STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JOYCE FRANKLIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) DOCKET NO. 76-2051

)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE )

AND CONSUMER SERVICES, )

CAREER SERVICE COMMISSION, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Delphene Strickland, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, on January 7, 1977, at 2:00 P.M., in Room 104, Collins Building, Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: No appearance

For Respondents: Robert A. Chastain, General Counsel

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

ISSUE

Whether the Petitioner was demoted for good cause shown in compliance with Chapter 110, F.S, and Chapter 22A-10, F.A.C.

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 22A-10.05, et. seq. Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner appealed to the Career Service Commission the action of Respondent, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which resulted in the demotion of Petitioner.

Petitioner contends: That her demotion was based on personality conflict rather than inability to perform assigned duties.

Respondent contends: That Petitioner allowed her work to accumulate; her typing had excessive and repeated errors; her work had to be continually checked for errors by her supervisor; that extensive efforts were made to help correct the problem but to no avail; that it was to the best interest of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to demote Petitioner to a position with less responsibility and more supervision.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is employed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The current salary of Petitioner was not affected by the demotion.

   
   

2. Petitioner was demoted from Clerk Typist III to a Clerk Typist II position effective July 23, 1976.

   
   

3. Petitioner called the Hearing Officer to postpone this hearing stating that she had been out of town and did not receive the notice until January 3, 1977. She was advised that the hearing she had requested would not be continued inasmuch as her absence from town was not good cause shown. She was encouraged to make an appearance at the hearing to be held subsequent to the telephone call. Thereafter Petitioner wrote a letter stating that she would not appear and that without an attorney and with reluctant witnesses the "demotion will have to stand as currently stated."

   
   

4. The acting immediate supervisor of Petitioner presented various ratings of Petitioner. Ratings for 6/2/75 to 6/22/76 was "unsatisfactory" for absenteeism, failure to complete assigned work and soliciting aid from other employees. He stated the typing was inaccurate and required excessive supervision. Rating for 1/2/76 to 3/22/76 was conditional inasmuch as there was need for planning and organizing Petitioner's work to maintain a constant flow; that the letters typed were not neat or accurate. Subsequent ratings were conditional. The last rating concluding 7/22/76 resulted in the recommendation by the supervisor that Petitioner be demoted.

   
   

5. The acting administrator who had joint supervisory duties over Petitioner from 1/22/76 to 7/1/76 testified that petitioner's work was inaccurate; that she received numerous complaints from the agency testing laboratory because of errors resulting from Petitioner's work.

   
   

6. Correspondence was presented that had been typed by Petitioner showing erasures, transpositions and other errors.

   
   

7. The Hearing Officer further finds:

   
   

   1. Petitioner had sufficient notice of the hearing and an opportunity to appear.

      
      

   2. Petitioner's typing as shown by Respondents composite Exhibit 7 does not reflect the skill required to fill a Clerk Typist III position.

      
      

   3. Petitioner's absenteeism, attitude as testified to by two supervisors and apparent lack of skill sustain the demotion from Clerk Typist III to Clerk Typist II.

      
      

      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

      
      

8. Chapter 110, F.S., and Chapter 22A-10 provide procedures and guidelines by which an employee may appeal a demotion and have a hearing to determine whether such demotion is for a good cause shown. Under the foregoing laws and rules, Petitioner was properly demoted for good cause shown.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Affirm the action of Respondent Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in the demotion of Petitioner Joyce Franklin from Clerk Typist III to Clerk Typist II.

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.

DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND

Hearing Officer

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

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Ms. Joyce Franklin Route 10, Box 1035

Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator

Division of Personnel and Retirement Department of Administration

530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Docket for Case No: 76-002051

Orders for Case No: 76-002051