STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CITY OF CLEARWATER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 95-0546
)
CRAIG REEVES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On May 11, 1995, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case in Clearwater, Florida, before J. Lawrence Johnston, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Miles A. Lance, Esquire
Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater
Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748
For Respondent: Craig Reeves, pro se
1501 Fredrica Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 34616 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issue in this case is whether the City Manager should (1) demote the Respondent, Craig Reeves, from his employment as a Public Service Worker III (Range 54, formerly called Tradesworker) to the position of Public Service Worker II (Range 52, formerly called Public Service Technician), (2) assess 160 disciplinary points against him, and (3) suspend him without pay for ten days, on charges that he violated Rule 14, Section 1, paragraphs (d), (f), (k), and
of the Civil Service Board Rules and Regulations of the City of Clearwater. (For some reason, the City cites to paragraph (k)(2), which does not appear in the version of the Rule which the City had admitted in evidence as part of City Exhibit 1.) Specifically, the following facts are alleged:
That the Respondent called City employees working under him names like "ignorant," "stupid," and "queer."
That the Respondent told City employees working under him that they "are not paid to think."
That the Respondent snatched safety glasses of the face of a City employee working under him and broke them or threw them away.
That the Respondent retaliated against a City employee working under him by mistreating him by making him clean out a truck by himself.
That, on several occasions, the Respondent poked a City employee working under him in the behind while the employee was bending over in front of him working.
That the Respondent used racial slurs by referring to a fellow employee as a "bush nigger" and
describing a new hire as "a white guy, not a nigger."
That the Respondent teased a City employee working under him by referring to "bananas" in a sexual context.
That the Respondent went "overboard" more than once
in teasing one of the City employees working under him.
That the Respondent retaliated against City employees working under him "in the form of orders or unnecessarily harsh assignments for the purpose of 'busting the chops' of employees/subordinates."
It was concluded that the facts alleged supported the following findings of ultimate fact:
There has been a misuse or abuse of authority by [the Respondent]'s intimidation of employees and general harassment of [more than one of the City employees working under him.]
Statements made [the Respondent] of a sexual nature made the work environment a hostile work- place for [one of the City employees working under him.]
Retaliatory actions by [the Respondent] existed for [one of the City employees working under him] and also, other employees expressed concern that [the Respondent] could "bust your chops" or retaliate against any one on his crew.
It also was concluded that the Respondent's actions were governed by the following Guidelines for Disciplinary Action:
Level 3, #14 - Threatening, intimidating, coercing or interfering with fellow employees, supervisors or citizens at any time while on duty, reporting for duty or leaving duty an on City premises, including the use of abusive or profane language. (20 points)
Level 4, #8 - Abuse, misuse, destruction or loss of any City property, including records, tools,
supplies, equipment and radio network. (40 points)
Level 4, #16 - Making or publishing false, vicious or malicious statement(s) concerning an employee or a supervisor where such false statement(s) are
damaging to the individual's reputation. (40 points)
Level 5, #13 - Immoral, unlawful or improper conduct on or off the job which is contrary to honesty, modesty or decency and which tends to affect the reputation and citizen's good will toward the City, whether or not such act is a criminal offense.
(60 points)
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On or about December 28, 1995, the City Manager of the Petitioner, the City of Clearwater (the City), gave the Respondent, Craig Reeves, Notice of Suspension and Demotion. The Respondent's demotion was to take effect on January 3, and his suspension was to take effect on January 4, 1995. However, he appealed under Section 8 of Rule 14, and on February 6, 1995, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a hearing officer. In accordance with the parties' responses to the Initial Order in the case, final hearing was scheduled for May 11, 1995.
At final hearing, the City called eleven witnesses and had City Exhibits 1 through 8 admitted in evidence. The Respondent called five witnesses and had Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 6 admitted in evidence. (The Respondent did not testify in his own behalf.)
At the end of the hearing, the City ordered the preparation of a transcript of the final hearing, and the parties were given ten days from the filing of the transcript in which to file proposed recommended orders. The transcript was filed on June 1, 1995.
Explicit rulings on the proposed findings of fact contained in the parties' proposed recommended orders may be found in the Appendix to Recommended Order, Case No. 95-0546.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background
During 1994, the Respondent, Craig Reeves, was working for the City as a Tradesworker in Infrastructure. While technically not in a supervisory position, as Tradesworker the Respondent functioned as a job foreman or lead man on his crew. He received jobs from his immediate supervisor, and it was the Respondent's job to mobilize his crew, assign tasks and get the jobs done.
Having a background in private construction work, the Respondent brought to the job a private construction work philosophy. Essentially, he thought the workers on his crew (or any other crew) should do their jobs, and do them right, and told them so in blunt terms. While such an attitude apparently is both effective and practical in private construction work, it apparently is too harsh an attitude to be practical for use on all of the Respondent's crew
(or perhaps any City work crew.) In addition, working for the City, the Respondent was unable to use (or at least carry through with) the threat that is always available in the private sector to simply fire on the spot any employee who did not meet the foreman's standards. ("Do it my way and do it right, or go find another job.") Some of the men could handle, and respond to, what amounted to the Respondent's bullying; others could not.
While the Respondent was able to get all of his jobs done timely and well using his approach, he hurt the feelings of some members of his crew.
Anger and resentment built up among them. Although the Respondent received high marks (exceeds standards) in most areas of his performance evaluations, for at least the three years beginning August 26, 1991, the Respondent consistently received admonishments and only satisfactory in the area of his treatment of the men working under him. The Respondent generally accepted these criticisms and agreed to try to improve in that area. However, the City also certified in the evaluations that the Respondent already was receiving all "requisite annual training," and no real improvement over the years was evident.
The Charges and Investigation
One Friday in June, 1994, one member of the Respondent's crew, named Ed Stiers, was found crying to himself on the job. He told the Respondent's supervisor that he could not take working under the Respondent any longer and that he wanted a demotion to get off the Respondent's crew. Just barely coherent, Stiers said something to the effect that he was sexually harassed on the job eight to nine years before and that he was afraid it was starting to happen to him again. He accused the Respondent and another man on the Respondent's crew, named Phil Manson, of sexual harassment, physical and verbal abuse and general mistreatment on the job. The following week, the Respondent's supervisors referred Stiers to the City's Human Relations Director, Eleanor Breland, to investigate the charges.
Breland's investigation consisted of interviews with Stiers, the Respondent, and everyone else who was in a position to have knowledge about the charges. To assist her in her investigation, Breland tape-recorded the interviews. At times, she stopped the recording and inadvertently forgot to restart it. Also, an assistant later erroneously reused one of the tapes, erasing part of an interview. Having been told incorrectly that statements prepared from the interviews were verbatim transcripts, the Respondent became suspicious when he discovered that they were not and that one of the tapes had been erased. But it is found that there was no intentional destruction of evidence favorable to the Respondent or cover-up or any other kind of foul play involved.
Name-Calling and Personal Insults
It is found that the Respondent probably did call certain City employees working under him names like "stupid" and "ignorant." He also described some of the things they did on the job as being "stupid" or "ignorant" if they made mistakes on the job, or did jobs in ways that were (at least in the Respondent's mind) incorrect or inefficient or ineffective, and it was in those contexts that the Respondent might have called the workers "stupid" or "ignorant" or words to that effect.
Once as Stiers and a co-worker approached a job site where the Respondent was working, the Respondent began to repeat the phrase "Stiers and queers" in a "sing-song" manner. Stiers took the Respondent to be calling him a
"queer," but it was not clear from the evidence what the Respondent intended. At worst, it was proven that the Respondent's behavior was nonsensical and childish joking around on the job. While maybe not appropriate or desirable behavior on the Respondent's part, it was clear that all the men on the Respondent's and other City crews joke around in a similar fashion from time to time on the job.
It is found that the Respondent has told City employees working under him that they "are not paid to think." This comment could be considered a personal insult directed to the employees' intelligence. However, it appears that the context of such a comment would have been an occasion when a worker under him contradicted the Respondent, saying "but I thought" or "but I think."
In using the comment, the Respondent was repeating an expression he heard his immediate supervisor use. In September, 1994, in response to criticism of his use of the expression during a group meeting, the Respondent pointed out his supervisor's use of the very same expression and said that, if his supervisor agreed, he would also stop using it. There is no evidence that the Respondent continued to use the expression after the September, 1994, meeting.
The Safety Sunglasses
Ed Stiers insisted on wearing safety sunglasses that were so old, scratched up and dirty that he barely could see out of them. Apparently at least in part because he could not see clearly through the glasses, Stiers made mistakes on the job, such as steering wheelbarrows over form boards and into co- workers. The Respondent repeatedly admonished Stiers to get new glasses so that he could see better. Sometimes, Stiers responded to the effect that he did not want to be able to see any better. It was proven that at least once, out of anger and frustration with Stier's obstinacy, the Respondent snatched Stiers's old glasses off his face and threw them away. He got new glasses for Stiers to use instead and gave them to Stiers to put on.
Cleaning the Trucks
Most of the time, at the end of the work day, the Respondent assigned two men to clean out each of the City trucks used during the day. On occasion, the Respondent assigned Stiers, or another, to clean a truck alone.
It was not proven that Stiers or the others were singled out to do this chore by themselves in retaliation or as a form of mistreatment or to "bust their chops." Most of the time, it was just a matter of assigning tasks in the most efficient manner. For example, Stiers was not good at finishing curbs, so the Respondent sometimes would have Stiers clean out a truck while another worker helped finish curbs.
Butt-Poking and Bananas
It was proven that the Respondent poked Stiers in the posterior with a rake handle while Stiers was bent over and reaching down into a hole in the ground. The Respondent's purpose was to redirect Stiers's attention to the part of the hole in which Stiers was supposed to be working. It was not proven that there was anything sexual about what the Respondent did or how he did it.
One day at work, Manson noticed that Stiers seemed to be staring at a banana he was holding. Comparing the banana to a male sexual body part, Manson
"joked" about Stiers wanting to eat the banana. Others, including the Respondent, also persisted in teasing Stiers about "eating bananas."
While maybe not appropriate or desirable behavior on the Respondent's part, it also was clear that all the men on the Respondent's and other City crews joke around in a similar fashion from time to time on the job. At different times, all of them--including not only the Respondent, but Stiers as well--went "overboard" in the joking and teasing.
Racial Slurs
It was proven that the Respondent used racial slurs by referring to a fellow employee as a "bush nigger" and by describing a new hire (Manson) as "a white guy, not a nigger." However, it was not proven that the Respondent used these terms in the presence of African-Americans.
Request for Training
On or about August 11, 1994, the Respondent registered for City Human Services training in proper techniques in supervising those working under him. The training class was entitled "Basics of Supervision." He requested the class scheduled for September 20, 1994, but for reasons not made clear from the evidence, he did not attend the class until February 24, 1995, after action already had been taken to demote and suspend him.
Selective Discipline
The evidence disclosed that several other City employees--including many of the Respondent's accusers--were guilty of some of the same misconduct with which the City has charged the Respondent in this proceeding. The evidence did not disclose that disciplinary action has been taken against any of them except the Respondent and Manson, the two targets of Stiers's complaints. (Manson received a reprimand.) Apparently, since only the Respondent and Manson were named in Stiers's complaints, Breland's investigative report on the complaints only recommended that action be taken against them. Breland testified that she assumed that the appropriate supervisors and personnel officers would take appropriate action against others whose misconduct might be revealed in the body of her investigative report, but it is not clear from the evidence whether her assumption was correct.
Disciplinary Guidelines
The City of Clearwater has adopted Guidelines for Disciplinary Action, which provide in pertinent part:
[The Guidelines] are structured to provide for equality of treatment in discipline. However,
in recognition of the fact that the circumstances of each infraction or occurrence may differ in many respects from the circumstances in other somewhat similar situations, the City retains the right to treat each occurrence on an individual basis and without creating precedent for other cases which may arise in the future or mitigating previous discipline.
The City took the position in this case that the Respondent's alleged actions were governed by the following Guidelines for Disciplinary Action:
Level 3, #14 - Threatening, intimidating, coercing or interfering with fellow employees, supervisors or citizens at any time while on duty, reporting for duty or leaving duty an on City premises, including the use of abusive or profane language. (20 points)
Level 4, #8 - Abuse, misuse, destruction or loss of any City property, including records, tools,
supplies, equipment and radio network. (40 points)
Level 4, #16 - Making or publishing false, vicious or malicious statement(s) concerning an employee or a supervisor where such false statement(s) are
damaging to the individual's reputation. (40 points)
Level 5, #13 - Immoral, unlawful or improper conduct on or off the job which is contrary to honesty, modesty or decency and which tends to affect the reputation and citizen's good will toward the City, whether or not such act is a criminal offense.
(60 points)
Level 5 offenses under the Guidelines justify 60 discipline points and discharge or a ten- to 20-day suspension on the first occurrence. (The Guidelines provide that "any employee who is assessed disciplinary action totalling the equivalent of 60 points within any 24-consecutive month period is subject to dismissal.") In the Guidelines, Level 5, #13, is described as a violation of paragraph (j) of Rule 14, Section 1.
Level 4 offenses under the Guidelines justify: 40 discipline points (for a total of 40 cumulative points) and a three- to seven-day suspension on the first occurrence; and 40 more discipline points (for a total of 80 cumulative points) and discharge or a seven- to 15-day suspension on the second occurrence. The Guidelines describe Level 4, #8, as a violation of paragraph
(e) of Rule 14, Section 1; they describe Level 4, #16, as a violation of either paragraph (e) or (k) of Rule 14, Section 1.
Level 3 offenses under the Guidelines justify: 20 discipline points and a one- to four-day suspension on the first occurrence; 20 more discipline points (for a total of 40 cumulative points) and a three- to seven-day suspension on the second occurrence; and 20 more discipline points (for a total of 60 cumulative points) and discharge or a seven- to 15-day suspension on the third occurrence. In the Guidelines, Level 3, #14, is described as a violation of either paragraph (e) or (k) of Rule 14, Section 1.
Level 2 offenses under the Guidelines justify: a letter of reprimand on the first occurrence; 20 discipline points and a one- to four-day suspension on the second occurrence; 20 more discipline points (for a total of 40 cumulative points) and a three- to seven-day suspension on the third occurrence; and 20 more discipline points (for a total of 60 cumulative points) and discharge or a seven- to 15-day suspension on the fourth occurrence.
Level 1 offenses under the Guidelines justify: a letter of reprimand on the first occurrence; 15 points and a one- to three-day suspension on the second occurrence; 15 more points (for a total of 30 cumulative points) and a three- to five-day suspension on the third occurrence; 15 more points (for a total of 45 cumulative points) and a five- to seven-day suspension on the fourth occurrence; and 15 more points (for a total of 60 cumulative points) and a discharge or a seven- to 15-day suspension on the fifth occurrence.
Under the Guidelines, Level 2 offenses include (among others that are not pertinent):
2. Discourtesy to persons with whom an employee comes into contact while in the performance of duties . . ..
The Guidelines describe this as a Rule 14(1)(e) violation.
Under the Guidelines, Level 1 offenses include (among others that are not pertinent):
6. Engaging in horseplay, scuffling, malicious mischief, throwing things, distracting the attention of others, catcalls or similar types of disorderly conduct.
The Guidelines describe this as a Rule 14(1)(k) violation.
Although not clear from the evidence, it appears that the references in the Guidelines to paragraph (e) of Section 1 of Rule 14 are incorrect and that the correct references should have be to paragraph (f).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
City employees can appeal from a suspension, demotion or dismissal by requesting the appointment of a hearing officer to review the action. See Section 2.285, City of Clearwater Code, and Rule 14, Section 8, of the Civil Service Board Rules and Regulations of the City of Clearwater. Procedures similar to those set out in Section 120.57, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994), are utilized in the conduct of these appeals. See Section 2.285(3), City of Clearwater Code.
There was evidence of technical violations of the Public Records Law, Chapter 119, Fla. Stat. (1993), as a result of the destruction of some of the tape recordings of witness interviews. But it was not found that there was any intentional destruction of evidence favorable to the Respondent, or a cover-up or any other kind of foul play involved. Since all of the witnesses were available to testify at the final hearing, there was no proof that the Respondent was prejudiced in his presentation by the destruction of the tapes. The technical violations of the Public Records Law are no reason not to act upon the evidence presented at the final hearing in this case.
Under the City's Civil Service Board Rules, City employees can be demoted or suspended only for just cause. See Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 14 of the Civil Service Board Rules and Regulations of the City of Clearwater. Under Section 120.57, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994), an agency seeking to dismiss or suspend an employee has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employee was guilty of charges constituting just cause for the dismissal or
suspension. Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990). The same burden and standard of proof should apply in this case.
As reflected in the Findings of Fact, the Respondent was guilty of some but not all of the charges leveled against him. As to some of the charges that were proven, mitigating circumstances were presented by the evidence.
The City charged the Respondent with violating Rule 14, Section 1, paragraphs (d), (f), (k) and (l) of the Civil Service Board Rules and Regulations of the City of Clearwater, which provides in pertinent part:
Sec. 1. Cause for Suspension, Demotion, and Dismissal.--The following, in addition to the offenses listed in the Guidelines for Disci- plinary Action . . ., are declared to be just causes for suspension, demotion, or dismissal of any employee in the career civil service, though charges may be based upon any cause which will promote the efficiency of the City service other than those herein enumerated, namely, that the employee:
* * *
(d) Has been careless or negligent in the care of the property of the City or has knowingly permitted, condoned, and/or participated in
the unauthorized use thereof.
(f) Has been offensive in his conduct or language toward his fellow employees, City officers, or the public.
* * *
Has been . . . guilty of conduct unbecoming a City employee defined as scandalous or disgraceful conduct while on or off duty where such conduct tends to embarrass the City or bring its service into public disrepute.
Has violated any lawful and reasonable official regulation or order or failed to obey any lawful and reasonable direction made and given to him by his superior officer when such violation or failure to obey amounts to insub- ordination or serious breach of discipline which may reasonable be expected to result in a lower morale in the department or to result in loss, inconvenience, or injury to the City or to the public.
(Emphasis added.) (For some reason, the City cites to paragraph (k)(2), which does not appear in the version of the Rule which the City had admitted in evidence as part of City Exhibit 1.)
Based on the Findings of Fact, it is concluded that the Respondent's conduct violated paragraphs (f) and (l), but not (d) or (k), of Rule 14, Section 1, of the Civil Service Board Rules and Regulations.
As reflected in the Findings of Fact, the City took the position that the Respondent's alleged actions were governed by Level 3, #14, Level 4, #8 and #16, and Level 5, #13 of the Guidelines for Disciplinary Action. But it is
concluded that the Findings of Fact in this case do not fit any of the Level 3,
4 or 5 offenses charged and that the City did not have just cause to assess 160 discipline points against the Respondent or to suspend him without pay for ten days.
It is concluded that the Findings of Fact constitute two offenses under Level 2, #2 of the Guidelines (Findings 6 and 10) and an additional offense under Level 1, #6 of the Guidelines (Finding 7). (Finding of Fact 16 does not constitute a Level 2, #2 offense, but only because the pejorative term was not used in the presence of any African-Americans.) The City has just cause to assess an appropriate number of discipline points (20) and the appropriate discipline against the Respondent (a one- to four-day suspension) for those offenses.
In addition, based on the evidence, it is concluded that the City has just cause to demote the Respondent. The evidence was sufficient to prove that the Respondent was not supervising his crew in the manner desired by the City. His inadequacies were partly the result of his temperament and personality, partly the result of his background in private construction work, and partly the result of inadequate training in supervision. In addition, his use of the pejorative term "nigger" in front of City employees working under him is good cause for a demotion to a position that is not a leadership position.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the City of Clearwater Civil Service Board enter a final order:
(1) demoting the Respondent to Public Works Service Worker II; (2) assessing 20 discipline points against him; and (3) suspending him without pay for four days.
RECOMMENDED this 20th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.
J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1995.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0546
To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.
1. Accepted. As to the Disciplinary Guidelines, incorporated; otherwise, subordinate and unnecessary.
2.-3. Accepted and incorporated.
4. Rejected as not proven that he was "warned." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. (The "group counseling" apparently had to do with telling the employees that they were "not paid to think."
5.-6. In part accepted and incorporated; in part rejected as not proven.
Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.
Accepted but not within the charges.
Rejected as not proven and as contrary to the evidence. (He was asking questions, not testifying or making admissions.)
As to crying on the jobsite, accepted and incorporated; as to crying at the hearing, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.
11.-13. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.
Rejected as not proven and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it was his "only attempt." Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.
Accepted and incorporated.
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.
(The Respondent submitted a letter with eight unnumbered paragraphs. For purposes of these rulings, the unnumbered paragraphs have been assigned consecutive numbers.)
Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary.
Accepted and incorporated as to the destruction of tapes. Conclusion of law as to the Respondent's rights.
3.-4. Accepted and incorporated.
5.-8. Argument, subordinate and unnecessary.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Miles A. Lance, Esquire Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater
P. O. Box 4748
Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748
Mr. Craig Reeves 1501 Fredrica Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 34616
Michael Laursen Secretary
City of Clearwater Civil Service Board
P. O. Box 4748
Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit to the City of Clearwater written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the City of Clearwater concerning its rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jun. 20, 1995 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 05/11/95. |
| Jun. 12, 1995 | Letter to HO from Craig Reeves Re: Findings filed. |
| Jun. 08, 1995 | Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law By The City of Clearwater, Florida filed. |
| Jun. 01, 1995 | Hearing (Volume I of II) ; Hearing (Volume (II of II) (Transcript) filed. |
| May 11, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| May 03, 1995 | Amended Notice of Hearing (as to time only) sent out. (hearing set for 5/11/95; 9:30am; Clearwater) |
| May 02, 1995 | Letter to HO from Craig Reeves Re: Informing HO of recent matters in his case believed to be unjust or unlawful filed. |
| Apr. 03, 1995 | (Petitioner) Subpoena (for HO signature); Cover Letter filed. |
| Mar. 07, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 9:00am; 5/11/95; Clearwater) |
| Feb. 27, 1995 | Ltr. to JLJ from M. Lance re: Reply to Initial Order filed. |
| Feb. 21, 1995 | Letter to JLJ from M. Lance (RE: location of hearing) filed. |
| Feb. 08, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| Feb. 06, 1995 | Agency Referral Letter; Letter to M. Lauresen from C. Reeves (Request for Assignment of a Hearing Officer); Agency Action Letter; City of Clearwater Grievance Process Form; Memo from C. Reeves (Re: Facts of Dispute); Record of Personnel Action; Notice of |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 20, 1995 | Recommended Order | City proved some not all of charges versus foreman. Enough for good cause to demote to non-supervisor job, 4-day suspension and 20 points, not 10 day suspension. |
