Case Name: CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, Appellant, v. F.O.P., MIAMI LODGE 20, and Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-01-31
Citations: 571 So. 2d 1309
Docket Number: No. 85-2863
Parties: CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, Appellant, v. F.O.P., MIAMI LODGE 20, and Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, Appellees.
Judges: Before HUBBART, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 571
Pages: 1309–1333

Head Matter:
CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, Appellant, v. F.O.P., MIAMI LODGE 20, and Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, Appellees.
No. 85-2863.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 31, 1989.
On Rehearing En Banc April 17, 1990.
On Motion to Certify Question Jan. 22, 1991.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Peter J. Hurtgen and Claudia B. Dubocq, Craig J. Freger, Miami, for appellant.
Klausner & Cohen, Miami, and Robert Klausner, Hollywood, for appellee F.O.P. [Fraternal Order of Police], Miami Lodge 20.
H. Lee Cohee, II, Tallahassee, for appel-lee Florida Public Employees Relations Com’n.
James R. Wolf, Tallahassee, for Florida League of Cities, Inc., as amicus curiae.
Thomas D. Guilfoyle and George Ayles-worth, Miami, for Florida Sheriffs Ass’n, Florida Police Chiefs Ass’n, Dade County Ass’n of Chiefs of Police, Florida Ass’n of Police Attorneys, as amici curiae.
Terence G. Connor, Miami, for Florida Public Employer Labor Relations Ass’n, as amicus curiae.
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

Opinion:
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
Prologue
We begin with a warning that although the words "drug testing" appear throughout this opinion, the reader who wishes to explore such issues as whether any constitutional right of police officers is infringed by compulsory drug testing, or whether drug testing of police officers is advisable, should look elsewhere. Here, "[t]he determinative factors are not whether drugs are dangerous, or whether drug testing is intrusive...." International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Southwest Airlines Co., 842 F.2d 794, 799, rehearing en banc granted, 853 F.2d 283 (5th Cir.1988). Instead, this case, unlike its more exotic relatives living under the same key number, involves the quite ordinary issue of whether compulsory drug testing of police officers employed by a city is a subject of mandatory collective bargaining between the city and the union which represents the officers.
I.
One day in June 1985, two incidents involving Miami police officers were reported to the Miami Police Department. One report was from a person who stated that he had just seen a Miami police officer using cocaine in the restroom of a Miami restaurant. The second report was that a police officer had been seen purchasing marijuana while another officer waited in the car. The police department ordered the three officers to submit to urinalysis tests for the presence of drugs. The alleged cocaine user refused and was relieved of duty; the other officers submitted to the tests under protest and retain their jobs pending the outcome of this case and the ultimate disclosure of the results of the tests.
A short time later, the Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20 [FOP], the union representing the officers, filed unfair labor practice charges against the City of Miami. FOP sought injunctive relief, claiming, inter alia, that the City had failed to bargain and had interfered with the employees' rights. Although the hearing officer of the Public Employees Relations Commission [hereafter, PERC or the Commission] concluded that compulsory drug testing as a condition of the officers' continued employment was a subject of mandatory collective bargaining under Chapter 447, Florida Statutes (1983), he determined that the City had not committed an unfair labor practice because POP had waived its right to bargain about drug testing when it agreed that the City would have the right to "examine" police officers and to "establish, implement and maintain an effective internal security program."
The City and FOP both appealed to the Commission. The Commission concluded that drug testing was a subject of mandatory collective bargaining, but, contrary to the hearing officer, found that FOP had not clearly and unmistakably waived its right to bargain about drug testing. Finding that the City had committed the unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 447.-501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1983), the Commission ordered, inter alia, that the City "cease and desist from . [ujnila-terally requiring its law enforcement employees represented by the FOP to submit to chemical testing (urinalysis) to detect the presence of controlled substances as a condition of continued employment ." and that the City reinstate the three officers to the status they enjoyed prior to the events of June 1985. The City appeals, and we affirm.
II.
Section 447.309(1), Florida Statutes (1983), requires that the certified employee organization and the public employer "bargain collectively in the determination of the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of the public employees within the bargaining unit." FOP contends, and we agree, that the statute is to be interpreted as requiring a relatively broad scope of negotiations to balance the absence of the right to strike by public employees. Palm Beach Junior College Board of Trustees v. United Faculty of Palm Beach Junior College, 425 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, 475 So.2d 1221 (Fla.1985).
The reason for requiring this broad scope of negotiations is:
"Because there is no statutory procedure afforded the public employee to bring pressure upon an employer to make concessions in collective bargaining, either through a strike or binding arbitration, PERC has been provided broad authority under Section 447.503, as a means of allaying a significant imbalance of bargaining power in favor of the employer." 425 So.2d at 140.
See also School Board v. Palowitch, 367 So.2d 730, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); School Board v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 350 So.2d 819, 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The requirement obviously extends to the "terms and conditions of employment," a phrase not otherwise defined in Chapter 447.
The question now becomes whether a certain subject — here, compulsory drug testing as a condition of employment — is "important enough to be considered a 'term and condition of employment.' " City of Orlando v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 435 So.2d 275, 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). While no precise test exists for determining whether a certain term and condition of employment must be the subject of collective bargaining, it seems clear enough that a public employer must bargain over a change in rules "affecting, or impacting upon, employment or a condition of employment." Board of County Commissioners v. Central Florida Professional Fire Fighters Association, 467 So.2d 1023, 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). See also City of New Port Richey v. Hillsborough County Police Benevolent Association, Inc., 505 So.2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA) (employer must bargain over wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment, and over other issues that have an impact on them), review denied, 518 So.2d 1275 (Fla.1987). It is likewise said that a public employer must bargain over an issue which "settlefs] an aspect of the relationship between the employer and employees." City of Orlando v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 435 So.2d at 278-79 (quoting Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 92 S.Ct. 383, 30 L.Ed.2d 341 (1971)). Perhaps more obviously, "[djemotion and discharge, including the definition of 'cause' for discharge, are mandatory subjects of bargaining concerning which the parties are obligated to negotiate in good faith...." Orange County Police Benevolent Association v. City of Casselberry, 457 So.2d 1125, 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, 482 So.2d 336 (Fla. 1986). See also Public Employees Relations Commission v. District School Board, 374 So.2d 1005, 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) ("It cannot be disputed that matters pertaining to the discharge of a teacher are terms and conditions of employment.").
Thus, there is little doubt that under these criteria, compulsory drug testing is a term and condition of employment which settles an aspect of and impacts upon the employment relationship and can lead to discipline and discharge and, therefore, is. the subject of mandatory collective bargaining. Indeed, the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] General Counsel has concluded that "obligatory tests, which may reasonably lead to discipline, including discharge, are plainly germane to the employees' working conditions and, therefore, are presumptively mandatory subjects of bargaining." Memorandum GC-87-5, [4 Labor Relations] Lab.L.Rep. (CCH) para. 9344, at 19,201 (Sept. 8, 1987). Similarly, an NLRB administrative law judge, in ruling that compulsory drug testing is a term and condition of employment, found that drug testing is "germane" to the working environment. Star Tribune v. Newspaper Guild of the Twin Cities, Nos. 18-CA-9938 & 18-CA-10296, slip op. at 19 (NLRB, Nations, A.L.J., Nov. 3, 1988). Finally, in another case involving the drug testing of police officers, a state labor board ruled that compulsory urinalysis constitutes a subject of mandatory bargaining. City of New Haven v. New Haven Police Local 530, No. 2554-A (Conn.State Bd. of Lab. Rel. May 28, 1987). Accord City of Buffalo (Police Department), No. U-8922 (N.Y. PERC A.L.J. March 30, 1987).
We reject the City's contention that we must balance the importance of bargaining about a subject with the impact of such bargaining on the protection of the public. While the contention is certainly not merit-less, see Local 3)6, International Brotherhood of Police Officers v. Labor Relations Commission, 391 Mass. 429, 462 N.E.2d 96 (1984); West Hartford Education v. DeCourcy, 162 Conn. 566, 295 A.2d 526 (1972), Florida courts have not utilized a balancing test to determine whether a matter must be submitted to collective bargaining. Thus, in School Board v. Indian River County Education Association, 373 So.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), a teachers' union challenged the school board's unilateral alteration of the number of periods into which the school day is divided. The district court agreed with PERC's conclusion that the subject, though far from earth-shaking, had to be collectively bargained:
"To the uninitiated the change involved may seem de minimis and the entire controversy much ado about nothing, particularly since the new policy will result in 32 minutes of additional instruction time per week. However, the Commission made it clear in its order that 'neither the qualitative difference between instruction and supervision nor the number of minutes per week that teachers are required to teach affects the Commission's decision in this case; consequently, no further discussion is warranted.' The point seems to be that Section J)J)7.-309(1), Florida Statutes (1977), requires the appellant to bargain in good faith with respect to any changes in 'wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. ' This change falls within the purview of that provision even though it may not be a change of great moment.''
373 So.2d at 414 (emphasis added).
We also reject the City's contention that compulsory drug testing should be viewed as a fundamental decision concerning the direction of a private, for profit, business, and thus an "entrepreneurial concern" which does not have to be submitted to collective bargaining. See Palm Beach Junior College Board of Trustees v. United Faculty of Palm Beach Junior College, 425 So.2d at 137-38; Fibreboard Paper Products Co. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 85 S.Ct. 398, 13 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964). In our view, the "entrepreneurial concern" doctrine has no place in this case; while drug testing undoubtedly is important, see City of Palm Bay v. Bauman, 475 So.2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), it is not — as history surely tells us- — fundamental to the functioning of the police force. Further, the NLRB General Counsel has declared that drug testing does not fall within the realm of managerial or entrepreneurial prerogatives. See Memorandum GC-87-5, [4 Labor Relations] Lab.L.Rep. (CCH) para. 9344, at 19,201.
Finally, we reject the City's argument that the conclusion that drug testing is a term and condition of employment violates the prerogatives granted to management by Section 447.209, Florida Statutes:
"It is the right of the public employer to determine unilaterally the purpose of each of its constituent agencies, set standards of services to be offered to the public, and exercise control and discretion over its organization and operations. It is also the right of the public employer to direct its employees, take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons."
We think the decision below, properly viewed, simply recognized that while the City has the right to regulate the police, the procedure used to regulate must be submitted to collective bargaining when the exercise of that right impacts on the lives of police officers. As the NLRB General Co.unsel stated, "a drug test is not simply a work rule — -rather, it is a means of policing and enforcing compliance with a rule. There is a critical distinction between a rule against drug usage and the methodology used to determine whether the rule is being broken." Memorandum GC-87-5, [4 Labor Relations] Lab.L.Rep. (CCH) para. 9344, at 19,202.
The distinction between a managerial decision not falling within the ambit of "terms and conditions of employment" and the impact of those conditions on the employee's day-to-day life is made in Hillsborough Classroom Teachers Association v. School Board, 423 So.2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). In that case, the court held that the setting of class size and staffing levels are policy decisions which are incorporated into the term "standards of service to be offered to the public," listed in Section 447.-209 as items to be unilaterally set by the public employer, but the "impact of the implementation of such decisions on 'wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment' when an appropriate showing of negotiable impact has been made" are subjects of mandatory bargaining. 423 So.2d at 970. See also Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo, 12 Cal.3d 608, 116 Cal.Rptr. 507, 526 P.2d 971 (1974) (while layoff decisions are not generally bargaina-ble, they are bargainable to the extent they affect remaining workers); Annot., Bar-gainable or Negotiable Issues in State Public Employment Labor Relations, 84 A.L.R.3d 242, 250 (1978) (courts have held that while many governmental rules and regulations are not "subjects of bargaining in themselves, [they] are bargainable or negotiable to the extent that they have an impact on the wages, hours, or conditions of employment of employees."). Cf. City of New Port Richey v. Hillsborough County Police Benevolent Association, Inc., 505 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 2d DCA) (no duty to bargain where employer changed employees' retirement plan, but change did not have any impact on benefits from or contributions to the plan), review denied, 518 So.2d 1275 (Fla.1987).
III.
Mandatory collective bargaining of compulsory drug testing, as well as being required by Section 447.309, Florida Statutes, is also required by the right to work provision of the Florida Constitution. This provision — Article I, Section 6 — states:
"Right to Work. — The right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or nonmember-ship 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. Public employees shall not have the right to strike."
(emphasis added).
Construing this provision, the supreme court has consistently held that "with the exception of the right to strike, public employees have the same rights of collective bargaining as are granted private employees by Section 6." Dade County Classroom Teachers' Association, Inc. v. Ryan, 225 So.2d 903, 905 (Fla.1969); City of Tallahassee v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 410 So.2d 487 (Fla.1981), affirming 393 So.2d 1147, 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) ("Since private employees have the right to collectively bargain as to retirement benefits, public employees also have that right...."); Hillsborough County Governmental Employees Association, Inc. v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 522 So.2d 358 (Fla.1988). If, therefore, private employees have the right to collectively bargain about drug testing, public employees have that same right.
Federal agencies and courts interpreting the National Labor Relations Act have concluded that the subject of drug testing in private industry must be submitted to collective bargaining. While the National Labor Relations Board — like the Florida courts — has yet to address this issue, its General Counsel has ruled that drug testing of private employees is a subject of mandatory bargaining. Memorandum GC-87-5, [4 Labor Relations] Lab.L.Rep. (CCH) para. 9344 (Sept. 8, 1987). See Hebert, Private Sector Drug Testing: Employer Rights, Risks, and Responsibilities, 36 U.Kan.L.Rev. 850, 853 (1988) (suggesting that "it seems likely that the Board will adopt the position" of the General Counsel). See also Star Tribune v. Newspaper Guild of the Twin Cities, Nos. 18-CA-9938 & 18-CA-10296, slip op. at 17 (NLRB, Nations, A.L.J., Nov. 3, 1988) (ruling by administrative law judge that "drug and alcohol testing of current employees falls within the scope of the mandatory bargaining obligation."). Likewise, in cases decided under the Railway Labor Act (regulating labor relations in the railway and airline industries) courts have unanimously agreed that drug testing is a subject of mandatory bargaining. Railway Labor Executives' Association v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 845 F.2d 1187 (3d Cir.), cert. granted, 488 U.S. 815, 109 S.Ct. 52, 102 L.Ed.2d 31 (1988); International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Southwest Airlines Co., 842 F.2d 794, rehearing en banc granted, 853 F.2d 283 (5th Cir.1988); Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 838 F.2d 1087 (9th Cir.1988), petition for cert, filed, 57 U.S. L.W. 3017 (U.S. Apr. 1, 1988) (No. 87-1631); Railway Labor Executives Association v. Norfolk & Western Railway, 833 F.2d 700 (7th Cir.1988); Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 802 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1986); Railway Labor Executives' Association v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 695 F.Supp. 124 (S.D.N.Y.1988); Railway Labor Executives' Association v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 691 F.Supp. 1516 (D.D.C.1988).
Thus, because Article I, Section 6, of the Florida Constitution grants public employees the same bargaining rights as private employees, and because private employees have the right to bargain over compulsory tests for drugs, it follows that public employees in Florida have a constitutional right to bargain over drug testing.
The City contends, however, that the supreme court in United Teachers of Dade v. Dade County School Board, 500 So.2d 508 (Fla.1986), narrowed this constitutional requirement of equal treatment of public and private employees:
"Our holding in Ryan that 'public employees have the same rights of collective bargaining as are granted private employees,' 225 So.2d at 905, did not, however, mean that there are no differences between public and private employee bargaining. Indeed, we recognized as much in City of Tallahassee by stating that '[i]t would be impractical to require that collective bargaining procedures . be identical in the public and the private sectors.' 410 So.2d at 491. Myriad distinctions, not just those of procedures, exist between public and private collective bargaining, and have been noted by the highest courts of several sister states."
Id. at 512.
See also Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 347 So.2d 801, 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) ("A public employee's constitutional right to bargain collectively is not and cannot be coextensive with an employee's right to so bargain in the private sector. Certain limitations on the former's right are necessarily involved."). But, notwithstanding that there may be differences between public and private employee bargaining rights, the supreme court found that the employer in City of Tallahassee, 410 So.2d at 491, had "failed to demonstrate an interest justifying the abridgment" of bargaining rights. And finally, the supreme court recently stated that the right to collectively bargain is a fundamental right subject to abridgment only upon a showing of a compelling state interest. "This strict-scrutiny standard is one that is difficult to meet under any circumstance." Hillsborough County Governmental Employees Association v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 522 So.2d 358, 362 (Fla.1988).
Therefore, although it appears that Florida courts would allow constitutional collective bargaining rights to be abridged under certain circumstances, no case has found the special circumstances or compelling state interest which would justify abridging public employees' constitutional right to collective bargaining. The case before us is hardly the one to break the ice. Here, as in Hillsborough County Governmental Employees Association, Inc. v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 522 So.2d at 362, there is "some less intrusive means of accomplishing [the employer's goal] without impeding so dramatically on the right to bargain collectively." See also City of Tallahassee v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 410 So.2d at 491 ("[T]he state has failed to demonstrate an interest justifying the abridgment_"). Collective bargaining is not such a formidable obstacle to the City's goal of a drug-free police force that the unilateral institution of compulsory drug testing should be permitted.
IV.
Our conclusion that compulsory drug testing is a subject for mandatory collective bargaining does not answer the question whether the City's failure to bargain on the subject is, ipso facto, an unfair labor practice under Section 447.501(l)(c), Florida Statutes. Compare City of New Port Richey v. Hillsborough County Police Benevolent Association, Inc., 505 So.2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) ("[A] public employer who unilaterally alters any of these mandatory subjects of collective bargaining commits an unfair labor practice.") and City of Orlando v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 435 So.2d 275, 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) ("[A] public employer is obligated to bargain collectively in the determination of the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of the public employees within the bargaining unit and the failure to bargain on such mandatory items is an unfair labor practice.") with Public Employees Relations Commission v. District School Board, 374 So.2d 1005, 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (expressing "no opinion" on the hearing officer's conclusion that breach of collective bargaining agreement is per se an unfair labor practice). But even assuming, ar-guendo, that not all breaches of collective bargaining agreements constitute unfair labor practices, this one certainly did. The record indicates that after the grievance was brought, the City would not agree to refrain from testing other employees. This drug testing by the City was a repudiation of past policy, impacting on the collective interests of the police, and constituted an unfair labor practice.
V.
Lastly, the City argues that even if FOP had the right to bargain over drug testing, the union waived that right. The City's claim of waiver is based on Article 4 of the collective bargaining agreement between the City and FOP, which provides that the City has "the right to operate and manage its affairs in all respects," and that these rights include the right "to establish, implement and maintain an effective internal security program" and the right to "suspend, demote, discharge, or take other disciplinary action against employees for proper cause." The City says (and, indeed, the hearing officer found) that "[b]y agreeing to this contractual provision, the FOP gave to the City the power the City would otherwise not have to unilaterally require its police officers who are the subject of an internal security investigation to submit to examination at any time during the term of the agreement."
But waiver of a bargaining right will be found only if the waiver is "clear and unmistakable." See Palm Beach Junior College Board of Trustees v. United Faculty of Palm Beach Junior College, 475 So.2d 1221, 1224 (Fla.1985), affirming on this point 425 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). According to the NLRB General Counsel:
"A waiver by contract may be found where the language of the agreement is specific, and/or the history of prior contract negotiations suggests that the subject was discussed and 'consciously yielded.' Waiver will not be inferred from the contract's silence on the subject, from a generally worded management prerogatives clause or from a 'zipper' clause."
Memorandum GC-87-5, [4 Labor Relations] Lab.L.Rep. (CCH) para. 9344, at 19,203 (Sept. 8, 1987) (footnotes omitted).
The General Counsel noted, therefore, that "broad management rights clauses giving an employer the right . to 'make and apply rules and regulations for production, discipline, efficiency and safety' . do not, standing alone, constitute a waiver of the union's right to bargain over drug testing." Id. See Star Tribune v. Newspaper Guild of the Twin Cities, Nos. 18-CA-9938 & 18-CA-10296, slip op. at 25 (NLRB, Nations, A.L.J., Nov. 3, 1988) (drug testing; "To find waiver, the Board has required that a matter be fully discussed and explored during negotiations and 'consciously yielded' by the Union."). See also School Board v. Palowitch, 3 Fla.Publ.Empl.Rep. 280 (1977) (to find waiver where agreement does not directly speak of particular management right would encourage public employers to refrain from raising at the bargaining table subjects which it hopes to change), affirmed, 367 So.2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
There is nothing in the present agreement which specifically mentions drug testing, or can be fairly said to allude to it. The City's contractual right to maintain an "effective" internal security program does not include the right to require urinalysis. In this case, there was no evidence that the drug testing was even part of an internal security program; there were no department rules passed that might indicate that the drug testing requirement was part of a program; the drug tests were ordered not by Internal Security, but by the commander of the patrol section. Nor is the City's argument supported by the clause giving it the right to "suspend, demote, discharge, or take other disciplinary action against employees for proper cause." This generalized management rights clause is, in our view, analogous to a "zipper clause," the labor law equivalent of an integration clause. The Florida Supreme Court, in a case involving a claimed waiver of bargaining rights by public employees through a "zipper clause," said that such clauses "are generally interpreted only to maintain the status quo of a contract, and are not to be used to allow an employer to make unilateral changes in working conditions without bargaining." Palm Beach Junior College Board of Trustees v. United Faculty of Palm Beach Junior College, 475 So.2d at 1226. We agree with PERC "that neither a generalized management rights clause nor a 'zipper clause' in a collective bargaining agreement grants an employer plenary authority to unilaterally alter any and all working conditions which are not explicitly delineated in the agreement." Hillsbor-ough County Police Benevolent Association v. City of Tampa, 5 Fla.Pub.Empl. Rep. 1103 (1980) (quoted in Palm Beach Junior College Board of Trustees v. United Faculty of Palm Beach Junior College, 475 So.2d at 1226).
Epilogue
We have concluded, therefore, that the issue of compulsory drug testing of police officers was one which the City was required to collectively bargain with the officers' union. Having failed to do so, and having acted unilaterally when it required the officers to submit to testing, the City committed unfair labor practices.
Lest we be misunderstood, nothing we have said would prohibit the City from testing its police officers for drugs. It may do so, of course, if a drug testing program is made a part of a collective bargaining agreement. Also, in the event of an impasse in bargaining, the City, acting in its legislative capacity, could unilaterally impose drug testing, if it deemed it to be in the public interest. See § 447.403(4)(d) & (e), Fla. Stat. As an NLRB administrative judge concluded recently:
"[A] determination that the components of the company's drug and alcohol testing policy are mandatory subjects of bargaining does not mean that Respondent, or any other employer, is barred from proposing and/or ultimately implementing such a policy.... Even the finding of a bargaining obligation does not prohibit the company from having a drug testing program, after agreement or impasse is reached."
Star Tribune v. Newspaper Guild of the Twin Cities, Nos. 18-CA-9938 & 18-CA-10296, slip op. at 23 (NLRB, Nations, A.L.J., Nov. 3, 1988).
Moreover, a public employer may argue the "exigent circumstances" exception to collective bargaining, well established in labor law, which permits employers, under certain circumstances, to engage in acts which are contrary to the collective bargaining agreement. As PERC has stated, the affirmative defense of exigent circumstances provides "relief to an employer who is forced by an emergency to quickly and immediately modify the wages, hours or terms and conditions of employment of its employees," Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind Teachers United v. Florida School for the Deaf and Blind, 11 Fla.Publ.Empl.Rep. para. 16080, at 263 (1985), affirmed, 483 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), and is an exception to the prohibition on employers unilaterally changing employees' wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment. Id. at 267 n. 6. See also School Board v. Indian River County Education Association, 373 So.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). In the present case, the PERC hearing officer found that the City had not pleaded exigent circumstances, and the City, as it admits, decided not to argue it on appeal. Quite obviously, this court is in no position to decide the applicability of exigent circumstances in this case.
Finally, we should emphasize that the City was at all times free to bring disciplinary proceedings against the police officers based on such evidence, other than the compelled drug tests, that the City may have possessed to show that the officers were using illegal drugs.
In conclusion, although our decision is adverse to the City, it hardly leaves the City weaponless in its declared war on illegal drug use by its police officers.
AFFIRMED.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL, HUBBART, NESBITT, BASKIN, FERGUSON, JORGENSON, COPE, LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ.
. See, e.g., City of Palm Bay v. Bauman, 475 So.2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Policeman's Benevolent Association v. Township of Washington, 850 F.2d 133 (3d Cir.1988), petition for cert. filed, 490 U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 1004, 104 L.Ed.2d 153 (U.S.1988); Penny v. Kennedy, 846 F.2d 1563, vacated and rehearing en banc granted, 862 F.2d 567 (6th Cir.1988); Caruso v. Ward, 72 N.Y.2d 432, 530 N.E.2d 850, 534 N.Y.S.2d 142 (1988). Cf. Fowler v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 537 So.2d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (sheriff's department may require dispatcher to submit to drug test if request is based on reasonable suspicion; failure to submit is "misconduct" for unemployment compensation purposes).
. See, e.g., Railway Labor Executives' Association v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 845 F.2d 1187, 1188 (3d Cir.), cert. granted, 488 U.S. 815, 109 S.Ct. 52, 102 L.Ed.2d 31 (1988). See generally Dunham, Lewis & Alpert, Law Enforcement: Testing the Police for Drugs, 24 Crim.L.Bull. 155 (1988) (suggesting alternatives to drug testing); Symposium, Testing for Drug Use in the American Workplace, 11 Nova L.Rev. 291-890 (1987).
. The alleged cocaine user submitted to the test after his dismissal.
. Section 447.501 provides:
"Unfair labor practices.—
"(1) Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from:
"(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part.
"(c) Refusing to bargain collectively, failing to bargain collectively in good faith, or refusing to sign a final agreement agreed upon with the certified bargaining agent for the public employees in the bargaining unit."
. Collective bargaining rights of public employees should be broadly interpreted for another reason: the rights exist not simply for the benefit of the employees, but also to encourage labor peace. As stated in Palm Beach Junior College Board of Trustees v. United Faculty of Palm Beach Junior College, 425 So.2d at 140, "the stability to be encouraged in the bargaining relationship between public employer and employee requires the parties to conduct negotiations over a broad range of subjects...."
. Florida courts have often relied on federal precedent to define "terms and conditions of employment," as the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] contains identical language. See City of Orlando v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 435 So.2d at 278 n. 5 (where Florida statute is patterned after federal law, Florida courts will use same construction as federal courts, so long as construction is consistent with spirit and policy of Florida law); Palm Beach Junior College Board of Trustees v. United Faculty of Palm Beach Junior College, 475 So.2d 1121, 1125 (Fla.1985) (federal decision persuasive but not binding authority for judicial interpretation of PERA); Orange County Police Benevolent Association v. City of Casselberry, 457 So.2d at 1227 n. 4 (federal decisions construing NLRA are persuasive authority to the extent Chapter 447 and NLRA are analogous).
. Moreover, even a balancing test would not lead inexorably to the conclusion that drug testing need not be submitted to collective bargaining. In a case involving the drug testing of police officers, the Connecticut Board of Labor Relations concluded that a unilateral decision by a public employer is subject to mandatory collective bargaining when "the issue's impact on conditions of employment . outweigh[ed] the employer's need for unilateral action with out the encumbrance of bargaining." City of New Haven v. New Haven Police Local 530, No. 2554-A, slip op. at 10 (Conn.St.Bd. of Lab.Rel. May 28, 1987). The board reviewed the various factors, including the effectiveness and efficiency of urinalysis testing in detecting impairment or illegal drug use by police officers, and concluded that under the balancing test, the impact of mandatory drug testing on police officers' conditions of employment outweighed the police department's need to act unilaterally. Id., slip op. at 17. Indeed, the interest in harmonious labor relations — a factor in the balancing calculus — may often outweigh the employer's need to act unilaterally. As a Florida court has stated, "[r]epresentatives of the public employer and the union should and must be able to sit down together and negotiate an agreement which will be beneficial and fair to all parties. There is too much at stake to play games. Idealistic? Perhaps. Too much to ask? We think not." Duval County School Board v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 353 So.2d 1244, 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
. The only disagreement in these cases has been whether, under the nomenclature of the Railway Labor Act, the dispute over drug testing is "major" or "minor."
. At issue in United Teachers of Dade v. Dade County School Board, 500 So.2d 508, was a master teacher program which provided incentives to teachers who performed well. The supreme court, after noting the differences between public employee bargaining and private employee bargaining, stated that the case demonstrated that "some issues arising in the public employment arena would not arise in the private sector.... What we have before us is simply a unique situation." 500 So.2d at 512. Quite apart from its uniqueness, it should also be noted that the court did not find that such a program would be subject to collective bargaining for private employees but not for public employees. United Teachers is of little help to the City.
. We are informed that in a collective bargaining agreement entered on April 9, 1986, the City and FOP agreed to a drug testing program. See City of Miami Resolution 86-230 (March 27, 1986). We take judicial notice of this agreement, which is in the form of a city resolution.
A city resolution may be judicially noticed, see § 90.202(10), Fla.Stat., even if the request for notice is first made on appeal, see M. Graham, Handbook of Florida Evidence § 207.1, at 80 (1987) ("Appellate courts can take judicial notice of sources both of applicable law and adjudicative facts."); 1 C. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 207.2, at 58 (2d ed. 1984) ("The matters that can be noticed, which are set forth in Sections 90.201 and 90.202, should define the appropriate matters of judicial notice at both the trial and appellate levels."); S. Gard, Florida Evidence § 2:23, at 54 (2d ed. 1980) (Section 90.207 recognizes "the power of an appellate court to take judicial notice of vital facts relevant to review where notice was not taken in the court below."). We recognize that the First District has stated that the Florida Evidence Code does not apply to appellate proceedings, Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 424 So.2d 132, 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), but the correctness of this statement is debatable. See 1 C. Ehrhardt, supra § 207.2, at 58 n. 7 ("The decision is unwise and should not be followed as precedent."); M. Graham, supra § 207.1, at 81 n. 4 ("The court's statement that the Florida Evidence Code does not apply to appellate proceedings is dictum that should not be followed.").
In any event, the resolution noting the new collective bargaining agreement has absolutely no effect on the outcome of this case. We take judicial notice of the resolution simply to demonstrate what is obvious even without the resolution; that employers and employees can mutually agree to the institution of a drug testing program. See City of Oakland v. United Public Employees, 179 Cal.App.3d 356, 224 Cal.Rptr. 523 (1986) (appellate court takes judicial notice of resolution which did not affect determination of case).