ORANGE COUNTY FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, I.A.F.F. LOCAL 2057
v.
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A temporary statute prohibiting COVID-19 vaccination mandates does not moot an unfair labor practice charge where the union challenges the employer's unilateral implementation of the policy prior to the statute's enactment.
[1] A statute prohibiting COVID-19 vaccination mandates for public employees, even if temporary, does not moot an unfair labor practice charge concerning the prior unilateral…
[2] The unilateral implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination requirement by a public employer may constitute an unfair labor practice if it is a mandatory subject of bargainin…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The provision also did nothing to address any unfair labor practices that may have occurred prior to its enactment. The eighteen-month statutory reprieve was insufficient to moot the entire controversy.”
Court's explanation for why temporary statutory prohibition does not resolve underlying labor dispute
Orange County implemented a COVID-19 vaccination requirement for employees in July 2021. The Union, representing fire-rescue personnel, filed an unfai…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandatory Subjects Of Bargaining cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D2022-1739 _____________________________
ORANGE COUNTY FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, I.A.F.F. LOCAL 2057,
Appellant,
v. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Public Employees Relations Commission. Donna Poole, Chair.
February 14, 2024 PER CURIAM.
Orange County Fire Fighters Association, I.A.F.F. Local 2057, (“Union”), appeals a final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission (“Commission” or “PERC”), dismissing its unfair labor practice charge against the Orange County Board of County Commissioners (“County”). For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
On July 28, 2021, the County implemented a COVID-19 vaccination requirement, which required new and existing county employees to become vaccinated against COVID-19 (or provide proof of a qualifying exemption). The County gave employees just over two months to comply. 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. The Union requested that the County rescind the requirement, retroactively restore the status quo, and remove adverse consequences that employees suffered because of the policy.
Three months later and during the pendency of the proceeding before PERC, section 112.0441, Florida Statutes, became law. It prohibited COVID-19 vaccination requirements for public employers. That statute provides:
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, an educational institution or governmental entity may not impose a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for any full- time, part-time, or contract employee. Any existing ordinance, rule, or policy imposing such mandate is null and void as of November 18, 2021.
§ 112.0441(2)(a), Fla. Stat. It was enacted with an expiration date of June 1, 2023. The County then moved to dismiss the pending charge, arguing that section 112.0441 rendered it moot.
The hearing officer agreed, found that section 112.0441 mooted the case in controversy, and recommended it be dismissed. The Commission’s final order adopted the hearing officer’s conclusions and dismissed the charge as moot.
We review an appeal of an administrative agency’s interpretation of a statute or rule de novo. Art. V, § 21, Fla. Const. Although section 112.0441 prohibited the County from enforcing its policy between November 18, 2021, and June 1, 2023, the statute is no longer in effect. As a result, section 112.0441 does not prohibit the County from reimposing the requirement or from crafting another. The provision also did nothing to address any unfair labor practices that may have occurred prior to its enactment. The eighteen-month statutory reprieve was insufficient to moot the entire controversy.
REVERSED.
ROBERTS, ROWE, and LONG, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Richard Siwica of Egan, Lev & Siwica, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Michael Mattimore, Wayne L. Helsby, and John W. Keller, IV of Allen Norton & Blue, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellee.