STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF BARBERS ) SANITARY COMMISSION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 75-247
) LICENSE NO. 12993
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
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Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for such alleged violation.
FINDINGS OF FACT
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.
The Administrative Complaint served on Respondent charges Respondent: "You have employed unlicensed barbers or apprentices to work as barbers in your shop".
The Respondent had people working in his shop not registered as barbers but who were registered as cosmetologists and who were working as cosmetologists.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Issue Date | Proceedings |
---|---|
Dec. 20, 1976 | Final Order filed. |
Jun. 29, 1975 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
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. |
BARBERS BOARD vs. JOHN SKWIERC, D/B/A MR. S. HAIRCUTTERY, 75-000247 (1975)
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION vs PLATINUM CUTS, 75-000247 (1975)
BARBER`S BOARD vs MICHAEL HERRINGTON, D/B/A RIBAULT BARBER SHOP, 75-000247 (1975)
BARBER`S BOARD vs JACQUELINE FENTON, D/B/A BAILEY UNISEX BARBER SHOP, 75-000247 (1975)