Palm Beach Employment Disputes: is there an available grievance procedure? (March 25, 2015 Palm Beach Appeals Court opinion on Florida employment law)

Are  you a business owner involved in commercial litigation like a contract dispute?  Palm Beach employment litigation? You may want to read today’s (March 25, 2015) 4th District Court of Appeal opinion regarding Florida employment law, an employer’s contention, andemployment grievance procedure.

Palm Beach Appeals Court rules on Employment Lawsuit

• Scott Israel, Sheriff of Broward v. Anthony Castro, No. 4D14-414 (Fla. 4^th DCA March 25, 2015) involves a Palm Beach employment situation.
• Deputy Sheriff Anthony Castro was hired as a deputy sheriff cadet in February 2007.
• Promoted in your job?  He was promoted to deputy sheriff seven months later and began a one-year probationary period.
• Ten days after the probationary period expired, the sheriff delivered a memorandumindicating that Castro’s probationary period would be extended by six months.
• In January 2009, Castro was terminated due his alleged failure to meet probationary standards.

What is your Palm Beach employer saying about you and your services?

• The Sheriff’s office took the position that Deputy Castro was a probationary employee.
• Castro argued that his probationary period had ended and the sheriff can only extend the probationary period prior to the expiration of the original twelve-month period.

Palm Beach Employee Sues Employer after being fired

• Castro filed a Palm Beach County employment lawsuit seeking reinstatement and a declaratory judgment that he was a permanent employee.
• The trial court West Palm Beach agreed with Deputy Castro.
• Wrongful termination in Palm Beach County?
• Wrongful firing of employee?
• Holding that Castro completed his probationary period and was not subject to dismissal without notice and a right to appeal.
• What if your employer in Palm Beach says that you cannot file a grievance?
• Is an employee required to exhaust his or her administrative remedies?
• The trial court held that Castro was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies (by filing a grievance) because of management’s erroneous contention that he was not entitled to file a grievance.

Employer Appeals Trial Court Lawsuit on Firing of Employee

• The employer filed an appeal of this labor dispute:  Sheriff appealed.
• The Fourth District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach, Florida reversed and held that Deputy Castro was required to exhaust his administrative remedies.
• As a result, judgment shall be entered in favor of the Broward Sheriff on Castro’s claims.
• The Fourth District followed a similar case from the Third District in which two City of Miami police officers were discharged during their probationary status. City of Miami v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 20 of City of Miami, 378 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
• Like Deputy Castro, these officers had been told by their superiors that they wereprobationary employees and had no right to an arbitration hearing when they were fired.
• Accordingly, they sued contending that the City of Miami was wrong, and that they could not be discharged without a pre-termination advisory hearing before a disciplinary review board under the governing collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
• The trial court agreed, holding that the officers were wrongfully discharged. Moreover, they were excused from pursuing arbitration as a result of management’s own instructions that they would have no right to a hearing as probationary employees.
• On appeal, the Third District held that the dispute required interpretation and application of the CBA between the City of Miami and the officers. The dispute was therefore subject to the grievance procedure in the agreement. As for the fact that the officers’ superiors at the City of Miami had denied the very existence of that remedy, the appellate court held that those statements were “no more than expressions of the employer’s position on the [m]erits of the issue in contention.” Despite the employer’s expressed position that no remedy in arbitration was available to these claimants, the Third DCA held that the employer was not legally repudiating the grievance and arbitration procedure established for earlier substantive breaches.
• What can an employee learn from this new Palm Beach lawsuit case?
• The Catch-22 for unwary litigants here should be obvious.
• Employees often rely on statements made by an employers’ human resources department about their post-termination rights and benefits.
• Nevertheless, an employer’s incorrect advice to a terminated employee that anadministrative remedy does not exist will not bind the employer in any case in which the court determines ex post facto and in hindsight that in fact an administrative remedy did exist.
• Even if the employer’s incorrect advice results in the failure to file or an untimely filing of a grievance, the employer will not be held to its false statements; it is not estopped to deny its advice to the employee(s); and the hapless employee will be penalized for listening.
• Counsel should be wary of any decision to bypass any administrative grievance or arbitration procedure that arguably applies, even if the employer itself contends or concedes that none exists.