August 9, 2017 - In 2008 MEA filed an Unfair Labor Practice against the district when they declared “Financial Urgency” and imposed a 1% pay cut on teachers and paraprofessionals. MEA’s case was stayed until the FL Supreme Court resolved the statutory interpretation. That has been resolved in MEA’s favor.
Because so much time has passed and a make-whole is not likely from the current Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC), a settlement was reached with the district. Click here to read the Settlement Agreement.
The district must email the notice below informing all employees that MEA’s interpretation of the statute was correct, and that the district will follow that interpretation in the future.
The decision of the Supreme Court is very timely and important due to the potential financial impact of House Bill 7069 on school districts.
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Section 447.4095, Florida Statutes, provides that, in the event of a “financial urgency requiring modification of a collective bargaining agreement,” the parties “shall meet as soon as possible to negotiate the impact of the financial urgency.” On May 5, 2008, the former Superintendent invoked this provision and sent the MEA a letter demanding that the parties enter into bargaining. The MEA disagreed that there was a financial urgency and declined to negotiate outside of the regularly scheduled negotiations. Thereafter, the School District proceeded to make the following changes in teacher’s working conditions: (1) reduce the teacher work year from 198 days to 196 days, the net effect of which was a one percent decrease in teacher salaries; (2) reduce paraprofessional salaries by one percent; and (3) eliminate a step salary increase.
The MEA filed an unfair labor practice charge with PERC alleging that the School District’s action was unlawful because, among other things, there was no “financial urgency” sufficient to require modification of the collective bargaining agreement. The MEA contended that modification of a collective bargaining agreement due to financial difficulties could occur only as a last resort where there was no other way to resolve the financial problem. The 2008 School District Administration disagreed.
On March 2, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court decided that the statute must be interpreted narrowly, requiring a public employer to demonstrate there are no other reasonable alternative means of preserving the agreement in whole or in part. The employer must also demonstrate that the funds required to address the financial problem are not available from any other possible reasonable source.
The MEA has agreed to dismiss the ULP and to forego further litigation of this matter based on the School District’s acknowledgement that it will follow the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 447.4095 when deciding whether to invoke this statute should the issue arise in the future.