## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 1739

_____________________________
O RANGE C OUNTY F IRE F IGHTERS A SSOCIATION , I.A.F.F. L OCAL 2057
, Appellant,

v.

O RANGE C OUNTY B OARD OF C OUNTY C OMMISSIONERS , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Public Employees Relations Commission

. Donna Poole, Chair

. February 14, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. 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 just2 over two mo nths to comply. In response, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the County. T he Union , which represents over one thousand fire

- rescue personnel, alleged that the County’s implementation of a COVID

- 19 vaccination requirement was a man datory 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.

T hree months later and d uring the pendency of the proceeding before PERC

, section 112.0441 , Florida Statu t es, 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, p art

- 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 reco mmended it be dismissed. The Commission’s final order a dopted 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 re impos ing the requirement or from craft ing another. The provision also did nothing to address any unfair labor practices that may have occurred prior to its3 enactment. Th e eighteen

- month statutory reprieve wa s insufficient to moot the entire controversy.

R EVERSED

.
R OBERTS , R OWE , and L ONG , 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.