statutes (1979)

...ard’s vicarious responsibility, in an unfair labor practice proceeding before PERC, for its agent’s motive to discourage membership in employee organizations “by discrimination in regard to hiring, tenure, or other conditions of employment,” Section 447.501(l)(b); and we must determine the circumstances in which employee discharge may be justified on a legitimate ground although anti-union motive was a factor leading to the discharge decision....

...Lacking guidance from Florida court decisions construing controlling provisions of the relatively new Public Employees Relations Act, we have examined decisions applying Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 2 from which the relevant provisions of Section 447.501 were drawn....

...1971) (requiring proof that “the employer’s dominant motive was not a proper business one, but union animus.”; See a discussion of the federal cases in Escamilla v. Marshburn Bros., 48 Cal. App.3d 472, 482-84 , 121 Cal.Rptr. 891, 896-97 (1975). The purpose of PERA’s Section 447.501(l)(a) and (b), like that of the corresponding NLRA provisions, is to ensure that public employees engaged in protected collective bargaining activities are treated no differently from other public employees....

...However, PERC will take action appropriate to restore or allow the employer credit for unemployment compensation benefits received by Adams before his reinstatement. The petition for review is DENIED. PERC’s petition for enforcement of its order is GRANTED. MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur. . Section 447.501 provides in part: “(1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part....

...The association refused to ratify this change and filed an unfair labor practice charge against the State. It alleged that the manner in which the Governor had effected *163 this change violated the association’s right to collective bargaining over pensions, under sections 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2010) and Article 1, section 6 of the Florida Constitution....

...He accepted the association’s argument that, by substituting the proposed language for the extant language of Article 16, the Governor had allowed the Legislature to change the pension plan without any bargaining with the association. Based on this reasoning, the hearing officer concluded, “The state violated section 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes, by obtaining through impasse resolution a waiver of future bargaining over pensions (Article 16) at the conclusion of the re-opener bargaining.” As a remedy, he recommended that “[t]he state should...

...Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 522 So.2d 358, 363 (Fla. 1988), the constitution guarantees public employees the right of “effective” collective bargaining. The constitutional right created by Article I, section 6 is implemented in Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. Section 447.501(1) provides in pertinent part: (1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part. *164 (c) Refusing to bargain collectively, failing to bargain collectively in good faith, or refusing to sign a final agreement agreed upon with the certified bargaining agent for the public employees in the bargaining unit. § 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Fla....

...action imposed as a result of impasse, a public employer’s unilateral alteration of wages, hours or other terms and conditions of employment of employees represented by a certified bargaining agent *165 constitutes a per se violation of [s]ection 447.501(a)(a) and (c)....

...Four labor unions representing employees of the City of Gainesville appeal a final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) that rejected Hearing Officer Choppin’s ruling that the City had engaged in unfair labor practices, in violation of sections 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2008), by refusing to bargain over changes it made to health insurance benefits for city employees, once they retire....

...of any increase in premiums occurring in retirement, gave rise to the present controversy, and to unfair labor practice charges, because the City refused to bargain over the change. When the unions filed unfair labor practice charges under sections 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2008), alleging the City’s refusal to bargain, a PERC hearing officer conducted an evidentiary hearing....

...280 at 282 (1977), approved 367 So.2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). “It is settled law that a public employer’s unilateral alteration of the status quo of a mandatory subject of bargaining, i.e., wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of its employees, is a per se violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes, absent a clear and unmistakable waiver, legislative body action taken after impasse, or extraordinary circumstances requiring immediate action.” Miami Beach Fraternal Order of Police....

...s silent on this issue. See Hillsborough Cnty. Police Benevolent Ass’ n, Inc. v. City of New Port Richey, 12 F.P.E.R. 17040 at 61 (1985). In City of New Port Richey, PERC held that the city had committed an unfair labor practice, in violation of §§ 447.501(l)(a) and (c), by amending its ordinance to reduce its required contribution to the retirement fund where the city’s contribution had been established by ordinance for four years and the union contract was silent on the matter....

...employees represented by the unions. City Attorney Hauck and various City documents recognized that any changes that might occur remained subject to the City’s collective bargaining obligations. . A public employer's refusal to bargain violates §§ 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2008), which prohibit employers from "[i]nterfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part” and "[Refusing to bargain collectively ......

...plan administration as well as obvious emoluments of value like benefits and contributions as falling within the definition of terms and conditions of employment.”). . In City of New Port Richey, the Commission held that the City violated Sections 447.501(l)(a) and (c) by amending the city ordinance and thereby unilaterally altering the City’s rate of contribution to the pension fund....

...The hearing officer concluded: By refusing to execute and submit a proposed collective bargaining agreement between the parties to the employees it represents for a ratification vote, Local 2432 committed an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 447.501(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...Based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the negotiation process, Local 2432’s failure to meet and confer with the City or to submit coun-terproposals during the reduction of the proposed agreement to writing constituted an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 447.501(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...een cheating on overtime pay; that the union had written a letter to the wage/hour division requesting an investigation; and that after the investigation was complete, the employees would receive back pay. The election was set aside. Florida Statute § 447.501(2) proscribes conduct on the part of an employee organization “interfering with ....

PERC asserting that Appellee had violated section 447.501(l)(a) & (c), Florida Statutes. A hearing was

...Previously, GOAA employees were denied access to secured areas only if they had been convicted of a disqualifying offense or found not guilty by reason of insanity. Local 678, the bargaining agent for a unit of GOAA’s employees, filed an unfair labor practice charge pursuant to section *610 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes, 3 alleging that GOAA unilaterally changed the working conditions of the bargaining unit employees....

...ualifying crimes listed in this paragraph in any jurisdiction during the 10 years before the date of the individual’s application for unescorted access authority, or while the individual has unescorted access authority. 14 C.F.R. § 107.209 (d). . Section 447.501(1), Florida Statutes, provides that [pjublic employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) [ijnterfering with, restraining or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part....

...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 447.501 ‘or the type of labor matter or dispute within the contemplation of Part II, Chapter 447.’” Browning v....

...the Agreement, as well as adjustments of pay and benefits. Grievant was last paid on February 11, 2018. The City argues that the Employee’s claim arguably constitutes an unfair labor practice in violation of subsections (a) and (f) of section 447.501(1), Florida Statutes (2018), which state: (1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any ri...

...An employer’s refusal to discuss a grievance in good faith pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement with either the certified bargaining agent or the public employee involved is clearly and expressly prohibited by Section 447.501(1)(f). Moreover, such a refusal inherently interferes with a public employee’s Section 447.401 right, thereby constituting conduct prohibited by Section 447.501(1)(a). Westfall v....

...plaintiff labels the claim.” Amato, 208 So. 3d at 237. Here, the Employee’s claim alleges the City refused to discuss the grievance in good faith, which is an inherent interference with section 447.401, and “constitut[es] conduct prohibited by Section 447.501(1)(a).” Westfall, 8 F.P.E.R....

...It further ordered the County to stop collecting assessments from employees’ paychecks because the current so-called signed authorization forms did not in fact authorize assessments. The Commission concluded that further assessments without proper authorization would constitute a violation of section 447.501(l)(a) and (e)....

...The Union interpreted the City’s actions to be in violation of section 447.403, Florida Statutes (2010), and to be a violation of the Union’s right to collectively bargain on its members’ behalf. As a result, the Union filed an unfair labor practice claim with the PERC against the City for violation of section 447.501(1)(a) and (c) and alleged the City unilaterally altered the terms and conditions of the bargaining unit’s members before the impasse procedures were completed. The PERC agreed with the Union, and on March 4, 2011, entered a Final Order incorporating Special Magistrate Terrill's Recommended Decision and found that the City engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of sections 447.501(1)(a) and (c), and ordered the City to do the following:  Rescind the Impasse Resolution action taken by the City Council on July 13, 2010;  Conduct a legislative body hearing in a manner consistent with the requirement...

...nsions, health insurance and other monetary items for the police union employees prior to completing the impasse resolution procedures. The order remanded the cause to a hearing officer to recommend an appropriate remedy. On July 20, 2017, the 2 Section 447.501, Florida Statutes (2017), entitled “Unfair labor practices” provides in pertinent part: (1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing...

...was discharged. Act I: The Curtain Rises 6. On September 10, 1980, the FOP filed an unfair labor practice charge with the State of Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (“PERC”), asserting that Pembroke violated Florida Statute Sections 447.501(1)(a), (b) and (c) 3 by refusing to meet with FOP representatives to negotiate a successor CBA, and by unilaterally, and in response to the police officer’s pro *511 tected activities, contracting out work so as to avoid bargaining or otherwise dealing with FOP....

...s contained in the charge. 8. Pembroke failed to demonstrate good cause and the facts were deemed admitted. PERC ordered full reinstatement and back-pay, concluding, inter alia, that the Town engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (b) by: entering into a contract for police services with the Sheriff of Broward County on July 9, 1980, to avoid bargaining collectively and otherwise dealing with the FOP, to avoid entering into a new collective bargaining...

...ed insured may legally do so, for damages because of (A) Bodily Injury or, (B) Property Damage or, (C) Errors and Omissions or, (D) Personal Injury to which this policy applies, caused by an occurrence which takes place during the policy period. . §§ 447.501(l)(a), (b) and (c) provide that: (1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part....

...These appeals followed. The solicitation/distribution issue PERC’s order finding that the College committed unfair labor practices by unduly restricting solicitation and distribution in support of OWHEA’s organizational effort is foundéd on PERA’s Section 447.501(l)(a), by which public employers are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part....

...munication through which it could have reached members of the faculty is of no moment in the instant case. When employees as opposed to non-employee organizers, are discrimina-torily denied access to an employer’s facilities, the employer violates Section 447.501(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...was a member of a union—the United Faculty of Miami-Dade College, FEA, AFL-CIO, AFT, Local 4253 (“the Union”). Following her termination by MDC on April 23, 2015, Allen filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Union, alleging a violation of section 447.501(2)(a), (b), and (d), Florida Statutes (2015). The charge was summarily dismissed by the General Counsel1 on August 31, 2015, based on Allen’s failure to provide a clear and concise statement of the facts constituting the alleged...

...ic requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 38D-14.004, we reverse the Commission’s order awarding fees. This controversy was commenced when FUSA filed an unfair labor-practice charge with the Commission, alleging that the College violated section 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1987), by refusing to bar *1103 gain with FUSA over its decision to lengthen the summer school term, refusing to bargain with FUSA over the impact of that decision, and directly bargaining with unit employees....

...impose the changes the special magistrate had recommended in the section 447.4095 process. 3 On August 7, 2008, the union filed with PERC an unfair labor practice charge against the School Board. The union alleged the School Board violated sections 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2008), 4 when it improperly invoked section 447.4095 and refused to postpone the legislative body hearing so that then pending and already fruitful Interest Based Bargaining negotiations could go forward....

...rgency actually existed must be negotiated or otherwise determined as part of the section 447.4095process. Nothing in section 447.4095evinces a legislative purpose to abrogate or alter a party’s right to charge an unfair labor practice pursuant to section 447.501....

...The conduct of the [union] does not warrant an inference of relinquishment of its contractual rights. Id. at 583. The City of Ocala case did not involve a public employer invoking section 447.4095, and PERC’s determination that the City violated sections 447.501(l)(a) and (c) did not involve an interpretation of section 447.4095....

...ary savings through the Interest Based Bargaining process, the decision would be revoked and the new agreement considered. The following day, Mr. Tschappat contacted the union about the possibility of resuming this process, but the union declined. . Section 447.501(1), Florida Statutes (2008), provides in part: (1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part....

...mpose the changes the special magistrate had recommended in the section 447.4095 process. [3] On August 7, 2008, the union filed with PERC an unfair labor practice charge against the School Board. The union alleged the School Board violated sections 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2008), [4] when it improperly invoked section 447.4095 and refused to postpone the legislative body hearing so that then pending and already fruitful Interest Based Bargaining negotiations could go forward....

...rgency actually existed must be negotiated or otherwise determined as part of the section 447.4095 process. Nothing in section 447.4095 evinces a legislative purpose to abrogate or alter a party's right to charge an unfair labor practice pursuant to section 447.501....

...The conduct of the [union] does not warrant an inference of relinquishment of its contractual rights. Id. at 583. The City of Ocala case did not involve a public employer invoking section 447.4095, and PERC's determination that the City violated sections 447.501(1)(a) and (c) did not involve an interpretation of section 447.4095....

...y savings through the Interest Based Bargaining process, the decision would be revoked and the new agreement considered. The following day, Mr. Tschappat contacted the union about the possibility of resuming this process, but the union declined. [4] Section 447.501(1), Florida Statutes (2008), provides in part: (1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part....

...ices complained of are alleged to violate statutory and constitutional provisions, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We break no new ground in deciding that PERC has jurisdiction over charges alleging unfair labor practices that violate section 447.501(1), Florida Statutes (1995), where the practices also allegedly violate other statutory or constitutional requirements....

...hereof), and immediate dismissals. In response to the City Commission’s decision, CWA filed unfair labor practice charges against the City, including No. CA-96-020, alleging that the City breached its duty to bargain in good faith, in violation of section 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1995), by imposing contract language which abrogated employees’ statutory rights under sections 440.101 and 440.102, Florida Statutes (1995); and, in No....

terms of the collective bargaining agreement.” Section 447.501(f), Florida Statutes (1977). We note in passing

NIMMONS, Judge. The appellant appeals from an order 1 of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) upholding the hearing officer’s determination that the appellant violated Section 447.501(l)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1987), by abolishing its paid full-time fire department in retaliation for positions taken by the appellee during collective bargaining negotiations....

...Lopez are teachers and Board employees who are AFT-H members, and stewards in their respective schools. In September 1989, both were told by their principals that they could not post AFT-H organizational materials on school bulletin boards, nor leave them lying about on tables and countertops in the teachers’ lounges. Section 447.501(l)(a) provides that it is an unfair labor practice for a public employer to “interfer[e] with, restrain, or coercje] public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part.” Section 447.301(1) states that �...

DAUKSCH, Judge. This is an appeal from a final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC or Commission). Appellee filed an unfair labor practice charge against appellant alleging a violation of section 447.501(l)(a) and (c)....

...p food and supplies while on duty. The County also refused to permit tape-recorders to be used during bargaining sessions. The Union filed a charge on that basis, too. The hearing officer’s recommended order found that the County violated sections 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1981), by refusing to collectively bargain over wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment so long as the Local, as represented by its certified bargaining agent, sought to tape-record the negotiations. The officer also found that the County violated section 447.501(l)(c) by unilaterally changing, after a request for bargaining, an established term or condition of employment without using the impasse resolution procedure required by section 447.403, Florida Statutes....

...Board of County *1025 Commissioners of Orange County, Respondent, 9 FPER § 14272 at 771-784. The order of PERC is devoted at great length to the tape-recorder issue. That is not an issue on appeal here. The Commission found that “The County, acting through its duly authorized agents, violated Section 447.501(l)(c) by unilaterally changing the store visitation policy that had been in place since the County became the public employer of the fire fighting employees represented by Local 2057.” The County has challenged that finding, saying it is not supported by the evidence....

...the hearing officer made findings of fact and recommended that PERC issue an order directing the School Board to cease and desist from refusing to engage in bargaining. On June 29, 1977, PERC issued its order finding the School Board in violation of Section 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1975), for refusing to bargain and ordered the School Board to cease and desist from that practice....

it would be an unfair labor practice under Section 447.-501(l)(b), (e), Florida Statutes (1975), for a

...The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority (the Authority) and the Hillsbor-ough County Civil Service Board (the Board) appeal from an order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC). The order found that the Authority had committed unfair labor practices in violation of sections 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1983), “by refusing to implement certain provisions in the 1984 ratified collective bargaining agreement between the ......

...inance, rule, or regulation. Unless and until such amendment is enacted or adopted and becomes effective, the conflicting provision of the collective bargaining agreement shall not become effective. The Authority had a duty to bargain in good faith. Section 447.501(l)(c)....

...We also do not address the argument of the Board in this case that the Escambia County Civil Service Act was materially different from the Hillsborough County Civil Service Act. As we have said, this case simply turns upon whether the Authority committed unfair labor practices. Types of unfair labor practices are listed in section 447.501(1)....

...was not authorized by Section 447.903(2). The Commission ordered the School Board to make a retroactive payment of the step salary increases, plus interest. LAW A unilateral underfunding of a collective bargaining agreement is a per se violation of section 447.501(l)(a) and (c), in the absence of waiver, exigent circumstances, or legislative resolution of an impasse....

...the salary increase constituted an unfair labor practice. After a public hearing, the Public Employees' Relations Commission entered a final order on January 17, 1992, finding that the School Board had committed an unfair labor practice and violated section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1991), by unilaterally rescinding experienced based step salary increases while the parties were negotiating salaries pursuant to the "reopener" clause in the current agreement....

...was not authorized by Section 447.903(2). The Commission ordered the School Board to make a retroactive payment of the step salary increases, plus interest. LAW A unilateral underfunding of a collective bargaining agreement is a per se violation of section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), in the absence of waiver, exigent circumstances, or legislative resolution of an impasse....

as a result, the college did not violate section 447.501. I cannot agree with the majority’s apparent

...In response, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the County. The Union, which represents over one thousand fire-rescue personnel, alleged that the County’s implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination requirement was a mandatory subject of bargaining and that the County violated section 447.501, Florida Statutes, by implementing the policy unilaterally and without notice....

...t prohibited by law, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Public employees shall also have the right to refrain from engaging in such activities. III.The interpretation with respect to the facts of this case of Section 447.501(2), Florida Statutes, which provides, in part as follows: ......

...s to join for their mutual aid and protection NLRB v. Drivers, Chauffeurs, Helpers, Local Union, 362 U.S. 274 , 80 S.Ct. 706 , 4 L.Ed.2d 710 (1960). However, there are limits to that right. Both the Union and the employer are precluded, by virtue of Section 447.501(2), Florida Statutes, from activities infringing on the rights of individual employees....

...and the Florida Acts protect expression, arguments, or opinions from being the basis for unfair labor charges, so long as they do not carry a threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. NLRA, Section 8, 29 United States Code, Section 158 (c); Section 447.501(3), Florida Statutes....

...nds at least as far as the NLRA in protecting employees from such harassment. The hearing officer and the Commission clearly take too narrow a view of the public employee’s rights and of what constitutes conduct interfering with those rights under Section 447.501(2)....

...provides: It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents — (1) to restrain or *1041 coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 ( 29 U.S.C.S. § 157 ).... (emphasis added) By comparison, Section 447.501(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides: (2) A public employee organization or anyone acting in its behalf or its officers, representatives, agents, or members are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part.......

...The employees have been frozen in their steps since the September 30, 2009, expiration of the parties’ collective bargaining agreements. On November 10, 2009, the PBA filed an unfair labor practice charge with PERC, alleging the Sheriff violated Section 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2009), by unilaterally discontinuing the merit step pay increases during the hiatus period between the expiration of the parties’ previous agreement and a successor agreement....

...negotiations in the absence of certain circumstances. The parties also agreed those circumstances are not present here. PERC appointed a hearing officer. After a hearing, the hearing officer issued a recommended order concluding the Sheriff violated Section 447.501(l)(a) and (c), by failing to pay merit step pay increases after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreements....

...ty Sheriffs Department. Thereupon, the appellee, Florida State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), instituted an unfair labor practice case by filing a charge with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), alleging that the Town violated section 447.501(l)(a), (b), and (c), Florida Statutes (1979), by refusing to meet with the FOP representatives to negotiate a successor collective bargaining agreement and by unilaterally, and in response to unit employees’ protected activities, contracting out unit work so as to avoid bargaining and otherwise dealing with the FOP as the unit’s exclusive bargaining representative. PERC entered an order on March 12, 1981, finding that the Town had violated section 447.501(l)(a), (b), and (c), by subcontracting out its police services in order to avoid entering into a new collective bargaining agreement with the FOP, to discourage membership in the FOP, and to retaliate against the FOP and its members for having filed grievances against the Town....

...nts or representatives interfered with, restrained, or coerced public employees in the exercise of any rights granted them under the state statute, or discharged or discriminated against a public employee for filing charges or giving testimony under section 447.501, Florida Statutes....

CRENSHAW, Judge. The Polk County School District (School District) appeals a final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) determining that the School District committed an unfair labor practice and violated sections 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2008), by unilaterally changing the terms of and options for employee health insurance coverage for members of the Polk Education Association (PEA)....

...As we already discussed, the School Board decided later that day to approve the new health plans despite the PEA’s objections. On July 23, 2009, the PEA filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the PERC, alleging the School District violated sections 447.501(1)(a) and (c), by unilaterally changing the terms of and options for employee health insurance coverage for its members....

...ative action imposed as a result of impasse, a public employer’s unilateral alteration of wages, hours or other terms and conditions of employment of employees represented by a certified bargaining agent constitutes a per se violation of [sections 447.501(1)(a) and (c).” Fla....

...stalemate. Hence, there was competent, substantial evidence to support the PERC’s determination that the PEA did not clearly and unmistakably waive its right to participate in collective bargaining. 7 Moreover, we point out there is nothing under section 447.501(c) absolving the School District of its obligation to collectively bargain over proposed changes in health insurance merely because the subject matter is contentious and complex....

...Junior Coll. Faculty Ass’n v. Bd. of Trs. of Pensacola Junior Coll, 13 FPER ¶ 18150 (1987) (finding a budgetary shortfall does not constitute an exigent circumstance). Therefore, the PERC correctly found that the School District violated sections 447.501(1)(a) and (c) by failing to collectively bargain with the PEA....

...of Regents, Tallahassee, for appellees. PER CURIAM. This is an appeal by the United Faculty of Florida (UFF) and its president, Robert Hogner, from an order of the Public Employees Relations Commission, [1] finding that UFF engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of section 447.501(2)(f), Florida Statutes (1987), [2] by publishing an open letter to students in the Florida International *992 University (FIU) student newspaper soliciting their support in connection with an ongoing labor dispute. The issues presented are whether the letter was protected free speech pursuant to section 447.501(3) [3] and whether section 447.501(2)(f) is unconstitutional....

...r the charge was determined sufficient by the Commission's General Counsel. UFF filed an answer that admitted the operative allegations of the charge and asserted as affirmative defenses that the subject letter constituted "free speech" protected by section 447.501(3) and that section 447.501(2)(f) is unconstitutional....

...The hearing officer determined that the pleadings raised no disputed issues of material fact and called on the parties to submit the case on briefs and argument without an evidentiary hearing. He then issued a recommended order which concluded that the letters were free speech protected by section 447.501(3) and did not constitute an unfair labor practice in violation of section 447.501(2)(f)....

...asses had been raised; and (2) the BOR had filed the unfair labor practice charge. The Commission ruled that the second letter only disseminated information to the students at FIU and did not constitute an unfair labor practice within the meaning of section 447.501(2)(f) because it "merely recites the status of negotiations and contains no express or implicit request for student support or assistance." The Commission cited Clay County Education Association v. School Board of Clay County, 8 FPER Para. 13365, 637-38 (1982), aff'd, 431 So.2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), for the proposition that section 447.501(2)(f) only prohibits affirmative acts of calling students to action. The Commission differed with the hearing officer's recommendation as to the first letter to FIU students, however, and ruled that this letter constituted an unfair labor practice in violation of section 447.501(2)(f)....

...it called on the students to "support a full summer academic program, which was a bargaining proposal advanced by the UFF at that time." Addressing UFF's contention and the hearing officer's conclusion that the letter was "free speech" protected by section 447.501(3), the Commission ruled that in the letter "UFF did not simply express its arguments or opinions, but specifically requested students to become involved in negotiations" and that under these circumstances "the generalized terms of Section 447.501(3), must yield to specific prescription [sic] in Section 447.501(2)(f)," citing IBEW, Local 501 v. NLRB, 341 U.S. 694 at 701-02, 71 S.Ct. 954 at 958-60 [95 L.Ed. 1299] (1951). In rejecting the hearing officer's conclusion that the letter constituted free speech under section 447.501(3), the Commission reasoned that although the Commission "must bear in mind constitutional ramifications when considering various interpretations of a statute," citing Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 737 v....

...atutory language susceptible of only one interpretation must be effectuated in accordance with the legislative intent so manifested, citing several Florida cases supporting these propositions. Applying these principles, the Commission concluded that section 447.501(2)(f) applies to UFF's letter, and that the proscription in that subsection prevails over the general language of section 447.501(3) because the latter section simply recognizes that the parties have a first amendment right to communicate. The Commission expressed disagreement with the hearing officer's conclusion that the reference to free speech in 447.501(3) authorizes the commission "to limit Section 447.501(2)(f) to instances of actual or potential exploitation of students" since that section expressly prohibits "instigating or advocating [student] support, in any positive manner. " Further, the Commission rejected the hearing officer's conclusion there was no implicit coercive effect on the FIU students as they were in an institution of higher learning because that is exactly what section 447.501(2)(f) prohibits. While agreeing with the hearing officer that 447.501(2)(f) is intended to prevent exploitation of students by their teachers, citing UFF v....

...Clay Counter Education Association v. The School Board of Clay County, Florida, 8 FPER para. 13365 at 367 (1982), aff'd per curiam, 431 So.2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)." The Commission rejected "the hearing officer's suggestion that, notwithstanding the plain meaning of Section 447.501(2)(f), a union can solicit student support for its activities, so long as it is done in a noncoercive fashion." To the extent that section 447.501(2)(f) may invalidly circumscribe a party's First Amendment right to free speech, the Commission said, that is an issue on which the Commission must defer to the judiciary. UFF urges three points on this appeal from that order: (1) PERC's interpretation of sections 447.501(2)(f) and 447.501(3) was clearly erroneous as a matter of law; (2) section 447.501(2)(f) is violative of Article I, section 4 of the Florida Constitution and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as interpreted by Florida courts; and (3) section 447.501(2)(f) violates the First Amendment because it cannot survive the strict scrutiny required by applicable court decisions, as it does not advance any compelling state interest to be served by the least restrictive means available. Because we find section 447.501(2)(f) to be facially unconstitutional, we do not discuss the first two points....

...Sloan, Case Number TCA 88-40070-MMP, filed July 12, 1991, holding that this section unconstitutionally abridges appellants' First Amendment right to free speech and enjoining the defendants from enforcing that section (See copy of that decision attached as an appendix to this opinion). There is no question that section 447.501(2)(f) is both a content-based and viewpoint-based restriction on speech, and regulates speech based on the identity of the speaker....

...While the stated purposes of the statute prohibiting union solicitation of student support, i.e., exploitation of students, keeping labor disputes out of the classroom, and avoiding disruption of school activities, may well qualify as compelling state interests, section 447.501(2)(f) is not narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. As Judge Paul stated in his order in United Faculty of Florida v. Sloan, supra: Section 447.501(2)(f) "imposes a selective restriction on expressive conduct far `greater than is essential to the furtherance of ... [the compelling state] interest[s].'" See Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 102, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2293-94 [33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972)]. Section 447.501(2)(f) is overbroad because it prohibits any speech which advocates support for an employee organization's activities: it is not limited to speech of an exploitative nature, to speech that is coercive, to speech that injects labor disputes into the classroom [5....

...ion's activities from *995 high school or grade school students during classroom time." In short, the statute is too broad to meet constitutional requirements. Because the unfair labor practice charge found in this case is premised on a violation of section 447.501(2)(f), our conclusion that this section is unconstitutional mandates reversal of the appealed order and remand with directions to dismiss the charges against appellants....

...such a plan. Spaces were provided for signatures, and there were instructions to "CLIP AND RETURN *996 TO FIU-UFF, UPC AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!" The BOR filed an unfair labor practice charge against UFF with the PERC, contending that the letter violated Section 447.501(2)(f), Florida Statutes (1987). Under Section 447.501(2)(f), a public employee organization or anyone acting in its behalf, is prohibited from "[i]nstigating or advocating support, in any positive manner, for an employee organization's activities from high school or grade school students or students in institutions of higher learning." § 447.501(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (1987). The PERC is charged with enforcing the provisions of Section 447.501(2)(f); however, the PERC does not have the authority to declare a state statute unconstitutional. Subsequent to the filing of this action, the PERC issued a final order which concluded that UFF's publication of the letter violated Section 447.501(2)(f) and, therefore, constituted an unfair labor practice. The PERC ordered UFF to publish notice that UFF's open letter requesting student support was unlawful and that UFF would cease and desist from soliciting student support for its activities. Plaintiffs believe that Section 447.501(2)(f) unduly restricts their right to freedom of speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution....

...ere is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). As mentioned above, the facts are not in dispute. The sole issue before the court is the constitutionality of Section 447.501(2)(f), Florida Statutes....

..."[T]he First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2290, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972) (citations omitted). Section 447.501(2)(f), Florida Statutes, provides that: A public employee organization or anyone acting in its behalf or its officers, representatives, agents, or members are prohibited from ... [i]nstigating or advocating support, in any positive manner, for an employee organization's activities from high school or grade school students or students in institutions of higher learning. Plaintiffs argue, and defendants do not dispute, that Section 447.501(2)(f) is a content-based restriction on speech: if a restriction on speech singles out one subject for regulation, the restriction is content-based. See Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 537, 100 S.Ct. 2326, 2333, 65 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980). Section 447.501(2)(f) is also viewpoint-based: the statute only prohibits speech which "instigat[es] or advocat[es] support, in any positive manner, for an employee organization's activities." Thus, a letter which disagreed with or denounced an employee organization's activities would not be prohibited by the statute. Finally, Section 447.501(2)(f) regulates speech based on the identity of the speaker: the statute prohibits "[a] public employee organization or anyone acting on its behalf ..." from engaging in certain speech....

...Therefore, as long as the government maintains the forum, "a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest." Id. at 46, 103 S.Ct. at 955. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether The Sunblazer constitutes a public forum. However, Section 447.501(2)(f) applies to speech by a public employee organization in any forum, whether public, limited public, or nonpublic — at any time. Therefore, in order for Section 447.501(2)(f) to pass constitutional muster, the statute must satisfy the standard for restricting speech in a public forum; that is, the state must show that "[the statute] is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end." Perry, 460 U.S. at 45-46, 103 S.Ct. at 955. Florida courts have quoted the interest that Section 447.501(2)(f) is intended to serve: The clear purpose and intent of Section 447.501(2)(f) is to prohibit employee organizations, and those acting on their behalf, from seeking student support for union activities....

...uch as keeping labor *998 disputes out of the classroom and avoiding disruption. PERC Order, Exhibit One, Memorandum of Law in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15). Thus, the interests which the state seeks to advance through Section 447.501(2)(f), are the prevention of student exploitation, keeping labor disputes out of classrooms, and avoiding disruption....

...Further, a university's interest in furthering its "educational mission," if reasonable in scope, may be a compelling state interest. See Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 267 n. 5, 277, 102 S.Ct. 269, 273 n. 5, 278, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981). However, the sweeping range of Section 447.501(2)(f) prevents any conclusion that the statute is reasonable in scope. Even assuming that interests such as avoiding student exploitation, keeping labor disputes out of the classroom, and avoiding disruption are compelling, Section 447.501(2)(f) is not narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. Section 447.501(2)(f) "imposes a selective restriction on expressive conduct far `greater than is essential to the furtherance of ... [the compelling state] interest[s].'" See Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 102, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2293-94. Section 447.501(2)(f) is overbroad because it prohibits any speech which advocates support for an employee organization's activities: it is not limited to speech of an exploitative nature, to speech that is coercive, to speech that injects labor disputes into the classroom, [5] or to speech that causes disruption....

...Moreover, it is overbroad because it makes no distinction as to the type of protection from exploitation needed for elementary school children from that of university students who would certainly need less, if any, protection from such exploitation. Thus, even assuming that the interests are compelling, Section 447.501(2)(f) is not narrowly tailored to achieve those ends....

...Section 447.509(1)(c), Florida Statutes, prohibits employee organizations or their representatives from "[i]nstigating or advocating support, in any positive manner, for an employee organization's activities from high school or grade school students during classroom time." In response to plaintiffs' arguments that Section 447.501(2)(f) is unconstitutional, defendants rely on Connick v....

...which was protected by the First Amendment. In order to determine whether the employee's speech was protected, it was necessary to determine whether the employee's speech involved a matter of public concern. The issue in the instant case is whether Section 447.501(2)(f) unconstitutionally restricts speech which is protected by the First Amendment....

...g an oral request in the classroom and passing the open letter to students as they left class might constitute a different kind of threat." Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, Exhibit A, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20). CONCLUSION Section 447.501(2)(f), Florida Statutes, restricts speech on the basis of content, viewpoint, and speaker identity. Furthermore, while a state has more authority to regulate speech on campus than to regulate speech in a public forum located off campus, Section 447.501(2)(f) applies to speech by a public employee organization in any forum, whether public, limited public, or non-public. Therefore, the statute is subject to strict scrutiny. While the interests sought to be served by Section 447.501(2)(f) may be compelling, the statute is not narrowly drawn to achieve those ends. Furthermore, Section 447.501(2)(f) is overbroad. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 14) is GRANTED. 2. Section 447.501(2)(f), Florida Statutes (1987), is unconstitutional on its face in that it prohibits speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 3. Defendants are enjoined from enforcing Section 447.501(2)(f), Florida Statutes....

an unfair labor practice, in violation of section 447.-501(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985). The school

...199, 31 F.P.E.R. ¶ 114 (2005). Moreover, the General Counsel concluded that, based on Wimberly's admissions, the Union had a rational basis for refusing to process Wimberly's grievance, and that the charge did not demonstrate a prima facie violation of section 447.501(2)(a) because the charge did not demonstrate that the Union's processing of the grievance was arbitrary, discriminatory, or conducted in bad faith....

...d supporting documentation did not demonstrate that the Union "acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith by refusing to advance Wimberly's grievance to arbitration," and therefore, "Wimberly has not demonstrated a prima facie violation of Section 447.501(2)(a), Florida Statutes." Wimberly v....

...Wimberly was notified that she could appeal the summary dismissal of the amended charge to PERC within twenty days. On July 30, twenty-one days after the General Counsel entered the summary dismissal, Wimberly filed an amendment to the amended charge, alleging that the Union violated section 447.501(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...e County. Wimberly v. Miami-Dade County, Fla. Employees Local No. 199, 34 F.P.E.R. ¶ 171, 172 (2008). Moreover, the General Counsel concluded that even if the charge had been timely filed, "the charge fails to demonstrate a prima facie violation of Section 447.501(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes." Id....

...Following an administrative hearing in June, July and August, 1985, the hearing officer issued a recommended order finding that the county’s withholding of wage and merit pay increases from union employees on and after October 1, 1984 was a violation of section 447.501(l)(a) and (c), the county’s withholding of wage and merit pay increases from union employees on and after October 1, 1984, was discriminatory and a violation of section 447.501(l)(b), and the county’s withholding of wage and merit pay increases from union employees on and after October 1,1984 and its overall course of conduct demonstrating a failure and refusal to bargain in good faith with the union from October 1, 1984 onward was a violation of section 447.501(a)(1) and (c)....

...PERC on December 23, 1985 issued its order, adopting some of the hearing officer’s findings of fact, but substituting its findings for those of the hearing officer on several issues. The Commission concluded that the hearing officer erred in finding a violation of section 447.501, dis *543 missed appellant’s charge, and denied the county’s request for attorney’s fees and costs....

...[W]e conclude that there is not competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s recommended conclusion that the withholding of wage and merit pay increases on October 1, 1984, was intended to discourage membership in Local 444. We thus find no violation of Section 447.501(l)(a) of (b)....

...[W]e conclude that there is not competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s recommended conclusion that the withholding of wage and merit pay increases on October 1, 1984, was intended to discourage membership in Local 444. We thus find no violation of Section 447.501(l)(a) or (b)....

...When the Union refused to conduct a ratification vote, HART imposed the articles resolved by the legislative body. See § 447.403(4)(e). Thereafter the Union filed charges with PERC alleging that HART committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to resume negotiations after the failed ratification vote, thus violating section 447.501(1)(a) and (c); conducting a legislative body impasse hearing instead of resuming bargaining; and unilaterally altering terms and conditions of employment by implementing the articles resolved at the impasse hearing....

...ractice complaint with PERC. A review of both the original Charge and the Amended Charge indicates that they both contained the following statement at line five: "The union or its agents have engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 447.501(2)(a) and Contract Article III.21—Lineup and Seniority Retention." In addition, section 447.501(2)(a), Florida Statutes, states: (2) A public employee organization or anyone acting in its behalf or its officers, representatives, agents, or members are prohibited from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employe...

public employer is specifically prohibited by Section 447.501(l)(b) from discouraging membership in any employee

...First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In essence, however, plaintiff’s federal claims appear to arise out of what he deems an improper interpretation of § 447.401, F.S., by the PERC Commission. He alleges that § 447.501, F.S., along with PERC’s interpretation of the same, effectively denies him property rights and deprives him of a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, both in violation of his right to due process of the laws....