CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...(c) Post copies of the attached Notice to Employees stating that the School District shall cease and desist from the actions set forth in paragraph 1 above... . The school board states the three points on appeal as follows: (1) PERC lacked jurisdiction because section 447.509 [6] gives the *1289 circuit court exclusive jurisdiction of the charges in this case; (2) PERC erred in holding the school board in violation of section 447.509(1)(b) by prohibiting distribution of literature in work areas; and (3) PERC erred in ordering the school board to give SPALC access to the school board's general bulletin board....
...The school board has not undertaken to prohibit all solicitation and distribution by its employees. While the board concedes that it erred in some respects, it contends that not all of its actions were invalid. To some extent, the restrictions placed by the board on SPALC's activities went beyond that permitted by section 447.509(1)....
...n 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). Jurisdiction to enforce statutory rights under the latter section, the board argues, lies exclusively with the circuit courts of this state by virtue of section
447.509(3) giving the circuit courts of Florida jurisdiction to enforce subsection 509 by injunction and contempt proceedings....
...That section, defining "unfair labor practices," prohibits public employers from "interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part" (meaning part II, which includes sections
447.503 and
447.509)....
...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). The right of solicitation and distribution, although limited by section
447.509, is nonetheless a right subject to protection *1290 under 501(1)(a) and 503, even though the right to solicit members and distribute union informational materials may be said to stem from "the reverse implications of Section
447.509, prohibiting employee solicitation at certain times and distribution at certain times and places." Okaloosa-Walton Junior College Board of Trustees v....
...necessarily encompasses the right effectively to communicate with one another regarding self-organization at the jobsite."
372 So.2d at 1381 (citations omitted). Accord School Board of Dade County v. 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. Section
447.509(3) gives the circuit court jurisdiction to enforce the restrictions in section
447.509 by injunction or contempt proceedings, but it does not, under any reasonable construction, give the circuit court jurisdiction over an unfair labor practice charge brought against the employer by an employee or his representative organization for violation of employee rights protected by 501....
...Neither of the cited cases involved a charge by an employee organization to enforce the right of the employer's employees to engage in organizational activity by solicitation and distribution; rather, both cases were proceedings to stop unlawful practices by others which violated section 447.509....
...act, employees of the employer purporting to exercise their right to organize other employees. In Miami Dade, 7 FPER 12040 (1980), the commission held that an employer could not, by filing an unfair labor practice charge with the commission, enforce section 447.509 against an employee organization to prohibit activities violating that section by unnamed individuals seeking to organize employees of the college. Thus, it does not appear that the case actually involved an unfair labor practice as defined in section 477.501. In Orange County, 11 FPER 16133 (1985), the commission held that one employee organization could not enforce section 447.509 against a rival employee organization by filing an unfair labor practice charge with the commission to prohibit activities proscribed by that section because the exclusive remedy for enforcement of section 447.509 violations lies in the circuit court....
...Without necessarily approving the commission's decision in either case, we observe that the decisive distinction between both cases and the instant case is that the proceeding in Miami Dade and Orange County sought to enforce prohibitions against activity prohibited by section
447.509(1), while in the instant case SPALC, apparently in its representative capacity pursuant to section
447.301(2), filed the unfair labor charge to enforce the legal right of its members who are school board employees to engage in lawful solicitation and distribution....
...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)....
...ion of the statute, and urges that we need not do so either since the board admits that at least some of the alleged acts of distribution prohibited by the board occurred in certain nonworking areas and, thus, were not permissible restrictions under section 447.509....
...The employee's right to solicit and distribute literature is not absolute; it must be balanced against the competing interests of the employer in the efficient operation of the workplace. Permissible restrictions on the employee's right are codified in section 447.509. Section 447.509(1)(a) prohibits solicitation of public employees "during working hours of any *1292 employee who is involved in the solicitation." Subsection 509(1)(b) prohibits distribution of literature "during working hours in areas where the actu...
...and any similar public installations." The distinction between oral solicitation and solicitation by distributing written material is made clear in Okaloosa-Walton Junior College,
372 So.2d at 1382: The order before us recognizes the distinction, found both in Section
447.509(1) and in NLRA decisions, between solicitation and distribution. Oral discussion and solicitation between employees on the jobsite is to be permitted except "during working hours of any employee who is involved in the solicitation." Section
447.509(1)(a)....
...is that its message is of a permanent nature and that it is designed to be retained by the recipient for reading or re-reading at his convenience. Hence, the purpose is satisfied so long as it is received. The soliciting employee, therefore, is prohibited under section 447.509, as construed in Okaloosa-Walton Junior College, from distributing literature at all times during his working hours and in all areas where actual work is performed. Left unanswered was the question whether, for purposes of distribution, a work area during working hours may be treated as a nonwork area after working hours. We hold that section 447.509 is intended to prohibit distribution in working areas at all times, and distribution in nonworking areas during the working hours of the employees....
...harges 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 first point was a challenge to PERC's jurisdiction of the subject matter. On this point, I concur with the majority's determination that PERC had jurisdiction. In the second point, appellant argued that PERC erred by holding that appellant violated section 447.509, Florida Statutes (1983), by prohibiting literature distribution in work areas....
...1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), and the School Board knew or should have known that such conduct was violative of the law. The Charging Party is therefore entitled to, and hereby requests, an award of attorneys fees and costs in this proceeding. [6] Section 447.509 reads in pertinent part: (1) Employee organizations, their members, agents, or representatives, or any persons acting on their behalf are hereby prohibited from: (a) Soliciting public employees during working hours of any employee who is involved in the solicitation....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 42 Educ. L. Rep. 679, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2229, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12173
...(c) Post copies of the attached Notice to Employees stating that the School District shall cease and desist from the actions set forth in paragraph 1 above.... The school board states the three points on appeal as follows: (1) PERC lacked jurisdiction because section 447.509 6 gives the *1289 circuit court exclusive jurisdiction of the charges in this case; (2) PERC erred in holding the school board in violation of section 447.509(l)(b) by prohibiting distribution of literature in work areas; and (3) PERC erred in ordering the school board to give SPALC access to the school board’s general bulletin board....
...at 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). Jurisdiction to enforce statutory rights under the latter section, the board argues, lies exclusively with the circuit courts of this state by virtue of section
447.509(3) giving the circuit courts of Florida jurisdiction to enforce subsection 509 by injunction and contempt proceedings....
...That section, defining “unfair labor practices,” prohibits public employers from “interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part” (meaning part II, which includes sections
447.503 and
447.509)....
...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). The right of solicitation and distribution, although limited by section
447.509, is nonetheless a right subject to protection *1290 under 501(l)(a) and 503, even though the right to solicit members and distribute union informational materials may be said to stem from “the reverse implications of Section
447.509, prohibiting employee solicitation at certain times and distribution at certain times and places.” Okaloosa-Walton Junior College Board of Trustees v....
...necessarily encompasses the right effectively to communicate with one another regarding self-organization at the jobsite.”
372 So.2d at 1381 (citations omitted). Accord School Board of Dade County v. 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. Section
447.509(3) gives the circuit court jurisdiction to enforce the restrictions in section
447.509 by injunction or contempt proceedings, but it does not, under any reasonable construction, give the circuit court jurisdiction over an unfair labor practice charge brought against the employer by an employee or his representative organization for violation of employee rights protected by 501....
...Neither of the cited cases involved a charge by an employee organization to enforce the right of the employer’s employees to engage in organizational activity by solicitation and distribution; rather, both cases were proceedings to stop unlawful practices by others which violated section 447.509....
...act, employees of the employer purporting to exercise their right to organize other employees. In Miami Dade, 7 FPER 12040 (1980), the commission held that an employer could not, by filing an unfair labor practice charge with the commission, enforce section 447.509 against an employee organization to prohibit activities violating that section by unnamed individuals seeking to organize employees of the college....
...In Orange County, 11 FPER 16133 (1985), the commission held that one employee organization could not enforce section 447.-509 against a rival employee organization by filing an unfair labor practice charge with the commission to prohibit activities proscribed by that section because the exclusive remedy for enforcement of section 447.509 violations lies in the circuit court....
...ion of the statute, and urges that we need not do so either since the board admits that at least some of the alleged acts of distribution prohibited by the board occurred in certain nonworking areas and, thus, were not permissible restrictions under section 447.509....
...The employee’s right to solicit and distribute literature is not absolute; it must be balanced against the competing interests of the employer in the efficient operation of the workplace. Permissible restrictions on the employee’s right are codified in section 447.509....
...and any similar public installations.” The distinction between oral solicitation and solicitation by distributing written material is made clear in Okaloosa-Walton Junior College,
372 So.2d at 1382 : The order before us recognizes the distinction, found both in Section
447.509(1) and in NLRA decisions, between solicitation and distribution. Oral discussion and solicitation between employees on the jobsite is to be permitted except “during working hours of any employee who is involved in the solicitation.” Section
447.509(l)(a)....
...is that its message is of a permanent nature and that it is designed to be retained by the recipient for reading or re-reading at his convenience. Hence, the purpose is satisfied so long as it is received. The soliciting employee, therefore, is prohibited under section 447.509, as construed in Okaloosa-Walton Junior College, from distributing literature at all times during his working hours and in all areas where actual work is performed. Left unanswered was the question whether, for purposes of distribution, a work area during working hours may be treated as a non-work area after working hours. We hold that section 447.509 is intended to prohibit distribution in working areas at all times, and distribution in nonworking areas during the working hours of the employees....
...rges 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....
...(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), and the School Board knew or should have known that such conduct was violative of the law. The Charging Party is therefore entitled to, and hereby requests, an award of attorneys fees and costs in this proceeding. . Section 447.509 reads in pertinent part: (1) Employee organizations, their members, agents, or representatives, or any persons acting on their behalf are hereby prohibited from: (a) Soliciting public employees during working hours of any employee who is involved in the solicitation....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 9 A.L.R. 4th 1, 102 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2419, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15180
...er this part. PERA does not in terms specify the extent of employees’ rights to solicit or to distribute literature to one another in support of organization. PERC’s definition of those rights is found in two sources: the reverse implications of Section 447.509, prohibiting employee solicitation at certain times and distribution at certain times and places; and in NLRB and federal court decisions construing similar provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. Section 447.509(1) provides: (1) Employee organizations, their members, agents, or representatives, or any persons acting in their behalf are hereby prohibited from: (a) Soliciting public employees during working hours of any employee who is involved in the solicitation....
...lowed subject only to the restriction that it not be on the working hours of either the solicitor or the prospective member. PERC’s statement in respect to employee solicitation of other employees for organizational purposes is consonant both with Section 447.509(l)(a) and federal decisions on the same subject....
...2463, 2469 ,
57 L.Ed.2d 370, 380 (1978); NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.,
351 U.S. 105 ,
76 S.Ct. 679 ,
100 L.Ed. 975 (1956); Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB,
324 U.S. 793 ,
65 S.Ct. 982 ,
89 L.Ed. 1372 (1945). The order before us recognizes the distinction, found both in Section
447.509(1) and in NLRA decisions, between solicitation and distribution. Oral discussion and solicitation between employees on the jobsite is to be permitted except “during working hours of any employee who is involved in the solicitation.” Section
447.509(l)(a)....
...As a result of these intermediate findings the hearing officer recommended an order that the College did not commit an unfair labor practice in respect to solicitation/distribution restrictions, because: 1. The June 1975 memorandum on solicitation and distribution restrictions was fully in accord with Section 447.509(1) and federal NLRA decisions, prohibiting solicitation by employees of employees only on working time, and prohibiting distribution by employees to employees in working places during working time....
...ents and representatives, access to and utilization of premises under the control of the public employer, for the purpose of communicating with employees employed by the employer, notwithstanding the purpose of Florida Statute Section 447.-020 [sic; 447.509(l)(b)] to permit use of premises excepting as proscribed by the aforementioned statutory provision....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 158231
...8-9.) As that order points out, less drastic and less restrictive means of preventing exploitation of students, injecting labor disputes into the classroom, or causing disruption are available to the state through enforcement of rules regulating teachers' conduct as licensees of the state. Furthermore, section 447.509(1)(c) prohibits employee organizations or their representatives from "instigating or advocating support, in any positive manner, for an employee organization's activities from *995 high school or grade school students during classroom time." In short, the statute is too broad to meet constitutional requirements....
...The penalty for violating any of the above regulations is "revocation or suspension of the individual teacher's certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law." Id. R. 6B-1.006(2). Additionally, the Public Employees Relations Act itself provides a *999 less restrictive alternative. 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...
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1093478
...Traynham, of Patterson & Traynham, P.A., Tallahassee, Amicus Curiae for Florida Public Employees Council 79, et al. GRIFFIN, J. Appellants, Eric Menegat and Luis Ruiz ["appellants"], appeal an order of the lower court awarding a partial final judgment in favor of the City of Apopka ["Apopka"] on their claims that section 447.509(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003) is facially unconstitutional....
...While there, Eric Menegat approached a lieutenant, Jeffrey Tyre, and asked him to return his "authorization card," signed or unsigned. [1] As the result of this brief exchange, appellants were suspended pending an investigation to determine whether they had "solicited" Jeffrey Tyre in violation of section 447.509(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). Section 447.509 provides: (1) Employee organizations, their members, agents, or representatives, or any persons acting on their behalf are hereby prohibited from: (a) Soliciting public employees during working hours of any employee who is involved in the solicitation. Appellants were subsequently fired for violation of the statute. Appellants thereafter filed suit against Apopka, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, principally contending that section 447.509 is facially unconstitutional....
...meetings. The trial court entered a cogent, well reasoned order addressing all issues and rejecting all seven claims of facial unconstitutionality. We agree with the trial court's disposition of each claim and with the trial court's conclusion that section 447.509 is not unconstitutional....
