his termination because the attorney retained by the FEA to represent him in the administrative proceedings failed to file exceptions. See Wojcicki v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade County, 841 So.2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (citing Kantor v. Sch. Bd. of Monroe County, 648 So.2d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), which observed that a terminated school employee could not argue on appeal matters which were not properly excepted to or challenged before school board). Both the attorney and the FEA sought dismissal of Wojcicki’s complaint. The attorney successfully argued the general rule that union agents may not be held individually hable when they act on behalf of a union in a collective bargaining activity and was dismissed from the case. See Stafford v. Meek, 762 So.2d 925, 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>). However, the circuit court rejected the FEA’s
holding that there was abundant evidence to support the charge against a union member for helping organize a nonaflcio local union of a different name where the union member admitted at the hearing that he contacted local contractors for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement for new union and serving as the new unions business manager holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union holding that collective bargaining agent representing employees had representational standing and therefore could bring an action under section 502 of erisa holding that a union attorney representing a member in a collective bargaining activity enjoys immunity from a legal malpractice action filed by an individual grievant recognizing that by accepting bribes in exchange for allowing violations of a collective bargaining agreement the defendant was conducting the rico enterprise local union through racketeering activity even though the union was harmed by the racketeering activity