Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BARBERS BOARD (SANITARY COMMISSION) vs. C. M. RATLIFF, 75-000247 (1975)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 75-000247 Visitors: 18
Judges: DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: Dec. 20, 1976
Summary: Whether Respondent violated Section 476.01(5), Florida Statutes, by employing persons to work as barbers who were unlicensed as barbers. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for such alleged violation.Respondent didn't physically separate barber shop from cosmetology salon. Recommend dismissal as the problem has been corrected.
75-0247.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF BARBERS ) SANITARY COMMISSION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-247

) LICENSE NO. 12993

  1. M. RATLIFF, )

    )

    Respondent. )

    )


    RECOMMENDED ORDER


    After due notice a public hearing was held before Delphene Strickland, Hearing Officer, Department of Administration, Division of Administrative Hearings, on Monday, May 19, 1975, at 2:00 p.m. at 354 Holland Law Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.


    APPEARANCES:


    For Petitioner: John S. Miller, Counsel for Complainant

    LaCapra, Miller and Wiser Post Office Box 10137 Tallahassee, Florida 32301


    For Respondent: Barry D. Graves, Counsel for Respondent

    Jones & Ritch

    Post Office Box 1113 Gainesville, Florida 32602


    William H. Hall, Inspector Orange Park, Florida


    C. M. Ratliff, Respondent 2409 Southeast 12th Street Gainesville, Florida


    ISSUE


    1. Whether Respondent violated Section 476.01(5), Florida Statutes, by employing persons to work as barbers who were unlicensed as barbers.


    2. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for such alleged violation.


FINDINGS OF FACT


  1. A notice of violation was served on Respondent, owner of the University Plaza Barber and Style Salon, charging him with violating Section 476.01(6),

    Florida Statutes, which statute prohibits any person to hire or employ any person to practice barbering without a valid certificate of registration.


  2. The Administrative Complaint served on Respondent charges Respondent: "You have employed unlicensed barbers or apprentices to work as barbers in your shop".


  3. The Respondent had people working in his shop not registered as barbers but who were registered as cosmetologists and who were working as cosmetologists.


  4. Respondent operates a single shop registered as a barber shop and as a registered cosmetologist shop. He is a licensed barber and a licensed master cosmetologist.


  5. At the time of the notice of violation the sign in the front of the shop indicated only barber shop. At the time of hearing the sign indicated barber and beauty salon retain center.


  6. At the time of the violation notice Respondent did not have a partition in his shop that separated the barber shop from the area in which the cosmetologists worked. At the time of hearing a partition was in existence.


  7. Respondent presently has two barber chairs in one partitioned-off area and an area in which six licensed cosmetologists work. Each partitioned area has a separate door but the shop itself has one door leading into a waiting room.


    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

  8. Section 476.01(5), Florida Statutes, prohibits any person to "Hire or employ any person to engage in the

    practice of barbering unless such person then

    holds a valid, unexpired and unrevoked certificate of registration as a registered barber, registered apprentice, or registered barbers' assistant."


    Respondent did not violate Section 476.01(5), Florida Statutes, inasmuch as the persons in question working in the shop were not practicing barbering as defined by Section 476.02, Florida Statutes, but were practicing cosmetology as defined by Section 477.03, Florida Statutes. The persons in question working in Respondent's shop were practicing cosmetology and were licensed cosmetologists.


  9. Respondent employed persons in his barber shop but these persons did not practice the art of barbering as defined in Section 476.02, Florida Statutes.


  10. Respondent has partitioned two sections of the shop into separate areas as required by Section 476.24(6), Florida Statutes, and modified by Mans Look, Inc. vs. Florida State Board of Barbers Sanitary Commission, Fla. App.,

292 So.2d 387, so that the public will be on notice that the two arts, one of barbering and one of cosmetology, are both being practiced within the shop.

RECOMMENDED ORDER


Dismiss the complaint.


DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675


Docket for Case No: 75-000247
Issue Date Proceedings
Dec. 20, 1976 Final Order filed.
Jun. 29, 1975 Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 75-000247
Issue Date Document Summary
Aug. 14, 1975 Agency Final Order
Jun. 29, 1975 Recommended Order Respondent didn't physically separate barber shop from cosmetology salon. Recommend dismissal as the problem has been corrected.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer