The Issue Whether or not Petitioner abandoned her position in accordance with the terms of Rule 22A-7.010(2) F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner was employed as an FSDB groundskeeper. Robert "Curly" Schopmann, the Grounds Supervisor and Petitioner's immediate supervisor, considered her to be "a very good employee" during her two years of employment prior to June 19, 1990. Petitioner's performance ratings confirmed Mr. Schopmann's assessment that Petitioner's quantity and quality of work was excellent during that period of time. Petitioner suffered an on-the-job accident on March 20, 1990 for which the employer and the Department of Insurance, Division of Risk Management accepted responsibility under Chapter 440 F.S., "The Florida Workers' Compensation Law." In June, 1990, Petitioner requested that the employer provide further medical treatment by an orthopedic physician, which further medical treatment was approved and provided. As a consequence thereof, Petitioner was off work from June 19 to mid-October 1990. Dr. Charles, Petitioner's authorized treating orthopedic physician, prepared a list of "job limitations" dated October 3, 1990 (Heilmann Exhibit 2). There is no evidence Petitioner was provided with a copy of this until after her termination. Sometime between October 1 and October 5, 1990, a rehabilitation consultant/specialist and registered nurse also prepared another, slightly more stringent list of limitations (DOE Exhibit B) which was not "verified" (approved) by Dr. Charles until October 29, 1990. Since Dr. Charles did not sign this second, more restrictive list until October 29, 1990, it must be assumed that neither Risk Management nor FSDB personnel saw it until after that date. Petitioner testified that she did not see it until after her termination. Effective October 13, 1990, Dr. Charles formally released Petitioner to do light work. The day before, Petitioner received notification concerning her release for light work from Risk Management (DOE Exhibit A). In that October 12, 1990 letter, Risk Management notified Petitioner that she was to either return to her old job and do light work while receiving temporary partial disability payments under the workers' compensation law or she was to make a good faith job search among other employers as also contemplated by that law. An abbreviated list of physical limitations based on Dr. Charles' October 3, 1990 list was also given by Risk Management to the Petitioner in its October 12, 1990 letter. By mutual agreement with the FSDB personnel office, Petitioner reported for light duty work at FSDB on Thursday, October 18, 1990. Mr. Schopmann first suggested that Petitioner work at her own speed outside but acceded to Petitioner's rejection of the use of a scooter to get around and do outdoors groundskeeping when she told him the scooter was "too bumpy" for her injured back. Either of Dr. Charles' job restrictions/physical limitations lists would have permitted Petitioner to work with hand-sized garden tools, a scooter, a riding mower, or a rolling seat for 80% of her day outside with only 20% of her day inside, provided she moved around and rested as needed with no lifting over 15 pounds and no squatting, crawling, bending, twisting, rotating, kneeling, or climbing inside or outside. When she said she could not ride the scooter, Mr. Schopmann told Petitioner to pot plants and trim the plants in the pots inside the greenhouse and that when she got tired, she should sit down and answer phones in the office before returning to pot more plants in the greenhouse. This instruction was in accord with the limitations for light work placed on Petitioner by her doctor in his October 3, 1990 list of limitations. It also was within the parameters of the abbreviated list relayed to Petitioner in Risk Management's letter of October 12 and those of the more stringent list the doctor later approved on October 29, 1990. At formal hearing, Petitioner admitted that she had understood that the supervisor's instructions included answering phones in the office and that she was otherwise assigned to the greenhouse. On Thursday, October 18 and Friday, October 19 and on October 22-24, she went to the greenhouse and office but did not restrict herself to just the jobs assigned by Mr. Schopmann. Instead, she tried to do all the usual work that is required of full-time, unimpaired greenhouse personnel. This additional work was considerably in excess of the limitations placed on her by her treating physician in either his October 3 or October 29 lists of limitations and was never directly assigned by her supervisor. The Petitioner asserted that she did this additional work because she was relying on the information provided in the October 12 Risk Management letter and in a telephone conversation she had had with Ms. Battle of FSDB's personnel office prior to October 18, and because she personally had never seen either of Dr. Charles' lists of limitations. On Wednesday, October 24, 1990, Petitioner left work at noon saying that she had a doctor's appointment, which she in fact did not have. Instead, she went home to rest. On Thursday, October 25, 1990, she called in sick and, as it turned out, she did not return to work after that date. The Petitioner testified that she did not return to work after October 24 because it was too painful for her to continue the work she had attempted. On October 26, 1990, a letter was sent from FSDB by Ms. Stephanie Battle notifying Petitioner that she was expected to come to work unless she had received a doctor's statement and that she was expected to return to work no later than Tuesday, October 30, 1990. Because October 26, 1990 was a Friday, it was Ms. Battle's intention that Petitioner would receive the letter on Saturday, October 27 or on Monday, October 29, and would then be able to obtain a doctor's certificate before the employer's October 30 deadline, if, in fact, Petitioner were eligible to receive a doctor's certificate at all. The October 26, 1990 letter sent by Ms. Battle provided in pertinent part: You are required to return to your job with the approved restrictions immediately. If you cannot return to work, you must provide this office with a letter from your attending physician saying why you are unable to perform your job, what the inclusive dates are that you cannot work and the approximate date of your return. At the present time you are in an unapproved leave without pay status. I expect to hear from you no later than Tuesday morning, October 30, 1990. On October 29, 1990, petitioner telephoned Stephanie Battle and informed her that she had received Ms. Battle's October 26, 1990 letter, that she could not work, but that Dr. Charles would not give her a "no work disability slip." At that time, Ms. Battle told Petitioner that she must return to work and asked if Petitioner had told her supervisor that she could not physically do the work assigned. Petitioner admitted to Ms. Battle that she had not yet discussed the problem with her supervisor. Later on October 29, Petitioner spoke on the telephone with Mr. Schopmann. Mr. Schopmann told Petitioner that she had to come back to work on October 30 or bring a doctor's certificate saying that she could not work at all. At that time, Petitioner indicated to Mr. Schopmann that she was aware that if she did not come back to work or provide some doctor's certificate she would lose her job. Whether Petitioner was consciously aware of the abandonment rule or merely thought she would be fired for not coming to work is not clear from the record. Petitioner asserted that she called Mr. Schopmann a second time on November 1, still seeking to retain her job; Mr. Schopmann denies that such a telephone call ever took place. It does not appear that Petitioner and Mr. Schopmann ever had a meeting of the minds that Petitioner was attempting to do more strenuous work than Mr. Schopmann thought he had assigned her to do, but at no time did Mr. Schopmann urge Petitioner to work harder. In her testimony, Petitioner blamed the employer far not making her fully aware of the limitations placed on her by her doctor. Petitioner also asserted that Ms. Battle had telephoned Dr. Charles on October 24, 1990 to see if the Petitioner's job assignments in the greenhouse and office exceeded his prescribed limitations for Petitioner and, further, that in so doing, Ms. Battle had misrepresented to the doctor the tasks that Petitioner was, in fact, doing and that Petitioner believed that it was due to Ms. Battle's misrepresentations that Dr. Charles would not give Petitioner a certificate of "no work." Ms. Battle confirmed that she had called Dr. Charles at some point and represented to him the type of light work that she understood from Mr. Schopmann that Petitioner was doing in the greenhouse and the office. However, at the time she telephoned Dr. Charles, Ms. Battle also did not know that Petitioner had physically attempted more than she had been assigned to do by Mr. Schopmann. At the time of her phone call, whenever it may have been, Dr. Charles told Ms. Battle [admissible hearsay pursuant to Section 120.58(1) F.S.] that Petitioner could do the light work described by her and assigned by Mr. Schopmann. Petitioner admitted that she did not consult her doctor in his office on October 24-25, that she never spoke personally with Dr. Charles during this period of time or tried to get a "no work certificate" from him personally prior to October 30, 1990, and that she dealt with him solely through his receptionist. However, the doctor's October 29, 1990 list of limitations and Petitioner's recitation of what the receptionist told her [admissible hearsay pursuant to Section 120.58(1) F.S.] supports a finding of fact that at all times material, Dr. Charles felt Petitioner could continue to do the light work actually assigned by Mr. Schopmann, a description of which had been related to him by Ms. Battle, and that the doctor also felt that the Petitioner could do all the light work which the doctor later listed on his October 29, 1990 list. Petitioner never presented a medical certificate to her employer. There was no evidence at formal hearing of whether or not the Petitioner had any accrued annual or sick leave that she could draw on, but it is clear that she never applied for authorized leave. The Petitioner never returned to work. On November 1, 1990, Mr. Schopmann notified the FSDB personnel office that Petitioner had not returned to work for three consecutive days, that he considered her to have abandoned her position, and that he recommended her dismissal on that basis. (DOE Exhibit D) In a letter dated November 2, 1990, Mr. Sam Visconti, FSDB Personnel Director, notified Petitioner that she was deemed to have abandoned her position due to her absence on October 29, 30, 31, and November 1 (sic, see Findings of Fact 12- 13), and that she was dismissed based on Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), F.A.C. That letter reads in pertinent part: You failed to report or call in to work for four (4) consecutive work days on October 29, 30, 31, and November 1, 1990. In accordance with Chapter 22A-7.010(2), of the Florida Administrative Code, State Personnel Rules and Regulations, you have abandoned your position. Abandonment of position is considered and treated as a resignation from your job. Your resignation is effective 12:01 a.m., November 2, 1990. Petitioner had been on unauthorized leave without pay since October 24, 1990. However, due to the terms of Ms. Battle's October 26, 1990 letter, the only three days which could be legitimately counted against Petitioner under the abandonment rule were October 30 and 31, and November 1, 1990. Petitioner is angry about the on-the-job accident and how it occurred. She testified that as of the date of formal hearing she continues to see Dr. Charles professionally and that she would not do so if she were not in pain and really injured, but she produced no medical evidence that she was physically unable to report for work at all on October 30 and 31, and on November 1, 1990 or that she was unable on those dates to do the jobs contained in Dr. Charles' October 29, 1990 list of limitations.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner abandoned her position by unreasonable absence on October 30 and 31 and November 1, 1990. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a lead operator on the first shift of the data entry section of Respondent company. Mr. John Goolsby was also a lead operator but on the second shift in the data entry section. Petitioner was discharged due to elimination of the position of lead operator and Mr. Goolsby was not. During the period encompassing the elimination of Petitioner's job, Respondent reduced its staff from 73 to 57 people and the data entry staff was reduced from 12 to less than 8 people. The decision as to which lead operator in the data entry section would be released from employment was based upon a decision to keep the most productive employee on the basis of quality and quantity of work. Although both the Petitioner and Mr. Goolsby were satisfactory employees, the most productive individual was identified through a series of evaluations by interviewing management personnel to Mr. Christman, Respondent's Executive Vice-President. Probably the most significant- input in the decision-making process was from Sandra Howell, immediate supervisor of both Petitioner and Goolsby, and the tabulations and comparisons of data were done by Walter E. Wilfong, Operations Manager. They all identified John Goolsby as the most productive individual and the decision to release Petitioner was made by Mr. Christman. At the time she was released, the company had no alternative position to offer Petitioner. She has since been offered reemployment in a different position. Petitioner was unable to establish that in making their recommendations to Mr. Christman either of the middle managers gave special or undue consideration to Mr. Goolsby's school schedule. Petitioner never received any written complaints or warnings or reprimands about her work performance and it was unrebutted that her job performance was satisfactory. Petitioner testified that the comparison of production between herself and Mr. Goolsby was invalid because Mr. Goolsby worked the night shift and Petitioner worked the day shift. Witnesses for the Respondent conceded that the night shift was generally not as productive as the day shift. However, the immediate supervisor of both the Petitioner and Mr. Goolsby both before and Mr. Goolsby after Petitioner's termination testified that Mr. Goolsby's work quality and quantity was superior to that of the Petitioner. This testimony was unrebutted. In addition, it was unrebutted that Mr. Goolsby had been nominated for company-wide awards for his quality as an employee on several occasions both before and after the Petitioner's termination and the Petitioner had never been nominated. Although there is some indication in Mr. Wilfong's testimony that Mr. Goolsby had the "edge" with him because Wilfong wanted someone who could communicate with Wilfong for liaison between various shifts, the evidence falls short of establishing this consideration was a deciding factor or that any edge was given Goolsby in the evaluation reports. Further, Wilfong attempted to compensate for Goolsby's showing greater productivity due to the "less people- more work" element of the night shift by reviewing Petitioner's productivity records from then she had previously been on the night shift, which did not compare favorably with Goolsby's for quantity. There is no competent evidence that Respondent terminated Petitioner on the basis of her gender, female, by the ruse of eliminating her position. Further, at the date of formal hearing, Mr. Goolsby's supervisor remained female (Sandra Howell) and there are 6 female/6 male supervisors and a higher female to male ratio of the total 57 retained employees.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Human Relations Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petition/Complaint herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 4th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-2866 All of the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are accepted. All are adopted, as modified to conform more closely to the record in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Terri Tibble 3040 Aloma Avenue, Apt. J-9 Winter Park, Florida 32791 Thomas R. Pepplar, Esquire Graham, Clark, Pohl & Jones 369 New York Avenue Post Office Drawer 1690 Winter Park, Florida 32790 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32299-1570
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issue of abandonment in these proceedings, the Petitioner was a Career Service employee. On January 13, 1988, while on leave from employment due to a work related injury, the Petitioner met with her new rehabilitation counselor, Irene Brzozowski. During the meeting, the Petitioner informed Ms. Brzozowski that she had an appointment scheduled with her physician at 5:00 p.m. on the following day. The purpose of the visit was to obtain a medical evaluation so that the Petitioner could return to work in a light duty capacity. The Petitioner incorrectly used the word "discharged" for the planned appointment. The counselor asserted that a "discharge" meant that the Petitioner had to return to work on Friday, January 15, 1988. The Petitioner said that her work shift began on Wednesday and that she would rather return to work on that day. The two women had different views over a decision which was a medical decision which neither woman was in a position to make. The discussion resulted from the Petitioner's misuse of a term that was accepted as a fact by the counselor. At the close of this meeting, the counselor said she would call D.H.R.S. to tell them that the Petitioner would be "discharged." The counselor went beyond what she told the Petitioner she was planning to do. On January 14, 1988, even before the medical appointment took place, the counselor misrepresented to Shirley Eaton, the administrative secretary at D.H.R.S., the following matters: That Ms. Brzozowski had seen a doctor's statement that the `Petitioner would be released on January 14, 1988. That Petitioner preferred to return to work on Wednesday, January 20, 1988, but based on the discharge, the counselor had instructed her to return to work on Wednesday, January 15, 1988. Based upon the counselor's misrepresentations, which appeared to Ms. Eaton to be predicated upon a doctor's written discharge and the Petitioner's personal knowledge that she had to return to work January 15, 1988, the Petitioner was placed on the work schedule for the following day. No one informed the Petitioner that she was scheduled for work on January 15, 1988, even before her doctor had rendered his opinion about her ability to return to work. On January 14, 1988, the Petitioner kept her doctor's appointment. During the examination, she told the doctor her work week began on Wednesday. As a result, the doctor told her he would give her a return to work date of January 20, 1988, for light duty activities. The return to work slip was partially prepared by Karen Nalewaik, a licensed practical nurse. She does not recall why she did not complete the note or why she put down the date of January 18, 1988, on the slip. The slip was signed by the doctor after it was completed by his staff and given to the Petitioner. January 15, 16, and 17 passed without the Petitioner's receiving notification that she had been scheduled to work those dates. Sometime after the Petitioner read the doctor's slip and before Monday, January 18, 1988, she noticed the return date was different from the one orally represented to her by her doctor. She did not inform her employer of the mistaken date. Instead, she returned to the doctor's office on Monday, January 18, to obtain a revised slip which accurately reflected his decision. Upon leaving the doctor's office, the Petitioner advised her employer of her return date. She was told she was unable to return because she had abandoned her position when she did not appear for work on January 15, 16 and A copy of her separation letter was given to the Petitioner on this date. The Petitioner did not abandon her employment. She had not been informed that she was to return to work without a medical evaluation. Her actions on January 18, 1988, manifest a clear intent to continue with her work duties for her employer. Her conduct between January 13, 1988, and January 18, 1988, was consistent in all respects with her testimony at hearing and her desire to remain a Career Service employee for the Respondent. The Respondent mistakenly relied on the new rehabilitation counselor who speculated, surmised, and erroneously substituted her own judgment for that of the attending physician who had been treating the Petitioner for related injuries for over three years. The doctor decided his patient could return to light duty work the following work week on January 18 or January 20 because that was when her work week began. His records show that she was not discharged and was still experiencing medical problems on January 14, 1988. Unfortunately, when the Petitioner tried to straighten this out with her employer after she was separated from her position, the counselor continued to be involved. The counselor had a new medical slip manufactured by a member of the doctor's staff on February 3, 1988, and presented it to the Respondent. The slip, which was never signed by the doctor, tended to support her prior misrepresentations that the Petitioner could return to work on January 15, 1988. Interestingly enough, the doctor's notes do not reflect the information placed on this third slip. It is also contrary to every other piece of credible evidence presented at hearing. Even during the statements under oath presented by the Respondent as the physician's deposition, the counselor was present. She interrupted the questioning at different times, educating the doctor on her version of the facts. Her slanting of the situation, as well as the endorsement of her version by Ms. Orser, a D.H.R.S. worker who also spoke during the deposition, make the doctor's deposition of April 22, 1988, unreliable. It is rejected by the Hearing Officer as incompetent and unreliable testimony due to the constant interjections of the two women with presumed facts and misinformation. The major mistake which kept reoccurring in this series of events was that various parties relied on everyone else but the attending physician to timely determine when the Petitioner could return to work. The doctor's first slip which was undated but was signed on January 14, 1988, is given great weight by the Hearing Officer. The second slip, dated only four days later, is given the greatest weight because it is consistent with all of the credible testimony presented as to why the Petitioner would be given a second note. As a result, abandonment could not have taken place on January 15, 16 and 17, 1988.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John C. Scott, has been a Career Service employee with the Department of Transportation for approximately ten years, assigned to the Centerline Maintenance Office in Pompano Beach, Florida. During all times material to these proceedings, Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Allen Thomas. Robert Lucas, Highway Maintenance Supervisor in charge of the District III Centerline Crew, is the Petitioner's second-level supervisor. Thomas and Lucas are the only individuals at the Centerline Maintenance Office authorized to approve leave for Petitioner. On May 23, 1987, the Petitioner was arrested for D.U.I. and placed in jail for fifteen days. After the Petitioner was arrested, he called his mother and asked her to inform his supervisor at work that he had some personal business to attend to and would need annual leave. On May 26, 1987, the Petitioner failed to report to work and had not previously requested leave from any of his supervisors. On the morning of May 26, 1987, Ms. Scott, the Petitioner's mother, called Mr. Lucas and told him that her son would need a couple of days off from work because of personal business. Mr. Lucas informed Mrs. Scott that annual leave could not be authorized over the telephone for personal business but that leave could be granted for an emergency situation. Ms. Scott reiterated that the Petitioner had some personal business to take care of. Mr. Lucas advised her that annual leave could not be authorized over the telephone under those circumstances. On June 1, 1987, Mr. Lucas was informed by Mr. Oshesky, the District Personnel Supervisor, that Petitioner's attorney had called and told him that Petitioner was in jail. The Petitioner was absent from work on May 26, 27, 28, and June 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1987. May 29, 30 and 31, 1987 were non-work days for Petitioner. At the time, the Petitioner's work week consisted of four ten hour days from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The last day that Petitioner actually reported for work was Wednesday, May 20, 1987. However, on Thursday, May 21, 1987, the Petitioner was absent from work on authorized annual leave, May 22-24, 1987, were non-work days and on Monday, May 25, 1987, the Petitioner was absent from work due to an official holiday (8 hours) and authorized annual leave (2 hours). On June 5, 1987, the Respondent advised Petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested, that he was being terminated effective May 20, 1987, (Petitioner's last day at work) for abandonment of his position. The Petitioner's absence from work and involvement with civilian authorities were related to an admitted alcohol problem. Since the Petitioner was released from jail, he has participated in a twenty-day in-patient substance abuse program at John F. Kennedy Hospital and is presently involved with a Fort Lauderdale after-care program. The Petitioner had been provided with a Department of Transportation Employee Handbook by his employers. The Handbook outlined the requirements for annual leave and leave of absences without pay. The Handbook provides in part as follows: Annual Leave - Get your supervisor's approval before taking leave. If an emergency develops, tell your supervisor of the emergency and ask verbal approval to use annual leave. When you return to work complete the leave request form, as appropriate. Leaves of Absence Without Pay - Upon request, you may be granted leave without pay ... for a period not to exceed twelve calendar months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Administration enter a final order finding that the Petitioner, John C. Scott, has abandoned his Career Service position with the Department of Transportation. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 16th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2750 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Partially adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Matters not contained therein are rejected as argument and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3, 5, and 6. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Hon. Kaye N. Henderson Department of Transportation Secretary Room 562 Burns Building Department of Transportation Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Patrick J. Curry, Esquire Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, 200 Southeast Sixth Street M.S. 58 Suite 200 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 32301 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire 435 Carlton Building General Counsel Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of insubordination for the use of excess leave and sleeping in his vehicle during working hours.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 21, 2004, Petitioner hired Respondent as a school custodian. Starting on December 11, 2007, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Toledo Blade Elementary School. One year later, Petitioner transferred Respondent to the Transportation Department, which is the building housing the transportation offices. As a custodian, Respondent is a "classified" employee. He is covered by the Classified Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association and Petitioner (the contract). Twice on the morning of April 25, 2008, during working hours and not while on a break, Respondent walked from his worksite to his vehicle, climbed into the vehicle, and nodded off to sleep. The first nap lasted for about one hour, and the second nap lasted about one and one-quarter hours. The second nap ended when Respondent's boss and the boss's boss walked out to the vehicle where they found Respondent, who had put the driver's seat down, laid out in the front driver's seat, with the radio on, sound asleep. They woke him and ordered him back to work. Respondent's defenses are: 1) he was not asleep; he was unconscious; and 2) he was suffering from extreme drowsiness due to medications that he was taking following his recovery from a three-month coma into which he had fallen two years earlier. Both of Respondent's defenses are makeshift. According to Webster's online dictionary, "sleep" is the "natural periodic suspension of consciousness during which the powers of the body are restored." (http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/sleep, as found on June 17, 2009) If he had suddenly lost consciousness at the worksite, no one would claim he was sleeping on the job. Instead, without reporting any difficulties to anyone, he walked out to his vehicle, made himself comfortable, and fell asleep. The problem was that his natural period of suspended consciousness coincided with time during which Petitioner was paying him. The requisite restorative effect is inferred. Nor is there any credence to the claim of a medical condition or effect of a medication that would leave Respondent unable to resist falling asleep while on duty. Although ample opportunity existed, Respondent failed, on the day in question, to bring to the attention of his supervisor any medical reason for sleeping on the job, which was exactly what he was doing. Article XXI of the contract authorizes discipline for "just cause." Sleeping while on duty, for over two hours prior to lunch, constitutes insubordination and just cause for discipline. The leave issue is more complicated. Petitioner is on a fiscal year starting July 1. For the entire year, classified, 12-month, hourly employees, such as Respondent, accrue six personal days on July 1. For sick days, these employees accrue one day at the end of July and three advance days. They then accrue a day at the end of each following month through March. Unused sick days rollover to the next year, but unused personal days do not. Personal days count against the sick days. In other words, if an employee has five sick days and six personal days and uses a personal day, he will then have four sick days and five personal days. Employees also earn vacation days. As explained by Petitioner's payroll supervisor, the payroll system facilitated recharacterizations between sick and personal days. However, the system did not incorporate vacation days in the same fashion. Thus, if an employee took off one day, without claiming sick leave, and lacked one day of personal time, the system would dock his pay, even though he might still have had sufficient vacation time to absorb the time that he had taken off. For the 2007-08 school year, Respondent used "personal leave charged to sick" as follows: September 12--8.0 hours; September 24--8.0 hours; December 20--8.0 hours; December 21-- 8.0 hours; January 30--0.5 hours; February 15--8.0 hours; and February 27--7.5 hours. On February 27, Respondent missed the entire day of work. Consistent with acceptable practices, on the next day, he submitted a form entitled, "Certificate of Absence." In it, Respondent requested approval for 8.0 hours of "personal leave charged to sick," rather than one of the other categories, such as sick leave or vacation leave. His supervisor signed the form. When the payroll supervisor checked his balances, she saw that he only had 7.5 hours of personal leave charged to sick, so, on May 2, 2008, Respondent had to sign a form entitled, "Request for Personal/Sick/Vacation Leave in Excess of Earned Leave." This form requested approval for the use of 0.5 hours of personal leave in excess of earned leave. The request was disapproved by the Director of Facilities Services with a signature bearing a date of March 13, 2008. The payroll department's practice was not to deduct personal leave charged as sick against vacation leave, if an employee consumed all of his personal leave charged as sick. On March 14, Respondent again requested 2.5 hours of personal leave charged to sick. His supervisor noted on the form that he "cautioned Tim to make sure he has the time available--Tim told me that he does. 3-14-08." By this time, it is unlikely that Respondent had received a new statement of leave balance reflecting the 0.5 hours that he had been short two weeks earlier. On May 2, 2008, Respondent signed another request for permission to use personal leave in excess of earned leave, and the Director of Facilities denied the request with a signature bearing a date of March 27, 2008. The same process took place again on April 11 for 8.0 hours on April 7. Petitioner notes that this request also violated policy regarding custodial leave on the day immediately after spring break, for which leave requests must be submitted well in advance of the leave sought. Article XVII of the contract requires a special procedure for leave on days immediately preceding and following a school holiday, but the emphasis in testimony was on the importance of adequate custodial staff on such days. However, the purpose of this policy is to address the needs of schools with respect to returning students. Because Respondent was not assigned to a school, nor had he been assigned to one temporarily for returning students, he was not undermining this policy by conforming to general policy, which allowed after-the-fact requests. In any event, as the payroll supervisor testified, it is possible that Respondent still had vacation time each time that Petitioner docked him for requesting personal leave charged as sick when he had already exhausted his personal leave. On these facts, Petitioner does not have just cause to discipline Respondent on the ground of insubordination or any other ground. There is no doubt that Respondent understood the interplay between personal leave charged to sick and sick leave, but there is considerable doubt as to, on the first two occasions on which he overdrew on his balance of personal leave charged to sick that he knew that he was doing so. Additionally, there is a reasonable possibility that he had available vacation leave, against which all of this time could have been charged; absent proof from Petitioner precluding this possibility, the entire dispute is reduced to the level of finding the proper account to debit these relatively few hours of missed work. This does not rise to insubordination, nor does it constitute just cause for discipline. Article XXI of the contract requires progressive discipline, which constitutes a verbal reprimand, written reprimand, suspension with or without pay, and dismissal. The next step in progressive discipline for Respondent is suspension with or without pay, not dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Sarasota County, Florida, enter a final order dismissing the charge of excessive use of leave and finding Respondent guilty of the charge of sleeping while on duty and suspending him, without pay, for five working days. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 2009, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Hunter W. Carroll, Esquire Matthews, Eastmoore, Hardy Crauwels & Garcia, P.A. 1777 Main Street, Suite 500 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Lisa J. Kleinberg, Esquire Law Offices of Kleinberg, Ingram & Murphy, P.L. 2189 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34237 Mrs. Lori White, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231-3365 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. was a subcontractor in the construction of the regional juvenile detention center located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The contracting authority for this facility was the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Contract for the construction let by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is in excess of $5,000.00 and pursuant to the provisions of Section 215.19(1)(b), the Division of Labor established a prevailing wage to be paid different crafts and occupations in construction of said 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 July 17, 1977 and January 1, 1978, John W. Culp was employed by Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. on this project as a plumber. During this period of time, Culp was paid at the rate of $7.00 per hour for regular time and $10.50 per hour for overtime. From January 1, 1978 until April 30, 1978, John W. Culp was employed as a plumber at the rate of $7.50 per hour for regular time and $11.25 per hour for overtime. While making $7.00 per hour, Culp was paid $3.07 per hour less than the prevailing wage for regular time hours worked and $4.60 less than the prevailing wage for overtime hours worked. During the period January 1, 1978 until April 30, 1978, Culp received $2.57 less than the prevailing wage for regular time hours worked and $3.95 less than the prevailing wage for overtime hours worked. The figures presented by the Respondent and those of the Petitioner do not agree concerning the number of hours worked. Exhibit 7 reflects that Culp worked a total of 856 hours at $7.00 per hour and 8 hours of overtime at $10.50 per hour. Exhibit 7 further reflects the Culp worked 683 hours at $7.50 per hour and 47.5 hours at $11.25 per hour. The amount Culp was underpaid prior to January 1 is equal to the sum of the regular hours worked times $3.07 and the overtime hours worked times $4.60 per hour. The amount Culp was underpaid subsequent to January 1, 1978, is equal to the sum of the number of regular hours worked times $2.57 and the number of overtime hours worked times $3.95. The amount that Culp was underpaid prior to January 1 is $2,664.72 and subsequent to January 1, $1,942.94 for a total of $4,607.66. The Petitioner has 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 of money paid for said hours. This affidavit was filed within the time prescribed by statute. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 215.19(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is currently withholding $4,779.74 from Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. while awaiting the decision of this administrative hearing.
Conclusions Petitioner has established that he was hired by and worked for Acco, Inc. as a plumber and that he was paid $7.00 per hour from July 17, 1977 until January 1, 1978 and that he was paid $7.50 per hour from January 1, 1978 until April 30, 1978. The prevailing wage for plumbers on the Juvenile Detention Center project was $10.07 per hour. Petitioner John W. Culp is entitled to the difference between what he was paid and the prevailing wage for the total number of hours worked by Petitioner at less than the, prevailing wage. The Hearing Officer, in his Recommended Order, addressed the difference in pay between the regular time worked and overtime worked. However, Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, is void of any statutory language concerning overtime. The statute only requires that the employer be paid "not less than the prevailing wage". Absent a legislative directive in Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, concerning overtime, the employee is only entitled to the difference between what he was paid and what he should have been paid at the prevailing wage rate for the total number of hours worked at a rate less than the prevailing wage. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to $4,383.23. Respondent's argument that the Division of Labor failed to properly adopt prevailing wage rates has been considered by the First District Court of Appeals of Florida in Vernon Neff, et al. vs. Biltmore Construction Company, Inc., 362 So.2d 442, (1st DCA Fla. 1978) and State of Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Labor vs. Matthews Corporation, 358 So.2d 256 (1st DCA Fla. 1978). The Court, in both cases, upheld the process by which the wage rates are adopted. Respondent argues that additional insurance benefits should be included in the wage rate, but such benefits are not "wages". The amount paid by the employer to provide insurance benefits should not be included in Petitioner's wage nor deducted from the amount owed to the Petitioner based upon this claim. It is, therefore, hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the contracting authority, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, pay to the Petitioner, from the amount it is withholding in this claim, the amount of $4,383.23 and that the remaining amount held by the contracting authority, pursuant to this claim, be paid to Acco, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of December 1978 at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEVEN H. CAMPORA, Director Division of Labor Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 200 - Ashley Building 1321 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone No.: (904) 488-7396 COPIES FURNISHED: Dewey H. Varner, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Petitioner 3003 South Congress Avenue Palm Springs, Florida 33461 L. Byrd Booth, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Respondent O'Neal and Booth, P.A. Post Office Drawer 11088 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 Luther J. Moore, Administrator of Prevailing Wage Division of Labor 1321 Executive Center Drive, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Koval, Esquire Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security 401 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer Department of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Division of Labor enter is order directing the contracting authority to pay the employee the sum of $4,607.66 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, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dewey H. Varner, Jr., Esquire Culp and Fisher 3003 South Congress Avenue Palm Springs, Florida 33461 L. Byrd Booth, Jr. Esquire Post Office Drawer 11089 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION OF LABOR JOHN W. CULP, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1281 ACCO, INC., Respondent. / FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER Upon due notice to all parties in the above-styled cause, an administrative hearing was held on September 15, 1978, in West Palm Beach, Florida before Stephen F. Dean, the assigned hearing officer. STATEMENT OF CLAIM: This cause was presented on a claim filed by John W. Culp against Acco, Inc. alleging that he had been hired by Acco, Inc. in the capacity of a plumber and that Acco, Inc. had failed to pay him the prevailing wage for plumbers as required by Section 215.19, Florida Statutes. The question presented in this case is how many hours the Petitioner, John Culp, worked, the wage paid the Petitioner, and what, if any, difference exists between the wage paid the Petitioner and the prevailing wage. FINDINGS OF FACT: Acco, Inc. was a subcontractor in the construction of the regional juvenile detention 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 is in excess of $5,000.00 and, pursuant to Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, the Division of Labor established a prevailing wage to be paid different crafts and occupations in construction of said project. The prevailing wage established for plumbers on this project was $10.07 per hour. During the course of this project, Acco, Inc. acknowledged by affidavit that all persons in its employ were being paid the prevailing wage as required by law. Between July 17, 1977 and January 1, 1978, John W. Culp was employed by Acco, Inc. on this project as a plumber. During this period of time, Culp was paid at the rate of $7.00 per hour. From January 1, 1978 until April 30, 1978, Petitioner was employed as a plumber at the rate of $7.50 per hour. Exhibit No. 7, the Weekly Time Reports of John W. Culp, establish that Culp worked a total of 856 hours at the rate of $7.00 per hour and 8 hours at $10.50 per hour. Furthermore, the Reports establish that Culp worked 683 hours at the rate of $7.50 per hour and 47.5 hours at $11.25 per hour. Prior to January 1, 1978, the difference between what Petitioner was paid end the prevailing wage was $3.07. After January 1, 1978, the difference was $2.57. The total difference between what Petitioner was paid and the prevailing wage for the time Culp was employed by Acco, Inc. is equal to 856 hours multiplied by $3.07, plus 683 hours multiplied by $2.57. The total difference is $4,383.23. Petitioner has complied with the provision of Section 215.19(3)(a) 1 and 2, Florida Statutes, by filing an affidavit with the contracting authority stating the number of hours worked and the amount of money paid. This affidavit was timely filed. Pursuant to Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is withholding $4,779.74 from Acco, Inc. pending the outcome of this claim.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Pace is an employer who is subject to the provisions of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, in its Florida operations. The company sells retail goods at discount prices to buyers who qualify for membership in the shopping program. During the Christmas merchandising season, it was decided that Respondent Pace would add temporary security staff in Tampa, Florida, until the close of the season. Six people were to be recruited for the positions. Petitioner White, a black male, was hired to fill one of these temporary positions beginning October 25, 1989. The employment contract clearly advised Petitioner the position was temporary, but it was anticipated that the job would last approximately ten weeks. Pursuant to the contract, Petitioner could resign at any time and Respondent could terminate the relationship at any time, with or without cause. Three of the people hired were black, one was Hispanic and two were white. All six temporary employees signed the same type of employment contract. About one month after Petitioner was hired, the front end supervisor observed that the store did not need all six temporary security guards for the season as originally anticipated. It was decided that one of these employees would be terminated. During Petitioner's employment, both the front end supervisor and the assistant front end supervisor found working with him to be difficult. Petitioner often challenged the directives given to him by his two supervisors and was critical and argumentative. He complained about scheduling, objected to break procedures and voiced protest about the small amount of time allowed for breaks. Of all of the temporary employees, Petitioner White was the most obstreperous in his relationship with supervisors and other employees. After discussion between the two supervisors, it was decided that he would be the employee asked to leave. On Friday, December 1, 1989, the front end supervisor resolved that Petitioner would be dismissed before the week was out. The work week ran from Monday through Sunday. In an unrelated event that took place after the termination decision was made, Petitioner White and another temporary security employee had an argument during their shift together. The squabble took place in the presence of customers at the front of the store. It was quickly suppressed by the assistant front end supervisor. After the front end supervisor became aware of the incident, she decided to complete the planned dismissal of Petitioner before his shift ended on that day because his disruptiveness was interfering with employee relations to a greater degree. Her decision was communicated to the store manager and he agreed to be close by when she discharged the Petitioner. When Petitioner was told that his employment was terminated because there was not enough work for six temporary employees, he did not believe the stated reason. He erroneously assumed the adverse personnel action was based solely upon the earlier embroilment with his co-worker. This argument hastened the planned termination by two days, but it was not the deciding factor. Overhiring of temporary seasonal employees is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination of temporary employees. There has been no showing that the reason stated for the termination was pretextual. The store manager approached Petitioner and the supervisor after the termination was announced but before the Petitioner had ended his loud protest of his supervisor's decision. The store manager told Petitioner to keep quiet and that he was "damn fired." Petitioner responded to the store manager's pronouncement by saying, "Brother, don't use no damn to me." The store manager then asserted they were not brothers. He called Petitioner a "damn nigger." Petitioner left the workplace, even though he had not cleaned out his locker and his shift had not ended. The derogatory comments relating to race were abusive and took place in the working environment while Petitioner was still in the status of an employee who was going through the discharge process. The use of the racial epithet by the store manager was demeaning and disconcerting. The next day, when Petitioner returned to clean out his locker, the store manager attempted to apologize for his derogatory comment. Petitioner did not accept the apology. Respondent Pace has well established policies which prohibit harassment in the work place. These policies include a prohibition against verbal comments that are derogatory in nature relating to another's race. Harassment of this type is not tolerated at any level of the company and will result in severe disciplinary action, up to an including termination of offending persons. Respondent Pace was not made aware of the store manager's use of the racial epithet except through this proceeding. The front end supervisor removed herself from the discussion between Petitioner and the store manager. She did not overhear the racial epithet. The use of the racial epithet was an isolated event, according to the facts adduced at hearing.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is recommended that the Human Relations commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition as an unlawful employment practice has not been demonstrated in this case. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3618 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5 - #7. Accepted. See HO #6. Rejected. Irrelevant. Petitioner was a temporary at will employee who was not subject to the company's personnel guidelines for company employees. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #7 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9. Rejected. It was not proved that additional security employees were hired after Petitioner was terminated. In addition, seniority was not the criteria used for termination. The proposed finding is contrary to fact. See HO #5 - #6. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #3. 3. Accepted. 4. Accepted. See HO #6. 5. Accepted. See HO #7. 6. Accepted. See HO #8. 7. Accepted. See HO #10. 8. Accepted. See HO #13. 9. Accepted. See HO #14 and #15. COPIES FURNISHED: ALBERT A WHITE 809 GRANITE RD BRANDON FL 33510 DONALD C WORKS III ESQ RUDEN BARNETT McCLOSKY SMITH SCHUSTER & RUSSELL 200 E BROWARD BLVD PO BOX 1900 FT LAUDERDALE FL 33302 RONALD M McELRATH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BLDG F SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE FL 32399-1570 DANA BAIRD ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BLDG F SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE FL 32399-1570
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed for 22 years at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital (GPWMH) as a human services worker I. She was a permanent career service employee. It is undisputed that Petitioner failed to report to work or to seek approval for leave after March 5, 1987. A notice was sent to Petitioner on or about April 14, 1987 by M. H. Townsend, Personnel Manager at GPWMH, informing her that an employee who is absent without authorized leave for three consecutive work days is deemed to have abandoned her position. On April 16, 1987 Petitioner signed a return receipt acknowledging receipt of this notice. She continued to be absent from her position without authorized leave and was notified on April 27, 1987 that she was deemed to have abandoned her position. Petitioner was therefore separated from her position with GPWMH. Petitioner offered no evidence to explain her unauthorized absence from March 5, 1987 to her separation on April 27, 1987. She testified she was not physically able to work, but did not support this testimony with any medical evidence. To the contrary, medical records introduced on behalf of Respondent indicate Petitioner was examined and determined to be able to return to light duty work in February, 1987. Respondent had thereafter assigned Petitioner to a light duty program consistent with her medical evaluation.
Recommendation The final hearing in this case was held on August 6, 1987, in Arcadia, Florida before Donald D. Conn, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented as follows: Petitioner: Marjorie R. Miller, pro se 1002 Rainbow Avenue Arcadia, Florida 33221 Respondent: George Oujevolk, Esquire Post Office Box 129 Arcadia, Florida 33221 The issue in this case is whether Marjorie R. Miller (Petitioner) abandoned her position at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital by being absent without authorized leave for three consecutive work days. Petitioner has requested the Department of Administration to review the facts of this case and to issue a ruling as to whether the circumstances constitute an abandonment of her position. At the hearings Petitioner testified on her own behalf and also called Georgia Edwards and May Robinson. Respondent called M. H. Townsend, Louise Bell, Denise Wood, and Ellen Walters. Respondent introduced eight exhibits. No transcript or proposed findings of fact have been filed.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Janet Truett was a former vocational rehabilitation client due to a hearing problem. After successfully completing the program, she was employed as a secretary by the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation in Tampa, a position which she retained for approximately five years. In 1983, petitioner often took annual leave, sick leave and leave without pay, usually calling in at the last minute. On October 13, 1985, her immediate supervisor advised her that "in the future, all leave must be approved in advance except for emergency sick leave." (HRS Exhibit 1). Due to an automobile accident and gall bladder surgery, Mrs. Truett was absent from work approximately one-fourth of the time from mid-November of 1984 through mid-April of 1985. On April 22, 1985, petitioner and her supervising counselor had a conference and discussed her continued use of leave without pay. Petitioner was advised that her absence put undue stress on the rest of the unit and that her physician was being consulted to determine if she was able to return to work on a full-time basis. Another conference was to be scheduled after receiving her doctor's response. By letter dated April 30, 1985, Dr. Michael J. Wiley advised petitioner's supervisor that petitioner had been discharged from care after recovering from her surgery on March 18, 1985, but had come back to his office on April 3, 1985, complaining of abdominal pain. She was instructed to stay home and return for a follow-up visit the following week. She did not return to Dr. Wiley's office after April 3, 1985. Petitioner received her annual performance evaluation on May 2, 1985, with an overall rating of "conditional". The areas of deficiency included dependability, quality of work and quantity of work. Petitioner was advised that her attendance at work would be monitored over the next sixty days and that she would "not be given any approved leave whether sick leave, annual leave or leave without pay without a written explanation. If she falls ill during the 60 days she must provide me with a doctor's report indicating her problem. If she is to take any other type of leave she must provide me with a written explanation. I will then make a determination as to whether or not I will approve this leave." (HRS Exhibit 3). On May 17, 1985, petitioner called her supervisor and indicated she had car problems. She did not come in to work for the entire day. A counseling session was held on May 20, 1985, and petitioner was advised by her supervisor that she was expected to take the city bus or arrange for other transportation should she experience further car trouble. On May 24, 1985, petitioner called her supervisor at 9:45 A.M. and requested leave because of an alleged family problem. She was told that her story would be verified and was reminded that she had been instructed to call in to request leave before 8:30 A.M. The stated reason for her absence on May 24, 1985 was not truthful. On May 28, 1985, petitioner called in at 8:20 A.M. and requested leave, stating that her car had broken down and that she had numerous family problems. She was told that the leave for May 24 and May 28, 1985, would not be approved. On May 29, 1985, she arrived to work late at 8:15 A.M. Also on that date, she received a written reprimand from her supervisor for taking unauthorized leave on May 24 and May 28, 1985. She was instructed to be honest and to call in by 8:30 A.M. if she was going to be out for any reason. On May 31, 1985, petitioner was granted approval for three hours leave in order to get her electricity turned on. On June 3, 1985, she called in requesting leave stating that she still had no electricity, that she had been up late the night before due to family problems and that she had no way to get to work anyway. Her daughter picked up some checks for her around 1:10 P.M. On June 4, she came to work but requested leave. This request was not approved and she received a second written reprimand for taking unauthorized leave on June 3, 1985. In this second reprimand dated June 4 but signed June 11, 1985, petitioner was advised that "further occurrences of unauthorized leave could result in a suspension or dismissal." (HRS Exhibit 5) A counseling session was held with petitioner on June 4, 1985, to review her job performance since the time of her conditional performance rating. She was advised that her attendance problem had not improved. She was referred to the Employee Assistance Program and was advised that the only way she could obtain future approved sick leave was to provide her supervisor with a doctor's statement. On June 14, 1985, a Friday, petitioner called in and requested sick leave. Her supervisor told her that in order for him to approve her sick leave, she must provide him with a doctor's report. On June 17 and 18, 1985, petitioner failed to report to work and failed to request additional leave. On June 19, 1985, she called in and said she was "too upset" to come to work. When asked if she had seen a doctor, she replied that she had not. Petitioner was then advised by her supervisor that he would not approve her leave for June 14, 17 or 18, 1985. When petitioner was absent from work, other secretaries in the office were required to perform her duties, as well as their own. This created a hardship on the other secretaries, and petitioner's frequent absences impaired both the quantity and the quality of her own work. By letter dated June 21, 1985, petitioner was advised that the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation was processing her resignation from her position as a secretary effective June 13, 1985 at 5:00 P.M. Citing Rule 22A-7.10, F1orida Administrative Code, it was assumed that petitioner had abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service since she had been on unapproved leave for three consecutive work days.
Conclusions Rule 22A-7.10(2t(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "An employee who is absent without authorized leave of absence for 3 consecutive workdays shall be deemed to have abandoned the position and to have resigned from the Career Service." The evidence clearly demonstrates that petitioner's absence on June 14, 17 and 18, 1985, was not authorized. Petitioner does not even contend that it was authorized, but merely urges that it was not "reasonable" for her supervisor not to grant her retroactive approval for these absences. Given the numerous amount of leave time utilized by the petitioner and the repeated warnings, both oral and written, concerning future absences, HRS's action can hardly be termed "unreasonable." Petitioner's supervisors and co-workers were aware that petitioner had medical and personal problems and attempted to work around those problems and provide help and counseling to her. Her absences were both disruptive to the operation of the office as a whole and affected the quality and quantity of her own performance. Petitioner was repeatedly advised and counseled concerning the problems her absences were causing and was instructed and warned of the proper procedure to follow should future absences be necessary. It is difficult to envision any further steps HRS could have taken to solve petitioner's problems with continued absences. She was fully aware of the consequences which would ensue should she fail to report to work without authorized leave. Nevertheless, she chose to do so in the face of two written reprimands within a one-week period, and the passage of less than ten days between the second written reprimand and June 14, the first of her three days of absence without authorized leave. Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code; is clear and mandates the action to be taken when an employee is absent without authorized leave for three consecutive work days. A review of the facts of this case clearly supports the conclusion that petitioner abandoned her position with HRS and must be deemed to have resigned from the Career Service.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner Janet E. Truett be deemed to have abandoned her position with HRS and to have resigned from the Career Service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 19th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 19th day of November, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet Truett 1605 East Kirby Apartment B Tampa, Florida 33610 Robert Cox Regional Director, ASCME 4404 Westmoreland Court New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Claudia Isom-Rickert District VI Legal Counsel 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Richard L. Kopel Deputy General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================ =
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service under the facts and circumstances of this case. At the hearing the Respondent offered eleven exhibits into evidence and presented the testimony of two witnesses, Charles Crozier and Sam Visconti. The Petitioner offered two exhibits, both of which were rejected. The Petitioner did not call any witnesses to testify on his behalf. He expressly declined to be sworn as a witness and testify on his own behalf, even after being specifically advised of his right to do so and being specifically advised that no findings of fact could be made on the basis of his unsworn assertions.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the sworn testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner, Leroy Williams-El, commenced his employment with the Respondent, Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, in 1977. His last position was Dorm Supervisor I, which position he had held since the 1980-81 school year. The position Petitioner held was somewhat critical in that not only did he have to oversee the portion of the dormitory that was assigned to him, but he was also specifically in charge of the care and safety of some ten or twelve students. The Petitioner was a permanent employee, but his work period coincided generally with the school year and ran for ten months, generally from August to June each year. The Petitioner's last official work day was June 11, 1985. He was not in a work status during the summer of 1985. The dorm supervisors were supervised by Charles Crozier, Director of Student Life. At the end of the 1985 school year, the dorm supervisors remained at the school for approximately a week after the students had left and the administration conducted a post-planning week. During the post-planning week, Crozier met with the employees, discussed the upcoming 1985-86 school calendar, and Petitioner and the other dorm supervisors were told that their date to report back to work was August 26, 1985. In addition to discussing the return date with the various employees at the June post-planning meeting, Crozier, under date of August 21, 1985, mailed a letter to the Petitioner at his last known address as it appeared in the school file, that is, 75 1/2 Lincoln Street, St. Augustine, Florida 32084, reminding the Petitioner that his return date for reporting back for work was August 26, 1985. The Petitioner did not return to work as instructed on August 26, 1985. On August 27, 1985, the Petitioner called Crozier and advised Crozier he had been unable to report to work on August 26, 1985. He was advised by Crozier that he must report to work on Thursday, August 29, at 8:00 a.m. (Exhibit 2) The Petitioner did not report to work on August 29, but instead again called Crozier. Crozier, at this point, got the personnel officer of the school, Sam Visconti, on the phone with him. During the conversation on August 29, 1985, the Petitioner requested that the school "transfer" him to a position with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in Miami. Crozier and Visconti both explained to him that the school had no authority to "transfer" the Petitioner to another job with another agency in another city. He was told that he should report to work immediately or submit a request for leave without pay. At the time of Petitioner's telephone call on August 29, 1985, Crozier had already prepared a letter dated August 29, 1985, advising the Petitioner that inasmuch as he had failed to report to work on August 26 and had not reported on August 29 as directed, he was being given an official reprimand. He was further advised that if he did not contact Crozier by September 4, 1985, he would be suspended without pay and failure to report to work would result in his termination. The Petitioner did not report to work on September 4, 1985, as instructed. On September 6, 1985, Crozier received a call from Lynn Rowe, Visconti's assistant in the personnel office, relaying a telephone call from a lady purporting to be the Petitioner's sister. Ms. Rowe was inquiring whether or not Crozier had any instructions for the Petitioner. Crozier advised Ms. Rowe that the Petitioner was to report to work by the time his normal work week would start, which would be Sunday, September 8. The Petitioner did not report to work on September 8, September 9, or September 10, 1985. The Petitioner did not call in and make contact with Crozier or Visconti on any one of those days. When the Petitioner did not report to work for those three days, Crozier again contacted Sam Visconti, the personnel officer, and reported this fact to him. At no time during the period from August 26 through September 10, 1985, did the Petitioner request from Crozier or Visconti, the personnel officer, annual leave, leave without pay, or any other type of approved leave. The conversations he had with Crozier and Visconti concerned a request that he be "transferred" to a job with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in Miami. On September 11, 1985, after Crozier advised Visconti of the Petitioner's failure to report to work, Visconti prepared a dismissal letter under the date of September 11, 1985. This letter summarized the chronology of events concerning Petitioner's failure to report to work and advised the Petitioner that he was considered to have abandoned his position. Petitioner was further told of his right to seek a determination and review of his abandonment. The letter of September 11, 1985, was mailed to the Petitioner's last known address in the personnel file, which was the St. Augustine address. Late in the afternoon of September 11, Petitioner called Visconti and informed him of the new address in Miami, Florida. Visconti then sent an additional copy of the same letter to Petitioner on September 13, 1985, to the Miami address. The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind is a separate state agency and is not in any way connected with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Furthermore, the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind has no offices or positions available in the Miami area. Visconti and Crozier discussed with Petitioner his repeated requests for a "transfer" on more than one occasion and repeatedly advised him the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind had no authority to transfer him to a different job with another state agency. At no time did the Petitioner request a leave of absence from Visconti. Visconti advised the Petitioner of the critical nature of his position as a Dorm Supervisor I and explained to him the difficulties created by Petitioner's failure to return to work. Visconti further advised the Petitioner that if he wanted a leave of absence, the personnel officer had to receive the request for the leave of absence in writing and the president of the school would consider the request after it had been received. It was imperative, however, that the Petitioner either bring or mail in a written request for a leave of absence. The Petitioner did not send a request for leave of absence to the school. The last conversation Crozier had with the Petitioner occurred sometime in late October or November and concerned a request by the Petitioner that Crozier send a copy of the Petitioner's college transcripts to an HRS office in Miami. At that time the Petitioner did not request to be re-employed or to be reinstated. Crozier mailed the materials as requested. Williams did not report to the school for employment on or after August 26, 1985, and was considered to have resigned effective September 10, 1985.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing it is recommended that a Final Order be issued concluding that the Petitioner abandoned his position and that his petition should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of July 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Leroy Williams 1360 N.W. 199th Street Miami, Florida 33169 Mr. Leroy Williams-E1 10566 McLaurin Road Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Mr. Samuel R. Visconti Personnel Officer Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind 207 North San Marco Avenue St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Gene T. Sellers, Esquire State Board of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda H. Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Kopel, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on each of the findings of fact proposed by each of the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner The rulings which follow immediately below refer to the five (5) unnumbered paragraphs which appear under the caption "Facts To Examine" in Petitioner's post-hearing document titled Order To Commence On Final Argument. The paragraphs are referred to in the order in which they appear. First paragraph on first page: First sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion not supported by the evidence. The last sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. First paragraph on second page: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second paragraph on second page: This paragraph is rejected in its entirety as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Third paragraph on second page: This paragraph is rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings. Fourth paragraph on second page: This paragraph is rejected in its entirety as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent All of the findings proposed by the Respondent have been accepted with a few editorial modifications in the interest of clarity and accuracy. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION LEROY WTLLlAMS-EL, Petitioner, vs. DOA Case No. AB-85-18 DOAH Case No. 85-3600 FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND, Respondent. /
