Findings Of Fact By an application dated March 27, 1979, and received by the Board on March 30, 1979, Petitioner, James L. Dentico, applied to the Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board for a license as a certified electrical contractor. The Board has a committee on applications which reviewed Mr. Dentico's application. The committee determined that his application did not evidence sufficient experience in the trade. That determination prompted a letter written May 8, 1979, from Mr. Allen R. Smith, Jr., the Board's Executive Director, to Mr. Dentico. The letter states, in pertinent part, that: Your application failed to evidence to the Board that you had six (6) years' comprehensive experience training as required by 468.185(2). If you can evidence six (6) years as reflected in 468.185(2) in the trade as an electrical engineer, this evidence will be brought before the board. By letter dated May 15, 1979, Mr. Dentico responded through counsel. He contended that his application did evidence sufficient experience since, in his opinion, he had more than the minimum one and one half years of experience in the trade as required by Section 468.185(2), Florida Statutes. Mr. Dentico's attorney reiterated his request originally made on March 27, 1979, with the application that all future communications relating to the application be made directly to him, Philip J. Gouze, Esquire. Mr. Dentico's application was then returned to the Board for further consideration. That review was made at the Board's June 7, 1979, meeting in Tampa. As the result of communications between Mr. Smith's office and Mr. Gouze, Mr. Dentico was under the impression that he could take the electrical contractors' examination scheduled for June 8, 1979, in Tampa. To obtain his admission ticket for the written examination, Mr. Dentico appeared at the Board's June 7, 1979, meeting. Upon entering the room, he was questioned by Board members about his contracting experience in North Carolina and Florida. At the time Petitioner appeared, the Board had before it a seconded motion to accept his application. After the initial questioning, Mr. Borrell stated: Mr. Borrell: O.K., a motion has been made and it has been seconded that we accept this application. Mr. Lenhart: I think we need a little more evidence and based on this discussion, I will have to withdraw my motion. Mr. Isaac (the Chairman): I withdraw my second. Mr. Borrell: Motion made to withdraw it. Mr. Lenhart: And I base it on failure to evidence sufficient experience as an unlimited managing electrical contractor. Mr. Sommerkamp: I second. Mr. Borrell: Is there any discussion on this motion? Mr. Borrell: Let's go back to square one. Mr. Lenhart: Based on what he has said, I think the application is misleading and I would recommend that he reapply. Mr. Isaac: I second. (Vote was unanimous.) Mr. Dentico persisted in urging his qualifications on the Board. He was further questioned about his experience. After the additional questioning, Mr. Morgan said: Mr. Morgan: What is the motion? Mr. Borrell: Reject. The Chairman called for a vote and it was unanimous. Mr. Borrell: The Board does not see fit at this time and if you submit more data, we will be glad to review; but based on the findings we have here the information our decision has to stay and you will be notified of the right to appeal. Mr. Dentico's counsel was not present at the Board meeting and the record does not reflect that he was notified of the Board's action until the denial letter of August 13, 1979. On that date, Mr. Smith wrote to Mr. Dentico to state: The Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board has reviewed your application for examination to be licensed as an electrical contractor, authorized to provide unlimited services, throughout the State. The Board has found that you [sic] application lacks sufficient evidence to qualify you to sit for the examination for the following reason: Your application failed to evidence to the Board at its June 7, 1979, meeting the necessary experience in the field as an electrical contractor authorized to provide unlimited services. Please refer to Sections 468.180 and 468.185, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21GG-2.01(1). The Florida Administrative Procedures Act entitles you to request a hearing on this matter should you choose to do so. Attached you will find an "Election of Rights" form which fully explains the procedures you may follow in requesting a hearing. The Board has not controverted any of the information in Petitioner's application. Mr. Dentico has a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering from the Indiana Institute of Technology. He has a Masters degree in electrical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Between 1969 and 1973, he was an advanced design engineer at Grumman Aerospace Corporation. His responsibilities included research design and development of aircraft and satellite control systems, designing electrical hookup equipment for laboratory experiments and preparing cost estimates and technical writing for bids on government contracts. At Grumman, his time was divided equally into three functions: research, development and engineering. As part of his development responsibility, he was in charge of the construction of apparatus display and testing tables which were a mock-up of the hydraulic and electrical environment in which a prototype component would later operate. Mr. Dentico supervised the electricians who constructed the wiring, ran the conduits, etc., for those apparatuses. Subsequently, Mr. Dentico operated his own business, N. K. Investments of North Carolina, from January, 1975, to February, 1977. He designed and cost estimated an electrical power distribution system for a 320 boat slip marina and for the service building of that marina in New Bern, North Carolina. He also prepared an electrical cost estimate for a four-story office building there. Mr. Dentico also had some experience in doing the general electrical work on a two-story, nine-unit apartment complex building in Miami Shores, during 1977. Under the supervision of Gurney Electric Corporation, the project electrical contractor, he put in conduit, pulled wires and installed appliances. The functions of an electrical contractor are to order the necessary equipment for a given project, to supervise the contractor's employees in constructing the job according to the plans and specifications, to coordinate the work of the contractor's employees with the needs of the general contractor and in accordance with the directions of the project electrical engineer. There are times when a project does not have an electrical engineer and in that case, the design work is expected to be performed by the electrical contractor. Careful consideration has been given to each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. To the extent that they are not contained in this Order they are rejected as being either not supported by competent evidence or as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues for determination here.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of James L. Dentico for certification as an electrical contractor be granted subject only to successful completion of an objective written examination about Mr. Dentico's fitness for a certificate as required by Section 468.184(2), Florida Statutes (1977). That $50.00 of Petitioner's application fee be returned to him if Section 21GG-2.09, Florida Administrative Code, is still in effect. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Conclusions . This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Linzie F. Bogan, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Respondent’s Notice of Withdrawal of Intent to Establish Dealership, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED and no license will be issued to Power Group International, LLC, and Reliable Power Equipment, LLC d/b/a Coastal Carts to sell low-speed vehicles manufactured by Tomberlin Automotive Group, (TOMB) at 16277 South Tamiami Trail, Suite A, Fort Myers, Florida 33908. Filed September 6, 2012 2:11 PM Division of Administrative Hearings “ DONE AND ORDERED this C day of September, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. —m P00 J ulie Baker, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed in the official records of the Division of Motorist Services this G day of September, 2012. Webi: Viranok AO Mad — Nalini Vinayak, Deater Hicense Administrator NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/wev Copies furnished: Elinore Hollingsworth Power Group International, LLC 3123 Washington Road Augusta, Georgia 30907 Jay Stewart A Plus Carts and Parts 16100 San Carlos Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33908 Donald B. Imbus Reliable Power Equipment, LLC 16277 South Tamiami Trail, Suite A Fort Myers, Florida 33908 Linzie F. Bogan Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed for several years as Projects Manager for Fred McGilvray, Inc., a large general and mechanical contracting firm. He is licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a certified mechanical contractor and as a certified general contractor, but he has never been licensed as an electrical contractor in Florida or any other State, or in any county or municipality in Florida. Petitioner submitted to the Board with his application for statewide certification as an electrical contractor, a list of jobs which he supervised in his capacity as Projects Manager for Fred McGilvray, Inc. Petitioner did not obtain any electrical permits for these jobs. All of the electrical work was subcontracted to electrical contractors except for some occasions when the job involved maintenance work that did not require an electrical permit. Under the terms of the electrical subcontracts entered into by petitioner's employer and the electrical subcontractors, the responsibility for the performance of the electrical work vested with the electrical contractor and not petitioner. In addition, the legal responsibility to ensure that the electrical work complied with all applicable local safety codes vested with the electrical contractor. Accordingly, the job functions performed by petitioner are not equivalent to those performed by an electrical contractor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of B. J. Geissinger be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 23rd day of October, 1980. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey C. Coon and Steven M. Robey, Esquires Suite 40 8585 Sunset Drive Miami, Florida 33143 Patricia R. Gleason, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of Petitioner’s Human Resources Manual and Employee Handbook (“the Manual”) on May 18, 23, 24, and 31, 2018, as charged in the agency action letter dated June 25, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Chapter 2001-324, Laws of Florida, declared the Escambia County Utilities Authority an independent special district with transferred assets and enumerated powers. Chapter 2004-398, Laws of Florida, changed the Escambia County Utilities Authority’s name to ECUA. By law, ECUA provides utility services throughout Escambia County, Florida, and has the power to appoint, remove and suspend its employees, and fix their compensation within the guidelines of Escambia County Civil Services Rules. ECUA’s mission statement specifies that the Board and employees of ECUA “are committed to providing the highest quality service” and that “ECUA will always provide cost-effective services.” ECUA has adopted standards set forth in the Manual in order to govern employee conduct. During the relevant time period, ECUA employed Mr. Baker as the utility service worker in the patch services division (“the patch crew”). Mr. Baker acknowledged on April 22, 2013, that a copy of the Manual was made available to him. The patch crew consists of eight people who normally work from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., with a 30-minute lunch break. Mr. Baker usually performed asphalt repairs or assisted other patch crew members with their tasks. The patch crew’s supervisor assigns work to the patch crew each day. If the crew completes all of its assigned tasks prior to 3:30 p.m., there is no policy or Manual provision allowing them to leave work early and count that as work time. Mr. Baker would normally begin each workday by reporting to an ECUA building on Sturdevant Street where the patch crew’s trucks are maintained. Many ECUA vehicles carry global positioning devices (“GPS”) that transmit the vehicle’s precise location to ECUA at two-minute intervals. The GPS devices also inform ECUA whether a vehicle is moving, idle, or stopped. ECUA vehicle #1622 had such a device and was normally driven by Mr. Baker or Tadarel Page. An anonymous e-mail to Gerry Piscopo, ECUA’s Deputy Executive Director of Maintenance and Construction, alleged that the patch crew was incurring overtime by intentionally being lackadaisical in completing work assignments. As a result, ECUA initiated an investigation of the patch crew’s daily activities. In addition to monitoring the GPS reports from the vehicles, ECUA retained a private investigator, Terry Willette, to surveil the patch crew and videotape their work or lack thereof. From April of 2018 to some point in June of 2018, Mr. Willette routinely surveilled the patch crew for 4 to 12 hours a day. Findings Regarding the Allegations from May 18, 2018 The May 18, 2018, GPS report for vehicle #1622 records that the truck was parked at a local seafood restaurant on 610 South C Street from 11:43 a.m. until 1:17 p.m. Because the patch crew is only allotted a 30-minute lunch break, this extended stop at the local seafood restaurant would almost certainly amount to a violation of multiple Manual provisions unless weather conditions (such as heavy rain) made it infeasible to attempt asphalt repairs. Mr. Baker testified without contradiction that it was raining when the patch crew was at the seafood restaurant, and there was no evidence as to whether ECUA had a policy governing what the patch crew was to do when it was raining. With no evidence to contradict Mr. Baker’s testimony about the weather conditions or what the patch crew is capable of doing when it is raining, ECUA did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Baker falsely claimed that he worked eight hours and took a 30-minute lunch on May 18, 2018. Findings Regarding the Allegations from May 23, 2018 The May 23, 2018, GPS report for vehicle #1622 indicates that the truck was parked at Mr. Baker’s home from 9:33 a.m. to 9:46 a.m. Mr. Baker does not dispute that he stopped at his home at that time. However, he asserts that he took no actual lunch break on May 23, 2018. Therefore, he argues that the 13-minute stop at his home should be of no concern to ECUA. Nothing in the Manual specifies that ECUA employees must take their lunch break at a certain time. The May 23, 2018, GPS report indicates that vehicle #1622 stopped at 3116 Godwin Lane from 11:43 a.m. to 12:47 p.m. However, there is no record evidence indicating what is at that address. Therefore, it cannot be found that the stop at 3116 Godwin Lane amounted to a lunch break. The ECUA failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Baker effectively abandoned his work when he drove vehicle #1622 to his home and stayed for 13 minutes on May 23, 2018. Findings Regarding the Allegations from May 24 and May 31, 2018 Mr. Baker’s timesheet for May 24, 2018, indicates he reported to work at 6:59 a.m. and worked until 3:30 p.m. On May 24, 2018, Mr. Willette observed Mr. Baker at 12:59 p.m. leaving the ECUA building where he begins and ends each workday. A GPS report records that vehicle #1622 was not driven after 12:56 p.m. on May 24, 2018. Mr. Baker’s timesheet for May 31, 2018, indicates he reported to work at 6:59 a.m. and worked until 3:30 p.m. On May 31, 2018, Mr. Willette observed Mr. Baker at 3:09 p.m. leaving the ECUA building where he begins and ends each workday. A GPS report records that vehicle #1622 was not driven after 3:10 p.m. on May 31, 2018. Mr. Baker does not dispute that he left work at 12:59 p.m. on May 24, 2018, and at 3:09 p.m. on May 31, 2018. Mr. Baker testified that he had permission from Greg Rigby, the patch crew’s supervisor, to leave early on those days. As for why his timesheets indicated that he left at 3:30 p.m. on both days, Mr. Baker explained that the individual patch crew members did not fill out their timesheets. Instead, Mr. Rigby or his assistant supervisor, Robert Boyd, Sr., entered each patch crew member’s time into the timekeeping system. ECUA proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Baker’s timesheets for May 24, 2018, and May 31, 2018, were inaccurate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Executive Director of the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority find that Dalton B. Baker violated Section B-3, attendance records; and Section B-13 A (33), violation of ECUA rules or guidelines or state or Federal law. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2018.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding is whether the activities of petitioner, Mallinckrodt, Inc., were subject to the Florida corporate income tax for the years 1972, 1973 and 1974.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the testimony, depositions and stipulation of counsel concerning four depositions, the following relevant facts are found: At the time of enactment of the Florida corporate income tax, petitioner was in the process of closing down a small plastics plant located in Jacksonville, Florida. This facility, which had an inventory of $77,054.00, was closed and disposed of at the end of January 1972. Among other endeavors, petitioner is in the business of manufacturing and selling calcium stearates. The stearates are manufactured in St. Louis, Missouri, and all inventories are located at the St. Louis plant. Calcium stearates are manufactured from animal (usually beef) fats and tallows and are used in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, essentially as a lubricant to facilitate the extrusion process. They come in a powdered form and are packaged in heavy paper sacks approximating the size of a sack of cement. Numerous sacks are placed on a wooden pallet, strapped with steel binders to the pallet for shipment and, often, the entire pallet will be wrapped in heavy cardboard in order to minimize breakage and spillage. The pallets are then loaded on common carriers in full carload or truckload quantities for shipment to the customers, with freight charges being paid by the petitioner. During the years in question -- 1972 through 1974, petitioner had from ten to fifteen stearate customers in the State of Florida. Bill Rhymes represented the petitioner in Florida and other southeastern states. He resided in Charlotte, North Carolina, and did not maintain a residence or an office within Florida. His purpose was to make potential customers aware of the products manufactured and sold by the petitioner and to act as a liaison between St. Louis and individual customers if technical problems arose. Orders from Florida customers were placed directly to St. Louis, either by telephone or by written order. The orders were either accepted or rejected exclusively by the St. Louis office. Credit checks and collection efforts were accomplished out of the St. Louis office. The principal salesman in Florida did not make actual sales arrangements and had no authority over pricing, freight or other conditions of sales. While the salesman in Florida did periodically contact petitioner's Florida customers, this was not done for the purpose of servicing the sold goods. Primarily, the contacts were made to insure that if there was a problem with the stearates due to the customer's machinery or manufacturing process, the next batch ordered would be of a different compound. The majority of petitioner's customers in Florida were large companies to which full truckload shipments of stearates were made direct. However, petitioner also had three smaller customers new into the field of manufacturing PVC pipe. These new businesses lacked storage capacity and had limited cash flow. In order to accommodate these smaller businesses, petitioner allowed them to purchase under a blanket order specified bulk quantities of stearates at bulk prices. Petitioner then arranged to ship the entire load of stearates to the U & Me Warehouse in West Palm Beach for periodic pick up by the customer and payment by the pickup. Petitioner entered into an "in and out" arrangement with the U & Me Warehouse. It was charged for the cost of moving the stearates into the warehouse, for the cost of loading them upon the customer's trucks and for the cost of storage based upon the actual amount of space required for the stearates. The prices and costs to petitioner fluctuated from month to month depending upon the amount of activity. The U & Me Warehouse and the petitioner did not have a rental agreement whereby petitioner paid a specified fee for a specified amount of space reserved to it in the warehouse. All shipments of stearates by petitioner to the U & Me Warehouse were the result of a blanket order from a specific customer. Due to the labor and space costs of segregating the material, the individual pallets and sacks of stearates were not marked as being designated to any particular customer. Prior approval was required from petitioner before any goods were released from U & Me to the customer. Petitioner never sold merchandise out of the U & Me Warehouse to persons other than the customer who originally ordered it and there were no instances where the specified customer failed to pick up on a periodic basis its entire order of stearates. As noted above, the use of the West Palm Beach warehouse was primarily for the benefit of petitioner's smaller customers who had limited cash flow and storage capabilities. The warehouse arrangement allowed those customers to purchase stearates at truckload prices and pick them up in less than truckload quantities. These customers were billed by the pickup, and also received a freight rebate on each delivery. As one of the three original customers which utilized the warehouse method of delivery grew in size, it was able to take direct full truckload shipments at its plant. During the year 1972, petitioner shipped approximately 60,000 pounds of stearates to the U & Me Warehouse every two or three months. Lesser amounts were shipped in 1973 and 1974. Petitioner's agents did make periodic checks of the status of the stearates located in the warehouse. This was done for the purpose of determining the actual physical condition of the goods and their treatment by the shippers and the warehouse. The goods were briefly examined to determine if the sacks had been broken and how they were stacked and stored. No physical count of the goods was made. No check was made of stearates in the possession of customers. Because of the presence in the State of Florida of its plastic plant in Jacksonville in January of 1972, petitioner filed a Florida corporate income tax return showing the full value of that property at the beginning of the year and a value of zero at the end of the year. An auditor with the respondent determined that the stearates shipped to the U & Me Warehouse during 1972, 1973 and 1974 constituted inventory which established a tax nexus for those years. The respondent accordingly issued its notice of proposed deficiency. Contending that it's sole activity in Florida beyond January 31, 1972, was the solicitation of orders which were approved and filled outside the State of Florida, petitioner maintains that it is not subject to the Florida corporate income tax and requests that the proposed deficiencies be set aside.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED THAT the proposed deficiency assessment against petitioner of corporate income taxes for 1972, 1973 and 1974 be set aside, and that the petitioner's liability for those years be confined to only that amount (less the amount previously paid) which reflects petitioner's activities with regard to the plastic plant in Jacksonville which was closed at the end of January, 1972. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of May, 1980. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Benjamin K. Phipps Post Office Box 1351 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 and Raymond H. Mann Post Office Box 1351 St. Louis, Missouri 63134 Shirley W. Ovletrea Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Miller Executive Director Department of Revenue Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the agency action letter dated June 21, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Chapter 2001-324, Laws of Florida, declared the Escambia County Utilities Authority an independent special district with transferred assets and enumerated powers. Chapter 2004-398, Laws of Florida, changed the Escambia County Utilities Authority’s name to ECUA. By law, ECUA provides utility services throughout Escambia County, Florida, and has the power to appoint, remove and suspend its employees, and fix their compensation within the guidelines of Escambia County Civil Services Rules. ECUA’s mission statement specifies that the Board and employees of ECUA “are committed to providing the highest quality service” and that “ECUA will always provide cost-effective services.” ECUA has adopted standards set forth in the Manual in order to govern employee conduct. During the relevant time period, ECUA employed Mr. Page as the utility service worker in the patch services division (“the patch crew”). Mr. Page acknowledged on October 10, 2016, that a copy of the Manual was made available to him. The patch crew normally works from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., with a 30-minute lunch break. The patch crew also receives two 15-minute breaks each day. Mr. Page would normally begin each workday by reporting to an ECUA building on Sturdevant Street where the patch crew’s trucks are maintained. The patch crew would use one or more of those vehicles to complete the day’s assignments and return them to the Sturdevant Street location at the end of each day. ECUA’s management received information in May of 2018, that members of the patch crew were leaving work early without authorization. This information led ECUA’s management to initiate an investigation. Part of that investigation involved the installation of tamper-proof global positioning devices (“GPS”) in ECUA vehicles. Those devices transmit a vehicle’s precise location to ECUA at two-minute intervals. The GPS devices also inform ECUA whether a vehicle is moving, idle, or stopped. ECUA’s management also hired a private investigator, Terry Willette, to observe and record the activities of the patch crew. Findings Regarding the Allegations from May 10, 2018 On May 10, 2018, Mr. Page received at least four assignments to fill holes at locations in Pensacola. Mr. Page recorded in ECUA’s work tracking system that he spent two hours completing two of those jobs and one hour completing the other two. Mr. Willette followed Mr. Page that day, and his observations contradict those time entries. Mr. Willette observed Mr. Page driving all over Pensacola, stopping on several occasions, and performing significant work at only one location. ECUA has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Page wasted an excessive amount of time on May 10, 2018. Findings Regarding the Allegations from May 11, 2018 The May 11, 2018, GPS report for truck #1624 indicates that it stopped at or near Mr. Page’s residence from approximately 9:21 a.m. to 9:28 a.m. It is possible that Mr. Page used one of his 15-minute breaks to stop at his residence, and there is no evidence that ECUA expressly prohibits employees from stopping at their homes. The preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that Mr. Page violated any Manual provisions on May 11, 2018. Findings Regarding the Allegations from May 24, 2018 The patch crew employees use an electronic timekeeping system to record the amount of hours they work each day. The Manual specifies that every ECUA employee is responsible for verifying the accuracy of those time entries. Mr. Page’s entry for May 24, 2018, indicates he worked eight hours that day. Mr. Willette observed Mr. Page leaving work at 12:59 p.m. on May 24, 2018. Also, one of the ECUA trucks often utilized by Mr. Page was in use from 7:01 a.m. until 12:57 p.m. on May 24, 2018, and was not used again that day. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Page failed to verify the accuracy of his time entry for May 24, 2018.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Executive Director of the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority find that Tadarel S. Page violated Section B-3, attendance records; Section B-13 A (4), conduct unbecoming an ECUA employee; Section B-13 A (13), falsification of records; Section B-13 A (18), loafing; Section B-13 A (21), neglect of duty; Section B-13 A (26), substandard quality and/or quantity of work; and Section B-13 A (33), violation of ECUA rules or guidelines or state or federal law. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2018.
