What rules must a Florida public employer's bonus or incentive program follow?

Subject

Aviation authority, employee incentive programs

Plain-English summary

The general counsel for Tampa International Airport, acting for the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, asked the Attorney General's office whether the authority's existing employee incentive (bonus) program was valid under section 215.425(3), Florida Statutes. The office gave general comments rather than a yes-or-no ruling.

Two limits framed the response. First, the office presumes the validity of a governmental entity's actions unless a court holds otherwise, so it would not declare an enacted bonus plan invalid. Second, reviewing the terms of an entire bonus program against the statute is beyond the office's resources; it could instead help with a specific legal question about how a provision applies to a particular element of a plan. On the substance, the office laid out what section 215.425(3), as amended by Chapter 2011-143 in 2011, requires of any policy, ordinance, rule, or resolution implementing a bonus scheme: it must base the award on work performance, describe the performance standards and evaluation process, notify all employees before the evaluation period begins, and consider all employees for the bonus. The statute does not define "work performance," so that term would carry its ordinary meaning.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Section 215.425 governs extra compensation by public bodies. As amended by Chapter 2011-143, Laws of Florida, subsection (3) sets four requirements for any "policy, ordinance, rule, or resolution designed to implement a bonus scheme": (a) base the award on work performance; (b) describe the performance standards and the evaluation process by which a bonus will be awarded; (c) notify all employees of the policy before the evaluation period on which a bonus will be based begins; and (d) consider all employees for the bonus. The bill's staff analysis described the change as creating "requirements for any policy, ordinance, rule, or resolution designed to implement a bonus scheme."

The opinion noted that the statute does not define "work performance," so under ordinary rules of construction it would be given its plain and ordinary meaning, by dictionary if needed (citing Sieniarecki v. State and In re McCollam). The office then drew the line on what it could and could not do: because it presumes the validity of governmental action and lacks the resources to audit each bonus program in full, it declined to validate the authority's entire plan, but offered to address a specific interpretive question about a particular plan element.

Common questions

What does section 215.425(3) require of a public employer's bonus plan?
The plan must base awards on work performance, describe the performance standards and evaluation process, notify all employees before the evaluation period starts, and consider all employees for the bonus.

Did the Attorney General approve the airport authority's bonus program?
No. The office declined to rule on the validity of the entire program, both because it presumes governmental actions are valid until a court says otherwise and because reviewing every term of a bonus plan is beyond its resources.

What does "work performance" mean in the statute?
The statute does not define it, so the opinion said the term would be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which can be determined by reference to a dictionary if necessary.

Could a public employer get help from the office on a bonus plan?
The office said it could assist with a specific legal question about how a provision of section 215.425 applies to a particular element of a proposed plan, rather than validate an entire program.

Citations and references

• s. 215.425(3), Fla. Stat. (four criteria for any policy implementing a bonus scheme), as amended by Ch. 2011-143, Laws of Florida
• Sieniarecki v. State, 756 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2000) (plain meaning of undefined statutory terms)
• In re McCollam, 612 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1993) (clear statutes given plain and ordinary meaning)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/aviation-authority-employee-incentive-programs
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/8146

Original opinion text

Ms. Gigi Skipper Rechel

General Counsel

Tampa International Airport

Post Office Box 22287

Tampa, Florida 33622

Dear Ms. Rechel:

On behalf of the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, you have asked for this office's opinion as to whether the authority's existing employee incentive program is valid under section 215.425(3), Florida Statutes.

This office must presume the validity of actions taken by a governmental entity unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction declares otherwise. In an effort to be of assistance, however, the following general comments are offered.

As recently amended by Chapter 2011-143, Laws of Florida, section 215.425(3), Florida Statutes, states:

"Any policy, ordinance, rule, or resolution designed to implement a bonus scheme must:

(a) Base the award of a bonus on work performance;

(b) Describe the performance standards and evaluation process by which a bonus will be awarded;

(c) Notify all employees of the policy, ordinance, rule, or resolution before the beginning of the evaluation period on which a bonus will be based; and

(d) Consider all employees for the bonus."

The statute thus sets forth specific criteria that must be included in a policy seeking to implement a bonus plan. As stated in the staff analysis for the bill enacted as Chapter 2011-143, Laws of Florida, "[t]he bill creates requirements for any policy, ordinance, rule, or resolution designed to implement a bonus scheme."[1]

While the statute, for example, requires that any such policy designed to implement a bonus plan must base the award on work performance, the statute does not define the term "work performance." In the absence of a statutory definition, the term would generally be given its plain and ordinary definition.[2] In addition, the plan, which must be available to all employees, must describe the performance standards and evaluation process by which a bonus will be awarded and notify all employees of the policy before the beginning of the evaluation period on which a bonus will be based.

As noted above, this office must presume the validity of any enacted plan until and unless determined otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction. In addition, your inquiry requests this office to determine the validity of your entire bonus plan in light of the provisions of section 215.425(3), Florida Statutes. It is beyond the resources of this office to review the terms of each and every proposed bonus program in order to determine whether such a plan complies with the provisions of section 215.425, Florida Statutes. However, this office may be able to provide assistance on a specific legal question regarding the interpretation of a provision of the statute as applied to a particular element of a proposed plan.

Sincerely,

Lagran Saunders

Assistant Attorney General

ALS/tsh

[1] The Florida Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement on CS/CS/CS/SB 88 (2011 regular session), prepared by the Professional Staff of the Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee, dated April 14, 2011.

[2] See generally Sieniarecki v. State, 756 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2000) (in absence of a statutory definition, words of common usage are construed in their plain and ordinary sense and, if necessary, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary); In re McCollam, 612 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1993) (when language of statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear meaning, statute must be given its plain and ordinary meaning).