Appeals Court to Hear State, Union Clash

The First District Court of Appeal on Monday scheduled arguments May 10 in the department’s attempt to pursue the allegations against AFSCME Florida Council 79. The case involves information that the union mailed to state employees and posted online in 2020 after lawmakers approved a 3% pay increase for workers.

The state Public Employees Relations Commission ruled last year that the department didn’t have legal standing to pursue the unfair-labor practice allegations. That prompted the department to take the case to the Tallahassee-based appeals court.

The department, which oversees human resources issues for the state, said in a brief filed at the appeals court that AFSCME mailed a postcard to state employees in October 2020 after the 3 percent raise had taken effect. That postcard, according to the allegations, falsely claimed that the pay hike would not take effect unless employees approved a new union collective bargaining agreement with the state.

The brief also alleged that the union posted misleading information online and was trying to boost membership.

“Between the mailers and the website, AFSCME’s false claims were disseminated to and seen by an untold number of state employees — AFSCME members and non-members alike — incentivizing participation in union activities on the false pretense that the employee pay raise was in jeopardy,” the brief said.

But the Public Employees Relations Commission, which handles labor disputes, dismissed the department’s allegations. It said in a brief filed at the appeals court that employees — not the department — would have needed to pursue the unfair labor practices allegations.

“To adopt DMS’s (the Department of Management Services’) arguments that it has standing in this case would allow any party to bring the claims of another — here, an employer on behalf of ‘state employees’ — or to conjure standing by alleging the mere expenditure of time and resources,” the commission’s brief said. “This (appeals) court should reject these arguments. The appropriate party to bring the claims would be the entity or individual whose substantial interests are affected. That party is absent from this proceeding.”

AFSCME agreed with the commission that the department couldn’t file such a complaint on behalf of employees. In a brief, the union also disputed the allegations of unfair labor practices.

“Nothing in the union’s postcard or web posting even remotely suggested that membership in the organization was necessary in order to obtain any employment benefits, including the 3% pay increase,” the AFSCME brief said. “Indeed, neither the postcard nor the web posting contained any threat or promise at all since, as noted by the DMS, AFSCME Council 79 had no power to stop the implementation of the 3% pay increase.”