Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-83-0216J-83-184 rr RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT COLLECTIVE -BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH TdE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE (FOP), LODGE #20, WHICH AMENDMENT DEALS WITH PROMOTION PROCEDURES IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ALSO DISPOSES OF ALL PENDING LAWSUITS OF THE FOP CONCERNING THE CONSENT DECREE AND THE ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8977, THE NEW CIVIL SERVICE RULES ORDINANCE; FUTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE A CONSENT DECREE IN THE CASE OF USA V. CITY OF MIAMI SETTLING THE ISSUES IN SAID CASE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH SAID SETTLEMENT. WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs in the case of Franklin G. Cohen, et al., v. City of Miami, et al., United States District Court, have agreed to the extension of the present police sergeant and police lieutenant registers; and WHEREAS, the parties in the case of United States of America v. City of Miami and F.O.P., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 75-3096 and 79-2183-Civ-JWK have concluded extensive negotiations in an attempt to amicably resolve long standing differences concerning promotion policies in the Police Department; and WHEREAS, the parties have reached an agreement that will require approval of the rank and file of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), Lodge #20 and the approval of the City Commission, the Justice Department and the United States District Court; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an Amendment to the current Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), Lodge #20, entitled "Resolution of Pending Claims" which Amendment deals with promotion procedures in the Police Department and CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAR 18 1983 RMLU110it duE ~ KS,,. also disposes of all pending lawsuits of the FOP concerning the Consent Decree and the adoption and implementation of Ordinance No. 8977, the new Civil Service Rules Ordinance. Section 2. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to execute the Consent Order in the case of United States of America V. City of Miami and FOP which settles the issues in said litigation. Section 3. The City Attorney is also hereby authorized to execute all other documents necessary to accomplish and facilitate said settlement. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18 day of MARCH , 1983. MAURICE A. FERRE MAURICE A. FERRE M A Y 0 R ATTEST: R"PW/G. ONGIE, CITY -CLE�V— PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: ROBERT F. CLARK DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: SE R. GARCIA-PEDRI TY ATTORNEY -2- S 3 - 11 5 CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO The Honorable Mayor Ferre DATE March 7, 1982 C= _< and Members of the City Commission "' SUBJECT Consent Decree Lit igaiol rn FROM REFERENCES y L05 Jose R. Garcia -Pedrosa a City Attorney ENCLOSURES �lf� In December, 1981, an En Banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court's entry of the Consent Decree as it applied to all employment practices in the City of Miami, except for Police promotions. As to Police promotions, the Circuit Court remanded it to the District Court for a trial on the merits. Over the last several months, representatives of the City have been meeting with representatives of the FOP in an attempt to settle the Consent Decree and the various lawsuits surrounding employment practices in the Police Department. Also participating in the ne- gotiations were representatives of the Miami Community Police Be- nevolent Association and the Miami Hispanic Police American Confed- eration, Inc. After extensive negotiations, the parties have reached a proposed _ agreement. The FOP has agreed to sign the attached Consent Order and to dismiss, with prejudice, their lawsuit attacking the adop- tion and implementation of Ordinance No. 8977 (the new Civil Serv- ice Rules). In exchange, --the City has agreed to promote fourteen persons. Four of these persons are included in the class of Cohen plaintiffs. The Cohen litigation was begun over a decade ago. if was a class action —brought by Black officers alleging discrimina- tion in the Miami Police Department. There are four remaining Cohen plaintiffs who have yet to be promoted as a result of the USA Consent Decree. The City has agreed to promote these four offi- cers. In exchange, the Cohen plaintiffs will dismiss their law- suit, with prejudice. The City is required to make ten other pro- motions under the Agreement. Nine of these promotions are Anglos. These are persons who have been bypassed under the Consent Decree and the new Civil Service Rules, and who are still with the City and have not yet been promoted. The City will also promote one Latin male. This Latin male was higher on a promotional register then a lower ranking female who was promoted. There will be no back pay, seniority, nor emoluments of any kind to be paid to the persons who are promoted. However, the four Cohen plaintiffs will receive a payment of $2,000 each, which is what they would have received under the back -pay fund of the USA Consent Decree if they had been promoted. 83-- 2,1C, 17) 11 Jose R. Garcia -Pedrosa City Attorney -2- March 79 1982 The existing Police Sergeant and Police Lieutenant promotional reg- ister will each be extended for seven promotions so that all per- sons who are presently on a promotional register with an expecta- tion of promotion will be promoted. (See attached Resolution.) The negotiated Agreement also calls for the creation of a Promotion Review Procedure in the Police Department. A three member Promo- tional Review Board will be convened to determine whether the Police Chief has abused his discretion if he determines that a candidate for promotion should be bypassed. The Promotional Review Board will hold an informal hearing at an aggrieved employee's re- quest. If the Board rules in favor of the Chief, the matter will be ended. However, if the Board rules in favor of the aggrieved em- ployee, the Police Chief may appeal the matter to the City Manager, whosL9 decision is final. You should also be aware of what the Agreement does not settle. There is still the matter of the Firefighter's challenge to the adoption of the Rules. That case was tried before the United States District Court during the week of February 2B, 1983. Post - trial briefs are being prepared at this time. There are also other lawsuits brought by individuals challenging some of the actions of the City under the Consent Decree. These actions will not be dis- missed. Furthermore, certain officers have been bypassed under the Consent Decree and have subsequently been promoted. These officers could still sue for back pay and seniority. We do not consider the risks in any of the Police cases that exist now, or that might be brought, substantial. In any event, we believe that the entire package preserves the City's ability legally to maintain a vigorous Affirmative Action Program_ in the Police Department. In addition to extending the promotion registers, we recommend that you approve our execution of the Consent Order which will be sub- mitted to the District Court Judge for his approval in the case of USA v. City of Miami. You are also being asked to approve the City Manager's execu ion of the attached "Resolution of Pending Claims." This is an amendment to the Collective Bargaining Agreement. It will be necessary for this office to execute an Escrow Agreement which will facilitate carrying out the agreements of the various parties. Further, you are being asked to approve our execution of the Escrow Agreement and the execution of any other documents that may be necessary to carry out the settlement. cc: City Manager City Clerk S 3 - 01G a r� RJC:kt IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, et al and FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, CITY : OF MIAMI LODGE 20 and WALTER A. : RODAK, President Defendants. CONSENT ORDER CASE NO. 75-3096-CIV-JWK CASE NO. 79-2183-CIV-JWK This suit was brought by the United States of America against the City of Miami, -and its officials (hereafter the City of Miami), alleging a pattern and practice of employment practices which discriminate on the basis of race, sex and national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et. seq. Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3766 and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, as amended, 31 U.S.C. §122 et. seq. The Fraternal Order of Police, City of Miami Lodge 20, and its President (the "FOP") and the Miami Police Benevolent Association (the "PBA") were also named as defendants appropriate for purposes of relief, pursuant to Rule 19 and 20, Fed. R. Civ. P. On March 29, 1977, this Court entered, over the objection of the FOP and PBA, a Consent Decree, which had been agreed to by the United States and by the City of Miami. The FOP and the PBA then prosecuted an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which resulted in a decision (664 F.2d 435) and mandate which affirmed the lawfulness of the entry of the Consent Decree in all aspects save those provisions which modified the promotion practices of the City of Miami within the Police De- partment; and remanded for trial or other proceedings to determine how to resolve the disagreements between the parties concerning the promotion practices of the City of Miami within its Police -De- partment. Pursuant to the mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Miami Police Benevolent Association, previously a party defendant, was dismissed from this action by order entered on March 12, 1982. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter of this action. The parties to this case who have an interest in the promotion practices of the Police Department of the City of Miami, namely the United States, the City of Miami and the Fraternal Order of Police, have found that they agree on the objectives and purposes of the Consent Decree. They have therefore waived hearing and the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law on all unresolved issues, and have agreed to the entry of this Order, pursuant to the decision and mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth District. -z- s Pursuant to the Agreement of the parties and the mandate of the Court of Appeals IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Consent Decree entered by the Court on March 29, 1977, remains in full force and effect. The provision of the Consent Decree pertaining to promotions in the Police Department are hereby reentered by consent of the United States, the City of Miami, and the FOP; and shall have the same force and effect as the other provisions of the decree, except as specifically provided below. The only Black, Latin or female employees who were initially assigned to traditionally Black, Latin or female po- sitions, or who were otherwise discriminatorially denied employment opportunities in the Police Department, and are the only remaining members of the "affected class" within the meaning of the Consent Decree who have not previously received transfer or promotion pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Consent Decree, are Officers Ruben Thompson and Willard Myles, and Sergeants Thomas Marshall and Alexander Sampson. Officers Thompson and Myles shall be offered priority consideration for promotion to the position of Sergeant, and Sergeants Marshall and Sampson shall be offered priority consideration for promotion to the position of Lieutenant pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Consent Decree, within twelve (12) months of the date of entry of this order. Once these remaining members of the affected class have been promoted, the provisions of paragraph 7 of the Consent Decree shall no longer apply to the Police Department. -3- S 3'-'r-201 ii W 3. The parties recognize that federal equal employment opportunity law prohibits the use of selection procedures which have a discriminatory impact on the employment opportunities of Black, Latin and female candidates for promotion, unless these procedures have been validated as predictive of successful job performance. The City shall select and promote persons within the City of Miami Police Department in a fair and non-discriminatory manner from amongst qualified applicants. It is the expectation of all the parties that such non-discriminatory promotion procedures will result annually in the selection and promotion of qualified Black, Latin and female applicants in numbers approximating the proportion of qualified applicants available for promotion from each such group. Nothing in this order shall obligate the City to promote any person who is not qualified or to promote a less qualified person in preference to a better qualified person. 4. The City of_Miami agrees to review and if necessary to revise the selection processes for promotion to the positions of lieutenant and captain in the Police Department to assure fairness and non-discrimination in selection, as well as the accomplishment of the purposes of the Consent Decree. 5. The United States accepts the reentry of the provisions of the Consent Decree concerning the promotion practices of the Police Department and the entry of this order in settlement of the claims in the Complaint in this case against the City of Miami and the FOP concerning the promotional practices in the Police Department. The FOP accepts this order in resolution of all claims it has against the City of Miami concerning the prior -4- E3- 016 k• f r promotional practices of the City of Miami in the implementation of the Consent Decree in the Police Department, including, but not limited to, the adoption and implementation of Ordinance No. 8977, and including its claims before the Court in Case No. 79-2183-Civ-JWK. 6. The Consent Decree as reentered shall continue in full force and effect, with respect to the Police Department, until September 29, 1984. On or after that date, u-ny party hereto may move the Court, upon 45 days notice to the other parties, for dissolution of those provisions of the Decree which pertain to employment in the Police Department, and in considering whether the Decree should be dissolved, the Court will take into account whether the City has substanially complied with this Decree and whether the basic objectives of the Decree have been achieved. DATED this day of , 1983. UNITED STATES I TRICT JUDGE By Consent: n behalf of the United States of America n behalf of the City of Miami and its officials n behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police Miami Lodge 20, and Walter A. Rodak, its president -5- S 3-- ,1G On behalf of the Miami Community Police Benevolent Association, Amicus Curiae n behalf of the Miami Hispanic Police American Confederation, Inc. F3-.''IC" lu P i ESCROW AGREEMENT 1. The purpose of this agreement is to establish an orderly procedure for the implementation of the various agreements made between the Fraternal Order of Police, the United States of America, the City of Miami, the Cohen Plaintiffs, the Miami Community Police Benevolent Association, the Miami Hispanic Police American Confederation, Inc., and the individual claimants. The parties understand and agree that the resolution of the disputes and the implementation of the agreement is contingent upon ex- tension of the present police sergeant and police lieutenant registers. In order to extend the present police sergeant and police lieutenant registers, it is necessary that both the Cohen plaintiffs and the City Commission agree to such an extension. By separate document, the Cohen plaintiffs have already agreed to the extension. Upon execution of this document, the City Commission will be asked to approve extension of the present eligible reg- ister. 2. The remaining Cohen plaintiffs are Ruben Thompson, Willard Myles, Thomas Marshall and Alexander Sampson. If all the aaree- ments are ratified by all the necessary parties, these persons will be promoted, subject to normal background review, on or before March 23, 1983. Each individual will then be eligible for a lump sum payment of $2,000, less normal payroll deductions, provided that such individuals sign a waiver releasing the City from any claims of discrimination preceeding the date of promotion. The City and the Cohen plaintiffs agree that these promotions will resolve all the issues involved between the parties of the original litigation in Cohen v. City of Miami. The Cohen plaintiffs further agree that upon promotion of the four individuals named herein, the Cohen plaintiffs will dismiss, with prejudice, the Cohen case. 3. There are individual claimants who are a party to this agreement. They are: Charles Carter, Brent Helms, Norman Hale, Ronald Stevens, Steven Vinson, Walter Martinez, Robert Apte, 83 :lei 0 Patrick Anderson, Michael Gross and Russell Leesburg. These are all the persons who are presently employed by the Miami Police Department, and have been bypassed for promotion under the Consent Decree or under Ordinance No. 8977 and have not subsequently been promoted. All these persons shall execute releases of all claims that they may have against the City of Miami. These releases shall be given to , who shall act as Escrow Agent. As soon as these persons are promoted, or the Police Chief gives written notice to the person that he is not being promoted for just cause, the Escrow Agent shall deliver the releases and the dismissals of all claims to the City Attorney of the City of Miami. The parties have proposed, in a separate document, a promotional review procedure. The Police Chief will consider the names of all persons on the group listed above for promotion. If the Police Chief decides not to promote a person based on just cause, that person may institute the promotional review procedure. However, it is expressly agreed and understood that the releases and dismissals, with prejudice, shall be delivered to the City Attorney for the City of Miami as soon as a person who is bypassed is notified by the Chief of Police of the reason for the bypass. 4. The Fraternal Order of Police and Robert Apte shall execute a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, with prejudice, in F.Q.P. v. Cit Y of Miami and Apte v. City of Miami in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Dade County, Florida, Case No. 79-15235 (14). These Notices of Voluntary Dismissals, with prejudice, shall be delivered to the Escrow Agent. As soon as the F.Q.P. and the City Commission approve the entry of the amendment to the collective bargaining agreement, the Escrow Agent shall file the Notices of Voluntary Dismissals, With Prejudice, with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. -2- 0 `1 _, FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI FOR THE F.O.P FOR THE MCPBA FOR THE MIAMI HISPANIC POLICE AMERICAN CONFEDERATION, INC. FOR THE COHEN PLAINTIFFS CHARLES CARTER BRENT HELMS -3- 83-- 2 16 ------ -- - ------ - �N - .iS�F...4 •,SR M.ij4� I 9 4 NORMAN HALE RONALD STEVENS STEVEN VINSON WALTER MARTINEZ ROBERT APTE PATRICK ANDERSON MICHAEL GROSS -4- 8 3 - 16 • i RUSSELL LEESBURG RUBEN THOMPSON WILLIARD MYLES THOMAS MARSHALL ALEXANDER SAMPSON _ -5- i RUSSELL LEESBURG RUBEN THOMPSON WILLIARD MYLES THOMAS MARSHALL ALEXANDER SAMPSON _ -5- . 4. a ds RESOLUTION OF PENDING CLAIMS 1. This agreement will dispose of all pending lawsuits and resolve all open questions between the parties concerning the Consent Decree and the adoption and implementation of Ordinance No. 8977. 2. The Fraternal Order of Police (hereinafter the F.O.P.) agrees that the F.O.P. will sign and become a party to the Consent Decree in United States of America v. City of Miami, that said Decree will be reinstituted; that the present Civil Service Rules will remain in full force and effect and that Ordinance No. 6945 will be changed to Ordinance No. 8977 in Article IV of this agreement. The F.O.P. and the City agree that this constitutes the "Resolution of Pending Litigation" specified in the Labor Agreement. The F.O.P. will immediately dismiss, with prejudice, any lawsuit in any forum that challenges the validity of Ordinance No. 8977 on any ground and the F.O.P. expressly agrees that Ordinance No. 8977 is the lawful and valid Civil Service ordinance for the City of Miami and has been lawful and valid from the date of its adoption, and that the F.O.P. will not take any action in any forum to challenge any existing provision.of Ordinance No. 8977. The F.O.P. expressly agrees that if any Court of competent jurisdiction shall declare Ordinance No. 8977 illegal or invalid in any respect, said ruling will not avail to the benefit of the F.O.P. No matter what any Court may rule, Ordinance No. 6977 shall govern employment and promotions in the Miami Police Department. 3. The parties recognize that the City of Miami, in making promotions in the police department, must promote at a rate that will permit the City to achieve its promotional goals set out in the Consent Decree and in an affirmative action program approved by the City Commission, without adverse impact against Latins, Blacks and women. Promotions will be made in such a way that the City will be able to achieve a minimum promotional rate of fifty percent 83-- ff, a 0 for minorities and women at the rank of police sergeant and police lieutenant, as long as there are qualified applicants on a pro- motional register. 4. The F.O.P. agrees that it will not bring in its own name nor support any claim based on alleged bypassing or failure to promote in consecutive order under the provisions of Ordinance No. 8977. The City shall incur no liability as a result of this agreement, except as expressly set forth herein. 5. By separate document, (hereinafter referred to as "the list") the F.O.P. will certify to the City of Miami the names of sworn officers and sergeants who have claims against the City based on an assertion that they were bypassed for promotion on a Civil Service eligible register, and have not been subsequently promoted, and who are still employed by the City. The F.O.P. certifies that the persons on that document are the only persons who fall into that category. The parties understand that there may be other police officers who may have other claims against the City with regard to their employment status. The F.O.P. expressly agrees that it will not support, either directly or indirectly, any claim by any other individual whose name does not appear on the list for any personnel action that may or may not have been made prior to the date of this agreement, excepting those employees who may have claims for Veterans Preference. 6. The City will make fourteen promotions to the rank of police sergeant on or before March 23, 1983. Two police officers who are members of the class of Cohen plaintiffs, and whose name will appear on the list, will be promoted to the rank of sergeant. Also promoted to the rank of sergeant will be two other members from the list in the order in which they appear on the list. These names will be combined with ten indivduals from the existing eligible register for police sergeant in order to make a total of fourteen promotions. Names will be taken from those who rank highest on the eligible register and those minorities and women who ranked highest among the group of minorities and women on the eligible register in accord with Civil Service rule 8 in such a way that will assure equitable distribution of promotions among all ethnic groups. -2 - 7. The next group of promotions to the rank of sergeant will be made alternately from the names on the list and the names on existing eligible registers for police sergeant. The fifteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth promotions will go to names of persons on the list. Promotions number sixteen, eighteen, twenty and twenty-one will be made from the eligible register in accord with Civil Service Rule 8 in order to assure an equitable number of promotions for minorities and women. The present eligible register for police sergeant will be extended past its present expiration date for seven promotions. B. On or before March 23, 1983, the City will make eight pro- motions to the rank of police lieutenant. The first two promotions will go to those members of the Cohen Plaintiffs whose names are on the list. The next three promotions will go to three members of the list in the order in which they appear on the list. An ad- ditional three persons will be promoted from the Civil Service eligible register for police lieutenant, in accord with Civil Service Rule B. 9. Subsequent promotions to the rank of police lieutenant will be made by alternate promotions from names on the list and names on the Civil Service eligible register. Promotion number 9 and number 11 will go to those persons on the list. Promotions number 10, 12, 139 14, 15 will be made from the eligible register. The present eligible register for police lieutenants will be extended past its present expiration date for seven promotions. 10. All persons promoted under this agreement shall serve the probationary period prescribed by the Civil Service Rules. 11. All promotions will be prospective. There will be no ret- roactive promotions, and there will be no retroactive pay nor seniority nor benefits nor emoluments of any kind for any person promoted under this agreement. 12. The parties agree that all promotions in the police department described in this agreement, and future promotions, will be made in accordance with Civil Service Rule 8 of Ordinance No. 8977, as it presently exists or as it may be amended. The parties understand that Civil Service Rule 8 permits the certification and appointment -3- 83--ti1c of qualified minorities and women in order to minimize adverse impact and to assist the City in meetinq the promotional goals established in the Consent Decree and in any affirmative action plan approved by the City Commission. It is expressly agreed and understood that the phrase "members of appropriate protected groups as defined in Federal regulations", contained in Civil Service Rule 8.7(b) means a Black, Latin, or woman, regardless of when, or in what position, that person was originally hired by the City. It is further understood that the City may bypass a member of one group in order to promote members of another group when reasonably necessary to avoid adverse impact at each rank and for each group in the police department. 13. There is hereby created a promotion review procedure for the express purpose of insuring fairness in the promotional process. The promotional review procedure shall be established as follows: a. A three member promotional review board shall be es- tablished, comprised of one person chosen by the Chief of Police, one person chosen by the aggrieved employee and a third person chosen by the other two board members. All members of the Board shall hold the permanent rank, or higher rank, than the aggrieved employee presently holds. b. Any police department employee bypassed for promotion shall, upon request to the Chief of Police, be notified by the Police Chief or designated representative of the reason or reasons for bypass, and the aggrieved employee may, within 10 days of notification, request the con- vening of the promotional review board. If the employee makes said request, the promotional review board shall convene within twenty calendar days. c. The promotional review board shall be an informal non -adversary proceeding, and shall be conducted in the same fashion that the departmental disciplinary review board conducts its hearings. -4- 83-ti2.6 d. The board shall hear evidence and shall make a deter- mination as to whether or not the Chief of Police abused his discretion in deciding not to promote the aggrieved individual. The mere fact that the person not promoted held a higher rank on the register than a person who was promoted shall not constitute proper grounds for finding an abuse of discretion. It is expressly understood that the promotional review procedure is not meant in any way to undermine the City reaching its goals under this agreement, the Consent Decree, or an affirmative action plan approved by the City Commission. The purpose of the promotional review board is to review those cases where the Chief decides not to promote a person based upon the Chief's determination that that person in unworthy of promotion. e. If the Board finds by a majority vote for the Chief of Police, the proceding shall be ended and the employee shall not be promoted. The employee has no appeal. If the Board finds for the employee, the Chief of Police may appeal the determination to the City Manager, who may, at his option, convene a de nova hearing or make his decision based upon all information he deems relevant. If the City Manager chooses to convene a de nova hearing, the City Manager may be the Hearing Officer himself, or may appoint someone to be Hearing Officer. If the City Manager determines not to conduct initial hearings, both the employee and the Chief shall have an opportunity to supply additional written statements and arguments to the City Manager. f. The City Manager shall render a decision within 15 days of an appeal by the Police Chief. In the event the City Manager sustains the employee, the employee shall be promoted. In the event that the pity Manager sustains the Chief and reverses the findings of the Board, the decision of the City Manager is final, except that the employee shall have the right of review to the Circuit Court by the common law writ of certiorari. 14. It is understood that the promotions called for in this agreement are subject to the normal background review and that the Chief of Police, for just cause, may decline to promote any of the individuals whose names appear on the list or the names of any other indivduals who appear on an eligible register. If the Chief of Police decides not to promote any person for any reason, the promotional review procedure will be available to review that decision. 15. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the rights of either party to collectively bargain any term or condition of employment, including those matters covered by Ordinance No. 8977, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 447, Part II. 16. This agreement shall be ratified in accordance with the provision of Chapter 447 and upon its ratifications shall be attached as an amendment to the existing labor agreement. 83--Z16 -6- 0 Agreed to this day of , 1903, by and between the respective parties through an authorized representative or rep- resentatives of the Union and by the City Manager. ATTEST: FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE 20 ATTEST: ON THE PART OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, MIAMI, FLORIDA CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: CITY ATTORNEY 83-ti11;