Collective Bargaining and Job Benefits: The Case of Florida Deputy Sheriffs

• Date: 01 December 2010
• Author: William M. Doerner,William G. Doerner
• Published date: 01 December 2010
• DOI: 10.1177/1098611110384084
• Subject Matter: Articles

Police Quarterly

13(4) 367 –386

© 2010 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1098611110384084

http://pqx.sagepub.com

1Florida State University

Corresponding Author:

William M. Doerner, Department of Economics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2180

E-mail: wmdoerner@fsu.edu

Collective Bargaining and

Job Benefits: The Case

of Florida Deputy Sheriffs

William M. Doerner1 and

William G. Doerner1

Abstract

In 2003, the Florida Supreme Court lifted the ban that prohibited sheriff deputies from

engaging in collective bargaining. Borrowing data from the Criminal Justice Agency

Profile, an annual census of Florida law enforcement agencies, this study asks two ques-

tions. First, what impact does the decision have on job benefits? Second, would restricting

analysis to agencies with 100+ sworn members alter the findings? Fixed-effects panel

data analyses reveal a noteworthy effect on starting salaries. Focusing on just larger

agencies leads to a dramatic underestimation of the decision’s impact. The timeliness

of this study is appraised in light of pending federal legislation.

Keywords

collective bargaining, unionization, salary, job benefits, Florida

Introduction

In January of 2003, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that sheriff deputies had the constitu-

tional right to engage in collective bargaining (Coastal Florida Police Benevolent Association,

Inc. v. Phillip B. (Phil) Williams, 2003). Although Florida municipal police officers began

unionizing in 1968 (Pynes & Corley, 2006), county sheriff deputies were exempted from

similar coverage. Chapter 447 (Florida Statutes, 1975) specifically reserved the state

legislature’s right “to regulate the activities and affairs of labor unions” in sheriff offices

(SOs). The Coastal Florida PBA ruling reversed this line of thinking.

This decision prompted an immediate flurry of activity. In the ensuing 6 months,

labor organizations filed 30 petitions with the Florida Public Employees Relations

Commission (PERC) to represent sheriff employees in 18 counties (Cohee, 2003). Over

368 Police Quarterly 13(4)

the next 3 years, elections to choose a bargaining agent were held in 13 sheriff agencies.

Unions prevailed in ten contests and absorbed almost 7,000 potential members (Pynes

& Corley, 2006). A total of 28 agencies had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)

in place by the end of 2008. These organizations housed 15,581 sworn personnel or 76%

of all sheriff deputies in the state (Florida Department of Law Enforcement [FDLE], 2009).

This series of events provides an opportunity to investigate the impact of unionization

on salaries and job benefits in Florida sheriff departments. Before going further, it would

be helpful to visit the decision in greater detail.

Florida Case Law

The issue of whether Florida deputy sheriffs could unionize arose in Murphy v. Mack

(1978). The key question was whether deputies were “appointees” or “employees.”

Although the Florida Supreme Court held they were public employees, it noted that the

legislature went to great lengths to retain final authorization and to exclude sheriff

deputies from collective bargaining (Dietzen, 2000).

The court reiterated its position when the same issue materialized the following year.

As public employees, deputy sheriffs were barred legislatively from engaging in collec-

tive bargaining (Ison v. Zimmerman, 1979). The distinction between “appointee” and

“employee” gradually spread to situations involving other state constitutional officers.

Eventually, the Florida Supreme Court would retreat from its Murphy dogma.

Service Employees International Union Local 16, AFL-CIO v. Public Employees

Relations Commission (2000) challenged Murphy by asking whether deputy court clerks

were public employees under Florida law. The plaintiff, a staff member of the Clerk of

the Circuit Court in Orange County, contended her union activism led to her job termina-

tion. The Florida PERC dismissed the allegation of an unfair labor practice under the

Murphy logic. The Florida Supreme Court, though, ruled on behalf of the ousted employee,

which paved the way to extending collective bargaining rights to sheriff deputies. The

justices noted that Article I, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution guarantees private and

public employees the right to collective bargaining. It reads:

The right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of mem-

bership or non-membership in any labor union or labor organization. The right

of employees, by and through a labor organization, to bargain collectively shall

not be denied or abridged.

In tracing legislative intent over the years, the court found ample provisions support-

ing this constitutional right. More significantly, the justices drew a bright line between

“managerial” and “ordinary” employees. They held that managers were not public

employees for collective bargaining purposes and that only ordinary employees could

unionize. Under common law, the position of deputy officer was a mere extension or

appendage of the appointing constitutional officer. With the passage of time, however,

the distinction between being “appointed” versus “employed” has become lost.