STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CECIL U. LANE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 84-1807

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, ELECTRICAL ) CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case was heard on October 25, 1984, by Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. This case arose upon Petitioner's timely request for hearing on the Board's denial of Petitioner's application for examination for licensure by the Electrical Contractor's Licensing Board. The Petitioner's application was denied on the basis that the Petitioner did not possess the required skill, knowledge and experience, as evidenced by three (3) years proven experience in the trade or education equivalent thereto, that is three (3) years proven experience in the trade as an electrical contractor or in a responsible management position with an electrical contractor.

APPEARANCES

FOR PETITIONER: Eric S. Ruff, Esquire

Post Office Box TT

Plant City, Florida 33566

FOR RESPONDENT: Arthur C. Wallberg, Esquire

Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

ISSUES

The parties stipulated that the Petitioner's financial responsibility and morals were not an issue. The only basis for the Board's denial was the Petitioner's alleged lack of experience.

Petitioner and Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. These proposals are discussed in detail in the Conclusions of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is presently employed as an electrical inspector for Hillsborough County, Florida. He has held this position for approximately two

   and one-half (2 1/2) years. He holds a master's electrician's license issued by Hillsborough County but is prohibited by terms of his employment as an electrical inspector from engaging in any electrical contracting activity.

   Petitioner is technically experienced as an electrician.

   
   

2. Prior to his employment as an electrical inspector, Petitioner was employed by Mobil Chemical Company which operates several phosphate mines in central Florida. The Petitioner was employed at its Fort Meade mine.

   
   

3. The Fort Meade mine, or plant, is a substantial operation producing approximately four (4) million tons of phosphate per year at the time when Petitioner was employed. The mining area occupies several hundred acres and the working or processing area occupies approximately ten (10) of those acres. The working area comprises of a flotation plant, a washer plant, a sizing section, a shipping area where the rock is loaded on railroad cars, a maintenance area, and an office complex. The plant ran three (3) shifts around the clock and employed approximately one hundred (100) persons.

   
   

4. All of the major equipment to include the 30 and 40 yard draglines at the Fort Meade plant alone contained in excess of one hundred (100) electric motors each with its own fuse box and disconnect.

   
   

5. The Petitioner was employed by Nobil Chemical Company for twenty (20) years (1962-1982); 16 years as an electrician and four years as supervisor of the electrical maintenance at the Fort Meade plant. He was responsible for all electrical repairs, maintenance, and new construction at the plant for all three

   1. shifts. His direct superior was the department chief who was in charge of all the electrical departments at all of Mobil's phosphate mining locations.

      
      

6. Approximately twenty (20 percent) percent of the Petitioner's time was spent on new construction projects. Approximately forty (40 percent) percent of petitioner's time was spent on regular maintenance and repairs. Fifteen (15 percent) percent of the Petitioner's time was spent on emergency repairs. The remainder of petitioner's time was spent on miscellaneous projects.

   
   

7. Petitioner supervised a staff of ten (10) men: two (2) crewmen, four

   1. linemen, and four (4) electricians. The Petitioner was responsible for estimating the cost of jobs for his immediate superior to include the cost of materials and the number of man hours. The Petitioner was responsible for counting and reporting the number of hours his employees worked in turning this information into the company's payroll section. Petitioner had the power to request overtime work for his employees and made recommendations concerning hiring and firing personnel.

   
   

8. On new construction the Petitioner's responsibilities began with doing takeoffs from blueprints provided for the job and supervising the work through to its completion.

   
   

9. He was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Fort Meade facility to include small electrical motors, large electrical motors, office lighting, transformers, and the large draglines.

   
   

10. Petitioner's experience included experience with three (3) phase electrical power, high voltage electrical service, and lower voltages used in small motors, lights and appliances.

11. The electrical department which the Petitioner headed provided service only to Mobil's Fort Meade plant. Mobil is not an electrical contractor; however, its electrical department provided extensive services which are comparable to those an outside electrical contracting service would have provided.

    
    

12. Although the petitioner did not prepare a payroll for those persons who he supervised, he did serve as the clerk for his church for five (5) years during which time he was responsible for preparing the payroll for the church's employees.

    
    

13. The petitioner applied in 1982 to sit for the electrical contractor's licensing examination. His application was approved by the Respondent and the Petitioner sat for the examination on two occasions, failing both examinations.

    
    

14. Petitioner reapplied to sit for the electrical contractor's licensing examination in 1984 and was denied by the Respondent based upon lack of satisfactory experience. The Petitioner held a responsible management position with Mobil at the Fort Meade plant as supervisor of electrical maintenance at the Fort Meade facility for four (4) years.

    
    

15. The Petitioner never negotiated a construction contract, was never bonded as a contractor, never obtained insurance to cover his operation as a contractor, and never sought a building permit for any of the electrical work done at the Fort Meade facility.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

16. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter of these proceedings. The sole issue is whether the Petitioner possesses the required experience. The Board has made a preliminary determination that this experience did not meet its standards to be considered as an electrical contracting experience. The Board did not have all of the facts before it at the time that it made this determination and did not specify exactly what experience the Petitioner lacked.

    
    

17. Section 489.521, Florida Statutes, establishes the requirements for a qualifying agent for a business organization seeking licensure as a Florida electrical contractor. This section provides in part that the qualifying agent must possess the required skill, knowledge and experience, as evidenced by three

    (3) years proven experience in the trade. Rule 21 GG-5.03, Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part that "all applicants must show that their proposed qualifying agent has three years' proven experience in the trade as an electrical contractor or in a responsible management position with an electrical contractor."

    
    

18. Clearly Mobil is not an electrical contractor. While the Petitioner performed many of the functions which an electrical contractor performs while managing electrical maintenance activities at one of Mobil's mines, the petitioner never negotiated a construction contract. In all material aspects of its operation Mobil's electrical department is indistinguishable from ordinary electrical contractors. The petitioner did most of the things or had collateral experience in doing most of the things a contractor does. However, the petitioner did not enter into any contracts. This is the only experience which the petitioner has not had, but this is the essence of being a contractor.

1. The Respondent proposed a finding of fact that the Petitioner's first application was approved in error. This finding was objected to by the petitioner as being contained in the deposition of Lawrence Pasetti which was not introduced into the record of this case. The Petitioner's objection is well founded and this finding is rejected.

   
   

2. The Respondent's first proposed finding is a statement of law in this case and is therefore rejected. Respondent's proposed findings in paragraphs 2 through 9 are duplicative of findings in the Petitioner's proposed findings which already have been adopted. Respondent's proposed finding in paragraph 10 and 13 have been adopted. Respondent's proposed finding in paragraph 12 is conjectural and incompetent. Respondent's proposed finding in paragraph 11 concerns the Board's policy and experience. The Board has the opportunity to apply its policies to these facts in adopting its Final Order.

   
   

3. In summary, the issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Cecil Lane, has the required three (3) years proven experience in the trade as an electrical contractor. The facts presented show that the Petitioner held a position with Mobil which was analogous in its function to that of an electrical contractor and that the Respondent has experience in all those tasks which an electrical contractor must perform with the exception of negotiating a contract. However, this is the heart of contracting, and is specifically required by the rule. It is concluded that the petitioner's lack of experience in this area cannot be offset by his other experience.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board disapprove the application of Cecil U. Lane to sit for the statewide electrical contractor's license.

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida.

STEPHEN F. DEAN

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 1985.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mr. Jerry W. Hendry Executive Director Department of Professional

Regulation

Division of Electrical Contractors

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Eric S. Ruff, Esquire Post Office Box TT

Plant City, Florida 33566

Arthur C. Wallberg, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Mr. Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional

Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 84-001807

Orders for Case No: 84-001807