STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CITY OF CLEARWATER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 80-1025

)

JAIME FERNANDEZ, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was conducted in the above matter on August 28, 1980, in Clearwater, Florida. The following appearances were entered: Frank X. Kowalski, Clearwater, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, City of Clearwater; and Jaime Fernandez, the Respondent, appeared on his own behalf.

On or about April 11, 1980, the City of Clearwater entered a Notice of Suspension with respect to the Respondent, Jaime Fernandez. The Notice reflected that the Respondent would be suspended without pay from his job with the City for a period of three days for specified offenses, and that he could appeal the suspension by requesting a hearing. The Respondent requested a hearing, and the matter was forwarded to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings with a request that a Hearing Officer be assigned to schedule and conduct a hearing. The parties agreed to a scheduling of the hearing as set out above, and the Notice of Hearing was issued July 7, 1980.

At the final hearing, the City called the following witnesses: Keith Crawford, the City's Director of Traffic Engineering; Lucille B. Allen, the secretary to Mr. Crawford; and Claude Zukowski, the City's Chief Traffic Signal Engineer. The Respondent testified as a witness on his own behalf and called the following additional witnesses: Gloria Burgess, a clerk typist in the City's Traffic Control Department; Melvin Freeman, a senior electrician with the City's Traffic Engineering Department; and Robert E. Morrison, Jr., an electrical supervisor employed with the City's Traffic Engineering Department.

Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 10, and Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 15 were all received into evidence at the final hearing. The issues for determination in this matter are whether the City has demonstrated that the Respondent has been incompetent or inefficient in the performance of his duties as specified in the three charges set out in the Notice of Suspension, and whether the Respondent should be suspended from his employment with the City.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Respondent was hired by the City on July 25, 1977, as an electrician in the Electrical Department. Shortly thereafter he was transferred to the Traffic Engineering Department as an "electronics technician helper."

   The position of "electronics technician helper" is an entry level position in

   the Traffic Engineering Department. The helpers are responsible for performing technical electronics work, primarily in the area of traffic signal control devices and systems. The Respondent had ample qualifications, including education and experience, to qualify for the position. Up to and including the date of the final hearing, the Respondent remained employed with the City as an "electronics technician helper."

   
   

2. During the time that he has been employed with the City, the Respondent has received regular periodic written evaluations. The City utilizes a "performance rating form" for these evaluations. An employee's performance is evaluated in several different areas on a rating system that ranges from a high rating of "satisfactory" to "exceeds standard" to "improvement needed" to a low rating of "unsatisfactory." In all of the evaluations of the Respondent, his "overall performance rating" was rated as needing improvement. In the important areas of "performance of assigned tasks," the Respondent has received consistently satisfactory ratings only in his ability to complete work on schedule. He has been evaluated as needing improvement or as unsatisfactory in areas designated "work completed meets requirements," "performs assigned tasks without close supervision," "uses tools and equipment properly," and "work does not have to be redone." The Respondent has also been evaluated as unsatisfactory or as needing improvement in the area of "technical knowledge." It is very unusual for the City to continue to employ persons in its Traffic Engineering Department for as long as the Respondent has been employed, without the employee ever receiving a satisfactory evaluation. The evaluations of the Respondent appear to reflect the opinions of the Respondent's supervisors that he is able to accomplish the job, but that he does not apply himself to the work at hand, and makes many mistakes.

   
   

3. Several examples of deficiencies in the Respondent's work were established at the hearing. On one occasion, the Chief Traffic Signal Engineer explained to the Respondent step by step how to do a particular rewiring operation that involved three wires. The Respondent was also provided with a book that explained the procedure. The procedure was a simple one, and although it was explained to the Respondent on a Friday, he needed to have it reexplained to him the following Monday. On another instance, a number of three-wire cords, in which each of the cords were a different color, were to be wired with the black wire on a specific prong of a socket. The work was so repetitious that some mistakes would be expected. The Respondent wired half of them wrong. On another occasion, the Respondent was asked to reglue a "faceplate" that had been broken. The Respondent accomplished this task, but west on to bend and virtually destroy another faceplate so that he could remove it just to reglue it. On another occasion, the Respondent was asked to cut a cord in half and to install sockets on each end. He cut the wire in three pieces. Generally, the Respondent's work is so deficient that his supervisors will not let him work on equipment that could cause a hazard.

   
   

4. As a part of his duties, the Respondent is occasionally "on call" to make emergency repairs on traffic control equipment. When he is called upon to make such repairs, the Respondent is responsible for preparing and submitting "time slips" which reflect the location and nature of the work, and the amount of time that it took to complete it. These cards are used to determine the Respondent's appropriate overtime pay, and also in many instances to establish whether or not equipment was working for litigation purposes.

   
   

5. On March 8 and 9, 1980, the Respondent was called upon to make several emergency repairs. In his time slips and reports, the Respondent miscategorized some of the equipment that he utilized in making the repairs, specifically light

   bulbs; submitted reports that were mutually inconsistent as to the amount of time for which he was seeking overtime pay; did not reflect whether the repairs were accomplished in the "a.m." or "p.m."; and in one instance, they contained an overlap of time which would show the Respondent as being in two locations at the same time. The Respondent submitted the reports and time slips on March 10, 1980. It is not uncommon for there to be errors on the forms, and clerical employees typically correct them without returning them to the person who performed the work. There were so many errors, however, in the Respondent's forms that they were returned to him. The Respondent resubmitted the forms to the clerical staff, but they wore again deficient, and needed to be returned to him. After having some of the forms returned to him three times, the Respondent finally completed them adequately. While errors on the forms are common, the number of errors in the Respondent's forms is extraordinary.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

6. Section 1 of Rule 14 of the Clearwater Civil Service Board provides in pertinent part as follows:

   
   

   The following are declared to be just causes for suspension, demotion or dismissal of any employee in the classified 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:

   (b) Is incompetent or inefficient in the performance of the duties of his position (specific instances to be charged).

   
   

   The Respondent's inability to perform in a satisfactory manner during the entire course of his employment with the City, as specified in his regular evaluations, and as corroborated by direct testimony at the hearing, constitutes grounds for taking action under the above rule. The Respondent's mistakes in filling out reports and time slips as set out in the Findings of Fact above constitute further grounds for disciplinary action under the rule.

   
   

7. A three-day suspension of the Respondent without pay is appropriate disciplinary action, and should be imposed.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby,

RECOMMENDED:

That a Final Order be entered by the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida, suspending the Respondent from his employment with the City without pay for a period of three working days.

RECOMMENDED this 1st day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida.

G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Frank X. Kowalski, Esquire Chief Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater

Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518

Mr. Jaime Fernandez 1744 Doncaster

Clearwater, Florida 33516

Mr. Anthony L. Shoemaker City Manager

City of Clearwater Third Floor, City Hall

112 South Osceola Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

CITY OF CLEARWATER

Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet

TO: Anthony Shoemaker, City Manager FROM: H. M. Laursen, Personnel Director

COPIES: Civil Service Board Members; G. Steven Pfeiffer; Frank Kowalski, J. Fernandez

SUBJECT: Civil Service Board Order re: City of Clearwater vs.

Jaime Fernandez DATE: October 20, 1980

The Civil Service Board met in session on Wednesday, October 15, 1980 at 10:00 A.M. to consider the proposed order of G. Steven Pfeiffer, Hearing Officer, in the matter of City of Clearwater vs. Jaime Fernandez (Case No. 80- 1025)

This Board reviewed the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached, and the following motion was made:

HML:c

That the Board adopt the Recommended Order sustaining the three-day suspension of Jaime Fernandez.

The motion was made by Mr. A. D. Finch and seconded by Mrs. Helen Herman.

Docket for Case No: 80-001025

Orders for Case No: 80-001025