The Issue The issue posed herein is whether or not the Respondent, Sherba Brothers, Inc., owes the Petitioner wages in the amount of $1,446.62 based on Respondent's failure to comply with the prevailing wage rate as set forth and defined in Chapter 215.19, Florida Statutes. Based on the entire record compiled herein, including the testimony of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Aldine Clinton Carter, Jr., was employed by Sherba Brothers, Inc., from approximately May 27, 1976 to October 14, 1976 as a licensed electrician (Dade County). The project in which the Petitioner was employed is the Dade County Courthouse, Project No. 4169, Code 915-018001 which entailed the complete renovation of the 12th floor. The Petitioner was employed by Respondent approximately 39 days, 2-1/2 hours, receiving wages of One Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Four Dollars and Twenty-Five Cents ($1,934.25). The prevailing wage rate for electricians in the subject area is Ten Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($10.75) which based on the work period involved here i.e. 39 days, 2-1/2 hours times the prevailing hourly rate equals Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Dollars and Eighty-Seven Cents ($3,380.87). This figure represents a difference of One Thousand Four Hundred Forty-Six Dollars and Sixty-Two Cents ($1,446.62) which as stated is the amount claimed by the Petitioner as now being due and owing. The Respondent offered no evidence to contest the fact that the Petitioner was in fact, employed as an electrician on the subject project. Some testimony was adduced by Respondent for the purpose of establishing that Petitioner was classified as a second or third class electrician. The proof falls short in this regard. There was no testimony establishing that there in fact exist such a classification(s) and the job classifications listed in the specification book for this project list only an electrician classification at the hourly rate of Ten Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($10.75). It is undisputed that the Petitioner is licensed as an electrician. Therefore, for purposes of this proceeding, I conclude that the Petitioner was in fact employed as a licensed electrician while employed by Respondent. However, the Respondent contends that as a nonunion subcontractor, it was not obligated to pay the prevailing wage rate and that the Petitioner was aware of this when he accepted the job for the lower wages. 1/ Secondly, the Respondent contends, that in any event the Petitioner failed to timely file an affidavit in protest of the asserted "noncompliance" as is set forth and defined in Chapter 215.19(3)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. In this regard, the last date the Petitioner was employed by Sherba Brothers was October 14, 1976. On October 31, 1976, the Petitioner sent a letter to the Public Works Department, protesting the fact that he was not paid the prevailing wages. That letter was forwarded to the administrative agency for that project and the county architect, Alf O. Barth, advised Petitioner, by letter dated November 15, 1976, that while his letter of October 31, 1976, contained the essential information regarding his claim, his letter was not notarized as required by state law. The general contractor, Rainey Construction Company and the subcontractor, Sherba Brothers (Respondent) were both notified by copy of Mr. Barth's letter to Mr. Carter that the amount as claimed by him was being withheld from their final payment until a final determination had been made on Petitioner's claim. Two days later on November 17, 1976, the Petitioner forwarded a notarized letter to the parties involved. The Petitioner testified that he made numerous inquiries from various project employees seeking to ascertain if in fact the Respondent was obligated to pay the prevailing wage rate. According to his unrefuted testimony, it was only after he left the Respondent's employ that he was able to determine that Respondent was indeed obliged to pay prevailing wages. This determination came through a communique from Messr., Luther J. Moore, Administrator of Prevailing Wage. The Respondent failed to introduce evidence showing that the prevailing wage rate was posted on this project during the period in which the Petitioner was employed. By so doing, the Petitioner urges and is now claiming that be was thwarted in asserting his rights under the prevailing wage law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the Respondent shall pay the Petitioner the sum of $1,446.62 as claimed in the petition filed herein. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Between June 13 and June 24, 1977, Brooks was employed by one William Ballance as a carpet layers's helper on General purpose Building A project at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Brooks was paid directly by Mr. Ballance. Mr. Ballance was a subcontractor of Exclusive Carpets rather than an employee. Ballance was paid in full for his work as subcontractor. Brooks claims he is due the sum of $202.50 in payment for 57.5 hours of work at the rate of $3.00 per hour between June 13 and June 24, 1977. There is no evidence to indicate that any violations of Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, occurred. Rather, the evidence only shows that Brooks received no payment at all for the time in question.
The Issue Whether or not Sanier Constructors, Inc., by its officers and/or agents or other representatives, failed to pay the Petitioner the prevailing wage rate as set forth and defined in Chapter 215.19, Florida Statutes, as alleged.
Findings Of Fact Royce J. Pombrio was employed as a sheet metal mechanic by C.P.M., Inc., an electrical subcontractor performing work for Sanier Constructors, Inc., on the construction of the Police Headquarters Complex for the City of St. Petersburg (C.P.M. Job No. 144). The prevailing wage rate for sheet metal mechanics performing similar work in the City of St. Petersburg is $9.56 per hour. As stated, Royce J. Pombrio, Petitioner, was employed by C.P.M., Inc., in June of 1977. Mr. Bobby R. Habgood, also an employee of C.P.M., served as Project and Acting Field Superintendent during the periods in question. Mr. Habgood credibly testified that the Petitioner performed superintendent's work during his (Habgood's) absence and that he recommended Petitioner for the sheet metal mechanic's position. Mr. Habgood credibly testified that Petitioner supervised two helpers and that the type of work performed by Petitioner was not the kind of work helpers were capable of performing as contended by Boyd Walters, the comptroller for C.P.M. Documentary evidence introduced into evidence revealed that during the period June 17, 1977, through October 28, 1977, Petitioner was paid an hourly wage of $5.75. During the period October 27, 1977 (approximately), through January 27, 1978, Petitioner was paid approximately $6.25 per hour and from the period of January 27, 1978, through June 17, 1978, Petitioner was paid an hourly wage of approximately $6.50 per hour. These total wages, when contrasted against the prevailing hourly wage rate of $9.56 per hour, result in a deficit of approximately $5,308.38. Based on the testimony of Petitioner Pombrio, the corroborative testimony of Messrs. Habgood and Donald Cochran, who was also employed by C.P.M. as a Superintendent and Project Manager, I conclude that the Petitioner was in fact performing sheet metal mechanic duties and as such was entitled to be paid the prevailing hourly wage rate of $9.56 per hour. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, That the Respondent, Sanier Constructors, Inc., by and through its agent/subcontractor, C.P.M., Inc., pay the Petitioner the sum of Five Thousand Three Hundred Eight Dollars and Thirty-Eight Cents ($5,308.38), which amount represents the difference in the amount Petitioner should have been paid according to the prevailing wage rate schedule and the actual hourly wages he in fact received while employed as a sheet metal mechanic for C.P.M., Inc. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building MAILING ADDRESS: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. is a subcontractor in the construction of a regional juvenile detection center located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The contracting authority for this facility was the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The contract for the construction let by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was in excess of $5,000.00 and pursuant to the provisions of Section 215.19(1)(b), Florida Statutes, the Division of Labor established a prevailing wage to be paid different crafts and occupations in construction of this project. The prevailing wage established for plumbers on this project was $10.07 per hour. During the course of this project, Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. acknowledged by affidavit that all persons in its employ were being paid the prevailing wage as required by law. Between April 10, 1977 and October 16, 1977, Charles G. Mathis was employed by Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. as a plumber on this project and paid at the rate of $7.50 per regular time hour and $11.25 per overtime hour. Between October 16, 1977 and June 25, 1978, Mathis was employed on this project as a plumber and paid at the rate of $8.25 per regular time hour and $12.37 per overtime hour. The difference between the amount paid Petitioner for regular time hours worked and the prevailing wage is $2.50 per regular time hour during the period he was paid $7.50 an hour and $3.85 per hour for the period he was paid $11.25 for each overtime hour. The difference between the amount paid Petitioner for regular time hours and the prevailing wage was $1.75 for the period of time he was paid $8.25 for regular time hour and $2.73 for the period he was paid $12.37 for each overtime hour. The evidence conflicts concerning the number of hours the claimant worked. The Hearing Officer finds that the records of the Respondent Company, Exhibit 6, accurately reflects the number of regular and overtime hours the claimant worked on this project. Exhibit 6 reflects that the claimant worked 891.5 hours at a rate $7.50 an hour and 23 hours at the rate of $11.25 an hour, overtime. Exhibit 6 further reflects that the claimant worked 1,172 hours at a rate of $8.25 an hour and 76.5 hours at the rate of $12.37 per hour, overtime. The Petitioner was underpaid the amount of $2028.75 for regular time hours worked at the rate of $7.50 per hour; $2,051.00 for the hours worked at the rate of $8.25 an hour; $208.85 at the rate of $12.37 an hour; and underpaid $88.50 at the rate of $11.25 an hour, for a total of $4,577.10. Petitioner complied with the provisions of Section 215.19(3)(a)1 and 2 by filing an affidavit with the contracting authority stating the number of hours worked and the amount paid for said hours. Said affidavit was filed within the time prescribed by statutes. Pursuant to Section 215.19(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is presently withholding $5,844.56 from Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. while awaiting the decision in this administrative proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact anus Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Division of Labor enter its order directing the contracting authority to pay to the employee the sum of $4,577.10 and the remaining amount held by the contracting authority pursuant to this claim be paid to Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of November 1978, Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Byrd Booth, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 11089 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 Charles G. Mathis 942 Montego Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
Findings Of Fact By application dated April 5, 1982, Petitioner, Carolyn W. Albury, sought financial assistance under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program from Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The application was received by Respondent on April 15, 1982. By Notice dated May 10, 1982, Respondent requested Petitioner to furnish a form verifying the income reflected on her application no later than May 24, 1982. On May 20, 1982, Petitioner filed HRS Form 112 indicating that her employer, Dade County School Board, would not supply that information. Instead, she later submitted a pay stub for a two week pay-period in May, 1982, reflecting bi-weekly income of $493. The application was ultimately denied by notice dated June 1, 1982, on the ground Albury had not furnished verification of income for the month of April, 1982 and because such verification had not been timely filed in accordance with the instructions in the notice of May 10. Thereafter, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to appeal the decision of the Department. Petitioner's application states she resides in her household with two other persons. However, her daughter resides the majority of time in a college dormitory and cannot be included as a member of the household. The total countable monthly income for the household is approximately $1,070. After deducting a 20 percent allowance given to applicants who are employed, the income still exceeds the monthly income limitation of $474 for households having two persons. Therefore, Albury was ineligible for assistance. Applicant did not dispute the Department's determination that their total monthly countable income exceeded acceptable income limitations prescribed by the Department. However, she contended that HRS instructions were unclear as to the type of income verification required, and had she been told to furnish pay stubs for the month of April, she would have done so. She also stated that she must use an air-conditioner and respiratory equipment at her home because of asthma and emphysema, and is in need of financial assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Carolyn W. Albury for energy assistance be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Carolyn W. Albury 1265 North West 86th Street Miami, Florida 33147 Leonard Helfand, Esquire Department of HRS 401 North West 2nd Avenue, Suite 1040 Miami, Florida 33128
Findings Of Fact On March 23, 1982, Petitioner, Frances McGill, filed a household application for energy assistance under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program with Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Based upon a review of the information submitted by Petitioner, the application was denied by notice dated April 27, 1982, on the ground McGill had an excessive monthly income. Thereafter, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to appeal the Department's decision. Petitioner resides in her household with one other person. The total countable monthly income for the household during March, 1982, was $561. This amount exceeded the monthly income limitation of $474 for households having two persons. Therefore, McGill was ineligible for assistance based upon her March income. Applicant did not dispute the Department's determination that her total monthly countable income during March, 1982, exceeded acceptable income limitations prescribed by the Department. However, a large part ($370) of the income received in March was recently terminated, and it now falls within acceptable guidelines. Additionally, Petitioner pointed out that she is unemployed, has large medical bills, and is in genuine need of financial assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Frances McGill for energy assistance be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Frances McGill 310 North West 7th Avenue, No. 2 Miami, Florida 33128 Leonard Helfand, Esquire Department of HRS 402 North West 2nd Avenue, Suite 1040 Miami, Florida 33128
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harry M. Noland, Jr., learned of the low income energy assistance program through a notice received with his telephone bill. That program is administered by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). On December 6, 1983 Noland filled out an application for low income energy assistance at the Cocoa office of HRS. He did so after being advised by HRS personnel that he was qualified to do so. The application indicated that Noland resided with his wife at 3915 Indian River Drive, Cocoa, Florida. It also reflected that he and his wife had no income whatsoever at the time the application was filed, but that he had applied for food stamps. The application was reviewed by a Ms. J. Bunch, an HRS temporary worker, who sent Noland a "request for information" on December 6, 1983. It read as follows: Needed is your income for the month of December, 1983. If you receives (sic) Social Security or SSI a letter from the Social Security office is needed, if you are working a verification of income form is enclosed to be filled out by employer and return it to this office. If you are unemployed a statement is needed explaining how you (are) paying expenses. The statement has to (be) signed and dated and (send) it to this office. The notice stated that the above information had to be brought or mailed to the office no later than December 20, 1983 or the application would be denied. Noland received the above notice and on December 15 prepared the following written reply: This is to verify that I have been unemployed since September 30, 1983, and presently have no prospects for employment. He hand-delivered his reply to Ms. Bunch the same day. She asked how he was paying his current expenses, and Noland told her he had no funds and was therefore unable to pay any current bills and expenses. Bunch accepted this oral reply, told Noland it was "okay", and gave him the impression that no further information was needed to comply with the notice mailed on December 6. In December, 1983 HRS policy was for the program workers to make a written notation in an applicant's file when any clarifying information was obtained by telephone or when the applicant (Noland) was personally interviewed. For some unexplained reason, no written notation was made by Bunch in Noland's file. Noland was not told by Bunch that his application was still incomplete, and she did not request him to put his oral reply in writing. Had she done so, Noland would have provided further written information on a timely basis. Except for the "incomplete" written reply, Noland otherwise qualified for assistance. At a later undisclosed date, Noland's application was reviewed and found to be deficient because he had not fully responded to the "request for information". Thereafter, it sent a notice of denial to Noland on February 15, 1984. That prompted the instant proceeding. HRS processed some 3,287 applications at its Cocoa office between November 1 and December 16, 1983, the last day for filing the same. Only three temporary workers were employed to perform this task. The HRS representative testified that workers were extremely busy during the time Noland visited the Cocoa office due to the manpower shortage and time constraints imposed on that office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Harry M. Noland, Jr. for low income energy assistance be approved and that he be given the appropriate benefits under Rule 10C-29.19, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Harry M. Noland, Jr. 3915 Indiana River Drive Cocoa, Florida 32922 Gary L. Clark, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite 912 Orlando, Florida 32801 David H. Pingree, Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On June 3, 1981, Petitioner, Ethel Tatum, filed a household application for cooling assistance under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program with Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Petitioner resides in Highlands County, Florida, which is part of Abe Central Cooling Climatic Region for purposes of determining the level of assistance to be given claimants. After reviewing the application, Respondent requested applicant to furnish "....verification of (her) earned income..." on July 14, 1981, in order to complete processing of the application. In response to this request, a representative of the Agriculture and Labor Program, Inc. sent copies of Mr. & Mrs. Tatum's check stubs for June, 1980 through May, 1981, to verify the household's monthly income. The application was ultimately denied by Respondent on August 24, 1981, on the ground Petitioner had failed to furnish verification of her income as required by Department rule. When the application was filed, petitioner and two other persons lived in her household. She disclosed that her total countable monthly income for June, 1981, was 558, which exceeds the $519 income limitation for households having three persons. Accordingly, even though the Department based its action on lack of verification of income, Petitioner was ineligible for assistance because she exceeded the income limitations prescribed by Department rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Ethel M. Tatum for cooling assistance be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 8th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Ethel M. Tatum 1416 South Carolina Drive Avon Park, Florida 33825 Anthony N. DeLuccia, Jr., Esquire Department of HRS 8800 Cleveland Avenue, South Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Ms. Ollie Mae Hawkins Agricultural & Labor Program, Inc. 1650 Highlands Avenue Avon Park, Florida 33825
Findings Of Fact On July 15, 1981, Petitioner, Ollie Bradley, filed a household application for cooling assistance under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program with Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Petitioner resides in Santa Rosa County, Florida, which is part of the North Cooling Climatic Region for purposes of determining the level of assistance to be given claimants. The application was ultimately denied by Respondent on August 28, 1981, on the ground Bradley had an excessive monthly income. Petitioner and her daughter reside in her household. Their total countable monthly income for July, 1981, was $430, which exceeds the monthly income limitation of $418 for households having two persons. Except for her level of income Bradley was otherwise eligible to receive cooling assistance. Applicant did not dispute the Department determination that her total monthly countable income exceeded acceptable income limitations prescribed by the Department. However, she desires the assistance because she is blind, and in need of additional income to offset her high medical bills and other financial burdens.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Ollie Bradley for cooling assistance be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ollie Bradley 60 Susan Street Milton, Florida 32570 Jon W. Searcy, Esquire Department of HRS 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, Florida 32522
