The Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) General Counsel dismissed an amended unfair labor practice charge filed by William Escobar, a former City of Orlando police officer, who was demoted in 2022 after being placed on a Brady list. Escobar alleged that the City violated his rights under the CBA and Florida law by demoting him without proper notice, disciplining him twice for the same conduct, and refusing to advance his 2024 grievance to arbitration.
On February 11, 2024, an arbitrator concluded that Escobar’s reassignment from the position of Police Officer Communications Specialist I was a disciplinary demotion and not a violation of the CBA, because the City had just cause to demote him. Twelve days later, Escobar filed a second Step 1 grievance in which he asserted that the City had violated his due process rights under the CBA and Section 112.532, Florida Statutes, contending that because the arbitrator had determined that his reassignment qualified as discipline, he could now seek relief from that discipline through the grievance process. Escobar requested that he be reinstated to his old job. The City refused to advance the grievance to arbitration, and Escobar filed an unfair labor practice charge.
The General Counsel ruled the charge untimely under Section 447.503(6)(b), which requires such claims to be filed within six months of the alleged violation. Escobar’s demotion occurred in June 2022, but he did not file his charge until August 2024 — over two years later. While Escobar argued the arbitrator’s February 2024 decision reset the clock, the General Counsel rejected this, noting that the arbitrator’s ruling addressed the same underlying conduct and did not justify the delay.
Even if the charge was timely, it failed on the merits. The arbitrator had already determined the City had just cause to demote Escobar, as his placement on the Brady list rendered him unable to perform essential job duties. The City’s decision to reassign him to a civilian role, rather than terminate him, was deemed reasonable, and his 2024 grievance was dismissed because it rehashed the same issue resolved in arbitration.
The General Counsel also rejected Escobar’s claim that the City violated Sections 447.501(1)(a) and (f) by interfering with his rights or refusing to discuss grievances in good faith. The arbitrator’s decision and CBA terms refuted these allegations, and Escobar failed to show the City blocked his access to grievance procedures.
City of Orlando, 51 FPER ¶ 643 (G.C. Summary Dismissal 2025).