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 
2

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 fulltime, 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 
3

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.