Judges: DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND
Agency: Department of Management Services
Latest Update: Sep. 20, 1977
Summary: Whether the layoff of Petitioner was in compliance with Florida Statutes, Chapter 110, and Chapter 22A, Florida Administrative Code, and was for good cause shown.Uphold lay-off of Petitioner despite fact she was not notified she could seek demotion instead.
77-0274.PDFSTATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
BETTY SAUNDERS, )
)
Petitioner/Appellant, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 77-274
) CSC CASE NO. 76-303
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES ) and CAREER SERVICE COMMISSION, )
)
Respondent/Appellee. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held in the above-styled cause on April 26, 1977, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 104, Collins Building, Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner/ Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Appellant: 1215 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
For Respondent/ Doug Whitney, Esquire Appellee: Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ISSUE
Whether the layoff of Petitioner was in compliance with Florida Statutes, Chapter 110, and Chapter 22A, Florida Administrative Code, and was for good cause shown.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Appellant Betty Saunders has been employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and attained permanent status within the Career Service Commission in two classifications, Computer Systems Analyst I and Computer Systems Analyst II. By memorandum dated June 10, 1976 which was distributed to Appellant and other employees and by letter dated July 1, 1976, Appellant Saunders was advised of her status as an affected employee in the reorganization of Appellee department and that her position was being moved from Jacksonville to Tallahassee. She was told that she could move with the position and if not she would be retained on the payroll for a period of ninety (90) days or until she obtained a new position, whichever first occurred.
Employees of the Appellee made extraordinary efforts to place affected employees in other positions if said employees did not choose to move from Jacksonville to Tallahassee. Appellee made many attempts to place the Appellant in positions, including positions of promotion. However, Appellant declined to accept. A written offer was made Appellant Saunders by letter from H.F. Goodwin, Director, Office of Management Systems. Said offer was a ten (10) percent increase in salary and a promotion to a position as Systems Project Analyst, Class Code 0180, Paygrade 22, located in Tallahassee, Florida. The promotion was declined. By letter dated September 24, 1976, Mrs. Saunders was informed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services that her position was abolished and that she was laid off from employment by the department effective September 30, 1976, and that she would receive two (2) weeks pay in lieu of the fourteen (14) calendar day notices provided by rule. This letter also notified the Secretary of the Department of Administration that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services had designated Duval County as a competitive area.
On October 11, 1976, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services received a letter dated October 4, 1976, from the Secretary of the Department of Administration expanding the competitive area. The agency accepted and acted upon the areas recommended by the Department of Administration, but there was no further written communication with the regard to the lay-off or the designation of the competitive area. Further communication was unnecessary.
The Appellant Saunders was not notified that she had a right to request a demotion or any time frame for which she could seek a demotion. There is no evidence to show that Appellant Saunders sought a demotion although she is qualified to perform the job of a computer operator which is a demotion from the position she held as a computer systems analyst. No such notice was necessary or required.
The Proposed Orders of the parties submitted to the Hearing Officer have been examined and considered in the preparation of this order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Chapter 22A-7.11, Florida Administrative Code, provides in part as follows:
"(2) The first step in the layoff procedure is to determine the number of positions to be abolished. The Secre- tary of Administration shall be advised in writing by the agency head of all
such positions anticipated to be abolished at least 14 calendar days prior to
the date they are expected to be abolished and shall advise the Secretary of Administration of the abolishment
no later than notice of layoffs was mailed to the employees."
The above rule was effective at the time of the lay-off. The agency complied by letter dated September 24, 1976, which was the date of letter to Appellant giving final notification of lay-off. Appellant did not indicate a
desire to move from the Jacksonville area and did not indicate interest in a demotion.
RECOMMENDATION
Sustain the action of the agency in laying off the Appellant Betty Saunders.
DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Ben Patterson, Esquire 1215 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Douglas Whitney, Esquire Room 406, Building 1
1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
(904) 488-9675
=================================================================
AGENCY REMAND
=================================================================
BEFORE THE CAREER SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE APPEAL OF BETTY SAUNDERS
against LAYOFF DOCKET NO. 76-303 DOAH CASE NO. 77-274
by the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
/
ORDER
This Commission having considered the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer, Ms. Delphene Strickland, dated May 31, 1977, and having considered the Exceptions filed as to the Recommended Order, having considered the Exhibits entered into evidence at the hearing before the Hearing Officer, and having reviewed the letter dated September 24, 1976, advising the Appellant of the impending layoff, feels that this case should be returned to the Hearing Officer for further consideration and further hearing, if deemed necessary by her, specifically on the question of whether the Appellant was advised of her right to accept a demotion within the competitive area approved by the Department of Administration.
This Commission requests that the Hearing Officer determine whether the Appellant should have been laid off or transferred, since the Order contains the finding that the position was moved to the Tallahassee Area, indicating that the employee should have been transferred with the position, rather than being laid off.
This Commission further requests that an Amended Recommended Order be furnished including specific findings as indicated above. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the appeal case be returned to the Hearing Officer for her further consideration and for the purpose of holding further hearings if she deems same necessary.
DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of September, A.D., 1977.
CATHERINE W. CHAPIN, Chairman
Career Service Commission
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copy of the foregoing Order was forwarded by certified U.S. Mail, return receipt requested to Ms. Delphene Strickland, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, 530 Carlton Building, Tallahassee, Florida, Mr. Ben Patterson, Attorney at Law, 1215 Thomasville Road, Tallahassee, Florida and Mr. Douglas Whitney, Attorney, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1350 North Orange Avenue, Winter Park, Florida, this 14th day of September, A.D., 1977.
CAREER SERVICE COMMISSION
By: June McPhaul
================================================================= SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDED ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
BETTY SAUNDERS, )
)
Petitioner/Appellant, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 77-274
) CSC CASE NO. 76-303
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES ) and CAREER SERVICE COMMISSION, )
)
Respondent/Appellee. )
)
SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDED ORDER
The undersigned Hearing Officer held an administrative hearing under the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, in the above-styled cause on April 26, 1977. A Recommended Order was entered May 31, 1977. On September 14, 1977, an Order was entered by the Career Service Commission requesting this Hearing Officer to further consider and further hear, if necessary.
"The question of whether the Appellant was advised of her right to accept a de- motion within the competitive area approved by the Department of Administration" and
"This Commission requests that the Hear- ing Officer determine whether the Appellant
should have been laid off or transferred, "
Upon a review of the Order and the Recommended Order, the transcript of the testimony adduced at the hearing, and upon notification of counsel by both parties and their written response (see attachments A and B), the Hearing Officer finds:
A letter of July 1, 1976 to Appellant from Art Adams, Director Personnel Management and Staff Development, stated:
"You will be retained at your same level of compensation for 90 days from this date or until other placement or employment is se- cured, whichever first occurs. Attached is a memo dated June 10, 1976, which outlines for you steps that have been implemented to assist in the placement of adversely affected employees. We ask that you give special attention to the information concerning
placement or employment which might in- volve reassignment, promotion, demotion, or transfer." (Emphasis supplied) (See Attachment C)
The letter of September 24, 1976, from Art Adams to the Appellant stated:
"The layoff procedure allows you as a permanent Career Service employee to have the right to demotion or reassign- ment within the competitive area, Duval County, in lieu of layoff to a position in a class in which you previously held permanent status or to a position in a class at the level or below the class
in which you held permanent status within a series. A review of your personnel file indicates that there are no other classes in any series in which you held permanent status within this Department in the Duval County area to which you
could request a demotion or reassignment." (Emphasis supplied)
The reorganization act of the Respondent specifically relocated all headquarters to Tallahassee by a specified date and the unit in which the Appellant was employed was determined to be part of the headquarters staff. The above quoted section of the letter from the Director of Personnel Management and Staff Development notified the Appellant that the procedure allowed her to have the right to demotion but it also notified her that there were no positions in the competitive area (Duval County area) in which she could request a demotion or reassignment. (See also transcript pages 25-26). It appears from the testimony that Appellant was under the belief that a position with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in Jacksonville was filled by a former unit employee, D. J. Trow. He had secured a position as a Facility Service Coordinator II with District IV but this was a different type of job in a different unit.
As stated in the Recommended Order, page 2, paragraph 2, the Appellee exerted extraordinary efforts to place the Appellate in other positions she could fill in the Jacksonville area but with her restricted area of competence no position could be found for Appellant. Several positions of equal or better rank were found and offered Appellant in the Tallahassee area. When she declined to accept a 10 percent salary increase and a promotion in paygrade to a position in Tallahassee, the only alternative was to use the layoff procedure.
As a practical matter the Hearing Officer finds the Appellee should have done as it did, i.e., use the layoff procedure rather than the transfer procedure, inasmuch as a transfer to the Tallahassee area would have been a useless act because Appellant previously and consistently refused positions in the Tallahassee area. An interpretation of the procedure and rules which would throw the meaning or administration of the law into witless confusion or uncertainty should be avoided. C.F. Garcia v. Allstate Ins. Co., 327 So. 2d 784.
In summary, the recommendation of the Hearing Officer in the Supplemental Recommended Order is the same as that previously submitted in the Recommended Order, i.e., to sustain the action of the agency in laying off the Appellant for the reason that the Appellant was in close contact with the Appellee and would have been notified if Appellee could have granted her desire to continue to work for it in a position she could fill in the Jacksonville area.
DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator
Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Ben Patterson, Esquire 1215 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
George Waas, Esquire Department of HRS
1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings Room 520, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
(904) 488-9675
Docket for Case No: 77-000274
Orders for Case No: 77-000274
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
Sep. 14, 1977 |
Agency Final Order
|
|
|
May 31, 1977 |
Recommended Order
|
Uphold lay-off of Petitioner despite fact she was not notified she could seek demotion instead.
|
