The opinion
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
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 full-
time, 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
2
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.
3