Findings Of Fact Suncoast Electric Inc., Respondent, is an electrical contractor located in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent entered into a subcontract to perform electrical construction services on the building of a new jail in Pinellas County, Florida. The County of Pinellas, Florida, was the contracting authority for the new jail project. The project was covered by the Florida Prevailing Wage law contained in Florida Statutes, Section 215.19. All parties agreed that the prevailing wages on the project for journeyman electrician was $10.20 per hour and for labor, $6.50 per hour. On April 3, 1978 Petitioner filed an affidavit complaining of alleged noncompliance with the prevailing wage law by Respondent. Petitioner was employed by Respondent from July, 1977 through March 15, 1978, when he voluntarily terminated his employment. Petitioner completed his four years as an electrician apprentice in late 1977 and was certified by Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., (ABC), under whose sponsorship he apprenticed, as a qualified journeyman electrician. Normal practice is for the organization sponsoring the training program to register apprentices with the State (Department of Labor) and upon completion of the apprenticeship to notify the State who issues a certificate, similar to a diploma, attesting the apprentice has completed the program. No evidence was offered that Petitioner had received his certificate of completion of apprenticeship training from the State, although he did present a wallet-size card issued by ABC certifying him as a qualified journeyman electrician. ABC is not the agent for the State authorized to designate individuals as journeymen and some question is raised regarding the efficacy of the qualification card issued by ABC. As the agency sponsoring the training program completed by Petitioner it would appear appropriate to accept the card as evidence of completion of the apprenticeship program. This is particularly so when, as here, the Petitioner is not represented by an attorney and Respondent did not dispute Petitioner's contention that he had completed the apprenticeship program. Petitioner does not hold an occupational license from the City of St. Petersburg or from Pinellas County as a journeyman electrician. Building codes normally require one journeyman electrician on a construction project while electrical work is being done. Respondent is an electrical contractor and all of its construction workers perform work done by electricians. In December 1977 on non prevailing wage jobs Respondent paid laborers from $4.00/hr. to $5.50/hr., apprentices from $3.00/hr. to $3.46/hr. and journeymen from $5.75/hr. to 8.40/hr. (Exhibit 1). Journeymen average wage was $6.82/hr. Although Respondent's president testified that he employed no one as a journeyman unless he held an occupational license as such, he later modified that testimony. Subsequent evidence revealed that Daniel Friebus, Respondent's highest paid journeyman, did not receive his Pinellas County journeyman's license until June, 1978, long after the period here in dispute. Conflicting testimony dominated the proceedings. Petitioner contends that he performed the work normally done by a journeyman and that he understood he was employed as a journeyman and not as a laborer. He testified that he dug trenches, ran conduit, bent and soldered conduit, pulled cable, spliced cable, made connections and performed other duties expected of a journeyman electrician. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that Petitioner dug ditches, laid conduit, pulled wire and performed other similar work normally done by laborers; but that he had made no connections, read no blueprints, and had all tile work laid out for him by the journeyman electrician. The foreman on the jail contract was also supervising the work at Trinity Lakes Retirement Center. Accordingly he spent a substantial portion of his time away from the jail job leaving Petitioner, two other laborers, and up to three apprentices on the job. There were 6-10 employees at Trinity Lakes and 4-6 at the jail project. The foreman testified that he spent 25 percent of his time at Trinity Lakes. While the foreman was absent from the jail project he testified no one was in charge; Petitioner understood Battagliola, also paid as a laborer, was in charge during the absence of the superintendent. Respondent's testimony that Battagliola did 98 percent of the connections and Petitioner made no connections not credible. It is inconsistent with human nature and efficient business practices to not use an employee commensurate with his qualifications and ability. Had Battagliola been the Petitioner here perhaps it would have been contended that Lawton did most of the connections. It is also noted that the prevailing wage of a second-year apprentice is $6.63/hr. (Exhibit 2). This exceeds the prevailing wage paid Petitioner who had completed four years of apprentice training and was hired as a laborer. With the journeyman electrician on the jail job supervising another project as well as the jail project and with no one in charge while the journeyman was absent it is evident that Petitioner did considerable electrical work without very much supervision. Working without close supervision is journeyman's work. Petitioner was employed by Respondent on the jail job from 19 December 1977 until February 14, 1978 and he worked a total of 297 1/2 hours. He was employed as a laborer and was paid the prevailing wage rate for a laborer of $6.50/hr. for this period. Prior to coming to the jail job and after leaving the jail job he was paid $5.25/hr. by Respondent. Although little evidence was presented regarding the type work performed by Petitioner on other projects before coming to the jail project it is fair to assume that he performed similar work at all projects to which assigned at this stage of his experience and training. Subsequent to the filing of the claim in these proceedings Respondent prepared a description of the duties performed by Petitioner on the jail project (Exhibit 3) showing the time devoted by Petitioner to various tasks assigned. While having self-serving implications the designations of the scope of work in phases such as Underground, Masons, Branch Circuit/Chase Piping, Branch Circuit/Piping Corridors, and Branch Circuit/Pulling Wire in Chases was acknowledged by Petitioner to represent some of the tasks he performed. Running circuits appears to be a task normally performed by a journeyman although it is not so complicated that a laborer with a modicum of intelligence and a basic understanding of electricity cannot perform. After four years as an electrician apprentice Petitioner should have had more than the basic understanding of electricity needed to perform such a task.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, a public employer, has its principal place of business in Lake City, Florida, where it engages in the business of operating a school system. Respondent is created directly by the Florida state constitution or legislative body so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the government, and is administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials and/or to the general electorate (Stipulation.) The Respondent now and has been at all times material to these proceedings, a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2) of the Public Employees Relations Act (Stipulation.) The Charging Party is now, and has been at all times material herein an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act (Stipulation.) Since on or about July, 1973, up to and including June 30, 1975, Jack W. Adams was a public employee within the meaning of Section 447.203(3) of the Act (Stipulation.) On or about April, 1975, and continuing thereafter, Adams engaged in employee organization-related activities designed to acquaint fellow employees of Respondent with the benefits of organizing and collective bargaining on behalf of the Charging Party (Testimony of Adams.) Adams was hired in July, 1973, by the Respondent as a Refrigeration Mechanic I in the Maintenance Department of the Columbia County school system. There was no one in this position at the time. Adams' duties were to service and maintain the refrigeration and air conditioning equipment at the various county public schools. Shortly after he was hired, he was given an apprentice, Henry Williams, to assist him in his functions. His first supervisor was Henry Stalmaker. Later, the maintenance and transportation functions were separated into different departments and Stalmaker became the Coordinator of Transportation. Ulis Taylor, who had been the "lead man" in the Maintenance Department, became the Coordinator of Maintenance in the summer of 1974. The equipment which Adams serviced had many problems when he was first hired. He improved the state of the equipment during the period that he worked under Stalmaker and the latter received no complaints during that time as to his attitude or the quality of his work (Testimony of Adams, Stalmaker.) In August, 1974, Adams talked to some Maintenance Department employees about the possibility of having a civil service system established for county employees. He received information on such a program and showed it to the employees, but found that they were not interested in pressing for the institution of such a system. In September, Dr. Frank Phillips, Superintendent of Schools, Columbia County, had a meeting with Adams at which he suspended him for two days for being involved in an incident at one of the local schools in which Adams' son allegedly had used a faculty lounge without authority while serving as a high school work-trainee with his father. The son was suspended from school as a result of this incident which allegedly involved the use of profanity by Adams and his son. Adams sought assistance from a school board member to intercede on his own suspension. The board member did so because Adams had not been afforded an opportunity to present his version of the incident. The matter was resolved after the board member discussed the situation with Phillips. Also during the September meeting, Phillips informed Adams that his discussions with employees on civil service had disturbed the school board, and told him to refrain from any further such activities (Testimony of Adams, Williams, Phillips, Markum.) On April 28, 1975, a group of school bus drivers approached Adams to become the president of the Columbia County Transportation and Maintenance Workers Association. He met with the group at the Transportation Department on that day. Authorization cards were notarized at the meeting. Taylor approached Adams and Williams thereafter and informed Adams that he should not go back to the Transportation Department for any reason and that he should keep away from association activities. He further stated that union business got people "ticked off" and upset and not to engage in it any further (Testimony of Adams, Williams). Prior to the above conversation, Taylor, on April 21, 1975, had rendered an annual employee performance evaluation on Adams wherein he rated him as "very satisfactory-substantially exceeds all requirements". This was the second highest evaluation which could be made on an employee. He also at that time recommended him for reappointment for the 1975-76 school term. Taylor's 1974 evaluation of Adams also had been in the second highest bracket with his major strength listed as "promotes unity with the Maintenance Department personnel." Although Adams had an excellent working relationship with Taylor on April 21, 1975, he and Williams testified that after the April 28th incident, Taylor started questioning everything that they did. Taylor, on the other hand, testified that, although the 1974 performance evaluation was basically accurate, he had experienced problems with Adams' attitude and gave him an inflated evaluation on April 21st, hoping that it would influence him to improve and have better relationships within the Department. However, at that time; he was of the opinion that Adams' work performance was perfectly satisfactory. Shortly after that, he sent Adams to an elementary school to repair a freezer. Although Williams worked on the unit, Adams concurred in his judgment as to the problem which later proved to be incorrect. Taylor was of the opinion that they had lied to him concerning the work required, although the evidence supports a finding that they were merely mistaken. The evidence, however, also supports a finding that there had been a number of problems with refrigeration units during the 1975 spring term that were due, in some respect, to an inefficient method of ordering parts by others and also because many compressors had to be replaced. About four years previously, the school system had purchased a rather large amount of refrigeration equipment. These same problems had been in existence prior to Adams' tenure with the school system (Testimony of Taylor, Adams, Williams, Watts; Exhibit 5 & 6.) On May 8, 1975, Taylor wrote to Phillips recommending that the Refrigeration Department be reduced to one man, a Refrigeration Mechanic II (a lower grade than mechanic I), with major problems to be handled by utilization of local contractors. The letter pointed out the difficulties that had been encountered and expressed dissatisfaction with the attitude and competence of the Refrigeration Mechanic I (Adams). In effect, this letter reversed Taylor's prior recommendation that Adams be rehired for the ensuing school year (Exhibit 4.) On or about May 12, 1975, Williams, who was assisting Adams in employee organization work, talked to the president of the secretaries association of the school system at her house concerning the subject of organization. He could not answer all of her questions and it was arranged that Adams would meet with the secretaries the following day. He did so in the school library at 4:15 p.m. after working hours. The next day it was reported to the executive secretary for the school board that Adams had told the group they would have difficulties in securing job benefits unless they were organized. She believed this information was erroneous and had Adams call her on the telephone. He declined to discuss the subject during working hours. Phillips had planned to have a meeting with Taylor and Adams that morning at 9:45 a.m. When he came into the office, the executive secretary told him of her discussion with Adams and he told her that he had had complaints in the Maintenance Department and was going out there to see what the problem was. He was concerned that the maintenance personnel were playing "catch-up" rather than preventing maintenance problems from arising in the first place. These problems had occurred in all areas of the Maintenance Department, including refrigeration work. At the meeting that morning, Phillips informed Taylor that he was suspended because of maintenance complaints, Williams was suspended for incompetence and Adams because of committing an unfair labor practice for allegedly speaking to the secretarial group on school time. At this time, Phillips told Adams that the School Board was not ready for collective bargaining that year, but maybe the next year. Adams informed him that he would continue to engage in employee organization, and Phillips stated that "Well, if you don't cease, you and all personnel involved in this association will all be fired and we will hire new personnel." In spite of Phillips' statements concerning suspension, he informed the employees that he would let them know by that Friday what he was going to do in regard to their status. He did not pursue the question of suspension any further and, as a result, Adams filed an unfair labor practice charge against the school board on May 20, 1975 (Testimony of Adams, Mock, Williams, Wilson, Taylor, Phillips.) Respondent's method of extending the employment of non- instructional personnel was for the superintendent to confer with the department head and, if he concurred in the department head's recommendation as to an employee, the matter would be presented to the Board of Public Instruction for approval. No contracts were involved for such employees, but Respondent operated normally on a school year basis from July 1 to June 30 as the term of employment. Phillips testified that, in May of 1975, he was reevaluating the need for support personnel and decided to look into the possibility of procuring services by contract with commercial firms. He was particularly unsatisfied with the Maintenance Department and disruptions that had occurred therein. He dispatched a letter on May 23 to Adams advising him that his name did not appear on the list of recommendations for reappointment at that time, but that he might be recommended at a later date should a position become available in his field. Since Phillips had until June 30th to make final decisions concerning rehiring of personnel, he investigated and determined that contract services were not feasible and therefore decided to stay with an "in-house" maintenance program. However, in view of the May 8th letter from Taylor concerning Adams, and the problems in refrigeration that had been occurring in the Spring, he recommended to the Board of Education that Adams not be continued as an employee. Nine of the eleven employees in the Maintenance Department received the same letter from Phillips, but Adams was the only one of that group who was not rehired. Adams never received anything further in writing on the matter and was not shown Taylor's letter of May 8 at that time (Testimony of Phillips, Adams, Exhibit 3.) Although the Board did not have a formal system for grievances or appeal of dismissals, Adams was accorded a hearing before the Board on July 10. This was prompted by his discussion with a school board member who showed him Taylor's May 8 letter for the first time and advised him to ask for a hearing before the Board. At the hearing, Adams was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations contained in Taylor's letter except as to Item 10 concerning work orders of which he had no knowledge. The hearing was then continued until July 24th in order to provide Adams more time for his defense. During this period, he secured letters attesting to his good work and cooperative attitude from nine principals of various schools in Columbia County. At the July 24th board meeting, Adams was confronted with a July 21st revision of Taylor's May 8th letter that was rewritten in order to eliminate "inconsistencies" which had appeared in the June 8th letter. The later letter added an allegation that Adams had gone into the Maintenance Department personnel files without Taylor's permission while Taylor was on vacation. This allegation stemmed from an incident in early June when Adams and Williams went into an open file cabinet in the Maintenance Department that was used to store secondary personnel files as well as work orders and manuals, and extracted a copy of their latest evaluation reports. Although they did not seek authorization for this, they informed the acting supervisor that they had obtained what they had gone in for. (Testimony of Adams, Williams, Murdock; Exhibit 3, Composite Exhibit 7, Exhibit 8.) Adams was given an opportunity to present matters at the July 24th Board meeting and the Board voted to support the superintendent's recommendation that he not be rehired. Subsequent to Adams' dismissal, Williams had taken his place for a short period of time and thereafter a new man was hired. Problems with refrigeration equipment have been minimal during the past year, it having been discovered that the wrong type of gas had been used in replacement compressors in the past (Testimony of Taylor, Watts, Williams, Martin.) Respondent has drawn unemployment insurance of $82.00 a week since October 1, 1975. Although he registered with the Florida State Employment Service for a position as a commercial air conditioner and refrigeration mechanic, there have been no jobs of that nature offered to him in the area where he resides (Testimony of Adams.)
Recommendation That the Public Employees Relations Commission issue an order requiring the Columbia County Board of Public Instruction to cease and desist from unfair labor practices as defined in Section 447.501(1)(a) & (b), Florida Statutes, with respect to the Columbia County Transportation and Maintenance Workers Association, and to take prompt action to reinstate Jack W. Adams as a Refrigerator Mechanic I with back pay from July 1, 1975 to date of reinstatement, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, less amounts the aforesaid individual has received from state governmental sources during the stated period. Done and Entered this 7th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire 2003 Apalachee Parkway Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Terry McDavid, Esquire Box 1328 Lake City, Florida =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice with regard to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Sorey is an African-American woman who at the time of the hearing was a resident of Panama City, Florida. Mastercorp was Ms. Sorey's employer at all relevant times and is engaged in the business of providing housekeeping and cleaning services to timeshare resorts in the State of Florida and elsewhere. Mastercorp has its headquarters in Crossville, Tennessee. Ms. Sorey was employed by Mastercorp at a resort in Panama City called the Landmark, from August 2005 until Mastercorp's contract with Landmark ended in September 2006. Ms. Sorey began her employment with Mastercorp at Landmark as a housekeeping supervisor. She was eventually assigned to the laundry. It was while working in the laundry at Landmark that she alleged discriminatory treatment. Ms. Sorey was supervised by an executive housekeeper (EH) and an assistant EH. The EH and assistant EH are management level employees who are supervised by area, district, or regional managers, and ultimately by corporate managers working out of the Crossville office. An EH is responsible for all operations at a client property, including budgeting and supervising all Mastercorp employees located there. Miguel Palacios began his career with Mastercorp in 2004 as an assistant EH and worked his way up to EH at a client property in the Orlando area. Later, he was used as a roving manager by Mastercorp. As a roving manager, he was assigned to "problem properties." It was his job to ameliorate whatever was causing a property to be a "problem property." Mr. Palacios was assigned to Landmark because operations there were unsatisfactory and, as a result, Mastercorp was in danger of losing its contract. Mr. Palacios was instructed to support the existing EH at Landmark. Later, he took charge of the operation and ran it until a new EH, Wilmer Gonzalez, was hired. Ms. Sorey was working at Landmark when Mr. Palacios assumed his duties there. Debbie Green was one of Mastercorp's housekeeping supervisors at Landmark. Ms. Green is an African-American. Because of her excellent performance, Ms. Green became Mr. Palacio's acting assistant while he was in charge of the Landmark property. Mastercorp's Vice President of Operations, David Maier, visited the Landmark property in March 2006 and told Ms. Sorey that he was impressed with her work in the laundry. He complimented her on the good job she was doing there. Mr. Maier made a remark to Ms. Sorey to the effect that she should be her "own boss." Ms. Sorey interpreted this to mean she could run the laundry as she wished, and without supervision. This was the first of several incorrect assumptions made by Ms. Sorey. When a district manager questioned her placement in the laundry, she attempted to contact Mr. Maier for clarification, but was not able to do so. Payment for working overtime at Landmark was permitted only when approved by the EH. This was a policy dictated by the requirement for Mastercorp to remain within its budget. Ms. Sorey approached Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Palacios and informed them that she did not have enough time to complete her laundry during normal working hours and expressed a desire to work and be paid overtime. When rebuffed, Ms. Sorey became frustrated by the demands on her, which, it is found, were substantial. Eventually, Ms. Sorey brought a friend in to help her and the friend was put on the Mastercorp payroll. This alleviated some of the stress felt by Ms. Sorey. Subsequently, a corporate quality inspector named Nell Wilson came to Landmark in June 2006 and gave her department a 100 percent grade on its evaluation and provided a certificate of dedication. Neither Mr. Palacios nor Mr. Gonzalez found time to present the certificate to her. Mr. Palacios, a Puerto Rican, traveled to his native land on vacation in June of 2006 and returned with souvenirs for some of the employees at Landmark. These souvenirs included coffee mugs, liquor, and key chains. He presented Ms. Sorey with a coffee mug. She asserted that she was offended by the coffee mug. She referred to it as an "old devil cup" and considered it to be an inappropriate reflection on her race. Ms. Sorey related at the hearing, "I don't know nothing about Puerto Rico. Coming back here giving me no cup, calling me no black devil." It is clear how a person lacking sophistication in an international sense, or at least a Caribbean sense, could misinterpret the nature of the mug. The mug was black with a Puerto Rican flag superimposed upon it. On one side of the flag were the words "Puerto" and on the other, "Rico." Overlaid on the flag was a figure that vaguely resembled a man that was variously colored green, yellow, and red, and which appeared to be wearing a blue suit. The figure wore a cape with a yellow lining. The mug had the word "Vejigantes" written on it. In certain parts of Puerto Rico, Vejigantes are masks worn by dancers in carnivals. They represent various things such as strength and harmony. The masks are part of Puerto Rican culture and have nothing to do with race except that the festival itself may have had roots in Africa. Although Ms. Sorey appeared to be grateful at the time she was given the mug, two or three days later she called Gloria Turner, the general manager of the Landmark, telling her that she was offended by it. This was relayed to Mr. Palacios who went to Ms. Sorey and told her that he meant no offense and offered to provide her with another gift in return for the mug. She refused this offer. Several days later Mr. Palacios counseled Ms. Sorey because she had worked overtime without approval and was not following the direction of Mr. Gonzalez. This was memorialized in a written memorandum dated June 25, 2006. Subsequently, Ms. Sorey submitted a handwritten complaint, dated July 3, 2006, to Mastercorp's employee leasing company, Oasis. This was forwarded to Mastercorp because Ms. Sorey was an employee of Mastercorp. The aforementioned document was four and one-half pages long and complained about work issues relating to time and amount of work. The sole issue that could be interpreted as addressing race was this sentence: "Miguel Palacio went to Puerto Rico and when he came back he came to the laundry and gave me a black cup and on the cup was a body and a face like a devil like he is call me a black devil. This face had red horn on it and at the top of the cup have these letter 'Vejigantes.'" The July 3, 2006, memorandum was the only complaint that Mastercorp received from Ms. Sorey, and, as noted above, it was received indirectly. Nevertheless, Whitney Stoker, an employee in the human resources department in the Crossville, Tennessee headquarters was tasked to conduct an investigation into the matter. In effecting her investigation, Ms. Stoker interviewed Mr. Palacios. She attempted to contact Ms. Sorey by telephone on five occasions. She left messages imploring Ms. Sorey to provide her with details surrounding her complaint. Ms. Sorey had an ample opportunity to amplify the information contained in the complaint, but chose not to provide additional information. Ms. Stoker also conducted an Internet search into the matter of the "Vejigantes" mask that was featured on the mug, using the Yahoo search engine. She discovered that it was indeed a character signifying various aspects of Puerto Rican culture and related to festivals held in some Puerto Rican towns. She discovered that it had nothing to do with race or insulting someone. Mastercorp's contract with Landmark was by its terms set to expire in September 2006. In July or August 2006 it became clear that Mastercorp would not obtain another contract with Landmark and, therefore, there would be no more work there for Mastercorp's employees. However, a new opportunity for work arose in Mastercorp's contract at Club Destin, in Destin, Florida. Mr. Palacios took nine of the Panama City employees to the Destin job. There were not enough positions in Destin available for everyone who had been employed at the Landmark job. He did not consider race in deciding who would be offered employment in Destin. He was not concerned about the complaint Ms. Sorey had made. Ms. Sorey did not ask to be employed at Destin, and Mr. Palacios did not ask her to work there. Ms. Sorey did not complain at the time that she was not offered one of the positions in Destin. One of the employees employed at the Destin property was Donna Ponds, an African-American. She was trained at Landmark, but was hired in anticipation that she would work at Club Destin. She was hired as the EH at Club Destin. No evidence was adduced that indicated that anyone of another race was treated differently or more favorably than Ms. Sorey. Mr. Palacios did not need any help in the laundry at Club Destin because the property manager there was successfully using foreign exchange students. Ms. Sorey expressed no desire to move to the Destin facility at the time staffing decisions were being made. During the hearing she was asked, "Did you want to go to Destin." She answered, "Not really." Ms. Sorey's allegations of harassment, disparate treatment, and retaliation were precipitated by her anger at management due to having to work hard and not being allowed to incur overtime; the pressure she felt at not having enough time to complete her duties; and her opinion that she was not sufficiently recognized for her work in the laundry. No evidence whatsoever was adduced that adverse working conditions were precipitated by racial prejudice.
Recommendation it is Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Timothy Nathan Tack, Esquire Kunkel Miller & Hament 15438 North Florida Avenue, Suite 202 Tampa, Florida 33613 Judy Sorey 1025 North Everitt Avenue, Apt. A-3 Panama City, Florida 32401 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was terminated from his employment by the Respondent based on discrimination because of his race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an African-American male. He was employed at times pertinent hereto until his termination, by the Respondent Mold-Ex, L.L.C. The Respondent is a manufacturing company located in Milton, Florida, which operates a manufacturing facility and operation on a multi-shift basis, engaged in the manufacturing of various plastic and rubber products, particularly automotive-related parts. The Petitioner began employment with the Respondent on September 8, 1989, as a press operator. He also worked as a machine operator for about four months and was promoted to Second Shift Supervisor in the injection department. This is an injection molding operation which molds plastic and rubber parts. The Petitioner was a Second Shift Supervisor in that department for eight and one- half years. The Petitioner reported to Jerry Decker, who was his supervisor. The Petitioner is an employee and the Respondent company is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's duties included monitoring overall operation of the machinery, training, new employees, setting up machines and jobs, completing attendance reports and holding employee meetings. As many as twenty-three employees were supervised by him on the second shift. The Petitioner was the only black supervisor at Mold-Ex. The Petitioner was terminated from his employment on December 4, 1998. He was told by Mr. Decker, his supervisor, that he was being terminated because the company was "down-sizing" or reducing positions and the number of employees due to financial difficulties. The Petitioner elected to contest this by filing a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission, claiming that he was harmed because he was discharged because of his race. Beginning in early 1998, the corporate parent company which owned Mold-Ex, L.L.C., was experiencing significant financial difficulties. This resulted in part from the "reservoir seal project" which involved a contract for a certain part that the Respondent was to manufacture for the Delphi Division of General Motors Corporation. There were difficulties in manufacturing the reservoir seal successfully, it was difficult to manufacture and required extra labor. It was termed by the Respondent's president as a "real disaster" which caused serious financial drain on the company. The company had a great deal of difficulty in successfully manufacturing the part to the correct specifications and lost much revenue due to unfilled orders and/or improperly manufactured parts which had to be replaced. Additionally, and related to these difficulties, the parent company was having great difficulty meeting its debt service obligations. In fact, the parent company never actually recovered from the financial difficulties from 1998, such that ultimately the Respondent was sold to another corporation. These financial difficulties throughout 1998 resulted, by the fall of that year, in the parent corporation putting significant pressure on the Respondent's management in Milton to reduce costs substantially, including labor costs. The Respondent considered and implemented several ideas for cutting costs, including restructuring the supervision of the operation and otherwise seeking to reduce labor costs. In September of 1998, the Respondent employed an excess of people over those needed to operate efficiently. At that time the Respondent employed approximately three-hundred workers. Because there was an excess of employees and, therefore, payroll expense, a hiring freeze was instituted. This resulted in a steady reduction of employees through not filling positions that were voluntarily vacated by employees leaving the company, as reflected in the Respondent's Exhibit 10 in evidence. The overall operating officer of the Milton facility, Vice President Ettelson, established in his testimony that in late November of 1998, the hiring freeze resulted in a reduced head count which saved the company substantial amounts of money. Thus, by the end of 1998, the company employed only approximately 280 persons instead of the 300 who were employed in September of 1998. By April of 1999, the employment roster was down to approximately two hundred and fifty persons. The Respondent additionally restructured supervision in order to save money and to operate more efficiently, in terms of simply more effective manufacture and filling of orders, as well as in the saving of personnel and related expenses. This restructuring involved combining supervisory positions and re- allocating duties, such that one plant superintendent was placed in charge of all of the operations on the second shift rather than having approximately three supervisors overseeing the individual business units operating on the second shift. The Petitioner was a Second Shift Supervisor whose position was eliminated in this restructuring. His duties were distributed among Mr. Don Brumley, who was a long-experienced employee who was re-hired out of retirement and who became the Second Shift Plant Superintendent; an employee in the injection and molding department, referred to as a "lead-employee" and also to certain individuals on the first shift. The restructuring resulted in a savings of approximately $40,000.00 as to salaries by eliminating three positions and selecting Mr. Brumley as the plant superintendent for the second shift. The re-structuring concentrated on the second shift because the other two shifts required the management personnel that were currently in place. On the first shift, various improvement projects and process development efforts required more intense, active supervision and supervisory personnel that were already in place. On the second shift, because no improvement projects were being conducted, the differences in activity between the second and first shift allowed the company to supervise that entire shift, as to all departments, by placing a strong effective plant superintendent in charge of that entire shift; eliminating three supervisory positions for a substantial savings in expenses. On the third shift, no re- structuring occurred because it was only a small operation of approximately twenty-five employees. The highest management personnel present for that shift was already a lead person in the mixing department and a supervisor in the injection molding department. Additionally, the company management recognized a strong need for a superintendent such as Mr. Brumley who had a record of implementing better disciplinary measures and who could ensure consistency and efficiency of operation in all of the operating departments on the second shift. The re-structuring effort resulted in a change in the reporting system or "chain of command" as well. Prior to re- structuring, three managers, one for each of the three business units (profile extrusion, molding, and reinforced hose), reported directly to Vice President Ettelson. Below these three managers were the supervisors in charge in each individual department within the three business units. For example, in the molding department where the Petitioner worked as Injection Molding Supervisor on the second shift, supervisors in injection molding on the first and third shifts as well as a first shift supervisor in the trim department, for a total of four supervisors, reported directly to molding manager Jerry Decker. Four supervisors reported to the Reinforced Hose Manager, Sidney Hood. Two supervisors reported to Profile Extrusion Manager Steve Wieczorek. Those three managers reported to Vice President Ettelson. After the re-structuring, supervisors remained in place on the first and third shifts, but on the second shift no supervisors remained who would be reporting to the department managers Decker, Hood and Wieczorek. Instead, Don Brumley, re- hired from retirement as the second shift plant superintendent, reported directly to Vice President Ettelson. Don Brumley was therefore in charge of all three business units during the second shift. His duties were much more substantial than the Petitioner's. He managed approximately 60 people while the Petitioner had managed approximately 20 to 23 people. Mr. Brumley had more administrative duties than did the Petitioner. He had hiring and firing authority that the Petitioner did not have and had the responsibility for adherence to company policy on the entire second shift rather than in only one department. Molding Manager, Jerry Decker, established that the re-structuring organization functioned effectively. It resulted in the elimination of the Petitioner's position on or about December 4, 1998. Additionally, two white males in supervisory roles were terminated by the Respondent because of the re-structuring. The Petitioner maintained that one of those terminated white individuals, Dan Lowery, had been out of work seven months with tuberculosis and was permanently disabled and, therefore, was terminated because he was not qualified to perform his job duties. However, the Human Resources coordinator, Nick Bores, the person with probably the most knowledge and insight concerning Mr. Lowery's employment capabilities, established in a credible fashion that Mr. Lowery had indeed been on leave for a few months due to his illness but returned to his employment duties with a full clearance from his physician to perform all of his duties. This testimony was corroborated by that of molding manager Jerry Decker and Vice President David Ettelson and is accepted. The Petitioner also contended in his testimony, in essence, that racially discriminatory motivation for his termination existed as shown by two incidents. One incident in 1997 involved an employee who had been disciplined in some way by the Petitioner, who then purportedly placed a "swastika" symbol on the Petitioner's car in the parking lot. The Petitioner asserts that the employee was not disciplined for that act, which he contends was indicative of racially discriminatory animus toward him by the Respondent's management. In fact, however, the Respondent did not discipline that employee because, upon questioning, he denied the conduct. The Respondent had no independent proof that he was guilty of the act. The Petitioner himself was not disciplined on an occasion when he was accused of sexual harassment by a female employee, because he denied it and the Respondent had no independent proof that he was guilty of the alleged conduct. Moreover, at about the same time as the "swastika incident" the Petitioner received a written commendation, signed by CEO Thomas Henry and Vice President Ettelson. These facts, considered together, tend to show lack of racial animus by the company management. The other incident described by the Petitioner related to management reaction to observing an employee under the Petitioner's charge failing to wear safety goggles. Mr. Ettelson purportedly told the Petitioner he would "kick his butt" if his employees again failed to wear protective goggles. This statement, if made, may be coarse or harsh, but was not shown to be other than an isolated occurrence. Moreover, it does not evince a racially discriminatory motive or attitude on the part of an employment-related decision-maker. The Petitioner maintained that his replacement, Don Brumley, was not qualified for the position created by the re- structuring and that his "lead man," Eddie Byers, was the only person in the department who could have performed the duties that the Petitioner had performed. This testimony, however, is rebutted by the testimony of witnesses Decker, Ettelson and Thomas Henry, the CEO of the company. Their testimony establishes that Mr. Brumley was well-qualified to assume management of the entire second shift operations as Plant Superintendent which included the scope of the Petitioner's job but included other substantial duties and responsibilities as well. In fact, with the exception of being retired for approximately one year, Mr. Brumley worked for the Respondent since 1963 and was the company's first employee after it was founded by Mr. Henry, his father and Mr. Henry's brother. Prior to his retirement, Mr. Brumley functioned as Compression Molding Manager, which was a position above the Petitioner's position level in the hierarchy of the company and at the same level as the Petitioner's former supervisor, Jerry Decker. In fact, Mr. Brumley, at one time, had a supervisory role over the Petitioner. The Petitioner's experience was limited to one department during his tenure with the company. Mr. Brumley, however, had worked in all departments in his 36 years with the Respondent. Mr. Brumley knew the operations of the company very well and bringing him back to the company to function as the Second Shift Plant Superintendent, with his skills and experience, saved the company substantial expenses by allowing it to avoid the necessity of retaining other employees. Additionally, Mr. Brumley had a reputation as a strict disciplinarian and Mr. Ettelson and the company management felt that stricter discipline was required for the operations on the second shift. When the Petitioner was terminated he was offered a severance package of four weeks' pay at the time of termination, but elected not to accept that offer. He was not offered a different employment position with the Respondent because no suitable options, in terms of his skills and qualifications and in relation to his salary level, were available with the company at that time. The Petitioner was earning $7.80 per hour, at the time of his termination and his annual salary, without overtime, was $16,234.00. During 1998, which was his best year in terms of income, he earned approximately $27,000.00 when overtime was added to his regular salary. The Petitioner earned a total of $13,175.72, in 1999 and earned $3,117.00 in unemployment compensation in 1999. He earned $7,513.51, when employed by Britt Landrum Temporaries, Inc., in 1999, and earned $1,608.01 when employed by Interim Services, Inc., in 1999. Additionally, he was employed by Transport Leasing Contract, Inc., in 1999 and earned $937.20 with that employer. Since approximately January 2000, the Petitioner has been working at the Waterfront Mission and earned $6.50 per hour, and then in September 2000, was raised to $7.00 per hour. The Petitioner concedes that with his qualifications and experience he could obtain employment at more than $7.00 per hour, which he makes at the Waterfront Mission. He chose to work at the Waterfront Mission because that employment is compatible with his calling to be a minister. He desires to have work which is compatible with his duties as a pastor for two churches in the area. He has earned about $375.00 per month as a pastor for his two churches since approximately May 2000. The Respondent presented evidence by witnesses Ettelson, Decker and Bores, the Human Resources coordinator, all of whom testified that the re-structuring plan, which included the elimination of the Petitioner's position, was for the purpose of serving the above-referenced financial business needs in relation to reducing costs, as the reasons which led to the Petitioner's termination. All testified that the primary goal was reducing costs in order to help the company to survive its business downturn, including the fact, established by Mr. Henry's testimony, that the United Auto Workers strike of the Delphi Division of General Motors began in the summer of 1998. This caused a loss of approximately one-million dollars per month. That is the reason that the re-structuring was effected which allowed them to bring in a more experienced man, Mr. Brumley, who was qualified to run the entire department at lower costs as the Plant Superintendent on the second shift, rendering the Petitioner's job and position unnecessary. Their testimony that these business reasons were the cause of the re- structuring and the Petitioner's termination is accepted, rather than the Petitioner's contention that the reasons for his termination involved his race.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry, P.L. 1108-A North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501 Heather Fisher Lindsay, Esquire Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, P.C. 1400 South Trust Tower Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Azizi Coleman, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether two persons were employees or independent contractors of Respondent, pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if employees, an additional issue is the penalty that Petitioner should impose against Respondent for his failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the two employees.
Findings Of Fact At the time in question, Respondent was in the business of erecting enclosures for swimming pools. On most of these jobs, Respondent served as a subcontractor of Commercial Residential Construction. On April 7, 1998, Respondent was providing labor and materials, as a subcontractor to Commercial Residential Construction, on a screened-enclosure job located at 2242 Otter Creek Lane in Sarasota. Commercial Residential Construction supplied the aluminum and screen used for this job. For this job, Respondent hired two individuals who had worked for Commercial Residential Construction or other independent contractors in the construction business. Respondent did not have workers’ compensation coverage for the two individuals working with him on this job. Respondent’s agreement with these two persons was to pay them, on a weekly basis, a specified percentage of the total price that Respondent was to receive for the work. If the contractor refused to pay Respondent due to unsatisfactory work, then Respondent would not pay the two individuals. The two individuals had to supply their own tools. Sometimes they transported themselves to the job site; sometimes, as a matter of convenience, Tom Dybalski, the owner of Respondent, transported them or was transported by them. The two individuals did not testify. Petitioner called Mr. Dybalski as a witness; otherwise, Petitioner’s witnesses consisted exclusively of staff and investigators. However, these witnesses were unable to establish the statements of the two putative employees because of hearsay. The findings of fact contained in this recommended order are derived from Mr. Dybalski’s testimony or admissions made to one of Petitioner’s investigators. However, the administrative law judge has not relied on hearsay testimony, which is admissible under the exception for admissions against interest, that Mr. Dyblaski admitted that the two individuals were employees. Mr. Dyblaski is an aluminum contractor, not an attorney, and his “concession” concerning a complex matter, especially given his obvious ignorance of the applicable legal criteria, is not entitled to any weight. Admissible evidence does not establish whether the two individuals had exemptions from workers’ compensation. Mr. Dybalski testified that he did not know whether they did. The two individuals did not testify, so it is impossible to determine from this source whether they had exemptions. The record is similarly devoid of competent evidence establishing Respondent’s contention that the two individuals were employees of Commercial Residential Construction while working on the subject job.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to obtain workers’ compensation coverage to two employees and imposing a penalty in the amount of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Louise T. Sadler Senior Attorney Division of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 A. Brent McPeek Attorney 3986 South Tamiami Trail Venice, Florida 34293 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race and sex, and whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for making complaints of discriminatory treatment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent JATC is an apprenticeship program which provides training to persons who desire to become journeymen electricians. JATC is supervised by the United States Department of Labor and a corresponding State of Florida governmental agency. JATC is based in Gainesville, Florida, and is headed by a six-member committee of three contractor representatives appointed by the area's National Electrical Contractors Association and three labor union representatives appointed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 1205. The committee decides disciplinary actions and policy matters involving apprentices. The committee employs a director. JATC's geographical jurisdiction is bounded at Wildwood, Florida, on the south to the St. John's River on the east, cutting across west of Jacksonville through Tallahassee and Panama City, Florida, to the west, and includes three counties in Georgia to the north. An advisory subcommittee deals with routine matters in and for the Tallahassee area, and a similar advisory subcommittee handles routine matters in and for the Panama City area. For matters which are not considered routine and require final action, the subcommittees refer the matters to the full committee at the Gainesville headquarters. JATC does not have actual offices in Tallahassee or Panama City, but utilizes the union halls for the subcommittees' activities. Persons desiring to become journeymen electricians apply to JATC to enter the apprenticeship program and, if selected for the program, are required to enter into an apprenticeship agreement with JATC. In order to complete the program, a person must complete 8,000 hours of on-the-job training, complete 144 hours per year of classroom training, and pass various tests. The apprenticeship program was originally designed as a five-year program, but JATC has condensed the classroom work and the on-the-job training to four years with no summer vacations. JATC is responsible for the selection, placement, and training of the apprentices as work is available. JATC does not employ apprentices. It refers apprentices for employment to participating electrical contractors for positions which provide wages and on-the-job training within JATC's geographical jurisdiction. When a participating contractor needs to hire electrician apprentices, the contractor contacts JATC. In turn, JATC contacts the requested number of apprentices and refers them to the contractor for possible hiring. The decision to hire an apprentice is made by the contractor, who also determines whether to terminate or layoff an apprentice. The duties of the apprentice on the work site are assigned by the contractor and may include such tasks as carrying trash and digging ditches. The policies and standards of JATC do not require an apprentice to be under constant supervision on job sites. Apprentices are provided direct supervision, which allows them the opportunity to have direction from persons who are knowledgeable in the type of work that is being performed by the apprentices. Opportunities for on-the-job training depend on the needs of the contractors. Jobs can last anywhere from two days to four years, and depend on the amount of building construction in the area at any given time. Due to the fluctuation in the number of jobs available in the various areas within JATC's jurisdiction, apprentices have been referred to and have worked on jobs in areas within JATC's geographical jurisdiction that are away from the apprentices' residences. Johnson, a black female, entered into an apprenticeship program with JATC in August 1998. She signed an Apprenticeship Agreement, sometimes referred to as an "Indenture," in which she agreed "diligently and faithfully to perform the work of said trade during the period of apprenticeship, in accordance with the registered standards of [JATC]." The Policy Statements of JATC govern the conduct of the apprentices. Johnson received copies of each Policy Statement in effect during the time that she participated in the apprenticeship program. She signed statements acknowledging that she had read, understood, and would comply with the Policy Statements. The Policy Statements provided: "Violations of J.A.T.C. rules and policy may lead to or result in termination of indenture or other action deemed appropriate by J.A.T.C." Johnson was interviewed and accepted for the first JATC class in Tallahassee. During the interviews of apprentices for the first Tallahassee class, the candidates were specifically asked whether they would be able to travel to other cities for work, away from where they normally resided. During her interview, Johnson did not indicate any problems or difficulty with traveling to work in areas away from her Tallahassee home. On October 16, 1998, Johnson was issued a Notice of Termination from Miller Electric Co. (Miller). She had been employed by Miller on referral from JATC. The reason given on the notice was that Johnson had resigned; however, JATC had actually pulled Johnson away from the job because it understood that Miller was going to terminate Johnson. JATC felt that Johnson had potential as an apprentice so she was referred to another contractor, Raytheon Constructors, Inc. (Raytheon) which had an opening for an apprentice. On March 12, 1999, Raytheon issued a Termination Notice to Johnson, terminating her employment for "failure to meet job site requirement," and indicating that she was not eligible for rehire with Raytheon. Johnson had failed a drug test. Johnson informed JATC of the situation with Raytheon. The Director of JATC advised her to present a clean drug test, which she did. Although the Policy Statements provided that Johnson could be disciplined for being terminated and receiving a "not for rehire," she was not disciplined. She was referred for more job assignments. By letter dated December 17, 1999, Johnson complained to the Director of JATC that she was not being given work when work was available. She requested that JATC force her former employer, Hartsfield Electric, to reemploy her, even though she complained that when she worked for Hartsfield that she was given "the hardest and dirtiest jobs they had." She concluded her letter by stating: "I will do what ever it takes to stay in this program, but I won't leave Tallahassee to do so." Johnson resided in Tallahassee and was unwilling to take assignments outside the Tallahassee area. When the Director of JATC received the December 17, 1999, letter from Johnson, he investigated her allegations, including her work assignments with Hartsfield. He determined that Johnson's assignments were within the duties of an apprentice and, although some of the tasks may have been "crappy work," that was part of being an apprentice. Hartsfield was not satisfied with Johnson's work and was unwilling to rehire her. Johnson received an "unsatisfactory job performance" evaluation from Atkins Electric Co. for the period April 13, 1999, to May 7, 1999. Because of her prior job performance, participating Tallahassee contractors were refusing to hire Johnson. JATC continued to accommodate Johnson's desire not to work outside the Tallahassee area. When a new contractor who did not have previous experience with Johnson would come to Tallahassee, JATC would refer Johnson to that contractor. Apparently Hartsfield changed its position and rehired Johnson at some point, because on May 15, 2000, Hartsfield gave Johnson a Notice of Termination. The notice cited lack of production, the need for constant supervision, and tardiness as the reasons for termination. The notice also indicated that Johnson was not eligible for rehire. The JATC Policy Statements provided that an apprentice who was terminated from a job or received a "not-for-hire" was to appear before the committee to discuss the termination before any disciplinary action would be taken. The Policy Statements also provided that the apprentice would not be reassigned to any job until JATC reviewed the termination. Johnson was noticed to appear before the Tallahassee subcommittee, who referred the termination issue to the committee in Gainesville. Johnson was issued a notice to appear before the Gainesville committee. No disciplinary action was taken against Johnson for the termination. The committee gave her the option of going to another location to find employment and, when work became available in Tallahassee, being sent back to Tallahassee to work. By letter dated August 9, 2000, Hartsfield wrote to the Local Union 1205, requesting that Johnson not be referred to Hartsfield and giving as reasons that Johnson did not follow orders well, was not dependable, and was irresponsible. On November 3, 2000, JATC notified Johnson to appear before the Tallahassee subcommittee for absenteeism from class. The class attendance sheets showed that Johnson had been absent from class three times from August to October 2000. No disciplinary action was taken against Johnson because of her absences. Around November 16, 2000, the Director got Johnson hired by a new participating contractor in Tallahassee. Johnson was terminated by that contractor for having a bad attitude. The contractor would not rehire Johnson. Johnson appeared before the subcommittee and requested that she be allowed to come up with a plan in which she would wire her home and those hours working on her home would be counted towards her required on-the-job training hours. The Director told her to put the plan in writing so that it could be presented to the committee. Johnson failed to prepare a written plan. After being on the job with Miller Electric for 28 days, Johnson received a poor performance evaluation on March 3, 2001. The evaluation indicated that Johnson needed improvement in her work habits, needed constant supervision, stood around and showed little interest in her job, was resentful and uncooperative, and had very little mechanical aptitude. Johnson was noticed to appear before the Tallahassee subcommittee concerning her poor evaluation. The subcommittee referred the issue to the committee in Gainesville. Johnson was notified to appear before the committee in Gainesville, which she did on March 27, 2001. She told the committee that she was getting mixed feelings on what she was expected to do on the job. The committee explained in great detail what was expected of her. Johnson acknowledged that she understood. The committee placed her on one-year probation and advised her in writing that "any further infraction to the policy statement could mean your immediate termination." Johnson filed an appeal of the action placing her on probation. The Director investigated her claims and spoke to anyone he could find on the job site in question. He interviewed the supervisors, who had been on the job with Johnson. Johnson was given the opportunity to provide the committee with the names of witnesses who could support her claim that she should have been given a better evaluation and any other information that she had concerning the performance evaluation. At the April 24, 2001, meeting of the Gainesville committee, the Director advised that he had statements from some of the people he interviewed. Johnson had not supplied the committee with any additional information. Having received no information from Johnson, the committee denied her appeal. On two occasions, Johnson told the Director that she believed the Tallahassee contractors were discriminating against her. On each occasion, the Director investigated her claims, interviewed individuals on the job site, and interviewed Johnson. Based on his investigation, he was unable to conclude that she had been discriminated against. Electricians in North Florida or Tallahassee cannot make a living by limiting their job opportunities to the towns in which they live. The supply of workers is greater than the demand for labor. After Johnson was put on probation, JATC continued to have difficulty finding any contractors in Tallahassee who would hire Johnson. The Director offered her referrals wherever work was available, such as Panama City, Gainesville, and Palatka. She refused the offers, and stated that she would not leave Tallahassee. Around August 7, 2001, JATC committee member and assistant business manager for IBEW Local 1205, Tommy Ward, attempted to contact Johnson by telephone to provide her referrals for on-the-job training work. He continued to attempt to contact her two times by telephone during the following week. Several referrals for jobs were available at that time. On August 13, 2001, Mr. Ward learned that Johnson had changed and updated her address and telephone number. He attempted twice to contact her using her new telephone number. He was unsuccessful, but he left messages for her to contact him. Johnson failed to return Mr. Ward's calls, so he sent her a certified letter dated August 15, 2001, advising her that he had been trying to reach her. She signed for the receipt of the letter on August 18, 2001. He continued to attempt to contact her by telephone after he sent the letter. From August 9, 2001, through September 5, 2001, Mr. Ward attempted to contact Johnson at least ten times, but was unsuccessful. The Policy Statements require that one unexcused absence from class in any semester may result in apprentices being terminated from the program. Johnson had been absent from class two times in August 2001. A certified letter dated September 10, 2001, was sent to Johnson by JATC notifying her that action would be taken at the September 25, 2001, Gainesville committee meeting to terminate her from her indenture with the apprenticeship program for failure to attend classroom training and failure to respond to work assignments. The letter was unclaimed, and the postal service returned the letter to JATC after the September 25, 2001, meeting. The committee was advised that Johnson had called the Interim Apprenticeship Director the day of the meeting, asking for the telephone number for Mr. Ward. Unaware that Johnson had not received the notice of the committee meeting, the committee voted to terminate Johnson from the apprenticeship program. By letter dated October 23, 2001, JATC notified Johnson that the committee had voted to terminate her from the program. The Policy Statements of JATC provide procedures for appealing actions of the committee. The procedure is as follows: APPEAL PROCEDURE If an apprentice feels that he or she has been treated unfairly or canceled without due course, he or she may file an appeal within ten (10) days of receipt of notice of the committee's action. This complaint shall be in writing and signed by the apprentice and shall include his/her name. No reinstatement shall be considered unless a written appeal is received within ten (10) days after receiving cancellation notice from the J.A.T.C. The Policy Statements also require that when an apprentice requests to appear before the committee, the apprentice has the responsibility to make certain that he or she is available at the time assigned by the committee. Johnson appealed the committee's decision to terminate her from the program. By letter dated December 21, 2001, JATC notified Johnson that her appeal would be heard at the Gainesville committee meeting scheduled for January 22, 2002. Johnson advised the committee that she would not be able to attend the January 22 meeting because her house had burned. JATC notified Johnson by letter dated February 13, 2002, that she could present her appeal to the committee at its meeting on February 26, 2002. Johnson received notice of the meeting, but failed to appear at the February meeting. The committee notified her that it would consider her appeal at the March 26, 2002, meeting. Johnson received notice of the meeting, but failed to attend the March meeting. JATC took no further action on her appeal after her failure to appear. Johnson claims that the younger white males in the program were treated differently than she. The only person that she could recall was Mark Hoffman, whom she asserted was absent more than she and was not disciplined for his absences. As revealed by the records of JATC, Mr. Hoffman was terminated from the program in December 2001 for a failing average for the year and for absenteeism. At least three males had been terminated from the program for absenteeism before Johnson was terminated. Johnson also claims that she was treated differently than the younger white males on the job site because she was given tasks such as cleaning up the work site and digging ditches. All apprentices are given tasks such as cleaning up the work site and digging ditches. It is part of the job. When a person progresses from an apprentice to a journeyman, the person is still expected to do work such as cleaning up the site and digging ditches. The evidence does not support Johnson's claim that she was treated differently in the duties that she was being given on the work site. Johnson was involved in an automobile accident in September 1999. As a result, she suffered a torn rotator cuff, which required surgical repair. Johnson brought suit against the other driver in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, Carol Johnson vs. Kone, Inc., and Kirk Kyle Pope, Case No. 01-CA-2412. Her deposition was taken in that case on June 10, 2002. In her deposition, Johnson was asked the following questions and gave the following answers: Q. And I am asking you, okay, do you think, do you think that you would be an electrician today if you didn't have the shoulder problem? A. Yes. Q. Okay, and why do you say that? A. Because eventually I will have to find another career. I have waited all my life to do work in construction. I finally found a job that I like and now I can't, I wouldn't be able to do it much longer. Q. Well, what, why don't you think you are going to be able to continue in your chosen field as an electrician or apprentice or helper? A. Because the pills, the pain pills I take they make me sleepy. They make me tired. I can, I can't get up and do like I used to, so eventually I will have to find a desk job. I won't even probably be able to go back to agriculture because you have to be able to work in the field. I will have to find another career. Part of the duties of an electrician, apprentice, or journeyman, includes being able to lift and carry over 50 pounds and having good motion ability. Johnson admits that during her apprenticeship and as of the final hearing that she had a physical disability that affected her ability to perform in the apprenticeship program. She stated that she would be slowed down in her work, and she would not be able to pick up and handle heavy things like she could do prior to her accident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Gainesville Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee did not discriminate against Carol D. Johnson based on race or sex and did not retaliate against her for making complaints of discrimination, dismissing her petition, and denying Gainesville Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee's request for attorney fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Donnelly, Esquire Donnelly & Gross Post Office Box 1308 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1308 Laura A. Gross, Esquire Donnelly & Gross Post Office Box 1308 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1308 Carol D. Johnson 1420 North Meridian Road, Suite 108 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner was employed by the respondent $` percent General Telephone Company in October of 1971. From November of 1980 to February 3, 1982, he was classified as a cable splicer. This position requires strenuous physical duties including climbing telephone poles, lifting and moving heavy equipment, handling compressed gas cylinders that weigh 150 pounds and digging splice pits. Performance of the duties of a cable splicer requires strong hands, arms, back and leg muscles. In November of 1980, petitioner suffered a back injury and was unable to perform the activities of a cable splicer. He was placed on Absent Injury status, thus receiving 80 percent of his salary, and returned to work on or about January 6, 1981. He then took left-over vacation time until January 19, 1981, and about one week later, a light duty assignment was located for him at the Seminole DART Center. Although this assignment required no driving, petitioner complained that the drive to and from the Seminole location aggravated his back condition and was difficult for him due to the medications he was taking for his physical problems. On or about February 17, 1981, petitioner was reassigned to duty as a clerk at the St. Petersburg main building. Due to several absences, complaints by petitioner that he could not sit, stand or bend for long periods of time and that alternating from sitting to standing was painful, petitioner was relieved of all duties on March 30, 1981. He was informed that he would again be placed on Absent Injury status until such time as respondent could verify with the treating physician exactly what petitioner was capable of doing. There is some indication that petitioner may have returned to work in a light duty position in May and June of 1981, though petitioner had no recollection of these dates. In any event, petitioner returned to Absent Injury status on or about June 23, 1981, and was paid Absent Injury benefits until approximately December 15, 1981. He was then advised that his Absent Injury benefits were exhausted, that he would be placed on vacation as of December 16, 1981, and that his benefits with respondent would expire as of December 31, 1981. Petitioner was further advised that he could request a 30-day leave of absence, provide a doctor's statement regarding his present condition and that, during that 30-day leave of absence period he could request an additional 5 month leave of absence. Upon the advice of his Union representative, petitioner did request and was granted a 30-day leave of absence, which expired on January 31, 1982. On January 19, 1982, a meeting was held with petitioner to discuss his medical condition. He was advised that there were no light duty positions available at that time and that his 30-day leave of absence would terminate at the end of January. Petitioner's supervisor suggested that he request further leave of absence without pay in order to protect his employment and continue his benefits. Petitioner became angry at this suggestion, refused to request additional leave without pay, and uttered some statement about a "personal tragedy." His supervisor felt that he had been threatened by Mr. Wiggins and notified the police. Petitioner was terminated on February 3, 1982. The reasons cited for the termination were failure to apply for an additional leave of absence before his last 30-day leave had expired and insubordination at the January 19, 1982, meeting. Petitioner presented no evidence that other light duty assignments were available in January of 1982. He made reference to two other light duty assignments held by other employees. He acknowledged that one such position held by a white employee required extensive driving, and admitted that he was unable to drive for long distances or long periods of time. The other light duty position that petitioner believed he could have filled was awarded to a black employee. Other than these two positions, petitioner was not aware of any light duty assignments which were available between May and December of 1981 and were not afforded to him. Petitioner also admits that he was unable to perform the duties of a cable splicer in 1981 and in January of 1982.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's charge that the respondent committed an unlawful employment practice be DISMISSED. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0606 The undersigned has carefully considered the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the petitioner and the respondent. The proposed findings of fact have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below. Petitioner: The document filed by the petitioner entitled "Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" contains neither factual findings nor legal conclusions. Instead, petitioner complains of the procedural rulings at the final hearing. The undersigned would only note that the final hearing occurred on a Friday and that the parties were advised that if the hearing were not completed on that day, it would be continued to a later date. It was only after the petitioner announced that he had no further witnesses that respondent moved for a directed recommended order and elected not to present any evidence after that motion was granted. Respondent: (NOTE: Any reference to the hearing transcript and Mr. Wiggins' deposition transcript are rejected inasmuch as neither transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings.) 23 and 24. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. Wiggins 4843 Campenella Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Kathryn M. Lancaster, Esquire 501 First Avenue North Suite 626 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Leslie Reicin Stein, Esquires Post Office Box 110, M.C. 7 Tampa, Florida 33601 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Regina McGriff, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
Conclusions Objections 3B, 3C and 3D involve factual questions which can only be resolved by an evaluation of the credibility of various witnesses. Consequently, pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8H- 3.28, a hearing shall be held where the underlying facts can be determined prior to ruling on the merits of those objections and the remainder of CWA's Objections are dismissed. It is so ordered. LEONARD A. CARSON CHAIRMAN 77E-207 THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on April 21st, 1977, this document was filed in the office of the Public Employees Relations Commission at Tallahassee and a copy served on each party at its last known address by certified mail. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION BY: Judy N. Collins Deputy Clerk
