The Issue By amended petition for hearing, the Petitioner requested a hearing on the Department's determination that the Petitioner is obligated to refund to the Department the sum of $53,724.00, which the Department asserts is the amount by which the Petitioner was overpaid pursuant to Wagner-Peyser Contract No. SA016. For numerous reasons recited in its Petition and argued in its post-hearing brief, the Petitioner contends that it should not be required to refund the disputed sum. At the formal hearing, both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and both parties offered exhibits in support of their respective positions. Following the hearing, a transcript was prepared and the parties were allowed until November 19, 1988, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Thereafter, upon joint motion of the parties, the period for filing post-hearing briefs and/or proposed recommended orders was extended until December 6, 1988. Both parties timely filed post-hearing briefs in a format more customary to appellate than to administrative hearing proceedings. The parties' briefs have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. Specific rulings on the factual assertions of the parties are contained in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. In November of 1984 the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into a contract which has the following title: GOVERNOR'S WAGNER-PEYSER 10% DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FIXED-UNIT PRICE CONTRACT CONTRACT NO. SA016 "STATEWIDE FARMWORKERS JOB PLACEMENT PROJECT" Paragraph 1.A. of the subject contract contains the following description of the project activities: The Florida AFL-CIO United Labor Agency will operate a statewide job placement program to meet the increased employment needs of migrants/farmworkers and related workers in- volved in the processing of agricultural pro- ducts. The Agency will coordinate and work with farmworker advocacy organizations in Apopka and Dade City, Florida, to recruit and identify participants. Unsubsidized employ- ment opportunities will be developed with unions, apprenticeship programs, and private sector employers. The employment resources of the Agency will be coordinated and inte- grated with those of the Job Service and local PICs. Paragraph 2.A. of the subject contract contains a "work activity plan" described as follows: To recruit and provide employability counseling to migrants/farmworkers; To place 230 migrants/farmworkers into unsubsidized, non-agricultural employment with a duration of 30 days or more; To integrate the employment resources of unions and the United Labor Agency with those of the Job Service. Prepare and submit a final narrative report to DLET documenting the success and failures of the project. Paragraph 2.B. of the subject contract contains the following description of the performance units applicable to the contract: The contractor will make up to 230 place- ments in unsubsidized employment over the course of the contract period at $726.00 each, for a total amount not to exceed $166,980.00. A placement will be defined as employment by a participant engaged in work for at least 35 hours per week, in a job paying at least the minimum wage, for a period of at least 30 calendar days. At Paragraph 2.D. of the subject contract, under the subcaption "ACTIVITY/PAYMENT SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE UNITS," the contract provides, in pertinent part: The contractor will be advanced $37,062.00. The advance will be repaid monthly by deducting $6,177.00 per month from the amount of deliverables produced over a six month period, beginning with the November 1984 invoice and being completed with the April 1985 invoice. There will be one performance unit for this contract, and it will be for placement at the rate of $726.00 each. Paragraph 14.e. of the subject contract reads as follows: The Contractor is responsible for fulfilling all terms and conditions of this Contract. While the DLET shall monitor the Contrac- tor's performance under the Contract, the Contractor remains solely responsible for its performance. The DLET monitoring of the Contract shall not constitute a waiver or modification of any term or condition. Terms and conditions may only be modified by written contract amendment as specified herein. One of the documents used in the administration of the subject contract was a Form BRI-100, which was designed so that three individuals had to sign the form to certify that a valid job placement had been accomplished. The required signatures were those of the employer, the farmworker/employee, and a representative of the Petitioner. Early in the administration of the contract the Petitioner began to have problems obtaining employer signatures on Form BRI- 100, especially where employment was obtained through union hiring halls. At the behest of the Petitioner, the Respondent deleted the requirement that the employer sign the form and permitted the form to be signed by a representative of the union hiring hall. During the course of the Petitioner's performance of the subject contract, one of the Petitioner's employees submitted fraudulent documentation on numerous occasions. The fraudulent documentation purported to be evidence of successful job placements under the contract. The fraudulent documentation was submitted to the Respondent and the Respondent paid money to the Petitioner on the basis of the fraudulent documentation. A post-performance audit revealed that 74 of the job placements for which the Petitioner was paid were in fact fictitious placements supported by fraudulent documentation. As a result of the fraudulent documentation, the Petitioner was paid $726.00 for each of 74 fictitious job placements, a total of $53,724.00. The $53,724.00 which was paid on the basis of fraudulent documentation was paid to the Petitioner solely because at the time of making the payment the Respondent believed that the Petitioner had made 74 placements which, in fact, were never made. The Respondent's belief that the 74 placements had been made was based on the fact that the Petitioner submitted fraudulent documentation claiming payment for 74 job placements that had not been made. In fairness to the Petitioner it should be noted that at the time the fraudulent documentation was submitted the officers and managing agents of the Petitioner did not know that one of their employees was preparing fraudulent documentation. Further, as soon as the officers and managing agents of the Petitioner discovered that one of their employees had been submitting fraudulent documentation, they candidly reported the problem to the Respondent. The employee who prepared the fraudulent documentation described above did not abscond with the proceeds derived from his fraudulent actions. The $53,724.00 that was paid on the basis of the 74 fictitious job placements was paid to and retained by the Petitioner. The Respondent did very little in the way of monitoring the subject contract. More extensive monitoring might well have resulted in earlier detection of the fraudulent documentation submitted by Petitioner's employee.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend the entry of a Final Order finding that the Petitioner has received $53,724.00 to which it is not entitled under the subject contract and ordering the Petitioner to repay that amount to the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2755 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: The Brief of Petitioner does not contain any section specifically identified as proposed findings of fact. It does contain a distinct section captioned "STATEMENT OF THE FACTS," which I have treated as the Petitioner's proposed findings. The page numbers below refer to pages of the Brief Of Petitioner. Page 2: All but last four lines are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary background details. The last four lines are accepted in substance. Page 3: All but last five lines are accepted in substance. The last full paragraph on the page is rejected as unnecessary commentary. Page 4: First fourteen lines (plus last line on page 3) accepted in substance, but with most details omitted as unnecessary. The remainder of page 4 and the top four lines of page 5 are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details, as for the most part irrelevant, and as containing implications contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Page 5: First full paragraph is rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details; I have found that little was done to monitor the contract performance. The last four lines are rejected as argument or unnecessary commentary rather than findings of fact. Page 6: First twenty lines rejected as irrelevant and as unnecessary details. Paragraph beginning at sixth line from bottom is accepted in substance. Page 7: Top four lines (and last line of page 6) rejected as Irrelevant. Lines five through twenty-two are for the most part rejected as irrelevant or as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence, with exception of proposed finding that an employee committed fraud and that Petitioner promptly reported the fraud when it was discovered. Last four lines rejected as irrelevant. Page 8: First full paragraph is rejected as being for the most part irrelevant and as in part contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second full paragraph is rejected as argument or unnecessary commentary. Third full paragraph is rejected as Irrelevant. Last four lines accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Page 9: Top two lines rejected; the greater weight of the evidence is that all "disallowed costs" were caused by the fraud of one employee. First full paragraph rejected as irrelevant. Second full paragraph is rejected as for the most 12 part irrelevant, although some details have been included. Last three lines rejected as irrelevant. Page 10: Rejected as irrelevant. Findings proposed by Respondent: The Brief Of Respondent does not contain any section specifically identified as proposed findings of fact. It does contain a distinct section captioned "STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS," which I have treated as the Respondent's proposed findings of fact. The page numbers below refer to pages of the Brief Of Respondent. Page 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary background details. Page 3: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary background details. Page 4: First paragraph accepted in substance. The remainder of this page is accepted in substance with some details and some argumentative passages omitted. Page 5: Accepted as correct statement, but omitted as unnecessary details. Page 6: First paragraph rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Second paragraph rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Third paragraph rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Last paragraph accepted in substance with unnecessary details omitted. Page 7: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Sidney L. Matthew, Esquire Gorman & Matthew, P.A. Post Office Box 1754 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David J. Busch, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Stephen Barron, Esquire General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations described in the Administrative Complaint, as amended? If so, what civil penalty or penalties should be assessed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made to supplement the factual stipulations into which the parties have entered: Respondent was born in Mexico. She has lived in the United States since October of 1974. Respondent has a fourth grade education that she received in her native land. She is unable to read or write English and speaks and understands very little of the language. She communicates primarily in Spanish. Respondent lives with her husband and five of her six children, including her 21-year old daughter, Anna, who unlike her mother, is fluent in both English and Spanish. Recently, due at least in part to the inability of family members to find work and to the lengthy hospitalization of Raphael, Jr., one of Respondent's sons, the Rivera family has experienced serious financial problems and has been unable to pay all of its bills. As a result, the family home is in foreclosure and water service to the home has been terminated. The family's plight should improve to some extent, however, inasmuch as Respondent's husband started working again approximately a week before the final hearing in this case. Respondent, though, remains unemployed, as does her daughter Anna, although they are both actively seeking employment. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent has been a Florida-registered farm labor contractor. She received the first of her farm labor contractor certificates of registration in 1990. To date, she has an unblemished disciplinary record. Since becoming registered, the only statutory and rule violations with which she has been charged are those that are the subject of the instant case. To obtain her certificates, Respondent simply had to fill out application forms. The application forms were in English. She therefore went to the local Department Job Service office to obtain the assistance of a bilingual Department employee fluent in English and Spanish to help her complete these forms. In each instance, the Department employee assisting Respondent filled out the form after obtaining the necessary information from Respondent and, after doing so, presented the completed form to Respondent for her signature. Jesus Velasquez was the Department employee who helped Respondent complete the application form for her initial certificate of registration. Velasquez has been a Compliance Officer with the Department for the past nine years. During his meeting with Respondent, Velasquez briefly described to her some of the duties and obligations of registered farm labor contractors. Andre Jeudy, who was then an Agricultural Service Representative with the Department, but is now a Department Compliance Officer, helped Respondent complete the application form she submitted to obtain her second certificate of registration. The form was completed, signed and submitted on November 20, 1990. Item 7 of the form requested the applicant to "Check Each Activity to be performed Involving Migrant and/or Seasonal Agricultural Workers for Agricultural Employment." Two "activities" were listed. The first was "Recruit, solicit, hire, employ, furnish, pay." The second was "Transport." Based upon what he had been told by Respondent, Jeudy checked the first, but not the second, of these listed activities. Item 9 of the form asked, "Will Transportation be Provided the Workers?" If the response was in the affirmative, the applicant was further instructed to "Give number and type of vehicles used to transport migrant and seasonal agricultural workers." Based upon the information that he had been provided by Respondent, Jeudy marked the "Yes" box and wrote only the following to supplement this affirmative response: "TRANSP will be provide [sic] By company Bus (Okeelanta)." By her signature, Respondent certified on the form that "all representations made by me in this application are true to the best of my knowledge and belief" and that "I have read or had explained to me and fully understand the State of Florida Farm Labor Registration Law and its implementing regulations, and will fully comply with the requirements therein." By letter dated December 4, 1990, Respondent was advised by the Department that it had issued her the new certificate of registration (hereinafter referred to as the "1990-91 Certificate") for which she had applied. The certificate, which had an "expiration date" of "11/91," was enclosed with letter. Respondent's 1990-91 Certificate indicated that Respondent was "Transportation Unauthorized." The certificate provided the following explanation as to what it meant to be "Transportation Unauthorized:" Transportation Unauthorized- You are not permitted to arrange and/or provide transportation of migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. To obtain a certificate authorizing the transportation of workers within the meaning of the Act, you must file evidence of compliance with applicable safety and health requirements as stated in the Act and regulations and with the insurance of financial responsibility requirements provided therein. On September 18, 1991, Respondent went to the local Job Service office to apply for a successor certificate. The Department employee who assisted Respondent on this occasion was Mary Ann Ruiz. Ruiz accurately conveyed on the application form the information with which she had been provided by Respondent. The application form that Ruiz helped Respondent fill out was identical to the one Respondent had used to obtain her 1990-91 Certificate. With respect to Item 7, Ruiz checked the first ("Recruit, solicit, hire, employ, furnish, pay"), but not the second ("Transport"), of the farm labor contractor activities listed. As to Item 9, Ruiz marked the "Yes" box and gave the following written explanation: "trans provided by Okeelanta." No further information regarding such transportation was furnished on the form. As she had done the year before, Respondent certified the accuracy of the information contained in the application and her knowledge of, and her intention to fully comply with, the "Florida Farm Labor Registration Law and its implementing regulations." At the time of her application, she did not intend to transport any farm workers. By letter dated December 19, 1991, Respondent was advised by the Department that it had issued her the successor certificate of registration (hereinafter referred to as the "1991-92 Certificate") for which she had applied. The certificate, which had an "expiration date" of "11/92," was enclosed with letter. Respondent's 1991-92 Certificate indicated that Respondent was again "Transportation Unauthorized" and it repeated the explanation of the term that had been set forth in the 1990-91 Certificate. In 1990 and 1991, Respondent recruited farm workers to plant sugar cane seed and perform related tasks for the Okeelanta Sugar Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Okeelanta"). Okeelanta has substantial land holdings in the Everglades Agricultural Area on which it grows and harvests sugar cane that it then processes and converts into refined sugar for sale. Okeelanta paid Respondent a total of $10,958.90 for her services ($4,550.40 for services rendered in 1990 and $6,408.50 for services rendered in 1991). Okeelanta treated Respondent as an independent contractor. The workers she recruited, on the other hand, were considered by Okeelanta to be employees of the corporation. They were paid directly by Okeelanta, which made appropriate deductions from their paychecks. The workers were organized into planting crews made up of eight or nine persons each. At any given time during the 1990-91 and 1991-92 planting seasons, there were several crews comprised of workers Respondent had recruited for Okeelanta (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent's crews"). Okeelanta employed timekeepers to maintain records of the work performed by each of the crews in its fields. Anna Rivera, Respondent's daughter, was the timekeeper responsible for maintaining the records of the work done by Respondent's crews. Respondent's crews were supervised and directed in the field by another Okeelanta employee, Zone Supervisor Raphael Colunga. As the Zone Supervisor, Colunga had the authority to discharge any crew member under his supervision. Respondent frequently went out in the field to monitor the activities of her crews. She did so because the amount of compensation she received from Okeelanta was dependent upon the work performed by her crews. Respondent used her own vehicle to make the trip to the field. There was an Okeelanta bus that drove crew members from the Okeelanta employee parking lot to the field in the morning and back to the parking lot in the afternoon. Respondent's crews did not always arrive early enough in the morning to catch these buses. On those occasions that they missed the bus, the transportation that they used to commute to work was the transportation that they used to get to the field. Every employee that Respondent recruited for Okeelanta for the 1991-92 planting season, before being hired, was screened by the Department at its Belle Glade Job Service office pursuant to a written agreement between Okeelanta and the Department, which provided as follows: RECRUITING ARRANGEMENT Okeelanta Corporation It is the intent of Belle Glade Job Service (hereafter the Job Service) and Okeelanta Corporation (hereafter the "Employer") to bring together individuals, who are seeking employment, and the Employer, who is seeking workers without charging a fee. Therefore, The Job Service and the Employer enter into this arrangement: Assist job seekers in obtaining employment from the employer; Allow the Job Service to facilitate the match between the job seekers and the employer. Both parties enter into this arrangement with the understanding that each will comply with all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations (please see attached addendum of specific responsibilities) pursuant to Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 652, 655 and 658. BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THIS RECRUITING ARRANGEMENT WILL - Continue for no longer than one year from the date both parties have signed the document. Constitute the sole exclusive arrangement indicating how they will work together. Terminate upon either party's written notice for the other party that the arrangement will be cancelled in 30 days. Abide by the attached addendums of JS and Employer obligations. Addendum I to the agreement listed the Department's obligations. These obligations were as follows: Provide the Employer notice to renew this arrangement at least 60 days prior to ending date of this arrangement or prior to the expected beginning of the season, whichever is earlier. The notice will contain a request to the employer for written response as to their satisfaction with the arrangement, information on any problem that have [sic] developed and meeting date to renew the arrangement. Provide the employer daily a log summarizing job placement activities for each day in which one or more individuals were referred to the employer. Provide I-9 Certification on individuals hired no later than 48 hours from date JS is notified of hire. Designate one Employment representative to be stationed on daily basis or as needed, to serve as the liaison responsible for working with Okeelanta Corporation. Provide the Okeelanta Corporation with reverse referral recruitment cards to give the applicants. Maintain a pool of qualified applicants for the positions listed with Job Service, who have been screened against the selection criteria of the company. Provide Okeelanta with a list of qualified applicants on file whenever an opening arises. Refer applicants from the pool, with a completed I.D. card, a completed W-4 form, JS Referral Card, (a completed I-9 on recalls) upon receipt of a job order. Addendum II to the agreement listed Okeelanta's obligations. These obligations were as follows: List all job openings for which they wish Job Service to recruit. Provide the Belle Glade JS office a supply of W-4 forms applications for completion by qualified applicants desiring to work for the company. On a daily basis inform the Belle Glade JS office of the hiring decision made on each applicant referred by the JS. Designate one of its employees, within one week of the starting date of this arrangement, to serve as the liaison responsible for working with the JS. Provide a working space for the employee designated to be stationed at the employer premises. Acknowledge receipt of the above referenced regulations as a part of this arrangement, which it will furnish the above referenced employee. The job order Okeelanta placed with the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office in accordance with the foregoing agreement for sugar cane seed planters and other agricultural workers needed for the 1991-92 planting season specified that these employees would be expected to work six days a week, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 or 4:00 p.m., weather permitting. Okeelanta hired only those prospective employees who were deemed qualified and given a referral or "yellow" card by the Department. These prospective employees were required to present their card to the Zone Supervisor. After doing so and being accepted for employment, they received an Okeelanta employee identification number and their names appeared on the Okeelanta Day Haul Master List for each day they worked. Prospective employees unable to produce a "yellow" card for the Zone Supervisor were referred to the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office. In light of Okeelanta's policy of turning away prospective employees who did not have "yellow" cards, Respondent advised every employee that she recruited for Okeelanta during the 1991-92 planting season that they had to go to the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office and obtain such a card before they could begin working for Okeelanta. Respondent was never told that she had to verify the qualifications of members of her crews who had been screened and referred to Okeelanta by the Department. She therefore believed that there was no need for her to do so. Miguel Paiz was a member of one of Respondent's crews. He was interviewed at the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office prior to the commencement of the 1991-92 planting season and, although, as he made the interviewer aware, he was only 17 years of age at the time, he was given a "yellow" card. The W-4 form that was completed during his interview indicates that, at least at the time of the interview, Paiz was married. On the morning of Friday, October 18, 1991, three or four days after the start of the 1991-92 planting season, Cruz Hernandez Alvarez, lost control of the 1978 station wagon he was driving on a private road on Okeelanta property and the vehicle went into a canal on the side of the road. Seven of the eight occupants of the vehicle were killed. Alvarez did not have a valid driver's license at the time of the accident. The vehicle he was driving belonged to Juan Andres. Its V.I.N. was 1L35U8S167733. Alvarez and some, but not all, of the other occupants of the vehicle, including the lone survivor of the accident, were members of one of Respondent's crews. Julio Mendoza Corince, a 15-year old boy, was one of the occupants of the vehicle who perished in the accident. Earlier that month, Corince had gone to the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office to obtain a "yellow" card. The Department employee with whom he interviewed, however, refused to refer him because he was underage. Corince was not a member of any of Respondent's crews. Indeed, at no time before the accident had Respondent ever met or spoken with him. After the bodies were recovered from the canal, Respondent, and later her daughter Anna, were called to the scene and asked by the police if they were able to identify any of the victims. Viewing the dead bodies was a very emotionally upsetting experience for both of them. They spent the remainder of the day at home. No work was done by any of Respondent's crews that day. State and federal investigators began their investigation shortly after the accident was reported. Compliance Officer Velasquez was the Department's lead investigator. Rene Callobre, an Assistant District Administrator with the United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, who, like Velasquez, is fluent in both English and Spanish, conducted the federal investigation. A short time after beginning his investigation on the day of the accident, Velasquez went to the Okeelanta property and asked to speak with Respondent. After being told that Respondent had left for the day, Velasquez proceeded to Respondent's home, where he interviewed Respondent. Velasquez and Respondent conversed in Spanish during the interview. Respondent was still emotionally upset at the time of the interview, but not to the extent that she was irrational or unable to effectively communicate with Velasquez. At no time did she provide an inappropriate response to his inquiries. During the interview, Respondent freely and voluntarily gave a statement in Spanish to Velasquez. Velasquez had not warned Respondent before she gave the statement that what she said could be used against her in an administrative proceeding such as the instant one. 1/ Velasquez wrote down in English what Respondent had told him in Spanish. This written, English translation of the statement, which accurately reflected Respondent's discussion with Velasquez, was then read back to Respondent in Spanish. Respondent thereupon signed the written statement, which read as follows: I am a farm labor contractor with cert # 29482 & expiration date of Nov. 1992. At present I am employed by Okeelanta Sugar Corp. My duties are to recruit & supervise farm workers to plant sugar cane. My fee for this task is $1.10 per row of cane planted by the crew. I recruited my crews by word of mouth. They know I am a contractor, so they come to my house to ask for work. The first thing I tell any worker that comes here to my house is that they must go the Job Service Office in Belle Glade and register. When they are properly registered, they go to the Okeelanta parking lot and there they are transported by company bus to the work site. I tell all the workers they must provide their own transportation to the Okeelanta parking lot. I tell all my workers this because I do not own a vehicle big enough to transport them from their home and back. I tell them that if they want to work, they must come on their own. I recruited 4 crews consisting of 8 workers each crew. Three of the crews were coming from Indiantown (Guatemalans) and one crew from this area (Mexicans). These crews, the ones from Indiantown, worked with me last year. I usually give the driver or the owner of the vehicle $100 per week for gasoline. I did this last year and was intending to do this this year also. The three crews from Indiantown came by car (station wagon) and a van. The station wagon carried 1 crew (8 workers) and the van carried 2 crews (16 workers). On this date, only one crew leader showed up, the station wagon. The van with the 2 crews did not show up. These crews started to work on Tuesday October 15, 1991. I do not pay the workers, Okeelanta does. The statement was in all respects factually accurate. Respondent had not yet during the 1991-92 planting season paid or loaned or agreed to pay or loan anyone "$100 for gasoline" in connection with the transporting of her crews. At no time did Respondent tell any state or federal investigator, including Velasquez or Callobre, otherwise. 2/ On Monday, October 21, 1991, Velasquez went out in the field to visit with Respondent and the members of her crews. Velasquez was accompanied by Compliance Officer Jeudy. Jeudy was being trained by Velasquez. Velasquez and Jeudy observed a 1977 Chevrolet van in the field. The van's V.I.N was CGL257U218651. Neither on the van nor anywhere else in the field was there posted a copy Respondent's application for a certificate of registration or a statement, in English and Spanish, showing Respondent's and her crews' rates of compensation. Velasquez asked Respondent if any of the members of her crews had been transported in the van. Respondent responded in the affirmative and indicated that two of her crews from Indiantown had travelled in the van. Velasquez then asked to speak to the driver of the van. Respondent thereupon retrieved Miguel Paiz, who was working in the field. Although he was 17 years of age and it was during normal school hours, Paiz was at work and not in school. Velasquez asked to see Paiz's driver's license and his farm labor contractor's certificate of registration. Paiz showed Velasquez his driver's license and the "yellow" card he had received from the Department. Paiz advised Velasquez that he did not have, and therefore was unable to produce, a farm labor contractor's certificate of registration. Paiz told Velasquez that Juan Lopez was paying him $10.00 a day for driving the van. During his conversation with Velasquez, Paiz erroneously identified Lopez as the owner of the van. The actual owner of the van was Julio Puentes. After speaking with Paiz, Velasquez interviewed Lopez. Based upon what he understood Lopez to have said during the interview, Velasquez prepared a written statement for Lopez's signature which provided as follows: I borrowed the (vehicle) van that this date transported 16 workers to Okeelanta Sugar Corp. to work in the planting of sugar cane. I was recruited by Araceli Rivera. I am paid $100 per week for the gasoline I use in the vehicle. I am also paid $1.00 per row of sugar cane planted by Okeelanta. I am not registered as a F.L.C. Lopez refused to sign the statement. To the extent that the statement suggests that Lopez was then being paid by Respondent for "the gasoline [Lopez] use[d] in the ['transporting'] vehicle," it is inaccurate. No such payments were made by Respondent to Lopez during the 1991-92 planting season.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) imposing upon Respondent a civil penalty in the amount of $100.00 for having violated Section 450.33(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 38H-11.008, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in paragraph (4)(h) of the Administrative Complaint, as amended, by displaying in the area where her crews were working on October 21, 1991, neither a copy of her application for a farm labor contractor certificate of registration nor the requisite statement concerning the compensation that she was receiving from Okeelanta for her recruitment activities, and (2) dismissing the remaining allegations advanced in the Administrative Complaint, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of February, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 10th day of February, 1993.
The Issue Whether Respondent contracted for the employment of farm workers with a farm labor contractor before the contractor displayed a current certificate of registration in violation of Section 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of relevant facts are determined: Respondent, David Torres, is a farm labor contractor licensed in Florida. On January 31, 1991 Larry Coker, during a routine grove inspection, observed a crew of farm workers picking fruit in the Happy Acres Grove, in Hardee County, under the supervision of Respondent. Respondent utilized Billy Handford and Antonio Torres to transport the farm workers to the grove. Mr. Handford was employed to recruit and transport farm workers for a fee to be paid by Respondent. Billy Handford did not have a Florida FLC license which authorized him to engage in this occupation. On January 31, 1991, Billy Handford recruited and transported six farm workers from the Bartow area to the Happy Acres grove in Hardee County. Respondent was cited for three violations of Chapter 450, on January 31, 1991.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent has violated Section 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be fined $500 (dollars) and such fine to paid within thirty days from date of the final order entered by the Division. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: FRANCISCO R. RIVERA, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 2012 CAPITAL CIRCLE, S.E. SUITE 307, HARTMAN BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0658 DAVID TORRES, POST OFFICE BOX 842 HAINES CITY, FL 33844 FRANK SCRUGGS, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 303 HARTMAN BUILDING 2012 CAPITAL CIRCLE, S.E. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2152 STEPHEN BARRON, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 307 HARTMAN BUILDING 2012 CAPITAL CIRCLE S.E. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2152
The Issue Whether Respondent should be assessed a civil penalty for acting as a farm labor contractor without a certificate of registration?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence addressed at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On or about February 26, 1987 the Respondent was charged with failure to register as a farm labor contractor as that term is defined in Section 450.28(1), Florida Statutes. As a result of this charge, Respondent registered as a farm labor contractor on March 2, 1987 and was issued a certificate of registration on March 6, 1987 which expired on October 3, 1987, the day after Respondent's birthdate, for failure to make application for renewal in accordance with Section 450.31, Florida Statutes. On November 30, 1989, during a routine check of farm labor contractors in DeSoto County, Florida, the Respondent was found to be transporting ten farm laborers who he had hired to pick at 18 per box. Respondent was being paid a fee of 75 per box to have the fruit picked. Respondent was responsible for, and supervised, the ten farm laborers referred to in paragraph 2. In addition to being paid for harvesting the fruit, Respondent received $75.00 per trailer to drive the van and load fruit on the trailer and other duties. Another farm labor contractor, Chris Marroquin, owns the van in which Respondent was transporting the farm laborers and was the individual who paid Respondent for picking the fruit, driving the van and loading the trailer. Although Respondent was acting as a farm labor contractor as that term is defined in Section 450.28(1), Florida Statutes, on November 30, 1989, he did possess a certificate of registration as required under Section 450.30, Florida Statutes. The Respondent was charged with: (a) failure to register in violation of Section 450.30, Florida Statutes; (2) failure to put registration in violation of Section 450.33(4), Florida Statutes and; (3) transporting farm laborers without authorization in violation of Rule 38H-11.006(5), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent applied for a certificate of registration on December 1, 1989 and was issued same on December 5, 1989.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness and the factors set forth in Rule 38H-11.012(2)(a-q), Florida Administrative Code, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter a Final Order assessing civil penalty against the Respondent, Leopoldo Cantu, Jr. in the account of $500.00. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Berkeley Building, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152 Stephen Barron, General Counsel 2012 Capitol Circle, S.E. Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Leopoldo Cantu, Jr. Route 6, Box 495L Edinburg, TX 78539 Moses Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle Suite 117 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Ruth Ann Weaver Bureau of Agricultural Progrms Post Office Box 1698 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1698
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is eligible to receive a certificate to contract with farm laborers pursuant to Chapter 450, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In June 1983, the Petitioner Williams recruited migrant farm workers in Florida for the purpose of picking pickle cucumbers and long green cucumbers in Salisbury, Maryland. The information about the wages and working conditions in Maryland were reduced to writing and placed upon the U.S. Department of Labor Form WH-416, as required by the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act. This form was written in English and Creole on June 24, 1983, and was furnished to each worker at the time of recruitment. According to the written information, the farm workers were to receive the minimum wage of $3.35 an hour. The piece rate for pickle cucumbers was forty-five cents per five eighths basket. The piece rate for long green cucumbers was fifty cents per bushel. Transportation and insurance were to be provided to the farm workers. It was represented that housing was available in the area at the cost of $25.00 per person, per week. Work was to begin on June 30, 1983, and would continue until September 15, 1983. Based upon the representations made within the U.S. Department of Labor Form WH-416, the Petitioner Williams was able to hire a crew of twenty people in Florida for the Maryland contract. A copy of the Form WH-416 was posted in each bus provided by the Petitioner during the trip from Florida to Maryland. The form remained posted in the buses during the term of employment. When the buses reached Salisbury, Maryland, housing was not available. The Petitioner inspected the area prior to contracting with the farm workers, and was surprised to find different conditions upon arrival. The Petitioner Williams remained with the farm workers until they were able to obtain housing after the Fourth of July holiday. The farm workers and the Petitioner lived in the buses for a one week period. When housing became available, the cost of $20.00 per person, per week, was less than the anticipated rate. The workers paid their rent payments directly to their respective landlords. The farm workers received the forty-five cents per basket rate at the Bradford farm for pickle cucumbers during most of the harvest. During the payroll period of July 14, 1983 to July 21, 1983, the farm workers were paid thirty cents per basket at the Bradford farm. The reason for the price reduction during this time period was not made known to the Hearing Officer. However, testimony showed that the workers were aware that this price decrease was a change in contract, and they were given the opportunity to leave the job by the Petitioner. The workers decided to continue work at the farm for the new piece rate. This renegotiation took place in the State of Maryland. The change in the price of the piece work was initiated by the crop owner and not the Petitioner Williams. It is unknown if a Form WH-416 was completed to reflect this change. During the Maryland contract, farm workers received their wages in cash in pay envelopes. It is unknown whether the envelopes contained an itemized statement of deductions in pay or whether any deductions were taken from the pay. The Respondent Williams was legally required to keep the 1983 payroll records for three years. The records were not available at the 1989 hearing.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulations of facts as to the accounting figures received into evidence as respondents' Exhibit D, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner supplied cucumbers and cubanelle peppers to the respondents for the purpose of selling such produce for petitioner. Petitioner received a check in the amount of $1200.00 from the respondents. Frank Hause, who was involved in a joint venture with the petitioner, received another check from the respondents in the amount of $1500.00. Petitioner was not made aware of the Hause payment until a later date. With the exception of one shipment which does not appear on the accounting records involved in this proceeding, respondents received all their cucumbers from petitioner or Frank Hause. Due to the fact that the market for cucumbers was so depressed at the time, respondents neither needed nor received cucumbers from any other source. The accounting figures stipulated as being correct by both petitioner and respondents illustrate that respondents owed petitioner $905.39 for the sale of cucumbers and a figure of minus (-) $681.45 for the sale of peppers. The net amount due petitioner from the respondents for the sale of cucumbers and peppers was $223.94.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition and/or complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of July, 1982, 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 29th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Wilkinson Post Office Box 86 Webster, Florida 33597 Eric Ruff, Esquire Post Office Drawer TT Plant City, Florida 33566 Charles B. Lawton, Jerry Lawton and J. P. Sizemore d/b/a Dixie Growers Post Office Box 1686 Plant City, Florida 33566 Robert A. Chastain General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. Post Office Box 730 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Mr. Earl Peterson, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Room 416 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Charles W. Crowell, a State Farm agent under the terms of an agency agreement declaring him an independent contractor, has never employed 15 or more employees at any one time. During the 20 weeks next before petitioner Donna Clark left his employ, he had no more than three full-time and two part- time employees. As a State Farm agent, Mr. Crowell is contractually bound not to represent other insurance companies. State Farm, which has employed more than 15 persons at all pertinent times, prescribes policy forms, premiums, fees and charges for insurance, and prescribes underwriting rules its agents (and so their employees) must follow. Most premiums reach State Farm in the form of checks drawn by insured persons. But, as required by state law and his agreement with State Farm alike, Mr. Crowell maintains a separate premium fund account, into which customers' cash premium payments are deposited. Moneys are disbursed directly from this account to State Farm, which has the right to audit the account. State Farm determines Crowell's compensation based on the amount of premiums it receives on policies he has written, and writes him checks accordingly. At year's end, State Farm reports these payments to the IRS on a form 1099, not on a W-2 form. Mr. Crowell receives no compensation directly from the premium fund account. When an agent retires and in certain other instances, State Farm allocates policies among remaining agents, while honoring preferences policyholders express for particular agents. But it does not restrict agents to a particular territory or otherwise dictate where its agents conduct business. State Farm reserves the right to approve any advertising by an agency using State Farm's name or logo. But certain business cards bearing the logo are "pre-approved," except for the name of the agent or other employee in the agent's office which is to appear on the card. Mr. Crowell sets his own hours and it was he who decided the office would open at nine and close at five. Some days he does not open his office for business, even though State Farm offices are open. If he closes his office on days State Farm is closed, it may well be because he cannot do business with State Farm. But he is free to keep office hours on such days if he chooses. His compensation does not depend directly on the amount of time his office is open, or on the amount of time he spends at work. Mr. Crowell, not State Farm, decides whom to employ in his office, and sets hours, salaries and benefits for these employees. He, not State Farm, personally pays wages and benefits (if any), along with employment taxes for which employers are liable on account of their employees. But, on unemployment compensation tax forms, gives as the employer's name "CHARLES W. CROWELL STATE FARM INSURANCE COS" and signs as Charles W. Crowell Agent." Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. Mr. Crowell drew salary checks in favor of Ms. Clark and other employees in his office on his own business checking account, which is not subject to audit by State Farm. These salary checks did not bear State Farm's name or logo. The parties have stipulated, as follows: "5. Crowell's office is located at 908 Michigan Avenue in Pensacola, Florida, and he personally owns the property and building where his office is located. State Farm has no interest or property rights in this facility. The only forms, manuals, and other documents located in Crowell's office which are the property of State Farm are insurance product information, including names of policyholders. The equipment, furniture and other supplies located at or used in Crowell's office are owned or leased by Crowell, and not State Farm. Crowell personally hired Donna M. Clark, and State Farm took no part in, exercised no control over, and had no input regarding Crowell's decision to hire Ms. Clark. Crowell sets the work hours, wages and benefits of his employees, including the number of employees employed by his business, without consultation with or the approval of State Farm. Crowell personally pays the salaries or wages and employment taxes, including Florida Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, Social Security (FICA) and federal tax withholding, on all of his employees, including Ms. Clark, and State Farm pays no salaries to or taxes on behalf of any of Crowell's employees. State Farm provides no benefits to the employees of its State Farm agents, and Crowell decides whether employment benefits such as health or life insurance are provided to Crowell's employees, including whether there is any cost to the employee. Such policies can be purchased by the State Farm Agent from State Farm, if he chooses to do so. Crowell, not State Farm, maintains all personnel records on his employees, including Ms. Clark. State Farm does not have any personnel records as to petitioner Donna Clark. Crowell's business is to sell State Farm policies and service State Farm policyholders. State Farm prescribes policy forms, premiums, fees and charges for insurance, and prescribes underwriting rules pertaining to writing State Farm insurance. Employees of State Farm Agents such as Mr. Crowell are not required to attend State Farm meetings or training sessions. State Farm offers training on topics selected by State Farm Agents, to which the State Farm Agents, such as Mr. Crowell, may choose to send their employees, for a fee payable to State Farm. State Farm requires Crowell to maintain a premium fund account, which is a trust account for the deposit of insurance premiums which are the property of State Farm. All cash premiums from policyholders are deposited to the premium fund account, and premium funds are promptly forwarded to State Farm. Premiums paid by check are sent directly to State Farm, and the large majority of premiums received by Crowell are by check. The premium fund account is subject to auditing by State Farm. As part of the audit of the premium fund account, State Farm develops a profit and loss statement which compares the claims experience of policies serviced by the Agent to the premiums generated by those policies and thus reflects the profit or loss to State Farm. Such profit and loss statement is for State Farm's own use in determining its own profitability and does not show or indicate the success of Mr. Crowell in his personal business as an insurance agent. Crowell maintains separate accounts for his personal and business funds which are not subject to any auditing by State Farm. Crowell is not paid for his sales activities out of the premium fund account, but is paid on a commission basis after all premium funds have been deposited with State Farm. Crowell personally directed Clark to attend certain training courses conducted by the local district manager of State Farm on underwriting insurance and product knowledge only. State farm does not require State Farm Agents to send their employees to training courses conducted by State Farm. State Farm does not allow employees of State Farm Agents to attend training courses concerning financial management or conduct of the agency, and Clark did not attend any such courses." Although not stipulated by the parties, evidence showed that, at one of the training courses Ms. Clark attended, a speaker told employees in attendance that they comprised State Farm's "front line." State Farm decides, with input from its agents, which courses and seminars to offer, but it is up to individual agents to decide who, if anybody, attends from their offices. State Farm employees known as agency managers coordinate operations of agents in their assigned area. When the agency manager decides another agent is needed, he recruits a trainee, who works for State Farm for two years or so (unless discharged earlier.) After this period of training, State Farm offers most trainees the opportunity to terminate employment and become agents. With State Farm's permission, an agent may incorporate. Even as independent contractors, agents receive contributions from State Farm toward personal insurance premiums, which are treated as part of the agents' income. The State Farm manager for the Pensacola area while Ms. Clark worked in Mr. Crowell's office offered bonuses to agents' employees who won contests, although this violated company policy. Ms. Clark did not, however, participate in any contest or receive a bonus. A number of unlicensed people in Mr. Crowell's office sign policies when he is unavailable. Because this practice is widespread, Insurance Commissioner Gallagher has insisted that insurance agents see that more office staff are licensed. Accordingly, State Farm's agency manager has asked State Farm agents to identify office personnel for licensure. Employees of a State Farm agency must be approved by State Farm, in order to obtain licenses. After an agent identifies an employee and the employee sits for an examination, State Farm does a background check and makes its decision about sponsorship. Ms. Clark did not seek licensure as an insurance agent, although she was among those who signed policies. In the course or her work, she spoke directly with underwriting personnel in Jacksonville, on Mr. Crowell's behalf or with his acquiescance.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 3rd day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Realtions 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Karen Lessard, Esquire 15 West LaRua Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Kathryn Errington, Esquire HARRELL, WILTSHIRE, SWEARINGEN, WILSON & HARRELL, P.A. 201 East Government Street P.O. Drawer 1832 Pensacola, FL 32501 Mary Jarrett, Esquire 2065 Herschel Street P.O. Box 40089 Jacksonville, FL 32203
The Issue Whether Respondent, Debruyn Produce Co. owes Petitioner, Florida Farm Management Inc. the sum of $4,846.00 for watermelons shipped by Petitioner and handled by Respondent as Petitioner's agent during the period from May 30, 1989 through July 5, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant fact are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, Florida Farm Management, Inc. was a "producer" of agricultural products in the state of Florida as that term is defined in Section 605.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Debruyn Produce Co. was a licensed "dealer in agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent was issued license number 596 by the Department, and bonded by Peerless Insurance Company (Peerless) for the sum of $47,000.00, bond number R2-27-13, with an effective date of November 13, 1988 and a termination date of November 13, 1989. At all times material to this proceeding, Debruyn was authorized to do business in the state of Florida. Around the last week of April, 1989, Petitioner and Respondent orally agreed, among other things, for Petitioner to produce certain quantities of Mickey Lee Watermelons and for Respondent to market those watermelons. This oral agreement was reduced to writing, executed by the Respondent and sent to Petitioner to execute. Petitioner, after making certain changes in the agreement and initialing those changes, executed the agreement and returned it to the Respondent. It is not clear if Respondent agreed to the change since they were not initialed by Respondent. However, the parties appeared to operate under this agreement as modified by Petitioner. Under the agreement, Respondent was to advance monies for harvesting and packing, furnish containers and labels for packing and agreed to pay certain chemical bills. Petitioner was to reimburse any monies advanced by the Respondent for (a) harvesting or packing; (b) containers and labels and; (c) chemicals, from the proceeds of the sale of watermelons. Any balance owed Petitioner for watermelons was to be paid within 30 days. Additionally, Respondent was to receive a commission of 8% of net FOB, except 30 cent maximum on sales of less than $6.25 per carton and 40 cents per carton for melons delivered on contract to National Grocers Co. The relationship of the parties was to be that of producer and sales agent. Before entering into the agreement with Respondent, Petitioner had agreed to furnish National Grocers Co. four shipments of melons totalling 8,000 cartons. Respondent agreed to service that agreement. Although Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger shows a credit of $6,007.13 for chemicals paid for by Respondent, the parties agreed that only $3,684.68 was expended by Respondent for chemicals and that Respondent should receive credit for that amount. The parties agree that Respondent advanced a total of $18,960.00 for harvesting and packing and the Respondent should be given credit for this amount. The parties agree that Respondent paid to Petitioner the sum of $12,439.32 and the Respondent should be given credit for this amount. Cartons and pads for packing the melons were shipped on two occasions and the total sum paid by Respondent for those cartons and pads was $17,225.00. The cartons were printed with the logo of Respondent on one side and the logo of Petitioner on the other side. Petitioner agrees that the number of cartons and pads used by him came to $12,463.78 and the Respondent should be given credit for that amount. All cartons and pads in the sum of $17,255.00 were delivered to Petitioner's farm. The amount in dispute for the remainder of the carton is $4,762.22. The Respondent was responsible under the agreement to furnish cartons and pads (containers). Respondent ordered the cartons and pads after determining from Petitioner the number needed. There were two orders for cartons and pads placed and delivered. There was an over supply of cartons and pads delivered to Petitioner. This over supply was the result of a miscommunication between Petitioner and Respondent as to the amount of cartons and pads needed. Petitioner agrees that all of the cartons and pads were delivered to his farm but that he was unable to protect these cartons and pads from the weather. However, Petitioner advised Respondent that the remainder of the carton and pads could be picked up at his farm. Respondent contended that he was denied access to the farm and was unable to pick up the remainder of the cartons and pads and, therefore, they were ruined by exposure to the weather. While there may have been times when Respondent attempted to retrieve the carton and Petitioner was unavailable, there is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent was intentionally denied access to Petitioner's farm to retrieve the cartons. Clearly, the ordering, purchasing and storing of the cartons and pads was a joint effort and both Petitioner and Respondent bear that responsibility. Therefore, the Petitioner is responsible for one-half of the difference between the total cost of the cartons ($17,225.00) and the amount used by Petitioner ($12,462.78) which is $2,381.11 and Respondent should be given credit for this amount. Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger shows that Petitioner shipped melons to Respondent in the amount of $54,715.63, after adjustments for complaints and commission. Respondent's accounts payable ledger shows receiving melons from Petitioner in the amount of $51,483.00, after adjustments for complaints and commission. The difference in the two ledgers in the amount of is accounted for as follows: Invoice No. 210066 - Customer paid $2.00 per carton less on 93 cartons, Petitioner agreed to the reduction. However, Petitioner's account is in error by 9 cents which reduces total amount to $54,715.54. Invoice No. 210067 - Respondent paid for more melons than Petitioner shows were shipped - $39.60. Invoice No. 210068 - difference in calculation of commission $13.32 Invoice No. 2100105 - difference due to Petitioner not agreeing to adjustment in price taken by customer. $2,886.00 Invoice No. 2100239 - difference of $108.04 due to Respondent allowing customer adjustment which Petitioner did not agree to. Invoice No. 2100267 - difference of $210.00 for same reason stated in (e) above. Petitioner should be allowed the difference due to miscalculation of commission in invoice Nos. 210068, 2100134 and 2100160 in the sum of $68.10 since Petitioner's calculation was in accordance with the agreement. There was no dispute as to the condition of melons being as contracted for upon receipt. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the melons shipped under invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 by Petitioner were not of the size and number contracted for by the customer. As to invoice Nos. 2100239 and 2100267, the adjustments were made after the fact without contacting Petitioner. As to invoice No. 2100105, the Petitioner shipped the melons to Russo Farms, Inc., Vineland, N.J., as per Respondent's order who then unloaded the melons and reloaded on Russo's truck and shipped to another buyer. It was this buyer's complaint that resulted in Russo demanding an adjustment. Respondent granted such adjustment without approval of the Petitioner. Although Respondent did contact Petitioner in regard to this complaint, Petitioner would not authorize a federal inspection, which he could have, but instead, requested that Respondent obtain an independent verification of the basis of the complaint. Instead of an independent verification of the complaint, Respondent had Russo evaluate the load as to size of melons and number of boxes. No complaint was made as to condition of the melons. Petitioner would not accept Russo's evaluation because based on the total weight of the melons shipped, as indicated by the freight invoice, Russo's evaluation could not have been correct. The only evidence presented by Respondent as to size and number of melon in regard to invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 was hearsay unsupported by any substantial competent evidence. Petitioner should be allowed the difference in invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 for a sum total of $3,204.00. No adjustment should be made for the differences in invoice No. 210067 other than the 9 cent error made by Petitioner because this amount is not used in Petitioner's calculation of the gross amount due for melons shipped. Therefore, the sum total of all melons sold and shipped is $54,715.63 - 0.09 = $54,715.54. The amount due Petitioner is calculated as follows: Sum total of melons shipped with proper adjustments $54,715.54 Subtract from that the following: Chemicals 3,684.68 Advances 18,960.00 Cost of Cartons $12,462.78 + 2,381.11 14,773.89 Payment 12,439.32 Subtotal of Deductions 49,857.89 Difference and amount owed $4,857.65
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Debruyn Produce Company, Inc. be ordered to pay the Petitioner Florida Farm Management, Inc. the sum of $4,857.65. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Debruyn Produce Company, Inc. fails to timely pay Petitioner, Florida Farm Management, Inc. as ordered, the Respondent, Peerless Insurance Company be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and that the Department reimburse the Petitioners in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner. 1. Not a finding of fact but the issue in this case. 2.-3. Adopted in findings of fact 2 and 4. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Adopted in finding of fact 4. First sentence adopted in finding of fact 7. The balance is not material but see findings of fact 16-23. Not material but see findings of fact 16-23. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record but see findings of fact 9-14. Adopted but modified in findings of fact 21 and 22. 10(A), 10(C)(1), 10(E), and 10(F) adopted in finding of fact 24. 10(C)(2)(3), 10(d) rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. See findings of fact 5, ,7, 9 - 15. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent. 1.-7. Adopted in findings of fact 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 6, and 7 respectively as modified. Not material. This involved invoice Nos. 210066 and 210067 and adjustment were agreed to be Petitioner and is not part of this dispute. See Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger, Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Adopted in finding of fact 21 as modified. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Not material. This involved invoice No. 2100160 and adjustments were granted by Petitioner and is not part of this dispute. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1. 12.-13.Adopted in finding of fact 21 as modified. Adopted in finding of fact 5, and 9-15 as clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record but see findings of fact 9-15. Adopted in finding of fact 13 as clarified. Adopted in finding of fact 23 as clarified but see findings of fact 9-22.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent should have a $1,000 civil penalty imposed for allegedly violating Section 450.30, Florida Statutes (1989) and Rule 38H-11.003, Florida Administrative Code (1989) by acting as a farm labor contractor without a certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy arose on May 1, 1989, when Don R. Symonette, who is a compliance officer with petitioner, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor, Employment, and Training (Division), made an inspection of a farm owned by Ovid Barnett some seven or eight miles east of Immokalee, Florida. The testimony as to what transpired during the course of the inspection is sharply in dispute. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, and that testimony is embodied in the findings below. As Symonette drove by the farm that day, he observed a crew of approximately eighteen workers picking bell peppers in a field. Thereafter, Symonette drove his vehicle onto the premises for the purpose of determining if pertinent statutes and Division rules were being followed. He initially observed respondent, Abel Flores (Abel), standing by a pickup truck in the same field where the laborers were harvesting the peppers. The two were acquainted from several meetings over the prior years. Symonette asked respondent what he was doing, and respondent answered that he was helping his brother, Alfredo, who is a registered farm labor contractor. Respondent also volunteered that he was being paid by his brother and received approximately $40 per day in compensation. Abel further acknowledged, and the Division records show, that he is not certified as a farm labor contractor. At that point, Symonette decided to give Abel the benefit of the doubt and to interview respondent's brother, Alfredo, who was supervising a crew in an adjacent field. During the course of the interview, Alfredo advised Symonette that he (Alfredo) was the supervisor in charge of the crew and it was he who had contracted with the farm to supply the workers. Even so, Symonette concluded that because Abel was the only person standing in the other field, he was "supervising" the other crew and was doing so without a certificate of registration. Accordingly, Symonette filled out a summary of violations which cited Abel for failing to register as a contractor. After discussing the summary with Abel, Symonette had Abel sign the document. He also prepared a site review and inspection check list which Abel reviewed and signed. On April 27, 1990, or almost a year later, the Division issued an administrative complaint charging Abel with acting as a farm labor contractor without having a certificate of registration. On June 7, 1990, Symonette sent by mail a form to Ovid Barnett requesting information regarding Abel's employment. On an undisclosed date, the form was returned to Symonette and contains what purports to be Barnett's signature. However, the contents of the completed form are hearsay in nature and cannot serve as the basis for a finding of fact. Moreover, even if the response was not hearsay, it fails to disclose the nature of Abel's employment with the farm and whether the hourly compensation allegedly given Abel was being paid at the time the form was completed in June 1990 or when the inspection occurred thirteen months earlier. In this regard, it is noted that at hearing Abel produced pay stubs from April and May 1989 which indicate that his salary was either $4.325 per hour or $5.00 per hour, depending on whether he was driving a tractor in the fields or a truck from the fields to the packing house. The former amount is the same as was being paid a number of other farm workers whose job responsibilities were not disclosed. Abel's testimony on compensation is accepted as being credible and comports with the statement made by Abel to Symonette that he was being paid around $40 per day for a full day's work. All compensation received by Abel was from his employer, Ovid Barnett. In some cases, he was paid by check from the farm, and in other cases, he was paid by his brother who had in turn been paid by the farm. To the extent the allegation is relevant, there is insufficient evidence to establish that Abel received double compensation during May 1989 by being paid by both his brother and Barnett at the same time. To bolster Abel's contention that he was not acting as a farm labor contractor on May 1, 1989, a supervisor at Barnett's farm established that Abel was driving trucks between the field and the packing house when the inspection occurred, and as such, it was necessary for Abel to stand by his truck while the workers loaded the truck with produce. As a driver, Abel had the responsibility of overseeing the loading of produce on his truck and, when necessary, to direct the workers on how to properly do so. It is noted that at hearing, Symonette did not describe the activities being performed by Abel except that Abel was simply "standing" around his truck and "appeared" to be supervising the work crew. Accordingly, it is found that Abel was not performing the duties of a farm labor contractor on May 1, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the administrative complaint, with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner: 1-3 Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. Note - Where a finding has been partially used, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, cumulative, a conclusion of law, unnecessary, subordinate, or not supported by the evidence. Copies Furnished: Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Moses E. Williams, Esquire 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S. E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Abel Flores P. O. Box 1611 Immokalee, FL 33934 Steven D. Barron, Esquire 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S. E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658
