Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following facts are found: The Largo Fire Department is comprised of approximately 70 employees and maintain three stations, with a fourth station apparently in the planning stage. The chief administrative officer in full command of the entire Department is the fire chief, who is directly responsible to the City Manager. In descending order of command are two assistant chiefs, three fire captains and twelve fire lieutenants. There are also two fire inspectors, forty-six fire fighters, three or four dispatchers and one secretary. (Exhibit No. 6). Assistant Fire Chiefs - Second in the line of command are the two assistant fire chiefs. They work a standard forty-hour week, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., five days a week. Their office is one half block away from the main fire station. If the chief is out of town or unavailable, one of the assistant chiefs assumes command. When the chief and both assistant chiefs are unavailable, either a captain or a lieutenant is designated to be in command. With regard to the personnel evaluations made by either captains or lieutenants, assistant chiefs normally accept the recommendations made by them. On occasion an assistant chief will attach an additional memo to a recommendation submitted by an inferior officer. Assistant chiefs have no authority to fire Department personnel or to prevent merit pay increases. Only the chief has these powers, subject to review by the City Manager. There was testimony that after an applicant goes through certain testing procedures with the City's personnel department, the chief and assistant chiefs make the ultimate decision as to who is hired. Assistant chiefs receive input from captains and lieutenants with regard to purchasing new equipment and personnel transfers. With regard to the budget, assistant chiefs may purchase items within the guidelines of the budget. They make recommendations respecting the formulation of the budget, but the chief makes the ultimate decision as to what will be submitted to the City for the budget. If everything is going well at a fire scene, assistant chiefs stand back and observe rather than assume control. Equipment placements and transfers are made by the assistant chiefs. With regard to collective bargaining, assistant chiefs would directly assisting administering the outcome of the negotiations. Fire Captains - Like fire fighters, captains work a 24-hour shift and then are off 48 hours. They wear the same work uniform as fire fighters, but their dress uniform includes a white, rather than a blue, shirt. The captains eat their meals with and sleep in the same quarters as fire fighters. Each captain is responsible for a third of the combat portion of the Fire and directs the operations of the officers and men on their particular shift. On the fire scene, captains are the working supervisor and perform the normal functions of search and rescue. Around the station, captains participate in the minimal domestic and maintenance duties and tasks as part of a team effort. In the event that both the chief and assistant chief are absent, a captain designated by the chief assumed the duties and responsibilities of an assistant chief. With regard to authority to transfer men, discipline men and make policy, there was testimony that such authority is solely in the form of making recommendations in those areas. A lower grade officer or fire fighter can also submit written reports or charges concerning disciplinary action. While the job description for captain's requires them to make thorough weekly inspections of each station, apparatus and personnel the chief has been personally making such inspections for the past several months. While captains are required to keep records of sick leave, the the administrative secretary actually handles all leave records. Captains do have the authority to visit persons on sick leave if there is reason to believe a sick leave is not legitimate. The job description requires captains to forward to headquarters every six months a written personnel evaluation report on all personnel under their command. This is done by a standardized form sent to the captains by City's personnel department. Captains also have the authority to give mutual aid assistance when requested by a neighboring unit by sending men and equipment. While captains have the authority to make changes within their subordinates' command, in emergency situations, most changes in command come out in the form of memos from the administrative chief. In the captain's absence, his duties are assumed by a lieutenant. If a lieutenant is not present the lieutenant's duties are assumed by what is known as a lead fire fighter - a senior fire fighter by virtue of tenure and training. Captains do not formulate policies applicable to the Fire Department nor do they prepare of administer the budget. They can make recommendations with regard to the budget, as can lieutenants and other officers. They cannot buy equipment, nor can they move equipment between stations without written permission. Changes in the organizational structure are not discussed with captains. Any type of procedural recommendation which is made is discussed among the three captains and is then presented to the assistant chiefs and chief for final action. It was opined by Captain Lambert that captains would have no duties or responsibilities to management with respect to collective bargaining and that, as a member of a union, there would be no conflict of interest between the performance of their duties and the possibility of grievances filed within the union. It was Captain Lambert's opinion that policy' decisions were implemented, rather than formulated, by him. Fire Lieutenants - There is one lieutenant assigned to work each of three shifts at each of the stations. Lieutenants report to and perform under the general direction of the captain, also known as the shift commander, who reviews the decisions of the lieutenants. In addition to the job description contained in Exhibit No. 6, there was testimony that lieutenants and fire fighters work on the same time schedule, sleep in the same quarters, eat at the same table, prepare meals jointly and perform fire fighting duties jointly. Lieutenants are in charge at the scene of a fire until a senior officer arrives. There was testimony that although lieutenants participate in the normal evaluation procedure which is used as a basis for merit pay increases and they supervise the duties of the men in the station to which they are assigned, their basic duties are fighting fires. Lieutenants do not have anything to do with preparing or administering the budget nor would they work in the City's behalf with regard to collective bargaining negotiations. They have no authority in actually formulating the policy of the Largo Fire Department. If a fire fighter wants to change his schedule or get time off, he would submit a request to a lieutenant or a captain, depending on who was on duty that day. If both were on duty, he would go to a lieutenant. Fire Inspectors - With respect to inspectors, the petitioner simply submitted the job classification contained in Exhibit No. 6 and suggested that none of the tasks enumerated therein meet the statutory criteria of management employees of F.S. Ch. 447. As noted above, it was the City's position that inspectors do not share a community of interest with line personnel that are responsible for fire suppression in that they do not work the same shift and their duties are primarily fire code enforcement rather than fire combat. Dispatchers - The primary duties of dispatchers are to receive and dispatch fire and emergency calls. They dispatch calls solely for the fire department and do not dispatch for the police department or any other city agency. Another of their duties is to maintain files on equipment usage. Dispatchers work eight-hour shifts and eat with the fire fighters when a meal is served during their eight-hour shift. Their uniform is the same as the fire fighters. When a dispatcher is absent from work, a fire fighter fills in for him; although a dispatcher would never fill in for a fire fighter. Dispatchers have nothing to do with formulating policies of the department nor with preparing or administering the budget. They would not assist management in collective bargaining negotiations. Dispatchers are immediately responsible to the lieutenant, then the captain and on up the line of command. One of the four dispatchers of the Largo Fire Department is presently a member of and is represented by the Largo Employees Association, which presently has a collective bargaining agreement with the City. (Exhibit No. 5) This agreement includes public safety dispatchers in the unit. At the time of the hearing the LEA had not yet been certified by PERC. The one dispatcher who testified would prefer to be represented by petitioner, rather than the LEA. Fire Fighters and Chief - As noted above in the introduction, the parties stipulated that fire fighters were properly included in the proposed unit and that the chief is properly excluded from the unit. Recognition history - In the first letter from petitioner's president to the City Manager, recognition was requested for a unit consisting of captains, lieutenants and fire fighters. After the petitioner first spoke to representatives of the City regarding the bargaining unit, the staff assistant to the City Manager first recommended to the Manager that a unit consisting of fire fighters and lieutenants be approved. The City Commission questioned the inclusion of lieutenants. At that point, communications apparently broke down and unfair labor practice charges were filed by both the petitioner and the City. Their charges were subsequently dismissed. After that the petitioner filed its petition for Certification of Representation requesting inclusion of assistant chiefs, captains, inspectors and dispatchers, in addition to lieutenants and fire fighters, since the issue would then be before PERC and PERC could then rule on everybody once and for all. Although petitioner's constitution and by-laws speaks of a unit consisting of the ranks of captain, lieutenant and fire fighter, the same is in the process of being amended. In accordance with F.S. Section 447.307(3)(a) and F.A.C. Rule 8H-3.23, no recommendations are submitted. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: G.R. McClelland, Esquire City Attorney City Hall Largo, Florida 33540 Mr. Robert Jewell City Hall Largo, Florida 33540 Terry A. Furnell 501 South Fort Harrison Clearwater, Florida 33516 Mr. Barry Burkhart 2320 East Bay Drive, No. 135 Clearwater, Florida 33516 Mrs. Lawrence C. Black 152 8th Avenue Southwest Largo, Florida 33540
The Issue The issue is whether The Department of Financial Services properly imposed a Stop Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is charged with the regulation of workers' compensation insurance in the State of Florida. Respondent AFS, LLC. (AFS), is a corporation located in Jacksonville, Florida, and is involved in the construction industry, primarily framing houses. Braman Avery is the owner and manager of AFS. Lee Arsenault is a general contractor whose business is located in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Arsenault contracted with AFS to perform framing services at a construction site located at 1944 Copperstone Drive in Orange Park, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, AFS maintained workers' compensation coverage for its employees through a licensed employee leasing company. AFS contracted with Greenleads Carpentry, Inc. (Greenleads) to perform work at the job site in question. Prior to subcontracting with Greenleads, Mr. Avery requested from Greenleads, among other things, a certificate of insurance showing that Greenleads had general liability coverage and workers' compensation insurance. Greenleads provided a certificate of insurance to Mr. Avery showing that Greenleads had workers' compensation coverage. The certificate of insurance contains a policy number, dollar limits, and effective and expiration dates of June 1, 2004 through June 1, 2005. Debra Cochran is office manager of Labor Finders, an employee leasing company. According to Ms. Cochran, Labor Finders' corporate office issued the certificate of insurance to Greenleads. At the time of issuance, the certificate of insurance was valid. Greenleads did not follow through on its obligations to Labor Finders in that Green Leads did not "run its workers through" Labor Finders. Consequently, Greenleads' workers were not covered by workers' compensation as indicated on the certificate of insurance. Labor Finders did not issue any document showing cancellation or voiding of the certificate of insurance previously issued. Mr. Avery relied upon the face of the certificate of insurance believing AFS to be in total compliance with statutory requirements regarding workers' compensation for subcontractors. That is, he believed that the Greenleads' workers were covered for workers' compensation as indicated on the face of the certificate of insurance. Mr. Avery was not informed by Labor Finders or Greenleads that Greenleads did not, after all, have workers' compensation coverage in place on the workers performing work under the contract between AFS and Greenleads on the worksite in question. Bobby Walton is president of Insure America and has been in the insurance business for 35 years. His company provides general liability insurance to AFS. According to Mr. Walton, Mr. Avery's reliance on Greenleads' presentation to him of a purportedly valid certificate of insurance is the industry standard. Further, Mr. Walton is of the opinion that there was no obligation on behalf of Mr. Avery to confirm coverage beyond receipt of the certificate of insurance provided by the subcontractor. That is, there is no duty on behalf of the contractor to confirm coverage beyond receipt of the certificate of insurance. Allen DiMaria is an investigator employed by the Division. His duties include investigating businesses to ensure that the employers in the state are in compliance with the requirements of the workers' compensation law and related rules. On January 5, 2005, Mr. DiMaria visited the job site in question and observed 13 workers engaged in construction activities. This visit was a random site check. Mr. DiMaria interviewed the owner of Greenleads and checked the Division's database. Mr. DiMaria determined that Greenleads did not have workers' compensation coverage. After conferring with his supervisor, Mr. DiMaria issued a stop-work order to Greenleads, along with a request for business records for the purpose of calculating a penalty for Greenleads. In response to the business records request, Greenleads submitted its check ledger along with an employee cash payment ledger, both of which were utilized in calculating a penalty for Greenleads. On January 11, 2005, Mr. DiMaria issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Greenleads for $45,623.34. Attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued to Greenleads is a penalty worksheet with a list of names under the heading, "Employee Name", listing the names of the employees and amounts paid to each employee. During the investigation of Greenleads, Mr. DiMaria determined that Greenleads was performing subcontracting work for Respondent. This led to the Division's investigation of AFS. Mr. DiMaria spoke to Mr. Avery and determined that AFS paid remuneration to Greenleads for work performed at the worksite. He checked the Division's data base system and found no workers' compensation coverage for AFS. He determined that AFS had secured workers' compensation coverage through Southeast Personnel Services, Inc. (SPLI), also a licensed employee leasing company. However, the policy with SPLI did not cover the employees of Greenleads performing work at the job site. Mr. DiMaria requested business records from Mr. Avery. Mr. Avery fully complied with this request. He examined AFS' check registry and certificates of insurance from AFS. Other than the situation involving Greenleads on this worksite, Mr. DiMaria found AFS to be in complete compliance. On January 10, 2005, after consulting with his supervisor, Robert Lambert, Mr. DiMaria issued a Stop Work Order to AFS. A Stop Work Order issued by the Division requires the recipient to cease operations on a job site because the recipient is believed to be not in compliance with the workers' compensation law. The Stop Work Order issued by Mr. DiMaria was site specific to the work site in question. Based upon the records provided by Mr. Avery, Mr. DiMaria calculated a fine. Penalties are calculated by determining the premium amount the employer would have paid based on his or her Florida payroll and multiplying by a factor of 1.5. Mr. DiMaria's calculation of the fine imposed on AFS was based solely on the Greenleads' employees not having workers' compensation coverage. On February 16, 2005, Mr. DiMaria issued an Amended Order of Penalty in the amount of $45,643.87, the identical amount imposed upon Greenleads. A penalty worksheet was attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The penalty worksheet is identical to the penalty worksheet attached to Greenleads' penalty assessment, with the exception of the business name at the top of the worksheet and the Division's case number. Greenleads partially paid the penalty by entering into a penalty payment agreement with the Division. Greenleads then received an Order of Conditional Release. Similarly, AFS entered into a penalty payment agreement with the Division and received an Order of Conditional Release on February 16, 2005. Moreover, AFS terminated its contract with Greenleads. Lee Arsenault is the general contractor involved in the work site in question. AFS was the sole framing contractor on this project, which Mr. Arsenault described as a "pretty significant project." He has hired AFS to perform framing services over the years. However, because the Stop Work Order was issued to AFS, Mr. Arsenault had to hire another company to complete the framing work on the project. Mr. Avery estimates economic losses to AFS as a result of losing this job to be approximately $150,000, in addition to the fine. Mr. Arsenault, Ms. Cochran, as well as the Division's investigator, Mr. DiMaria, all agree with Mr. Walton's opinion, that it is customary practice in the construction industry for a contractor who is subcontracting work to rely on the face of an insurance certificate provided by a subcontractor. Robert Lambert is a workers' compensation district supervisor for the Division. When asked under what authority the Division may impose a penalty on both Greenleads and AFS for the same infraction, he replied that it was based on the Division's policy and its interpretation of Sections 440.02, 440.10, and 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Workers' Compensation rescind the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued February 16, 2005, and the Stop Work Order issued to Petitioner on January 10, 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 2005. Endnote 1/ While this Recommended Order does not rely upon the case cited by Respondent in its Notice of Supplemental Authority, Respondent was entitled to file it. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Douglas D. Dolin, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Mark K. Eckels, ESquire Boyd & Jenerette, P.A. North Hogan Street, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the final agency action of the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, dated February 22, 2012, complied with section 175.361, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ concerning the dissolution and distribution of the City of Belleair Bluffs Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund.
Findings Of Fact The Pension Trust Fund is a defined benefit pension plan under chapter 175, Florida Statutes. The City participated in the chapter 175 premium tax program with the creation of the Pension Trust Fund. The legislature expressly declared that the purpose of chapter 175 was to establish "minimum standards for the operation and funding of such plans, hereinafter referred to as firefighters' pension trust funds." § 175.021(2), Fla. Stat. Further, the legislature directed that the firefighter pension plans be "managed, administered, operated, and funded in such manner as to maximize the protection of the firefighters' pension trust funds." § 175.021(1), Fla. Stat. Section 175.061 creates a board of trustees for a firefighters' pension trust fund as the legal entity empowered to bring and defend lawsuits, and is "solely responsible for administering the trust fund." § 175.061(1) and (4), Fla. Stat. The board of trustees is directed by statute to act as a fiduciary for the pension trust fund's beneficiaries and participants. §§ 175.071(1) and 112.656, Fla. Stat. The law is clear that a board of trustees is independent of a municipality. §§ 175.071 and 175.311, Fla. Stat. Further, a board of trustees comprises two trustees elected by the firefighters, two trustees who are residents of the municipality appointed by the City Commission, and a fifth member chosen by the majority of the four members. § 175.061(1)(a). Finally, a board of trustees derives its authority and fiduciary duties from chapters 175 and 112. The Board of Trustees in this case was created by and derived its authority under chapter 175. On September 1, 2009, the City’s residents voted to consolidate its fire services with City of Largo. As a result, the Largo Fire Department has provided the City with fire protection since September 30, 2009. Moreover, it was undisputed that the Pension Trust Fund closed as of September 30, 2009. Following the consolidation of the two fire services, City officials and the Board of Trustees began negotiations concerning how to proceed with the Pension Trust Fund. The record shows that the discussions evolved from the Pension Trust Fund being merged with the Largo Firefighters' Pension Fund to discussions concerning the Pension Trust Fund's dissolution and distribution. The negotiations between the City and the Board of Trustees regarding the dissolution and distribution of the Pension Trust Fund discussed a number of alternatives. The record shows that the City and Board of Trustees discussed options such as payment of accrued benefits, a substituted trust managed by the City, and payment of lump sum cash payments in conjunction with a share plan or service distribution payment. The share plan or service distribution plan would have paid a firefighter's accrued benefits plus additional money based on the number of years a firefighter served the City. However, as of early September 2011, the City and the Board of Trustees had not reached an agreement on the dissolution and distribution of the Pension Trust Fund. The key meeting for resolution of this case is the Board of Trustees' meeting on September 9, 2011. The Board of Trustees' meeting minutes and transcript from the September 9, 2011, meeting, show the Board of Trustees' intent to make a decision in strict compliance with section 175.361. Mr. Dehner, the Board of Trustees' attorney, clearly advised the Board that it take a final action in compliance with section 175.361. The record shows that the Board of Trustees voted to accept distribution of accrued benefits only, and voted to have its actuary provide the City with the information showing the amount of additional funds necessary to fund the Pension Trust Fund's distribution. Section 175.361(1) provides that a board of trustees inform a municipality if additional assets are required to fund distribution of the nonforfeitable benefits. The conclusion that the Board of Trustees took a final action in compliance with section 175.361 is confirmed by Mr. Langere's testimony. The record shows that the Board directed Mr. Patrick Donlan of Foster and Foster, its actuary, to provide the City with two options as to the costs for the distribution. The first option concerned the cost of a proposal by the City to dissolve the Pension Trust Fund. The City's proposal, as it was characterized by the Board, consisted of eight firefighters receiving lump sum cash payments of their accrued benefits with a share plan. The share plan would pay the eight firefighters additional money based on each firefighter's years of service. The remaining four firefighters in the Pension Trust Fund would receive insured annuities. The Board of Trustees also directed Mr. Donlan to determine the cost of Board's action in selecting dissolution and distribution of the Pension Trust Fund by purchasing eight annuities and four lump sum cash payments. The transcript for the Board of Trustees' meeting shows the following: SECRETARY WATERS: I make a motion that if the City does not act favorably to the City proposal, what we've been calling "City Proposal - Proposal Number One," then the Board requests that the City pay in accordance with the 9/9/11 letter from Foster & Foster updated as of 9/16/11. The motion received a second, and was unanimously approved by the Board of Trustees. The letter from Mr. Donlan, dated September 9, 2011, set out the Pension Trust Fund's current value and the amount of additional funds required from the City in order to fund the distribution of the accrued benefits with the purchase of eight insured annuities and four lump sum cash payments. Moreover, Mr. Donlan's letter determined the amount of funds required from the City to finance the distribution. Finally, the September 9, 2011, letter set out the costs of a "share plan" allocation. The Board of Trustees' action at the September 9, 2011, meeting, directed the actuary to update the distribution costs using a September 16, 2011, date. The reason for the changed date is that the cost of purchasing annuities varies based on the prevailing interest rates on a particular date. The Board of Trustees chose September 16, 2011, as the date for determining the cost of purchasing the annuities, because the date was the closest date to the City Commission's next scheduled meeting on September 19, 2011. On September 16, 2011, Mr. Donlan wrote Ms. Sullivan, and provided the City with the market value of the Pension Trust Fund on September 15, 2011, and the costs to fund the distribution of the Pension Trust Fund under two scenarios: 1) the City's "Share Plan or Service Distribution Plan"; and 2) the accrued benefit plan approved by the Board of Trustees. The letter shows that, at the time, the current value of the Pension Trust Fund was insufficient to distribute the accrued benefits. Consequently, under either option, the City would be required to pay additional funds in order to distribute the accrued benefits. Mr. Donlan outlined the City's costs under the City's proposed share plan or service distribution plan. Under the City's proposal, eight firefighters would receive lump sum cash payments of their accrued benefits and "service distributions" based on the years of service, and four firefighters would receive insured annuities. Mr. Donlan's letter noted that if the City adopted this proposal, the decision would allow the City to access additional state money to pay for the service distributions. Under the “share plan or service distribution plan,” the City would be required to provide $1,024,786.00 to fund the distribution. The second cost option outlined by Mr. Donlan detailed the cost of funding the Board of Trustees' decision that eight firefighters receive insured annuities, and four firefighters receive lump sum cash payouts. Unlike the “share plan or service distribution plan,” state money would not be available to pay for the accrued benefit plan.3/ The actuary's letter clearly states that under the accrued benefit plan, the City would be required to provide $1,265,330.00 to fund the distribution of the Pension Trust Fund. On September 19, 2011, Mr. Daniel Waters, the Board of Trustees' Secretary, informed the City Commission in writing that the Board of Trustees had met and "accepted a motion concerning the method of payout to the former Belleair Bluffs Firefighters' Pension Members." Further, Mr. Waters informed the City Commission about the costs of the Board's adopted annuity plan, and provided a copy of the actuary's September 16, 2011, letter. The record shows that on September 26, 2011, the City Commission held a special meeting concerning the Pension Trust Fund. The City Commission's minutes show that the City had its actuary prepare documentation showing the financial implications for the City under four different scenarios.4/ Further, the City Commission minutes show that the City Commission failed to take any action, other than to authorize Mayor Arbutine "to write a letter requesting a 90-day extension in order to keep the Share Plan alive while continuing to come to an agreement." Consequently, the City did not provide the additional funds of $1,265,330.00 necessary to distribute the Pension Trust Fund as determined by the Board. On September 29, 2011, Mayor Arbutine wrote the Department seeking its assistance with resolving a problem with the termination of the Pension Trust Fund. Mayor Arbutine's letter outlined the City's liability to fund the options presented by the Board of Trustees. Specifically, Mayor Arbutine lamented that the Board of Trustees' decision would harm the City financially, and that he did not accept that "the City's only option is to pay for whatever method the Board decides is best for the plan members." Consequently, the Mayor asked the Department to take no action pursuant to section 175.361 to effect the dissolution of the Pension Fund for 90 days. The Board did not distribute the Pension Trust Fund on or before September 30, 2011. The Department received information from the City and the Board of Trustees’ decision concerning the Pension Trust Fund's dissolution and distribution. The Department reviewed materials and interviewed the parties. Based on its review, the Department, on February 22, 2012, wrote the City that the Department "has determined that the method of distribution of the asset value as determined by the Board of Trustees is required under section 175.361, Florida Statutes." Further, the Department states the following: In conjunction with this letter, the Department is also corresponding with the Board of Trustees, copy enclosed, instructing them to have the plan actuary prepare an updated financial analysis of the City's required contribution, with a 30-day lock-in period price for the purchase of annuities. This will allow the City of Belleair Bluffs to secure the necessary resources to make the required cash contribution to the plan. The Department provided the City with notice that the February 22, 2012, letter, constituted final agency action, and set out the City's administrative hearing rights. On March 14, 2012, the City filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order finding that the Board of Trustees complied with section 175.361, Florida Statutes, and that the City be directed to comply with the Department's determination to effectuate the distribution of the Pension Trust Fund through the purchase of eight insured annuities and four lump sum cash payouts for the specific plan members. The undersigned retains jurisdiction to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to section 175.061(5), Florida Statutes, upon the entry of a final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 7th day of December, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep, Inc., failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and, if so, what penalty should be assessed against Respondent pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers’ Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on March 3, 2008. Respondent’s registered business address is 952 TR Miller Road, Defuniak Springs, Florida. Ashley Adams is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent. On March 27, 2015, the Department’s investigator-in- training, Jill Scogland, and lead investigator, Sharon Kelson, conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance check at Lot 34 in the Driftwood Estates residential subdivision in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. Ms. Scogland observed two men on site. David Wayne Gibson was operating a front-end loader spreading dirt on site. Colby Smith was shoveling dirt on site. While Ms. Scogland was inspecting the site, a third man, Ashley Adams, arrived driving a dump truck with a load of dirt. Mr. Adams identified himself as the owner of Gulf Coast, and stated that he had an exemption from the requirement for workers’ compensation insurance and that he thought Mr. Gibson did as well. Mr. Adams advised Ms. Scogland that he hired both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Smith to work at the site.2/ At hearing, Respondent challenged the evidence supporting a finding that Respondent hired Mr. Gibson.3/ Specifically, Respondent argues that Ms. Scogland’s testimony that Mr. Adams told her he hired Mr. Gibson is unreliable because Ms. Scogland did not include that information in her field notes. Respondent claims that Ms. Scogland’s status as investigator-in-training on the date of the inspection is indicative of her unreliability. To the contrary, Ms. Scogland’s testimony regarding both the persons and events on the date of the inspection was clear and unequivocal. While Ms. Scogland admitted her field notes were not as detailed on the date in question as they are for more recent inspections, she was confident that her investigation of the facts was thorough. The fact that Ms. Scogland did not write down what Mr. Adams said does not render her testimony unreliable. The undersigned finds Ms. Scogland’s testimony to be clear and convincing. Ms. Scogland reviewed the Department of State, Division of Corporations’ online information and identified Mr. Gibson as President and Registered Agent of David Wayne Gibson Tractor Service, Inc. According to Ms. Scogland, the online records indicated the corporation had been administratively dissolved in September 2013. Ms. Scogland next accessed the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and determined that Mr. Gibson had obtained a workers’ compensation coverage exemption for himself, but the exemption had expired on February 15, 2015. The information contained in CCAS is information on new policies, cancellations, etc., reported to the Department by insurance agencies as required by administrative rule. Next, Ms. Scogland accessed the Division of Corporations’ website, verified Gulf Coast as an active corporation, and identified Mr. Adams as the sole officer of Gulf Coast. Ms. Scogland then accessed CCAS and determined that, although Gulf Coast did not have workers’ compensation coverage, Mr. Adams had an active exemption effective from February 12, 2014 through February 12, 2016. Mr. Adams had a prior exemption that expired on April 14, 2013, but had no valid exemption in place between April 14, 2013 and February 12, 2014. After contacting her supervisor, Michelle Lloyd, Ms. Scogland served Mr. Adams, on behalf of Gulf Coast, with a site-specific Stop-Work Order for failure to ensure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Ms. Scogland also served Mr. Adams with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. The request was for Gulf Coast’s payroll, account, and disbursement records, as well as records identifying its subcontractors, payments thereto, and workers’ compensation coverage thereof, from March 28, 2013 through March 27, 2015 (the penalty period).4/ Mr. Adams did not provide any records to the Department in response to the records request. The Department’s penalty auditor, Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalty to be assessed against Gulf Coast for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance during the penalty period. The penalty to be assessed against an employer for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage is two times the amount the employer would have paid in workers’ compensation insurance premiums when applying approved manual rates to the employer’s payroll during the penalty period. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Ms. Jackson consulted the Scopes Manual, which is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), and identified class code 6217--Excavation and Drivers-- as the appropriate construction class code for the work being performed at the worksite. Respondent contests the assignment of class code 6217 to Mr. Adams, who was driving a dump truck and delivering a load of dirt to the site. Respondent admits that Mr. Gibson’s operation of the front-end loader was properly classified as Excavation and Drivers. NCCI Scopes Manual provides the following with regard to classification code 6217: Includes burrowing, filling or backfilling. * * * Code 6217 is applied to specialist contractors engaged in general excavation including ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling provided such operations are not otherwise classified in the manual. The operations involve the removal of earth, small boulders and rocks by power shovels, trench diggers or bulldozers and piling it at the jobsite for backfill. The material may also be removed by dump trucks for fill in some other area. Code 6217 includes excavation in connection with building foundations, swimming pools, landscape gardening and waterproofing operations. * * * This classification also is applied to specialist contractors engaged in grading land and landfilling, provided these operations are not otherwise classified in this manual. This classification includes ditch digging, burrowing, filling or backfilling, and operations such as scraping, cutting, piling or pushing the earth to rearrange the terrain. These operations utilize equipment such as bulldozers, motor graders and carryalls. [emphasis supplied]. Mr. Adams’ operation of the dump truck falls squarely within the definition of Excavation and Drivers. The material in the dump truck was fill for the site under excavation, a purpose which is directly addressed in the manual under code 6217. Under Respondent’s interpretation, fill removed from the site by a dump truck would be an excavation activity, but would no longer be excavation when the dump truck arrived at another site (or at another location on the same site) with the fill. That interpretation is illogical. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that typical operation of a dump truck in preconstruction was classified by a different code in the Scopes Manual. It is found that Ms. Jackson properly applied the Scopes Manual in assigning code 6217 to the work being performed by Mr. Adams on the site. Having no payroll records from Gulf Coast, Ms. Jackson had to impute the statewide average weekly wage as Respondent’s payroll for Mr. Adams and his subcontractor, Mr. Gibson. The average weekly wages were calculated based on the Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability approved rate manual also published by NCCI and adopted by the Department by administrative rule. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of two times the workers’ compensation insurance premiums that would have applied to the purchase of insurance for Mr. Adams and Mr. Gibson during periods of non-compliance during the penalty. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Adams was April 15, 2013 to February 11, 2014, during which time his exemption had lapsed. The period of non-compliance for Mr. Gibson was February 16, 2015 to March 27, 2015, during which his exemption had expired. § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Utilizing the penalty calculation worksheet adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027, Ms. Scogland calculated a penalty of $12,181.42. On May 20, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Gulf Coast in the amount of $12,181.42. The Department correctly calculated the penalty based on the statutory formulas and adopted rules governing workers’ compensation insurance.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order upholding the Stop-Work Order and Amended Penalty Assessment against Respondent, Gulf Coast Site Prep., Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 14th day of January, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent was an employee engaged in the construction industry and required to obtain workers' compensation insurance while working on the roof of the Myakka Animal Clinic and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On August 24, 1998, Petitioner's investigator observed Respondent working on the roof of the Myakka Animal Clinic in Venice, Florida. At the time, Respondent was regularly employed by Paradise Roofing, Inc., where he had an exemption from workers' compensation insurance coverage. He has never previously been guilty of a violation of the workers' compensation laws. The contract price was $800. However, the evidence is conflicting as to the identity of the party that entered into the contract with the Myakka Animal Clinic. The veterinarian testified that her understanding of the agreement was that Respondent was to do the work, but, if any problems arose, he was not alone, and she could go to Paradise Roofing, Inc., to ensure that the labor and materials were satisfactory. Although there are other indications in the record that Respondent may have been working on his own on this job, there is sufficient conflict in the evidence that Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent was doing the job as a self- employed person, rather than an exempt employee of Paradise Roofing, Inc. Respondent's understanding of the contractual relationship carries less weight than the veterinarian's understanding of this relationship.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers' Compensation enter a final order dismissing the Notice and Penalty Assessment Order and any related stop work order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Louise T. Sadler, Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Eric Kristiansen 3750 Aba Lane North Port, Florida 34287
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1976, James McKnight was fire chief for respondent City of Lauderhill. At that time there was a vacancy in respondent's fire department for a fire lieutenant. Respondent's mayor gave Chief McKnight a list of three names which had been given to the mayor by the civil service board. The mayor told the fire chief to pick a person from the list for the fire lieutenant position and said "that he had been advised that the lieutenants were not eligible or allowable to belong to the union." (R17) The names on the list were those of Messrs. Scheiblich, Farmer and Schwartz, in that order, all of whom worked for respondent as firefighters. On September 30, 1976, Chief McKnight summoned Mr. Scheiblich to his office and discussed promoting him to fire lieutenant. The fire chief told Mr. Scheiblich that he could not be active in the union while service as a fire lieutenant and that he would have to resign from the union at the conclusion of his probationary period as a fire lieutenant. Mr. Scheiblich answered that he was under the impression that, although he would have to leave the bargaining unit, he could remain an active member of the union, but that, if a promotion would require his leaving the union, he would rather forego the promotion and remain a member of the union. Chief McKnight said he would consult the city attorney for his advice on whether Mr. Scheiblich's promotion would require his resignation from the union. Chief McKnight telephoned the city attorney, Mr. Titone, who told him that Mr. Scheiblich's serving in the rank of fire lieutenant would necessitate his resigning from the union. This advice was based in part on PERC's decision in its Case No. 8H-RC-756-1240. In that case, On June 23, 1976, PERC voted two to one to exclude fire lieutenants from the bargaining unit; because, as was subsequently explained, in the written order entered in Case No. 8H-RC-756-1240 on October 4, 1986, "the lieutenants manage the men on a day-to-day basis and will provide the basic input for promulgating and evaluating collective bargaining proposals submitted during negotiations." Although the record does not reflect that respondent had made a separate application for determination of the managerial or confidential status of fire lieutenants, respondent's attorney acted in good faith in advising Chief McKnight that Mr. Scheiblich would not be eligible for promotion to fire lieutenant if he was unwilling to resign from the union; and Chief McKnight acted in good faith in following Mr. Titone's advice. Acting on instructions from the mayor, whom he had apprised of the situation, Chief McKnight next interviewed Mr. Farmer. Among the questions he asked Mr. Farmer was one "about having to get out of the union in order to be able to accept lieutenant's promotion; and he said, it was all right with him" (R19) After this interview, Chief McKnight recommended Mr. Farmer's promotion, just as he had earlier recommended Mr. Scheiblich's promotion. The mayor was pleased with Mr. Farmer's selection. He nevertheless told the fire chief to interview the only other person listed, Mr. Schwartz, which Chief McKnight did even though he "couldn't see the necessity." (R29) The question of fire lieutenants' union membership came up in the Schwartz interview, too, and Chief McKnight indicated he was relying on what he had been told by the mayor and by the city attorney. At the time of these events, Mr. Scheiblich was union president and Mr. Schwartz was secretary-treasurer of the union. Chief McKnight and Mayor Cipolloni were aware of this because a letter from Mr. Schwartz, dated August 16, 1976, had so informed them. After Chief McKnight had interviewed Mr. Scheiblich for the fire lieutenant's job, he saw for the first time and read a petition signed by most of the firemen in respondent's employ, including all three persons listed as possibilities for promotion to fire lieutenant. This petition was critical of the management of the fire department, and "was a pretty strong petition. It was ultimately very successful. It got [Chief McKnight] fired." (R18) After reading the petition, Chief McKnight was unsure how long he would remain fire chief, and he told Mr. Scheiblich "to just sit tight [because Chief McKnight] wasn't going to do anything about promoting somebody to lieutenant until [he] was sure whether [he] was still working [for the fire department himself]." (R18-19) The firemen's petition upset Chief McKnight, but did not influence his recommendations for fire lieutenant. Chief McKnight withdrew his recommendation that Mr. Scheiblich be promoted to fire lieutenant, because Mr. Scheiblich would not agree to resign from the union, which respondent's mayor and city attorney had advised Chief McKnight would be necessary. Chief McKnight recommended that Mr. Farmer be promoted to fire lieutenant because his name was next on the list and because Mr. Farmer had no objection to resigning from the union at the end of a probationary period as fire lieutenant. Chief McKnight did not recommend that Mr. Schwartz be promoted to fire lieutenant because he had already recommended Mr. Farmer for the position, and Mayor Cipolloni had indicated he was going to accept the recommendation that Mr. Farmer be promoted. Mr. Farmer was in fact promoted to fire lieutenant, while Messers. Scheiblich and Schwartz were not. The case file reflects that the union filed unfair labor practice charges against respondent and mailed a copy to respondent's counsel on October 8, 1976. In addition to alleging that the circumstances surrounding the promotion of Mr. Farmer amounted to an unfair labor practice, the union alleged that respondent's mayor, Eugene Cipolloni, had sent two letters and made a public statement that constituted unfair labor practices. On or about October 13, 1976, Eugene Cipolloni, respondent's mayor, gave Chief McKnight a verbal directive to change the fire department's temporary shift exchange policy, effective November 1, 1976. Even though respondent's city council had adopted the policy on August 13, 1976, as its Resolution No. 572, the mayor felt a memorandum under the fire chief's signature should suffice to alter the policy. Before the change, the procedure was that a fireman who wanted another fireman to fill in for him made his request in writing and secured the signature of the proposed substitute. These requests then went up through the chain of command and were routinely granted. On one occasion, a fire lieutenant failed to report as a substitute, after agreeing to do so. Since the change in policy, temporary shift exchanges have only been allowed in cases of illness or in other emergencies. This change in policy was ordered by Mayor Cipolloni in retaliation for the filing of the unfair labor practice charges, although ensuring a full complement on each shift was the ostensible reason for the change in policy. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which appears as an appendix to the order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent restore and reestablish the temporary shift exchange policy which obtained before the memorandum posted on October 13, 1976, changed the policy, effective November 1, 1976. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Powers, Jr., Esq. General Counsel Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Anthony J. Titone, Esq. City Attorney City of Lauderhill 6299 West Sunrise Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33313 Robert A. Sugarman, Esq. Post Office Drawer 520337 Miami, Florida 33121 APPENDIX The charging party's proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, with these exceptions: There was only one opening for fire lieutenant. Chief McKnight had the authority to select the person for promotion only in the sense that he had authority to recommend somebody for promotion. Some of the details of the temporary shift exchange policy set forth in the last paragraph of page four of the charging party's proposed fact findings were recited by Mr. Schwartz in the course of examining witnesses but were not established as part of the evidence adduced at the hearing. Respondent's proposed fact findings Nos. 1, 3(b), 3(d), and 3(f)-(h), have been adopted, in substance. Respondent's proposed fact findings Nos. 2(a)-(e) have been rejected because the evidence as a whole persuaded the hearing officer that the change in temporary shift exchange policy was in retaliation for the filing of unfair labor practice charges. Both the mayor and the fire chief testified that the change was ordered by the mayor himself and that the fire chief merely carried the mayor's order out. The procedure by which the previous policy had been adopted was not followed in amending the policy. The change came at a time of upheaval, after a period of "rumors and commotion," (R19), and at a time when the mayor had just been accused of personally committing unfair labor practices. The mayor's demeanor at the hearing and the evasive manner in which he answered Mr. Schwartz's questions contributed significantly to the hearing officer's conclusion: In testifying, the mayor essentially took the tack that there had been change in the temporary shift exchange policy. The only credible testimony concerning shortcomings under the original policy concerned a single instance in which a fire lieutenant had failed to show up for a shift he had agreed to work, for which dereliction he had been disciplined. Respondent's proposed fact findings No. 3(a) and 3(c) have been rejected because the evidence showed that respondent failed to promote Mr. Scheiblich because he would not agree to resign from the union at the end of a probationary period as fire lieutenant. Respondent's proposed fact finding No. 3(e) has been rejected because Chief McKnight had also been advised by the mayor and the city attorney on the question of the fire lieutenants' managerial status.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Joe A. Cabrera (Petitioner) was, and is currently, a certified firefighter in the State of Florida and employed with the City of Miami. On or about November 1, 1993, Petitioner applied for entry into the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program (Program). He executed a transcript request form for the Program, requesting Miami-Dade Community College (Miami-Dade), Miami, Florida, to forward an official copy of his transcript to Respondent. Miami-Dade complied with Petitioner's request. Petitioner's transcript showed all courses completed and indicated that he was awarded an Associates of Arts degree from Ranger Junior College in Texas on May 7, 1982. It does not identify a major associated with his degree. Furthermore, Petitioner's transcript reflected that subsequent to the issuance of his Associates of Arts degree, he completed in excess of 30 hours of fire-related courses at Miami-Dade. By letter dated November 12, 1993, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for entry into the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program on the basis that he failed to possess an eligible associate degree in accordance with Section 633.382, Florida Statutes, and Rule 4A-37.085, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order denying Joe A. Cabrera entry into the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the associate degree level. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 22nd day of June 1994. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Petitioner's proposed findings are not numbered, so they are addressed paragraph by paragraph.) Paragraph 1. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 5. Paragraph 2. Partially accepted in Findings of Fact 1, 3 and 4. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 5. 4 & 5. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 6. Partially accepted in Finding of Fact 4. NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, nor supported by the evidence, argument, or conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Phillips, Esquire Kaplan & Bloom, P.A. Suite 214, Plaza Bank Building 3001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Kathleen M. Phillips, Esquire Kaplan & Bloom, P.A. Suite 214, Plaza Bank Building 3001 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The petition herein was filed by the Petitioner with PERC on February 11, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). The hearing in this case was scheduled by notice dated May 3, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2). The City of Boca Raton is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(2). (Stipulation, Transcript of Record */ , Page 6). The Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(10). (Stipulation, TR 6, 7). The Petitioner has requested recognition as the bargaining agent of employees set out in the petition, and the Public Employer has denied the request. (Stipulation, TR 7). There is no contractual bar to holding an election in this case, and there is no pertinent collective bargaining history which affects the issues in this case. (Stipulation, TR 7, 8). PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner is a duly registered employee organization. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner filed the requisite showing of interest with its petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. The Public Employer contends that the unit described in the petition is inappropriate, and that the Petitioner has made no appropriate showing of interest with respect to any appropriate collective bargaining unit. The Public Employer's Fire Department is divided into five divisions. The employees in the proposed collective bargaining unit all work under the Administrative Division, and are supervised by an assistant chief. The other divisions are the Training Division, Operations Division, Staff and Line Support Division, and Fire Prevention Division. The Public Employer operates four fire stations. Station No. One is the Department's headquarters. Fire fighters and emergency medical personnel are housed at headquarters as are all communications personnel, including the persons in the proposed collective bargaining unit. None of the persons in the proposed unit are stationed at the Public Employer's other fire stations. Dispatchers and Alarm Operators are supervised either by the Assistant Chief in charge of the Administrative Division, or by the company officer in- charge of the shift at the headquarters station. Dispatchers are not certified fire fighters, and they do not perform the duties of certified fire fighters. Fire fighters work what is called a twenty-four-hour-on, forty-eight-hour-off shift. Dispatchers work an eight-hour shift which revolves so that one or more dispatchers are continuously on duty. Dispatchers and fire fighters have a different pension plan, and different employee benefits. Fire fighters make a larger contribution to theirs pension plan than do dispatchers, and are covered by their plan from the first day of employment. Dispatchers are not covered until after the passage of six months. The City provides hazardous duty insurance for fire fighters, but not for dispatchers. Dispatchers have a six- months probationary period. Fire fighters have a one-year probationary period. Although dispatchers do not perform the work of fire fighters, fire fighters are trained to serve as dispatchers, and do frequently perform the dispatchers' functions. The dispatchers and fire fighters work closely together. There are occasional social functions attended by fire fighters and dispatchers which no other city employees attend. Dispatchers receive the same basic employment benefits that are received by clerical employees of the Public Employer. They have the same pension plan, vacation and sick leave policies, and they serve the same probationary period. Dispatchers and clerical employees receive similar salaries. The only promotions available to dispatchers within the City of Boca Raton would be to clerical positions with a higher pay grade. There are no promotions available within the Fire Department. Dispatchers do not perform typing, filing, and other general clerical duties. Their function is not, however, unique to the City. The Police Department also employs dispatchers, and police and fire dispatchers have the same job description. (Public Employer's Exhibit 7). The Public Employer is presently engaged in collective bargaining with three employee organizations representing three certified bargaining units. There is a unit of "blue collar" employees, a unit of sworn police officers, and a unit of certified fire fighters. ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Crossland, Esquire Muller & Mintz, P. A. Suite 600, One Hundred Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33132 Richard F. Krooss, President Fire Fighters of Boca Raton, No. 1560 Post Office Box 565 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Curtis L. Mack, Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300 - 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 =================================================================
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2002), by not obtaining workers' compensation insurance for her employees; and whether Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against Respondent pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying; documentary materials received in evidence; stipulations by the parties; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003); and the record evidence submitted, the following relevant and material finding of facts are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. (2002).1 On August 8, 2003, Respondent was a sole proprietor in the construction industry by framing single-family homes. On that day, Respondent was the sub-contractor under contract with Marco Raffaele, general contractor, providing workers on a single-family home(s) located on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision, Riverview, Florida. It is the responsibility of the Respondent/employer to secure and maintain workers' compensation coverage for each employee. During the early morning hours of August 8, 2003, Donald Lott, the Department's workers' compensation compliance investigator, was in the Panther Trace subdivision checking on site workers for potential violations of the workers' compensation statute. While driving down Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision, Mr. Lott approached two houses under construction. There he checked the construction workers on site and found them in compliance with the workers' compensation statute. Mr. Lott recognized several of the six men working on the third house under construction next door and went over to investigate workers' compensation coverage for the workers.2 At the third house Mr. Lott interviewed Darren McCarty, Henry Keithler, and Mike Sabin, all of whom acknowledged that they worked for Respondent, d/b/a Riopelle Construction. Mr. Lott ascertained through Southeast Leasing Company (Southeast Leasing) that three of the six workers, Messrs. Keithler, Sabin, and McCarthy were listed on Southeast Leasing Company's payroll through a valid employee lease agreement with Respondent as of August 8, 2003. The completed employee lease agreement provided for Southeast Leasing Company to provide workers' compensation coverage for only those employees whose names, dates of birth, and social security numbers are contained in the contractual agreement by which Southeast Leasing leased those named employees to the employing entity, Respondent, d/b/a Riopelle Construction. Mr. Lott talked with the other three workers on site, Ramos Artistes, Ryan Willis, and Robert Stinchcomb. Each worker acknowledged working for (as an employee) Respondent on August 8, 2003, in the Panther Trace subdivision. In reply to his faxed inquiry to Southeast Leasing regarding the workers' compensation coverage status for Messrs. Artistes, Willis, and Stinchcomb, Southeast Leasing confirmed to Mr. Lott that on August 8, 2003, Southeast Leasing did not have a completed employee leasing contractual agreement with Respondent for Messrs. Artistes, Willis or Stinchcomb. Southeast Leasing did not provide workers' compensation coverage for Messrs. Artistes, Willis or Stinchcomb on August 8, 2003.3 Southeast Leasing is an "employee" leasing company and is the "employer" of "leased employees." As such, Southeast Leasing is responsible for providing workers' compensation coverage for its "leased employees" only. Southeast Leasing, through its account representative, Dianne Dunphy, input employment applications into their system on the day such application(s) are received from employers seeking to lease employees. Southeast Leasing did not have employment applications in their system nor did they have a completed contractual employment leasing agreement and, therefore, did not have workers' compensation coverage for Messrs. Artistes and Willis at or before 12:08 p.m. on August 8, 2003. After obtaining his supervisor's authorization, Mr. Lott served a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order against Respondent on August 8, 2003, at 12:08 p.m., requiring the cessation of all business activities and assessing a penalty of $100, required by Subsection 440.107(5), Florida Statutes, and a penalty of $1,000, as required by Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes, the minimum penalty under the statute. On August 12, 2003, the Department served a Corrected Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order containing one change, corrected federal identification number for Respondent's business, Riopelle Construction. Mr. Stinchcomb, the third worker on the construction job site when Mr. Lott made his initial inquiry, was cutting wood. On August 8, 2003, at or before 12:00 p.m., Mr. Stinchcomb was not on the Southeast Leasing payroll as a leased employee covered for workers' compensation; he did not have individual workers' compensation coverage; and he did not have a workers' compensation exemption. On that day and at that time, Mr. Stinchcomb worked as an employee of Riopelle Construction and was paid hourly by Riopelle Construction payroll check(s). Respondent's contention that Mr. Stinchcomb, when he was working on the construction job site between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on August 8, 2003, was an independent contractor fails for the lack of substantial and competent evidence in support thereof. On August 8, 2003, the Department, through Mr. Lott, served an administrative request for business records on Respondent. Respondent failed and refused to respond to the business record request. An Order requiring Respondent to respond to Petitioner's discovery demands was entered on December 1, 2003, and Respondent failed to comply with the order. On December 8, 2003, Respondent responded that "every effort would be made to provide the requested documents by the end of the day" to Petitioner. Respondent provided no reliable evidence and Mr. Stinchcomb was not called to testify in support of Respondent's contention that Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor as he worked on the site on August 8, 2003. Respondent's evidence, both testamentary and documentary, offered to prove that Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor on the date in question failed to satisfy the elements required in Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes. Subsection 440.02(15)(c), Florida Statutes, in pertinent part provides that: "[f]or purposes of this chapter, an independent contractor is an employee unless he or she meets all of the conditions set forth in subparagraph(d)(1)." Subsection 440.02(15)(d)(1) provides that an "employee" does not include an independent contractor if: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal requirements; The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for specific amounts of money and controls the means of performing the services or work; The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform; The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform and is or could be held liable for a failure to complete the work or services; The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job or competitive-bid basis and not on any other basis; The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services; The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations; and The success or failure of the independent contractor's business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. The testimony of Respondent and the testimony of her husband, Edward Riopelle, was riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and incorrect dates and was so confusing as to render such testimony unreliable. Based upon this finding, Respondent failed to present evidence sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Subsection 440.02(15)(d)1, Florida Statutes, and failed to demonstrate that on August 8, 2003, Mr. Stinchcomb was an independent contractor. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that on August 8, 2003, Mr. Stinchcomb, while working on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision was an employee of Respondent and was not an independent contractor. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Stinchcomb did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. On August 8, 2003, Mr. Willis was a laborer on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision as an employee of Respondent, who paid him $7.00 per hour. Mr. Willis was not listed on the employee list maintained by Southeast Leasing, recording those employees leased to Respondent. Mr. Willis did not have independent workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. Mr. Willis had neither workers' compensation coverage nor a workers' compensation exemption on August 8, 2003. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Willis did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. On August 8, 2003, Mr. Artises was a laborer on the single-family construction site on Navigation Drive in the Panther Trace subdivision and was an employee of Respondent. Mr. Artises had been in the employment of Respondent for approximately one week before the stop work order. Mr. Artises did not have independent workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003. Mr. Artises did not have a workers' compensation coverage exemption on August 8, 2003. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Aristes did not have workers' compensation coverage on August 8, 2003.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleading and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, affirming and adopting the Corrected Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order dated August 12, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(17)(a), Florida Statutes (2009),1 as a substitute teacher for the Lee County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been an employee of the Lee County School Board (the School Board) from February 28, 2001, through the date of the final hearing. The School Board is a participating member in the FRS. Petitioner has never been a full-time employee of the School Board and has never been eligible for service credits for purposes of the FRS. From February 28, 2001, until some time in May 2004, the School Board employed Petitioner in a temporary, part-time position. From some time in May 2004 through the date of the final hearing, the School Board has employed Petitioner as a substitute teacher. From February 28, 2001, through some time in May 2004, the School Board required part-time employees such as Petitioner to participate in a plan identified in the record as the Bencor FICA Alternative Plan (the Bencor Plan). The Bencor Plan provided retirement benefits for temporary teachers, who were not eligible for FRS retirement benefits. On May 25, 2004, Petitioner submitted a Distribution Request Form to withdraw her accumulated savings from the Bencor Plan. Petitioner was eligible to withdraw her retirement benefits from the Bencor Plan, because she changed her employment status from a temporary teacher to a substitute teacher. Some time in May 2004, Petitioner began teaching as a substitute teacher for the School Board. Petitioner has continued as a substitute teacher for the School Board through the date of the final hearing. As a substitute teacher, Petitioner is not a full-time employee, who is eligible for service credits for purposes of the FRS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for FRS benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 11th day of August, 2010.
