STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SARA WRIGHT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 76-182

) DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY ) AND MOTOR VEHICLES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated hearing officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above styled cause on March 4, 1976 at Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES:

For Petitioner: Jon Caminez, Esquire

1030 East Lafayette Street, Suite 101

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent: John Whitney, Esquire

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Kirkman Building Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida

RECOMMENDED ORDER

By letter dated September 5, 1975 (Exhibit 1) Mrs. Sara Wright (Petitioner) was notified that she was being suspended for three work days by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Respondent) effective September 10, 11, and 12, 1975 for:

1. Leaving work without authorized leave;

2. Falsification of time and attendance records; and

3. Willful violation of statutes, rules and policy.

This hearing resulted from Mrs. Wright's appeal from this suspension and the deduction of pay for time absent from work without authority. All charges stem from records indicating that Mrs. Wright signed time and attendance records for periods of time she was also alleged to have been working at the Miracle Strip Amusement Park in Panama City. Three witnesses testified in behalf of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, five exhibits were entered into evidence, and Mrs. Wright testified in her own behalf.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In April, 1975 Mrs. Wright, an inspector assigned to the District Office in Panama City inquired of her supervisor regarding outside employment and was told she had to obtain permission from Tallahassee. She subsequently telephone Jack Pelham in Tallahassee who advised her the department would have no objection if it did not interfere with her state duties, but she would have to send a request in writing stating the details of her outside employment. On April 25, 1975 she submitted a letter (Exhibit 4) stating she had accepted outside employment on weekends at an amusement park starting at 6:00 P.M. on Friday afternoon, and requested she be advised if the employment constituted a conflict of interest. No response was received indicating objection on behalf of the Department.

   
   

2. Some time in early June Petitioner commenced working on week days in addition to weekends. No request for authority to so work was submitted by Petitioner.

   
   

3. Department regulations and policy require prior approval for outside employment.

   
   

4. During the period from June 6, 1975 through June 27, 1975 time sheets certified by Mrs. Wright showed she worked from 8:00 to 12:00 and 1:00 to 5:00 Mondays through Friday. Time sheets on June 30 and July 1st showed work hours from 8:00 to 12:00 and 12:30 to 4:30. On July 2 and 3 time sheets showed work from 8:00 to 12:30 and annual leave for 3 hours on July 2 and 8 hours on July 3rd. From July 7 through 10 time sheets showed hours worked from 7:15 to 12:15 and 12:45 to 3:45. From July 14 through 17 time sheets showed hours worked from 7:30 to 12:00 and 12:30 to 4:00.

   
   

5. Time sheets from Miracle Strip Amusement Park showed that on June 6, 9, 12, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26 and 30 Mrs. Wright commenced work at 4:30 and on July 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 17 she commenced work at 2:45 P.M.

   
   

6. Copies of Department policy manual and personnel rules and regulations are available in the District Office out of which Mrs. Wright worked, but she was not furnished a copy of the policy manual until October, 1975 after the incidents herein involved.

   
   

7. Testifying in her own behalf Petitioner contends that she signs most of the time sheets in blank and the secretary filled in the hours for her the same as she did for the other inspectors. She further contends that she was unaware that she needed approval for changing the hours of outside employment from the weekend to include weekdays; that she had worked overtime on many occasions for which she had not made a claim; that her supervisor told her he had no objection to her working outside so long as she put in 8 hours for the state; and that she could work early hours if she desired. Except for about 4 days in July she contended that each day she worked the full 8 hours required by the Department. With respect to those 4 days in July for which attendance sheets show less than

   8 hours per day worked, she contends she asked if she could take leave and was told it wasn't necessary. Her supervisor has no recollection of such a request and no leave slips were presented to him for approval.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

8. From the above it is clear that Mrs. Wright certified time sheets to accurately reflect the time worked when, in fact, she did not work the hours shown thereon. One cannot avoid the responsibility of certification by signing

   in blank and never checking to ascertain the hours inserted by an agent. This offense alone would authorize the punishment awarded by the Department.

   
   

9. Mrs. Wright has been an employee of the State for some ten years. In this time personnel rules and regulations have guided her work and have been available for her perusal. The fact that she had not been presented with a policy manual that had apparently been provided to the other inspectors is not an excuse for not following Department policies regarding outside employment. The fact that she had been advised approval for outside employment must come from Tallahassee, and, that she needed to make such a request in writing, certainly put her on notice that policies existed in this regard. Accordingly her testimony that she was unaware that authority to modify her outside employment hours also must come from Tallahassee is not supported by the evidence.

   
   

10. With respect to those days in which Petitioner acknowledged she worked less than 8 hours the provisions of Rule 22A-802(F) FAC provides:

    
    

    "Any leave of absence with or without pay shall be approved prior to the leave being taken except in cases of emergency where the employee must be absent prior to receiving

    approval from proper authority for the absence."

    
    

11. From the foregoing it is concluded that just cause existed for the disciplinary action taken against the Petitioner. A suspension to Mrs. Wright for 3 days and the placing her on leave without pay for the unauthorized absences was both authorized and proper. Accordingly, the disciplinary action must be approved. Department of Administration v. Hunter, 323 So.2d 24 (App. 1975).

It is therefore,

RECOMMENDED that the petition of Sara Wright be dismissed. ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida.

K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer

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

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1976.

Docket for Case No: 76-000182

Orders for Case No: 76-000182