The Issue Whether Respondent Five Brothers Produce Inc. is indebted to Petitioner for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner grows tomatoes on its farm in Dade County. Jack Wishart is in charge of the farm's operations. Five Brothers Produce, Inc., is a dealer in agricultural products. At all times material hereto, Pete Johnson was responsible for buying and selling produce for Five Brothers. He was assisted by Robert Barbare. On Friday, January 19, 1990, Johnson met with Wishart at Petitioner's farm. During their meeting, they discussed the possibility of Five Brothers purchasing all of Petitioner's 6x7 tomatoes. They ultimately entered into a verbal agreement concerning the matter. Under the terms of the agreement, Five Brothers agreed to purchase from Petitioner, and Petitioner agreed to sell to Five Brothers, Petitioner's supply of 6x7 tomatoes, which consisted of 293 packages, for $26.00 a package. At the time, tomatoes were in scarce supply because of the damage that had been done to the South Florida tomato crop by the freeze of the prior month. As a result, the market price for U.S.#1 grade 6x7 tomatoes was $32.00 a package. Wishhart agreed to a lower price for Petitioner's 6x7 tomatoes because they were U.S.#2 grade. The 293 packages of tomatoes were delivered to Five Brothers on the following day, Saturday, January 20, 1990. Johnson had purchased the tomatoes for Five Brothers to resell to a customer in Atlanta, Georgia. Upon inspecting the tomatoes after their arrival at Five Brothers' loading dock in Florida City, Johnson determined that they did not meet the needs of this particular customer because, in Johnson's opinion, they were too ripe to be shipped out of state. Johnson thereupon telephoned Wishart to tell him that the tomatoes were not suitable for his Atlanta customer. Later that same day, January 20, 1990, pursuant to Johnson's instructions, Barbare, Five Brothers' "late night clerk," contacted Wishart and advised him that Five Brothers wanted to return the tomatoes to Petitioner. The gates of Petitioner's farm were closed, and Wishart so informed Barbare. He then asked Barbare to store the tomatoes in Five Brothers' cooler until they could be returned to Petitioner's farm. Barbare agreed to do so. Approximately a day or two later, Barbare again telephoned Wishart. He told Wishart that Five Brothers had found a customer to whom it could sell the tomatoes, which were still in Five Brothers' cooler. Wishart, in response, stated that Petitioner would lower its sale price and "take $20.00," instead of $26.00 as previously agreed, for the tomatoes. 1/ On Monday, January 22, 1990, Five Brothers consummated a deal with Leo Genecco & Sons, Inc., (Genecco) of Rochester, New York, which agreed to purchase the tomatoes from Five Brothers. 2/ The tomatoes were priced "open," that is, the price of the tomatoes was to be established after the sale. Five Brothers ultimately received $3,149.75 ($10.75 a package) for the 293 packages of 6x7 tomatoes it had sold to Genecco. It thereupon sent a check in that amount to Petitioner as payment for these tomatoes. In the transaction at issue in the instant case, Five Brothers was not acting as a broker or agent for Petitioner. It purchased the tomatoes from Petitioner. The sales price was initially $26.00 a package and was later reduced to $20.00 a package. Accordingly, for the 293 packages of tomatoes Petitioner sold Five Brothers, it should have received from Five Bothers $5,860.00, $2,710.25 more than it was paid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order (1) finding that Five Brothers is indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $2,710.25, (2) directing Five Brothers to make payment to Petitioner in the amount of $2,710.25 within 15 days following the issuance of the order, and (3) announcing that, if such payment is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from the Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., Five Brother's surety. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of March, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Wishart Pine Islands Farms, Inc. Post Office Box 247 Goulds, Florida 33170 Pete Johnson Five Brothers Produce, Inc. Post Office Box 3592 Florida City, Florida 33034 Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 5700 Southwest 34th Street Gainesville, Florida 32608 Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether Respondents, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. (Ag-Mart), and its employees' Justin Oelman (in DOAH Case No. 06-0729) and Warrick Birdwell (in DOAH Case No. 06-0730), committed some, any, or all of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints detailed herein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with administration of the Florida Pesticide Law, Chapter 487, Part I, Florida Statutes. Among the duties of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring within the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services are the designation and regulation of restricted-use pesticides, the testing and licensure of certified pesticide applicators, and the enforcement of federal worker protection standards regarding the exposure of farm workers to pesticides. §§ 487.011, 487.042, 487.044, and 487.051, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-2.039. The Administrative Complaints allege two types of violation of the Florida Pesticide Law. First, they allege that Ag-Mart harvested tomatoes prior to the end of the pre-harvest interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied to a tomato plant before that plant's fruit may be safely harvested. The pre-harvest interval is specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. Second, they allege that Ag-Mart allowed workers to enter sprayed fields prior to the end of the restricted entry interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied before it is safe for a worker to enter or remain in the treated area. The restricted entry interval is also specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. In 2004, Ag-Mart operated farms in several locations in Florida and North Carolina. Ag-Mart operated packing houses in Plant City, Florida, and in New Jersey. Ag-Mart grows, packages, and distributes grape tomatoes under the "Santa Sweets" label, and a round-type tomato marketed as "Ugly Ripe." During all times relevant to this proceeding, Ag-Mart's principal administrative offices were located in Plant City, Florida, and Ag-Mart's operations were managed by its president, Donald Long. At the final hearing, several Ag-Mart employees, including Mr. Long, testified as to Ag-Mart's practices in establishing planting and pesticide spraying schedules, carrying out those schedules in the field, and ensuring that legal restrictions on pesticide use are observed. This testimony is credited as to Ag-Mart's general pattern and practice, but does not disprove the Department's evidence as to particular instances of pre-harvest interval or restricted entry interval violations. Among other duties, Mr. Long was responsible for scheduling Ag-Mart's cultivation of tomato plants at the company's farms, so that product is available year-round. Mr. Long prepared a 2004 planting schedule that spaced the planting of new crops a week to ten days apart to ensure a continuous flow of tomatoes once the plants matured. For the 2004 season, the South Florida farm began planting in September 2003, with harvesting commencing in December 2003 and continuing through May 2004. The North Florida farm started its spring season plantings in March and April 2004, with harvest beginning in early June 2004 and lasting until August 2004. Each "planting" at Ag-Mart consists of a specific amount of acreage that is cultivated for a specific period of time to produce an expected yield of tomatoes. Mr. Long determines the size of each planting based on past yields and projected needs. A single planting of grape tomatoes is harvested multiple times. Depending on conditions, a planting of grape tomatoes at the South Florida farm can be harvested between ten and 15 times in the fall, with fewer harvesting opportunities in the spring. A planting of grape tomatoes at the North Florida farm may be harvested between eight and ten times. Each planting takes up portions of acreage called "fields," which are divided by land features and irrigation systems. Fields are of varying sizes, depending on the nature of the terrain and the irrigation system. The fields are numbered, and a planting is usually done in a certain number of roughly contiguous fields. A field is further divided into separately numbered "blocks," each block consisting of six rows of tomato plants, three rows on each side of a "drive area" through which tractors and harvest trucks can maneuver to reach the plants. The blocks are numbered in sequence from the beginning to the end of the field. At the South Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated ten separate plantings of between 79 and 376 gross acres. Each planting contained as few as three and as many as ten separate fields. At the North Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated five separate plantings of between 92 and 158 gross acres. Each planting contained either two or three separate fields.2 The cycle of farming activities at the Ag-Mart farms included ground preparation, planting, staking, tying, harvesting, and post-harvest clean-up. Farm laborers were recruited and transported to the fields by crew leaders, who must be registered as farm labor contractors with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation pursuant to Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61L-1.004. The crew leaders supervised the field laborers and prepared their weekly time cards. The crew leaders were directed by Ag-Mart's labor supervisors as to where the laborers were to work and which tasks were to be performed at any given time. Crew leaders providing services to Ag-Mart in 2004 included: Sergio Salinas, d/b/a Salinas & Son, Inc.; Pascual Sierra; and Juan Anzualda, d/b/a Juan Anzualda Harvesting, Inc. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda were crew leaders at the South Florida farm in the spring 2004 season. Mr. Sierra was a crew leader at the North Florida farm in 2004. At the South Florida farm, Mr. Salinas and three or four supervisors called "field walkers" oversaw the daily work of the 150 to 200 farm laborers who worked in Mr. Salinas' crew. Mr. Salinas owned and operated buses that transported the workers to and within the farm. Mr. Salinas also operated trucks to haul the harvested tomatoes from the fields to the shipping dock on the South Florida farm. A truck was also needed to move portable toilets to the fields for the use of the laborers. Because of the amount of equipment necessary to conduct a harvest, and the intense hand labor required to pick a row of tomatoes, Mr. Salinas always kept his crew together in one location while harvesting. During the period of January through May 2004, Mr. Salinas' crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day, and never more than four fields in one day. Mr. Anzualda and his 15 field walkers supervised a crew of 150 laborers at the South Florida farm during March and April 2004. Mr. Anzualda always kept his crew together when performing harvesting activities, due to the amount of equipment and the time necessary to set up near the work areas. Mr. Anzualda estimated that it took between 45 and 90 minutes to set up his equipment and line up his workers along the rows before harvesting could commence in a given field. Mr. Anzualda's crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day at the South Florida farm during the peak harvest period of March and April 2004, and never in more than four fields in one day. Ag-Mart paid the farm laborers the piece rate of $2.50 per tub of grape tomatoes. A "tub" weighs about 21 pounds. Different piece rates applied to different forms of work. For tying activities, the laborers under Mr. Salinas were paid $0.75 per 100 linear feet of work, while those under Mr. Anzualda were paid $0.50 per 100 linear feet. The laborers were paid the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour for some work, such as weeding and the harvest of Ugly Ripe tomatoes. In any event, the laborers were guaranteed the minimum wage, and were paid $5.15 per hour if that amount was greater than their pay would have been under piece work rates. Planting activities are performed by hand. Tomato plants are started in greenhouses, and then transplanted to the field when they are six weeks old and about six inches high. Staking is performed manually and by machine, as stakes are placed between the tomato plants to support the plants as they mature. Tying is performed manually, from about the second week after planting until the eighth or ninth week. "Tying" involves tying the tomato plants with string to the stakes to allow them to grow up the stakes as they mature. The tomato plants are six to seven feet tall at maturity. After the tomatoes were planted in 2004, Ag-Mart's farms began the application of pesticides according to a company-wide spray program devised by Mr. Long prior to the season. The spray program outlined the type and volume of pesticide products to be applied to the maturing tomato plants from the first week of planting through the end of the harvest. Once tying and harvesting activities began, Ag-Mart's spray program called for the application of pesticides "behind the tying" or "behind the harvest," meaning that spraying was done immediately after tying or harvesting was completed in a field. The spraying was done behind the workers because picking and tying opens up the plants, which enables the pesticide to better penetrate the plant. The timing of the spraying also allows fungicide to cover wounds from broken leaves caused by picking, thus preventing infection. Harvesting is performed manually by the farm laborers, who pick the ripe fruit from the tomato plants and place it into containers. The crew leader lines up the laborers with one person on each side of a row of tomatoes, meaning that a crew of 150 laborers can pick 75 rows of tomatoes at a time. The farm workers pick all of the visible fruit that is ripe or close to ripe on the blocks that are being harvested. Once the picking is complete on a block, it takes seven to ten days for enough new fruit to ripen on that block to warrant additional harvesting. Justin Oelman was Ag-Mart's crop protection manager at the South Florida farm in 2004. Mr. Oelman worked for Ag-Mart for eight years as a farm manager and crop protection manager before leaving in 2005 and had three years prior experience as a crop protection manager for another tomato grower. As crop protection manager in 2004, Mr. Oelman was the licensed pesticide applicator responsible for ordering chemicals and directing the application of pesticides. His job included writing up the "tomato spray ticket" for each pesticide application. The spray ticket is a document that, on its face, indicates the date and time of a pesticide application and its location according to planting, field, and block numbers. The spray ticket also states the name of the tractor driver who physically applies the pesticide, the type and amount of the pesticide applied, and the number of acres treated. Licensed pesticide applicators are required by Department rule to record the information included on the spray ticket. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032. In applying pesticides to the South Florida farm's grape tomato crop in 2004, Mr. Oelman followed the spraying program designed by Mr. Long before the season. Because the pesticides were applied behind the farm workers' field activity, Mr. Oelman maintained close communications with Josh Cantu, the Ag-Mart labor supervisor in charge of tying activities on the South Florida farm, and with Eduardo Bravo, the labor supervisor in charge of grape tomato harvesting. Mr. Bravo in turn directed crew leaders such as Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda on where to take their crews to conduct harvesting work. These communications kept Mr. Oelman apprised of where the crews were working and how much progress the tying or harvesting activities were expected to make by the end of the day. Mr. Oelman was then able to plan the next day's pesticide applications so that his tractor drivers would be ready to enter the field and apply the pesticides soon after the tying or harvesting activities were completed. Mr. Oelman typically wrote the spray tickets on the day before the actual pesticide application, based on the information gathered from Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu. Thus, the starting times shown on the tickets are times that were projected by Mr. Oelman on the previous afternoon, not necessarily the time that spraying actually commenced. Spraying could be delayed for a number of reasons. At times, the work in the fields would not progress as quickly as Mr. Cantu or Mr. Bravo had anticipated, due to the heaviness of the harvest. Pesticides are not applied to wet plants; therefore, rain could delay a planned spray application. Mr. Oelman's practice was to write a new spray ticket if a day's planned application was completely cancelled. However, if the planned spray application was merely delayed for a time, Mr. Oelman did not create a new spray ticket or update the original ticket to reflect the actual starting time. Mr. Oelman failed to explain why he did not always create a new ticket when the information on the existing ticket ceased to be accurate. Mr. Oelman directly supervised the Ag-Mart employees who drove the tractors and operated the spray rigs from which pesticides were applied to the tomato plants. Mr. Oelman trained the tractor drivers not to spray where people were working, but to wait until the tying or harvesting activities in designated fields had been completed. Once the fields had been sprayed, Mr. Oelman would orally notify Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu of the location of the pesticide applications. Mr. Oelman would also post copies of the spray tickets at the farm's central posting board, on which was posted relevant information regarding the pesticides being used at the farm, the restricted entry intervals and pre-harvest intervals for the pesticides, and other safety information.3 When restricted-use pesticides4 were to be applied, Mr. Oelman posted the entrances to the field with warning signs before the application began. The signs, which stated "Danger/Pesticides/Keep Out" in English and Spanish, were left in place until twelve hours after the expiration of the restricted entry interval for the applied pesticide. Mr. Oelman attested that he always made these postings when restricted-use pesticides such as Monitor and Danitol were applied at the South Florida farm. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda testified that they never harvested tomatoes from fields posted with pesticide warning signs. Mr. Anzualda checked for warning signs every day to ensure that his crew was not being sent into fields where pesticides had recently been applied. The restricted entry interval (REI) and the pre- harvest interval (PHI) are set forth on the manufacturer's label of each restricted-use pesticide, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Parts 156 (labeling requirements for pesticides and devices) and 170 (worker protection standard). The REI, a worker safety standard, is the time period after application of a restricted- use pesticide that must elapse before workers are allowed to enter the treated area. The PHI, a food safety standard, is the time period that must elapse after a spray application before harvesting can begin. The REI and PHI vary according to individual pesticides. In 2004, Warrick Birdwell was the farm manager at Ag- Mart's North Florida farm in Jennings. Prior to 2004, Mr. Birdwell had worked ten years for other tomato growers in Virginia and Florida. As farm manager, Mr. Birdwell was responsible for all operations from ground preparation through post-harvest clean-up at the North Florida farm. Mr. Birdwell was also a licensed restricted-use pesticide applicator and was responsible for the application of pesticides at the North Florida farm. In 2004, Mr. Birdwell was assisted in carrying out the spray program by Dale Waters, who supervised the tractor drivers and equipment.5 During 2004, grape tomatoes were harvested at the North Florida farm on a rotation of at least seven days per block, meaning that it would take at least seven days after a harvest, in a given field, to grow enough vine ripe fruit to warrant another harvest. Mr. Birdwell prepared the spray tickets for the planned application of pesticides. He created his spray tickets a day or two before the actual date that the application was scheduled to take place. At times, delays occurred due to weather, equipment failures, or slower than anticipated progress in the harvest. Mr. Birdwell's practice was to create a new ticket and destroy the old one if the delay prevented a scheduled application from occurring on the scheduled date. However, if the spraying was commenced on the scheduled date, but had to be completed on the next day, Mr. Birdwell kept the original spray ticket without amendment. Mr. Birdwell failed to give a reason why a new ticket was not created each time the information, included in the original ticket, ceased to be accurate. Mr. Birdwell communicated throughout the day with Charles Lambert, the North Florida farm's labor supervisor, to monitor the progress of the harvesting activities and ensure that workers did not enter fields where REIs or PHIs were in effect. Mr. Birdwell also directed that warning postings be placed at the entrances to fields where restricted-use pesticides had been applied. Farm labor crews were allowed to move on the farm property only at the specific direction of Mr. Lambert, whose constant communication with Mr. Birdwell helped ensure that labor crews stayed out of treated fields until it was safe to enter them. Harvested product received at Ag-Mart's packing houses is tracked by foreman receiving reports, which identify the product and its quantity, the name of the crew leader responsible for harvesting the product, the farm from which the product was shipped, and the planting number from which the product was harvested. The receiving reports are used to calculate the commission payments due to the Ag-Mart crew leaders, who are paid based on the amount of fruit their crews harvest, and to analyze the yields of specific plantings. The "date received" column on the receiving reports showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse. In March 2005, the Palm Beach Post published an article stating that three women, who harvested tomatoes for Ag- Mart in 2004, bore children who suffered from birth defects. The article questioned whether the birth defects were connected to the pesticides used by Ag-Mart on its tomatoes. The women had worked at both the South Florida and North Florida farms, and at an Ag-Mart farm in North Carolina. In response to the article, the Collier County Health Department began an inquiry to determine the cause of the birth defects and asked for the Department's help in performing a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm, where the three women, identified as Francisca Herrera, Sostenes Salazar, and Maria de la Mesa (also called Maria de la Mesa Cruz), worked from February through July 2004. The Department's investigation commenced with a work request sent from Tallahassee to Environmental Specialist Neil Richmond in Immokalee on March 7, 2005.6 Mr. Richmond regularly conducts inspections at golf courses, farms, chemical dealers, and fertilizer plants throughout Collier County. The work request directed Mr. Richmond to obtain pesticide use records for Ag-Mart covering the period of February through July 2004 and employee records showing the names of the three employees and the dates they worked in 2004. The work request further directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm to document the pesticide products used in the field. Finally, the work request directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a full worker protection standard inspection to document the posting of fields, central posting information, and REIs at the South Florida farm. Mr. Richmond initially visited Ag-Mart's South Florida farm on March 28, 2005, accompanied by two persons from the Collier County Health Department. During the course of the inspection, Ag-Mart's farm manager, Doug Perkins, produced spray tickets for both the South Florida and North Florida farms for the period February through July 2004. Mr. Perkins also produced a spreadsheet identifying the dates worked and the farm locations for each of the three women named in the newspaper article. This spreadsheet was prepared at the direction of Ag- Mart's human resources manager, Angelia Cassell, and was derived from the three workers' timesheets for 2004. On March 30, 2005, Mr. Richmond filed a written report with the documents he received from Ag-Mart. The Department's Bureau of Compliance Monitoring then assigned the matter to Case Reviewer Jessica Fernandez in Tallahassee. Ms. Fernandez was given the task of reviewing all the information gathered by the Department's inspectors to determine whether Ag-Mart had violated the Florida Pesticide Law or any of the Department's implementing rules. On April 12, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent a request for additional information to Mr. Richmond, which stated in relevant part: According to the work log included in this file, Ms. Fransisca [sic] Herrera, Ms. Maria de la Mesa Cruz and Ms. Sostenes Salazar worked at the Ag-Mart farm located in Immokalee between January 2004 and October 2004. Please obtain as much information as possible regarding the specific Planting, Field and Block numbers in which these workers worked during the period of February 2004 through June 2004. Mr. Richmond went to the South Florida farm on March 13, 2005, and communicated this request for additional information to Mr. Oelman, who responded that it would take several days to gather the requested information. Mr. Richmond returned to the farm on April 15, 2005. On that date, Mr. Oelman explained to Mr. Richmond the sequencing of harvesting and spray activities at the South Florida farm. Mr. Oelman told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's harvest records indicate, only, which planting the laborers were working in on a given day and that a planting includes more than one field. Mr. Oelman also told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's spray records are kept according to field and block numbers and that his practice was to spray behind the picking. On April 22, 2005, Ms. Cassell faxed to Mr. Richmond a spreadsheet entitled "Field Locations for SFL 2/04 thru 6/04." All involved understood that "SFL" referred to the South Florida farm.7 With the assistance of subordinates in her office, Ms. Cassell produced this document to show, in her words, "the total of what field locations the [three] women might have worked in." Ms. Cassell started with time cards, which indicated the dates and hours the three women worked. Then she obtained foreman receiving reports, which she understood to tell her which plantings were harvested on which dates. Finally, she obtained, from the farm, a handwritten document showing which fields were included in each planting. From this information, Ms. Cassell was able to fashion a spreadsheet indicating the range of fields each woman could have worked in from February through June 2004. Mr. Richmond testified that he read the spreadsheet's title and understood the document to show where the women actually worked each day. The document appeared self- explanatory. No one from Ag-Mart told Mr. Richmond that the spreadsheet showed only where the women could have worked, or "possible" locations. Mr. Richmond passed the spreadsheet on to Ms. Fernandez, with a report stating that it showed "the field locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa where they worked on respective dates." Ms. Fernandez also operated on the assumption that the spreadsheet showed what its title indicated, the actual field locations of the three women on any given day from February through June 2004. Ms. Cassell testified that she put the title on the spreadsheet without much thought, simply as an identifier for the file on her computer's hard drive. Ms. Cassell understood that she was creating a spreadsheet of all the fields the women could possibly have worked in on a given day. She could be no more precise, because Ag-Mart did not keep records that would show the specific fields where an individual worked on a given day. The president of Ag-Mart, Mr. Long, confirmed that Ag- Mart does not keep records on which fields a worker is in on a given day. At the time the Department made its request, Mr. Long told Ms. Cassell that there was no way Ag-Mart could provide such precise worker location data. The closest they could come would be to correlate harvest or receiving data, which showed what plantings a crew had harvested from, with the workers' time cards. Ag-Mart knew whose crew each woman had worked in; so the spreadsheet listed all the fields in the planting worked by the crew, as a way of showing which fields the women might have worked in. On May 4, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent Compliance Monitoring Bureau Chief Dale Dubberly a request for additional information, which Mr. Dubberly forwarded to Mr. Richmond the next day. Ms. Fernandez first requested the time work started and ended for each worker in each field on every date listed in the spreadsheet provided on April 22, 2005. Ms. Fernandez next asked for the field location for each worker from July 2004 to November 2004. She asked for the block numbers corresponding to each of the fields in North Florida, South Florida, and North Carolina during the 2004 season and a map showing the distribution of blocks, fields and plantings for those farms during the 2004 season. She asked for spray records for South Florida for October and November 2004. Finally, Ms. Fernandez requested a more legible copy of the spreadsheet, which she stated "shows each worker's field location." Upon receiving this request through Mr. Richmond, Ms. Cassell, her staff, and Ag-Mart farm compliance manager, Amanda Collins created a new spreadsheet, which Ms. Cassell titled "Field Locations for 3 Employees for 2004." This spreadsheet was identical in format to the earlier document, but was expanded to include the dates the three women worked for all of 2004. For each worker, the spreadsheet provided a cell for each day worked, and within that cell a list of field numbers. Again, the Department took these field numbers to represent fields in which the women actually worked, when Ag-Mart actually intended them to represent fields in which the women possibly worked. Some of the cells listed as many as 23 field numbers for one day. The method of developing this spreadsheet was similar to that employed for the first one. The weekly time cards of the three women were used to provide the days they worked. Ag-Mart's weekly time cards show the name of the employee, the rounded hours worked each week, the number of piece units worked, the hours worked for minimum wage, and the initials of the crew leader for whom the employee worked that week. For their South Florida farm work in 2004, Ms. Herrera and Ms. Salazar worked exclusively for crew leader Sergio Salinas. Ms. de la Mesa worked at South Florida for crew leader Juan Anzualda and at North Florida for crew leader Pascual Sierra.8 To identify the fields where the three women might have worked on a given day, Ms. Cassell and her staff again used foreman receiving reports and planting schedules. The receiving reports were understood to provide the dates of shipping for harvested product, and these were correlated to the dates on which the three women worked. Again, Ms. Cassell listed every field within a planting as a possible work location, because Ag-Mart kept no data that identified the fields in which the women actually worked on a given date. On May 6, 2005, Mr. Richmond met with Ms. Cassell and Ms. Collins at Ag-Mart's Plant City administrative offices. The meeting lasted no more than 15 minutes and consisted of Ag-Mart employees turning over various documents to Mr. Richmond, along with some explanatory conversation. Ms. Cassell specifically recalled explaining to Mr. Richmond that the field location spreadsheet indicated the "total possible fields that the three employees could have worked in." Mr. Richmond denied that Ms. Cassell gave him any such explanation. Ms. Collins recalled that Mr. Richmond and Ms. Cassell had some discussion about the spreadsheet, but could recall no particulars.9 Mr. Richmond forwarded the documents received at the May 6, 2005, meeting to Ms. Fernandez in Tallahassee. His written summary, also dated May 6, 2005, represents Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous understanding of the meaning of the documents he was given at the Plant City meeting. The summary stated, in relevant part: Ms. Collins provided the times which the three ladies worked at the various locations which came from the three ladies time cards (See Exhibits V-1 through V-3, copies of time worked information). Ms. Collins stated that this has the start and finished [sic] times, but does not have which fields they worked at a particular time as they may pick in several fields throughout the day. Ms. Collins provided another copy of the field locations for each of the three ladies (See Exhibits W-1 and W-2, copies of field locations of workers). Ms. Collins also provided maps with field locations depicting blocks and plantings (See Exhibits X-1 through X-13, maps depicting field locations with blocks and plantings). The field no. is the main number in each block, the first two numbers are the numbers of the planting, while the remaining number in the set is the block number. . . . At the hearing, Mr. Richmond testified that he "absolutely" would have communicated to Ms. Fernandez any conversation he had with, either, Ms. Cassell or Ms. Collins indicating that the field location spreadsheet was anything other than a document showing where the women worked on a given day. This testimony is credible and, coupled with Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous written statement, leads to the finding that Mr. Richmond's testimony regarding the May 6, 2005, meeting in Plant City should be credited. On May 12, 2005, Ms. Cassell sent Mr. Dubberly an e- mail with an attachment correcting some aspects of the spreadsheet. Ms. Cassell's e-mail message stated: I have attached the the [sic] revision to the original sheet given on the 3 woman's [sic] field locations. I included which field location for NC. There was one revision I made for Francisca on week ending 4/24/05 [Ms. Cassell clearly means 2004]. She was in NC that week and on the last two days of that week I had SFL field numbers and it should of [sic] been NC [sic] please discard old report and replace with revised one. The Department cites this e-mail as further indication that Ag-Mart represented the spreadsheet as indicating actual field locations for the three women, or at least that Ag-Mart said nothing to clarify that the spreadsheet showed something other than the fields where the women actually worked. Ms. Fernandez, the case reviewer whose analysis led to the filing of the Administrative Complaints against Ag-Mart, believed that the field location spreadsheets prepared by Ms. Cassell and her staff reflected the actual work locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa. As a case reviewer, Ms. Fernandez receives files compiled by the field staff and reviews the files to determine whether a violation of the Florida Pesticide Law has occurred. The procedure of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring appears designed to ensure that the case reviewers have no contact with the subjects of their investigation and, instead, rely on field inspectors to act as conduits in obtaining information from companies such as Ag-Mart. As a result, Ms. Fernandez had no direct contact with anyone from Ag-Mart and, thus, had no direct opportunity to be disabused of her assumptions regarding the field location spreadsheet. Ms. Fernandez conceded that she had never been on a tomato farm at the time she conducted her review of the Ag-Mart case. She did not take into consideration the acreage of the fields or the size of the work crews and their manner of operation. She made no attempt to visualize the effort it would take for one worker to harvest in ten or 20 fields in one day. She assumed that each woman worked in at least part of each field listed on the spreadsheet for each day listed. Ms. Fernandez believed that the spreadsheet was clear on its face and saw no need to make further inquiries as to the plausibility of the assumption that it reflected actual, not possible, field locations. As found above, Ag-Mart made no statement to any Department employee to qualify that the spreadsheet meant only possible field locations. Nonetheless, common sense should have caused someone in the Department to question whether this spreadsheet really conveyed the information that its title appeared to promise. On some days, the spreadsheet places a single field worker in 23 fields. Ag-Mart's crew leaders credibly testified that their crews never worked in more than four fields in one day and more often worked in only one or two. Even granting Ms. Fernandez' ignorance, Mr. Dubberly or some other superior in the Department should have had enough knowledge of farm operations to question the plausibility of Ms. Fernandez' assumptions. While Ag-Mart is at fault for not explaining itself clearly, the Department is also at fault for insisting that the spreadsheet be taken at face value, no matter how implausible the result.10 At the hearing, Ms. Fernandez explained how she used the documents provided by Ag-Mart to draft the Administrative Complaints. As an example, Counts I and II of the North Florida Complaint provide: Count I On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre- harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count II The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 7-8 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on June 6, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. Ms. Fernandez obtained the information regarding the date, time, and manner of pesticide application from the spray tickets described above. She obtained the Monitor and Danitol PHI information from the product label. She obtained the harvest information from the spreadsheet, which indicated that Ms. de la Mesa worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Counts I and II alleging violations of the PHIs for Monitor and Danitol had an accompanying Count XIX, alleging a violation of the REI for Monitor arising from the same set of facts: Count XIX The Monitor 4 Spray and the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray labels contain the following language: "AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE) and restricted entry interval. The requirements in this box only apply to users of this product that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard." On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The application started at 11:30 am and ended at 5:30 pm on June 6, 2004. The Monitor 4 Spray label states: "Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry interval (REI) of 48 hours." Work records show that Ms. de la Mesa, directed by licensed applicators Mr. Charles Lambert (PV38793)11 and Mr. Warrick Birdwell (PV36679), worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004, and that her working hours for June 7, 2004, were 8:00 am to 6:30 pm. Therefore, Ms. de la Mesa and other workers were instructed, directed, permitted or not prevented by the agricultural employer, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. from entering treated fields before the expiration of the REI stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Throughout the hearing, Ag-Mart contended (and the Department did not dispute) that no statute or rule requires Ag-Mart to keep a daily log of the fields where its employees work. The Department also conceded that Ag-Mart was cooperative throughout its investigation.12 Ag-Mart contends that all counts should be dismissed because of the Department's reliance on the field location spreadsheet, which shows only the possible field locations of the workers. This contention goes to far. For example, the counts set forth above are well taken, because the spray tickets indicate that fields 7 and 8 were sprayed on June 6, 2004, and the field location spreadsheet indicates that Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Ag-Mart further attacked the spreadsheet by suggesting the unreliability of the dates on the foreman receiving reports. As found above, the receiving reports generally showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse, as well as the crew leader who provided the tomatoes and the planting from which the tomatoes were harvested. At the hearing, Ag-Mart contended that the date the product was shipped was not always the same date it was harvested. Further, Ag-Mart demonstrated that one of the receiving reports relevant to this proceeding showed the date the product was received at the packing house, rather than the date the product was shipped from the farm, due to a clerical error. Ag-Mart argued that this example showed that the receiving reports were not a reliable source for determining the precise dates of harvest in a given field on the North Florida farm. Ag-Mart's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the unreliability of the receiving reports, where Ag-Mart itself relied on the reports to provide the Department with the spreadsheet showing possible field locations of the three workers. Ag-Mart had ample opportunity to make a thorough demonstration of the reports' alleged unreliability and failed to do so. Ag-Mart also attempted to cast doubt on the accuracy of the spray tickets through the testimony of Mr. Oelman and Mr. Birdwell, both of whom stated that the spray tickets are written well in advance of the pesticide applications and are not invariably rewritten or corrected when the spraying schedule is pushed back due to rain or slow harvest. However, the pesticide applicator is required by law to maintain accurate records relating to the application of all restricted-use pesticides, including the date, start time and end time of the treatment, and the location of the treatment site. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(1). The Department is entitled to inspect these records. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(6). Ag-Mart may not attack records that its own employee/applicators were legally required to keep in an accurate fashion. The Department is entitled to rely on the spray tickets as accurate indicators of when and where pesticide applications occurred. Thus, the undersigned has accepted the accuracy of the spray records and the receiving reports, but not of the field location spreadsheet. However, there are some dates on which the fields shown on the spreadsheet perfectly match the fields shown on the spray tickets, as in Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint set forth above. It is found that the Department has proven these counts by clear and convincing evidence. In addition to Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint, the Department has proven the following counts of the North Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence: Counts XI, XII, and XXII (spraying in fields 7 and 8 on June 17, 2004; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 19, 2004); and Count XIII (spraying Agrimek 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide, with PHI of seven days, in fields 7 and 8 on June 3, 2005; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004). The Department has proven none of the counts in the South Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Some explanation must be made for the finding that Counts XXXI and XXXII were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Those counts allege as follows: Count XXXI On April 17, 2004, Mr. Lorenzo Reyes, Mr. Demetrio Acevedo and Mr. Francisco Vega treated approximately 212.5 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 11, 6 and 4, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6 and 4 on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count XXXII The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 11, 6 and 4 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on April 17, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. These counts base their allegation that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6, and 4 on April 21, 2004, on the field location spreadsheet, which indicates that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in fields 4, 6, 9, 10, and/or 11 on April 21, 2004. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the three sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were also applied to fields 9 and 10 on April 15, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on April 21, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. However, the Department did not amend the South Florida Complaint to allege the fact of the second spray ticket, and, so, must be held to the allegations actually made in the complaint. Ag-Mart may not be found guilty of facts or violations not specifically alleged in the South Florida Complaint. See Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (facts not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). See also B.D.M. Financial Corporation v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 698 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (violations not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). In similar fashion, Counts XLI and XLII of the South Florida Complaint allege that fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 were sprayed with Monitor and Danitol on May 15, 2004, and allege PHI violations in fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 on May 20, 2004, based on the field location spreadsheet's indication that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in one or more of fields 18 through 25 on that date. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the four sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were, also, applied to fields 20, 23, 24, and 25 on May 14, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on May 20, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. Again, however, the Department failed to amend the South Florida Complaint to reflect its subsequently developed evidence. Subsection 487.175(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that the Department may enter an order imposing an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. The statute further provides as follows: When imposing any fine under this paragraph, the department shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying the damage, the amount of money the violator benefited from by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and the compliance record of the violator. Mr. Dubberly testified that the Department does not have a rule for determining the amount of fines, but uses a matrix, attaching a rating of 0 to 5 for each of the criteria named in the quoted portion of the statute, with 5 representing the most egregious violation. The extent of harm caused by the violation is divided into two classifications: (A) the degree and extent of harm related to human and environmental hazards and (B) the degree and extent of harm related to the toxicity of the pesticide(s). The remaining criteria considered in the matrix are: (C) the estimated cost of rectifying the damage, (D) the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and (F) the compliance record of the violator. Each factor is given its numerical value. The values for factors (B) through (F) are added, then the total is multiplied by the value for factor (A). The resulting number is then multiplied by $100.00 to determine the amount of the fine. The PHI violations were primarily food safety violations, the concern being that there might be an unacceptable pesticide residue on the tomatoes if they were harvested within the PHI. The REI violations were based on concerns for worker safety from pesticide exposure. In determining the fines for PHI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 2 for factor (A). In determining the fines for REI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 3 for factor (A), based on a reasonable probability of human or animal death or injury, or a reasonable probability of serious environmental harm. For purposes of this proceeding, all the pesticides used by Ag-Mart were restricted-use pesticides. In considering the value to be assigned to factor (B), the Department relied on the pesticide labels, which contain signal words for the category of potential hazard to human or animal life posed by that pesticide. Monitor contained the signal word "Danger," which represents the highest level of potential hazard. A value of 5 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving the use of Monitor. Danitol and Agrimek contained the signal word "Warning," which indicated a lesser potential hazard. A value of 3 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving Danitol or Agrimek. Because the estimated cost of rectifying the damage and the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance was unknown, the Department assigned a value of 0 to factors (C) and (D). As to factor (E), dealing with the willfulness of the violation, the Department assigns a value of 0 if there is no evidence of willfulness, a value of 1 if there is apparent evidence of willfulness, and a value of 5 if it determines the violation was intentional. Because of the large number of alleged PHI and REI violations, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (E), finding apparent evidence of willful intent for each alleged violation. As to factor (F), dealing with the violator's compliance history, the Department considers the three years immediately preceding the current violation. The Department assigns a value of 0 if there are no prior violations, a value of 1 for a prior dissimilar violation, a value of 2 for multiple prior dissimilar violations, a value of 3 for a prior similar violation, and a value of 4 for multiple prior similar violations. Because Ag-Mart had one prior dissimilar violation within the preceding three years, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (F) for each alleged violation. Because the sole basis for finding apparent evidence of willful intent was the number of alleged violations, the Department calculated its recommended fines in two ways: by assigning a value of 0 based on no evidence of willful intent and by assigning a value of 1 based on apparent evidence of willful intent. In DOAH Case No. 06-0730, the North Florida Complaint, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,200 (no evidence of willful intent) or $1,400 (apparent evidence of willful intent) for each of the PHI violations alleged in Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, and XI, which involved the use of Monitor. The Department recommended a fine of either $800 (no evidence) or $1,000 (apparent evidence) for Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, and XII, involving the use of Danitol, and for Counts XIV, XV, and XVI, involving the use of Agrimek. For each of the REI violations alleged in Counts XIX through XXII, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,800 (no evidence) or $2,100 (apparent evidence). The Department established by clear and convincing evidence seven of the 20 counts of the North Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing, and none of the 58 counts of the South Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing. The undersigned accepts the Department's calculation of the recommended fines for these violations and recommends that the Department apply the lower calculation for each of the violations. Thus, the recommended fines are as follows: Count I, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count II, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XI, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count XII, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XIII, PHI violation involving the use of Agrimek, $800; Count XIX, REI violation, $1,800; and Count XXII, REI violation, $1,800. Thus, the total recommended fine for the seven proven violations is $8,400. In conclusion, it is observed that these cases demonstrate a gap in the enforcement mechanism of the Florida Pesticide Law, at least as it is currently understood and practiced by the Department. The law requires licensed applicators to comply with the PHI and REI restrictions on the labels of the restricted-use pesticides they apply to these crops. The law requires the applicators to keep accurate records of when and where they apply pesticides and of the kind and quantity of pesticides applied in each instance. Yet all parties to this proceeding agreed that the law does not require either the applicators or the growers to keep accurate records of when and where farm workers enter the fields and conduct the harvest. This failure to complete the record- keeping circle makes it extremely difficult for the Department to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a PHI or REI violation has taken place. The PHI and REI restrictions appear virtually unenforceable through company records, except when some fluke of record keeping allows the Department to establish that a given worker could only have been in a recently sprayed field on a given day. It does little good to know when the pesticides were applied to a field if there is no way of knowing when workers first entered the field or harvested tomatoes after the spraying. Ag-Mart credibly demonstrated that its general practices are designed to minimize worker exposure and guarantee safe harvest, but the company keeps no records to demonstrate to its customers that it observes these practices in particular instances and is under no legal obligation to keep such records. This state of regulatory affairs should be as disturbing to Ag-Mart as to the Department, because purchasers of tomatoes in Florida's grocery stores do not require clear and convincing evidence in order to switch brands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order that provides as follows: That Ag-Mart committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, XI, XII, and XIII of the North Florida Complaint, for which violations Ag-Mart should be assessed an administrative fine totaling $8,400; That Ag-Mart pay to the Department $3,000 to resolve Counts L through LIV of the South Florida Complaint and Counts XVII and XVIII of the North Florida Complaint; and That all other counts of the North Florida Complaint and the South Florida Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 16th day of March, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioners for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners are producers and sellers of tomatoes. They own and operate Sunfresh Farms in Florida City, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products. The Controversy The instant case involves two separate transactions involving the sale of tomatoes pursuant to verbal agreements between Petitioners (as the sellers) and Respondent (as the buyer). Both transactions occurred in January of 1995. The First Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5270) Under the terms of the first of these two verbal agreements (First Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box (which was the market price at the time). In accordance with the terms of the First Agreement, Petitioners delivered 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 23, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold these 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a local produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to another local produce house. The tomatoes were eventually sold to a company in Grand Rapids, Michigan. On January 28, 1995, five days after Petitioners had delivered the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent, the tomatoes were inspected in Grand Rapids, Michigan. According to the inspection certificate, the inspection revealed: "Decay (3 to 28 percent)(mostly early, some advanced stages);" "Checksum;" and "Average approximately 85 percent light red to red." Petitioners have yet to be paid any of $1,214.40 Respondent owes them (under the terms of the First Agreement) for the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The Second Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5299) Under the terms of the second verbal agreement at issue in the instant case (Second Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 132 boxes of ("no grade") cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box. In accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement, Petitioners delivered 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 27, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold 84 of these 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a Florida produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to a company in Houston, Texas. These 84 boxes of cherry tomatoes were inspected in Houston, Texas, on January 31, 1995, four days after Petitioners had delivered them to Respondent. The defects found during the inspection were noted on the inspection certificate. Petitioners have yet to be paid in full for the 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement. Respondent tendered payment (in the form of a check) in the amount of $811.20, but Petitioners refused to accept such payment because it did not represent the full amount ($1,669.80) Respondent owed them (under the terms of the Second Agreement) for these cherry tomatoes. (Although they have not endorsed or cashed the check, Petitioners are still holding it in their possession.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent is indebted to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20, (2) directing Respondent to make payment to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20 within 15 days following the issuance of the order, (3) indicating that the $811.20 check that was previously tendered to Petitioners by Respondent (and is still in Petitioners' possession) will be considered partial payment of this $2,884.20 indebtedness, if Respondent advises Petitioners, in writing, that it desires the check to be used for such purpose and if it provides Petitioners written assurance that the check is still a valid negotiable instrument; and (4) announcing that if payment in full of this $2,884.20 indebtedness is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from the Farm Bureau, Respondent's surety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of February, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1996.
The Issue Does Respondent Horizon Produce Sales, Inc. (Horizon) owe Petitioner Richard Sapp, d/b/a Sapp Farms (Sapp Farms) $5,484.50 as alleged in the Amended Complaint filed herein by Sapp Farms?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Sapp Farms was a "producer" as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes, of agricultural products in the State of Florida. Tomatoes come within the definition of "agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes. Horizon is a Florida Corporation, owned entirely by Donald E. Hinton, and located in Sydney, Florida. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Horizon was licensed as a "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Horizon was issued License Number 10584, supported by Bond Number 58 84 19 in the amount of $16,000 written by Gulf Life Insurance Company, as Surety, with an inception date of September 26, 1998, and an expiration date of September 25, 1999. By Invoice numbered 1262, Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 6, dated June 18, 1999, with a shipping date of June 16, 1999, Sapp Farms sold and delivered to Horizon several varieties and sizes of tomatoes in 25-pound cartons at an agreed-upon price of $9.00 per 25-pound carton for 267 cartons and $8.00 per 25-pound carton for 104 cartons for a total amount of $3,235.00. Horizon was given the opportunity to inspect the tomatoes before or during loading and to reject those tomatoes not meeting the standard or condition agreed upon. Horizon furnished the truck driver and truck upon which the tomatoes were loaded. By check dated July 3, 1999, Horizon paid Sapp Farms $1,415.00 on these tomatoes leaving a balance owing of $1,820.00. By Invoice numbered 1263, Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 10, dated June 22, 1999, with a shipping date of June 22, 1999, Sapp Farms sold and delivered to Horizon 122 25-pound cartons of extra large pink tomatoes at $8.00 per 25-pound carton, 51 25- pound cartons of large pink tomatoes at $8.00 per 25-pound carton, and 296 25-pound cartons of 125-150 count Roma tomatoes at $8.00 per 25-pound carton for a total invoiced price of $3,752.00. Horizon was given the opportunity to inspect the tomatoes before or during loading and to reject those tomatoes not meeting the standard or condition agreed upon. Horizon furnished the truck driver and truck upon which the tomatoes were loaded. Sapp Farms has not been paid for these tomatoes. By Invoice numbered 1272, Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 15, dated June 24, 1999, with a shipping date of June 23, 1999, Sapp Farms sold and delivered to Horizon 70 25-pound cartons of extra large tomatoes at an agreed upon price of $8.50 per 25- pound carton for a total price of $595.00. Horizon was given the opportunity to inspect the tomatoes before or during loading and to reject those tomatoes not meeting the standard or condition agreed upon. Horizon furnished the truck driver and truck upon which the tomatoes were loaded. Sapp Farms has not been paid for those tomatoes. Sapp Farms agrees that it owes Horizon $682.50 in freight charges. See Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 12 and the Amended Complaint filed by Sapp Farms. Horizon contends that it did not agree to purchase the tomatoes at an agreed upon price per 25-pound carton but agreed to "work" the tomatoes with Horizon’s customers and to pay Sapp Farms based on the price received for the tomatoes from its customers less any freight charges, etc. Additionally, Horizon contends that it made contact or attempted to make contact with Sapp Farms regarding each of the loads and was advised, except possibly on one load, by either Mark Davis or Richard Sapp that a federal inspection was not necessary and to "work" the tomatoes as best Horizon could. The more credible evidence is that neither Mark Davis nor Richard Sapp was timely advised concerning the alleged condition of the tomatoes. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to show that the condition of the tomatoes when delivered to Horizon’s customers had deteriorated to a point that resulted in rejection by Horizon’s customers. The more credible evidence shows that neither Mark Davis nor Richard Sapp advised Horizon that there was no need for a federal inspection or that Horizon could "work" the tomatoes with Horizon’s customers. The more credible evidence is that Horizon agreed to purchase Sapp Farms’ tomatoes at an agreed-upon price and that upon those tomatoes being loaded on Horizon’s truck, Horizon was responsible to Sapp Farms for the agreed-upon price. Sapp Farms timely filed its Amended Complaint in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes, and Horizon owes Sapp Farms for tomatoes purchased from Sapp Farms on Invoice numbered 1262, 1263, and 1272 less the partial payment on Invoice numbered 1262 of $1,415 and freight charges of $682.50 for total amount due of $5,484.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order granting Sapp Farms relief by ordering Horizon Produce Sales, Inc. to pay Sapp Farms the sum of $5,484.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Sapp Sapp Farms 4720 Gallagher Road Plant City, Florida 33565 Donald E. Hinton, Qualified Representative President, Horizon Produce Sales, Inc. 1839 Dover Road, North Post Office Box 70 Sydney, Florida 33587 Michael E. Riley, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk and Caldwell A Professional Association Post Office Box 1050 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Monticello Nursery Company of Florida, Inc., is a corporation whose address is Post Office Box 190, Monticello, Florida. (Petitioner's Complaint) Respondent, Paul Pent, d/b/a Paul Pent Landscape Company, is located at 1660 Emerson Street, Jacksonville, Florida. At the time of the transactions involved, Respondent was licensed as a dealer in agricultural products under License No. 3531. (Petitioner's Complaint, Order of Department of Agriculture dated November 15, 1985) Corespondent, Transamerica Insurance Company as surety provided bond number 5182-39-34 for Respondent in the amount of $4,750. (Petitioner's Complaint, Order of Department of Agriculture dated November 15, 1985) Petitioner's complaint for $6,159.30 is based upon two invoices for nursery plants: Invoice 1060 in the amount of $2,612.80, and Invoice 1308 in the amount of $6,109.30. From the total of $8,722.10 is deducted "payments and credit" of $2,562.80. (Petitioner's Complaint) The figures on the complaint and the attached invoices accurately reflect the statement of account for the subject transactions. (Testimony of Sandy Mazza) Invoice No. 1060 is for several kinds of nursery plants and is dated 12/31/84. On the invoice the order date is 10/26/84 and the "ship date" is 12/07/84. Whether the sale occurred upon order, shipment or date of invoice is immaterial, as all three dates are more than nine months prior to the filing of the complaint on September 5, 1985. Invoice No. 1308 is for a quantity of crepe myrtle trees and is dated 1/31/85. The order date and "ship date" are both 1/28/85. One invoice supports, and the other conflicts with, the date of 12/31/84, stated on the face of the complaint as the "date of sale". The invoices are competent evidence as supported by the bookkeeper's testimony. The finding in the November 15, 1985 order of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services that the sale totaling $6,159.30 was made on September 5, 1985, conflicts with both the complaint and the invoices and is unsupported by any evidence in the record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued requiring Respondent Paul Pent, pay Petitioner $3,546.50. The Final Order should specify that failure to comply will result in a requirement that Transamerica Insurance Company pay said sum to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for distribution to Monticello Nursery. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John C. Cooper, Esquire Douglas, Cooper & Coppins, P.A. 211 East Call Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1674 Mr. Paul Pent Pent Landscape Company 1660 Emerson Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Transamerica Insurance Company 1150 South Olive Street Los Angeles, California 90015 Joe W. Kight, Chief Division of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioners, Mark K. Mast and Kirk E. Mast d/b/a Mast Farm, operate a sixty-acre potato farm on Cracker Swamp Road in or near East Palatka, Florida. The 1991 crop year was the first year in which the two brothers had operated their own farm. This activity was a part-time endeavor since the brothers worked full-time as logging contractors for Georgia Pacific Corporation. Respondent, G & G Sales Corporation, a Minnesota corporation licensed to do business in this state, is a dealer (broker) in agricultural products that purchases potatoes from growers throughout the country for resale to various potato chip companies. Its president and vice-president are Loren R. Girsbirger and George Wilkerson, respectively. As an agricultural dealer, respondent is required to obtain a license from and post a surety bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs (Department). In this case, the bond has been posted by respondent, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. The amount of the bond is not of record. In order to start their farming operation, it was necessary for the Mast brothers to secure a loan from the North Florida Production Credit Association. That lending institution had a practice of requiring farmers to secure their loans with contracts for the sale of all or a portion of their crop. That is to say, the lender required a farmer to have a sales contract which equaled the amount of the loan. So that petitioners could meet this requirement, on January 29, 1991, the parties executed a contract wherein petitioners agreed to sell respondent 8,000 bags of Atlantic variety potatoes at an agreed upon price of $5.75 per bag, for a total price of $46,000. The lending institution then agreed to loan petitioners that amount of money. Although the brothers asked that respondent purchase more than 8,000 bags, respondent declined since it had only that contract amount (with chip companies) available. A copy of the contract has been received in evidence as joint exhibit The contract was drafted by respondent and it may be inferred from the evidence that it is a "standard" type of contract used by farmers and dealers in the potato business. The contract contained the following relevant conditions in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6: Buyer assumes that Seller will have sufficient amount of potatoes to cover all contracts, including open market sales. This contract does not restrict these open market sales, but Seller does protect Buyer's amount due. In the event of fire, unauthorized strikes, wars, transportation shortages, Acts of God, or events beyond the control of Seller or Buyer which prevent Seller or Buyer from performance in full or in part of the terms of this agreement, it is agreed that such failure to perform shall not be excused and shall not form the basis for any claim of damage or breach of contract. Seller agrees to seed sufficient acreage to cover the potatoes sold for delivery under this contract and other contracts to all purchasers with whom the Seller has contracted for the delivery of potatoes during the upcoming farm season. If, however, on account of shortages of crops not due to any act within the Seller's control or other causes beyond the control of the Seller, he is unable to deliver the full amount of potatoes called for in this contract, the Buyer will accept a prorated delivery with other buyers of the potatoes covered by similar contracts without any claim for damages against the Seller. Seller will grant Buyer all necessary rights to insure and verify that he is receiving his fair and just pro-rate share. Such rights to include, but not limited to, inspection of all records, books, field reports, shipments, etc. Burden of proof rests with Sellers. Finally, paragraph 11 of the contract provided in part that "the terms of this contract cannot be re-negotiated without the written consent of the Buyer and the Seller." Thus, under the terms of the contract, petitioners were obliged to "have sufficient amount of potatoes to cover all contracts". However, if an Act of God prevented the seller from "deliver(ing) the full amount of potatoes called for in (the) contract", the seller was excused from full performance and could prorate its crop. Under those circumstances, respondent was required to "accept a prorated delivery with other buyers of the potatoes covered by similar contracts." In this case, there were no other buyers of potatoes covered by similar contracts. Finally, except for changes approved in writing by both parties, the terms of the contract could not be changed. Petitioners planted their crop on February 2 and 10, 1991. At that time, the brothers hoped to harvest 16,000 bags of potatoes, or around 267 bags per acre. Although the average yield per acre for Atlantic type potatoes in the area had been between 250 and 270 bags, most growers assume a more conservative yield of around 200 bags per acre to insure that all contractual requirements can be met. Here, however, except for a contract with respondent, petitioners had no other contracts with other dealers or individuals. When the contract was signed in January, the brothers expected to sell the remainder of their crop to other buyers on the open market. In this regard, they entered into an agreement (presumably verbal) with their father, who had co-signed the bank note, to split the net proceeds on all sales over and above that required under the G & G Sales Corporation contract. This latter agreement with the father was not a "similar contract" within the meaning of paragraph 6 of the contract and thus the G & G Sales Corporation contract is found to be the only relevant contract for crop year 1991. On April 23, 1991, a severe thunderstorm swept through a part of Putnam County. The storm was accompanied by high winds and hail and followed a path which ran through the potato farm belt in East Palatka. The Circle S farm, which lies about one-half mile from petitioner's farm, was "devastated" by the storm. Petitioners' farm received high winds, heavy rains and some hail. The extent of damage caused by the storm to petitioners' farm is in dispute, but it is agreed that the storm diminished the size of the crop. As it turned out, petitioners dug only 8,802 bags of potatoes, which still exceeded the amount required under their only contract. After the storm struck, Mark Mast immediately contacted Wilkerson by telephone and advised him that the farm had been hit with hail and asked that Wilkerson and Girsbirger survey the damage. On April 24, 1991, Wilkerson and Girsbirger visited the farm and found it "very wet" and muddy but the leaves on the plants still intact. This level of damage was generally corroborated by various other witnesses. Although the above conditions were present at that time, it was still impossible then for anyone to forecast exactly how the storm impacted the volume and quality of petitioners' crop. Most potato farmers purchase crop insurance prior to each farming season. A farmer has the option of purchasing either 50%, 65% or 75% coverage, although 65% coverage is the most common. This means that a farmer must lose at least 50%, 35% or 25% of his crop due to weather or insects in order to file a claim. The amount of insurance is based on a function of the percent of crop the farmer wishes to insure times the value per hundred weight of the crop. For first year farmers, such as petitioners, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) establishes a designated yield per acre which is based on FCIC's estimate, albeit conservative, of what the average yield should be. In the case of petitioners, who purchased 65% coverage, the FCIC (and insurer) set a designated yield of 184 bags per acre which meant petitioner would have a crop approximating 184 hundred weight per acre. Although petitioners had a crop insurance policy in 1991, they did not file a claim after the April 23 storm since they failed to meet the threshold requirements for coverage. Indeed, the local crop insurance agent visited the farm shortly after the storm and verified there was not enough damage to file a claim. However, he noted that there was excessive water for a few days and some of the leaves on the vines had holes caused by the hail. Between May 4 and 18, 1991, petitioners sold respondent nine loads of potatoes totaling 4,101 bags at a price of $5.75 per bag. During the period from April 30, 1991, through May 18, 1991, they sold ten other loads on the open market to two other buyers. The open market sales totaled 4,701.2 bags. Because potato prices had dramatically increased after the contract was executed, nine of these latter loads were sold at an open market price of $19 per bag while one was sold at a price of $18.50 per bag, for a total of $88,806. Petitioners contend respondent agreed that the above ten loads could be sold on the open market and thus it should not be heard now to complain that it was shorted on the contract. In this regard, the evidence shows that after the storm, which is the time period relevant to this contention, Wilkerson told Mark Mast that he had no problem with petitioners selling any extra potatoes on the open market as long as respondent received its 8,000 bags. Girsbirger also advised the Masts that it was okay to sell ten loads of potatoes on the open market if production was 200 bags per acre. However, he cautioned them to sell no more than four loads on the open market if the yield fell to 180 to 185 bags per acre since the remainder would be necessary to meet the terms of the contract. Thus, it is found that respondent did not agree to the sale of the ten loads on the open market if total production did not exceed 8,000 bags. Around May 3, 1991, Mark Mast approached Wilkerson and asked if respondent would renegotiate the contract price upward. Wilkerson declined to do so. On May 6, Mast sent Wilkerson a notice by registered mail advising him that due to the crop loss, which he estimated to be one-third of the crop, he intended to adjust the contract pursuant to paragraph 6 of the contract and supply only two-thirds of the 8,000 bags. This unilateral offer to modify the contract was never accepted by respondent, and in any event, petitioners failed to supply the amount offered in their May 6 letter. In all, respondent received only 51.3% of its contracted amount of 8,000 bags. Petitioners allocated respondent this amount on the theory they had originally planned to sell one-half of their total anticipated crop of 16,000 bags to respondent, that one-half of the anticipated crop was lost in the storm, and thus respondent should receive only one-half of the remaining crop, or around 4,000 bags. At hearing, petitioners defended this decision by treating the April 23 storm as an Act of God within the meaning of paragraph 6 of the contract. However, reliance on this provision was inappropriate since, despite the effects of the storm, petitioners could still deliver the full amount of potatoes called for in the contract. The testimony is in conflict as to whether petitioners offered respondent more than 4,101 bags during the harvest season. At various times, respondent was offered several "extra" loads at the market price of $19 per bag but declined since it still wanted the contract honored. According to petitioners, they were ready to load a truck on two occasions but respondent failed to send a truck. Respondent denies this assertion. In addition, petitioners claim that a truck arrived late one Sunday afternoon when their farm equipment was inoperable and thus they could not load any potatoes. Conversely, Wilkerson contended that Mark telephoned him on several occasions and told him not to send a truck because Mark was loading for "another contract". Accordingly, it is found that petitioners offered respondent only the 4,101 bags at the contract price but that additional loads were offered at the substantially higher open market price. After receiving the 4,101 bags, respondent presented petitioners a check dated June 17, 1991, in the amount of $4,777.92 as full payment for the 4,101 bags of potatoes. The check carried the notation "The undersigned, upon cashing check, accepts payment in full for attached invoices, with no recourse." It was never cashed by petitioners. Attached to the check was an invoice which calculated the $4,777.92 in the following manner. Respondent first calculated $23,598 by multiplying 4,101 bags times $5.75 per bag and then subtracted $82.08 for "Not Pat dues", an amount not explained but nonetheless unchallenged by petitioners. It then deducted $19,038 from that total for a net amount due of $4,777.92. The latter deduction of $19,038 represented a set-off for damages incurred by respondent in having to buy potatoes elsewhere by virtue of petitioners failing to supply the contracted amount of potatoes. It was calculated by assuming that petitioners would supply 2/3 (or 68%) of its commitment, or 5,440 bags. 1/ Since only 4,104 bags were delivered, this amounted to a shortage of 1,336 bags. Respondent represented, without contradiction, that it had to replace this shortage at the same price which petitioners received for non-contract sales on the open market. Respondent assumed that petitioners sold their potatoes at an open market price of $20, or $14.25 more than the contract price. Thus, it deducted 1,336 x $14.25, or $19,038 from the final payment. In actuality, petitioners sold the bulk of those potatoes at a price of $19 per bag. Thus, respondent's set-off should have been $17,702 rather than $19,038. This amount of set-off ($17,702) is deemed to be reasonable and should be subtracted from the amount owed by respondent to petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services requiring respondent to pay petitioners $5,813.92 within thirty days of date of final order. Otherwise, the surety should be required to pay that amount. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1992. 1/ For purposes of determining damages, respondent decided that petitioners were entitled to some relief under the contract due to the storm. Accordingly, respondent assumed that it would receive only two-thirds of the contract requirement. APPENDIX Petitioners: 1. Covered in the preliminary statement. 2. Accepted in finding of fact 2. 3-4. Accepted in finding of fact 1. 5. Accepted in finding of fact 2. 6. Accepted in finding of fact 3. 7-8. Accepted in finding of fact 4. 9. Accepted in finding of fact 3. 10. Accepted in finding of fact 5. Accepted in findings of fact 1 and 5. Accepted in finding of fact 6. 13-14. Accepted in finding of fact 7. Accepted in finding of fact 8. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. The remainder has been rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. Partially accepted in findings of fact 11 and 12. Accepted in finding of fact 11. Accepted in finding of fact 9. 21-22. Accepted in finding of fact 14. Accepted in finding of fact 6. Rejected as being contrary to more persuasive evidence. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6 but this finding does not excuse performance under the contract. See finding of fact 12. Respondent: * Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. The remainder is covered in the preliminary statement. Accepted in finding of fact 1. Accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Accepted in finding of fact 4. Accepted in findings of fact 3 and 5. 6-8. Accepted in finding of fact 7. 9-10. Accepted in finding of fact 10. Accepted in finding of fact 7. Accepted in finding of fact 9. Accepted in finding of fact 14. * Respondent G & G Sales Corporation filed thirteen unnumbered paragraphs containing proposed findings of fact. The paragraphs have been numbered 1-13 by the undersigned for the purpose of making these rulings. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe C. Miller, II P. O. Box 803 Palatka, Florida 32178-0803 Ronald W. Brown, Esquire 66 Cuna Street, Suite B St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License & Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Charles T. Shad, Esquire 601 Blackstone Building East Bay & Market Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (on behalf of St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.) Richard A. Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture & Consumer Affairs The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Respondent owes payment to Petitioner in the amount of $60,748.78 for watermelons sold by Petitioner to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Between May 18 and June 5, 1990, Petitioner James G. Young sold a total of 40 truckloads of watermelons to Respondent Maddox Brothers Produce, Inc. Petitioner was to have received a price of five cents per pound through May 26, 1990 and four cents per pound through the remainder of the shipping season. Respondent has failed to pay $60,748.78 of the amount owed to Petitioner for such produce. At no time did Petitioner received any complaint that the watermelons were unsatisfactory. Respondent is a licensed agricultural dealer engaged in the business of brokering agricultural products, Florida license #0030. Respondent is subject to regulation by the Department. Respondent has posted a Fireman's Fund Insurance Company surety bond #11141308327 in the amount of $50,000 with the Department. Respondent did not appear at the hearing. No evidence was presented to contradict the testimony of the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring Maddox Brothers Produce, Inc., to pay to Petitioner the sum of $60,748.78. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James G. Young Route 3 Box 272-A Wildwood, Florida 34758 Patricia M. Harper, President Maddox Brothers Produce, Inc. 2124 Forest Avenue Knoxville, Tennessee 37916 Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Surety Claims Center Post Office Box 193136 San Francisco, Florida 94119-3136
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent possessed a Certificate of Registration as a Farm Labor Contractor, issued under the provisions of Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes. The Certificate number is C-04-387166-D-88-R. It was issued on June 15, 1987, and expired on April 30, 1988. The Department of Labor and Employment Security is the state agency charged with regulating farm labor contractors. At the time Respondent applied for his certificate, on June 4, 1987, he gave as the address for sending documents, P.O. Box 2186, Lake Placid, Florida, 33852. At approximately 9:00 am on June 4, 1987, Larry Coker, a DLES Compliance Officer, observed the Respondent drive his 1980 Ford van up to a convenience store in the town of Ona, on State Road 64, in Hardy County, Florida. At the time, Respondent had thirteen migrant workers in the van with him. Mr. Coker's examination of the van at the time revealed that the seats in the van were not secured to the floor or the frame of the vehicle, and the vehicle was not insured. Mr. Coker attempted to discuss the matter with the Respondent, who had stopped at the store to purchase gas and ice, and to give the workers an opportunity to purchase food for lunch. However, Respondent indicated that he had to get to work, and Mr. Coker followed Respondent to a watermelon field where he and the other workers were to cut watermelons. Though at the hearing, Respondent denied that he was the contractor for the workers in question, at the field, on June 4, 1987, he had indicated that he paid his workers in cash on a daily basis, did not deduct for social security, did not keep names, addresses, or other records, nor did he give a wage statement to the workers. At the hearing, Mr. Crowl admitted making the statement, but contended that he was referring to his routine practice on those occasions when he served as a labor contractor. He unequivocally denies, however, that the workers in his van on June 4, 1987, were his employees. He insists they were the employees of another contractor whose van had broken down beside the road and to whom he was giving a ride, merely to assist them in getting to work. When Mr. Coker discussed the matter with the grower, Randall Roberts, and the crew leader in the field, Mr. McGahey, Roberts indicated that he had just hired Respondent, and that he paid Respondent, who was responsible for paying the workers. Under the circumstances, and considering the relative probabilities of the testimony, it is found that the workers in question were Respondent's employees, and that he did improperly manage them under the terms of Chapter 450, Florida Statutes. It is also found that Mr. Crowl's prior Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration expired in February, 1987. Even though expired, it should have been posted either at the work site or in the van, but was not. Respondent, also, was not authorized to transport workers in his van. As a result, Mr. Coker cited Respondent for failing to register as a contractor, (based on the expired certificate); failing to make, keep or preserve records; failing to provide wage statements to workers; failing to assure the safety of transportation vehicles; failing to obtain prescribed vehicle insurance; and failing to post his certificate of registration as required. The complaint was forwarded to DLES headquarters in Tallahassee. On June 29, 1987, Rod Willis, Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural Programs for the DLES, by letter, notified Respondent that the Department was assessing a civil money penalty against him for the above cited six violations in the total amount of $2,450.00. Under the terms of the letter, Mr. Crowl was given twenty-one days to remit the amount of penalty due, or to request a hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The letter was sent by certified mail to the address listed by Mr. Crowl in his application for registration, but was subsequently returned undelivered. Mr. Crowl contends that he never received the letter because shortly after the date of the incident here, he left for New York and did not return until November, 1987. Because requirements outlined in the certified letter referenced above were not complied with, on January 25, 1988, the acting director of the DLES entered a Final Order imposing the $2,450.00 fine, and advising Respondent of his right to appeal. No appeal was taken. On January 28, 1988, Mr. Willis, again by letter, notified Respondent of the Division's intention to revoke his Florida Farm Labor Contractor's Certificate of Registration, citing his failure to pay the previously assessed civil money penalty or to request a hearing. Mr. Crowl was again advised of his right to request a hearing on the revocation, and this hearing was the result. At the hearing, counsel for Petitioner indicated that if Respondent was willing to make arrangements for the payment of the $2,450.00 civil money penalty assessed, he would consider recommending to the Division Director a settlement that might result in allowing Respondent to retain his Contractor's Certificate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED, that Respondent, Erastious Crowl, be ordered to pay the previously assessed civil money penalty in the amount of $2,450.00, with the condition that if the payment of the penalty is not paid within a time period satisfactory to the Department, his Certificate be revoked. Recommended in Tallahassee, Florida, this 9th day of May, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: MOSES E. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY MONTGOMERY BUILDING, SUITE 117 2562 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399 ERASTIOUS CROWL POST OFFICE BOX 2186 LAKE PLACID, FLORIDA 33852 HUGO MENENDEZ, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 206 BERKELEY BUILDING 2590 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2152
The Issue The dispute here involves the alleged non-payment for watermelons that the Petitioner claims to have sold to the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The case is being considered in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 604, Florida Statutes, with establishes the apparatus for settling disputes between Florida produce farmers and dealers who are involved with the farmers' products. Curtis Sanders, a Florida farmer, contends by his complaint that two loads of watermelons grown and harvested in Florida, were sold directly to Great Lakes Produce of Florida, Inc. as set forth below: July 6, 1977, Jubilee Watermelons, 27,440 lbs., at .02 totaling $548.80 July 6, 1977, Jubilee Watermelons, 50,980 lbs., at .02 totaling $1,019.80 Total for all loads $1,568.40 An examination of the testimony offered in the course of the hearing, supports the Petitioner's contention. The Respondent has paid $1,176.30, leaving a balance of $392.10. The Respondent has not paid the $392.10 which it agreed to pay to' the Petitioner and under the facts of the agreement it is obligated to pay the Petitioner.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent be required to pay the Petitioner $392.10 for the watermelons it purchased from the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 21th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Curtis Sanders 630 Colonial Street Live Oak, Florida Roger Serzen c/o Great Lakes Produce of Florida, Inc. Post Office Box 11931 Tampa, Florida 33680
The Issue This case arises from a complaint filed by Jay Nelson and Ernest Leclercq, d/b/a Sun Coast Farms, in which it is asserted that H. M. Shield, Inc., is indebted to the Complainants in the amount of $7,266.20 for agricultural products sold to the Respondent. At the hearing the representative for the Complainant stated that most of the matters asserted in the complaint had been resolved by settlement, but that six items remained in dispute and that the total amount remaining in dispute was $1,041.20. Ms. Ernst testified as a witness for the Complainant and also offered several documents as exhibits, which documents were marked as a composite exhibit and received in evidence.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witness and on the exhibits offered and received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: On February 23, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans, Wax Beans, and Zukes (Lot No. 1116) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $327.00 on this sale. On March 8, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Wax Beans (Lot No. 1294) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $184.20 on this sale. On March 8, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Wax Beans (Lot No. 1295) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $184.20 on this sale. On March 19, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Zukes (Lot No. 1453) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $202.50 on this sale. On March 19, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Zukes (Lot No. 1454) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $110.00 on this sale. On March 19, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Zukes (Lot No. 1457) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $202.50. The total amount owed for agricultural products by the Respondent to the Complainant, which amount was unpaid as of the time of the hearing, is $1,401.20.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered directing H. M. Shield, Inc., to pay Jay Nelson and Ernest Leclercq, d/b/a Sun Coast Farms, the amount of $1,401.20 for the agricultural products described in the findings of fact, above. In the event the Respondent fails to make such payment within 15 days of the Final Order, it is recommended that the surety be required to pay pursuant to the bond. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of June, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 6th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay Nelson & Ernest Leclercq d/b/a Sun Coast Farms P.O. Box 3064 Florida City, Florida 33034 H. M. Shield, Inc. Room 82 State Farmer's Market Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast 200 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe W. Kight, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
