The Issue Whether the Petitioner abandoned his position with the Respondent and resigned from Career Service?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Department of Corrections as a Correctional Officer I in the Food Service Department at the Union Correctional Institution. Prior to his termination, Petitioner had been employed by the Department of Corrections for approximately four years. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Mr. Norman Hedding, Food Service Director II at Union Correctional Institution. Sometime in April or May, 1987, Petitioner filled out a request for leave, requesting three weeks annual leave to be taken in July, 1987. The request for leave was placed on Mr. Hedding's desk. Mr. Hedding told Petitioner he would see what he could do and mentioned that other officers needed to take vacation time or they would forfeit the time. However, no other officer asked to take leave during the same period of time requested by Petitioner. On various occasions during May, June and July, Petitioner asked Wanda Phillips, Mr. Hedding's assistant, whether his leave had been approved. Ms. Phillips told him she had not heard anything. During one of the conversations with Ms. Phillips, Petitioner told her that he had purchased round-trip airline tickets to California. Petitioner and Mr. Hedding did not speak about the leave request until the Petitioner's last day at work prior to having two scheduled days off and then starting the 3-week period for which leave time had been requested. During this conversation, the Petitioner informed Mr. Hedding that he had confirmed round-trip tickets to California and his grandson had surgery scheduled for the time period in question. The testimony is conflicting as to what was said during this conversation. Mr. Hedding testified that he told Petitioner that the leave was not authorized. Petitioner testified that Mr. Hedding told him that the leave "had not been approved yet." Based on the testimony given at the hearing and the actions of Petitioner after his conversation with Mr. Hedding, I find that Petitioner was never told in unequivocal and clear terms that his leave had been disapproved. Petitioner assumed his leave would be approved and, before leaving work on his last day, he filled out pay slips in advance so that his payroll records would be accurate and told people at the office that he was going on vacation. Petitioner remained in town for the next four days, without reporting for work, and left for California. On August 6, 1987, upon his return from California, Petitioner received a certified letter from Mr. Hicks, an Assistant Superintendent II at Union Correctional Institution, informing Petitioner that he had been deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service System. Petitioner then spoke with Mr. Ellis, the Superintendent at Union Correctional Institution, who told Petitioner he needed to talk with Mr. Hedding about getting his job back. Petitioner told Mr. Hedding he had not intended to abandon his position. The next day Mr. Hedding told Petitioner he would not take him back.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered ruling that the circumstances presented in this case do not constitute abandonment as contemplated by Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and directing that Petitioner be reinstated to his former position as of July 20, 1987. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3828 The parties submitted-proposed findings of fact, which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner's posthearing filing is a document titled "Petitioner's Argument and Citation of Law." The first three paragraphs consist of factual information and will be considered as proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings are generally accepted, as modified in the Findings of Fact to conform to the testimony and evidence presented at hearing. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent's Paragraph Number Ruling and RO Paragraph Accepted. RO 1. Accepted, as modified to reflect approximate dates. RO 2, 3. Rejected. Mr. Hedding assumed this to be the case. Accepted, generally as modified. RO 4. Accepted, generally. RO 5. Accepted, as modified to reflect approximate dates. RO 6. Accepted, as modified. RO 6, 7. First sentence accepted. RO 9. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Accepted, generally. RO 10. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Louis A. Vargas, Esquire 409 North East First Street General Counsel Post Office Box 628 Department of Corrections Alachua, Florida 32615 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Perri M. King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Richard Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Adis Vila, Secretary 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may lawfully discipline Respondent due to excessive absences from work.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employed Respondent as a police officer in the Operations Division of the Cape Coral Police Department (Department) from October 5, 1987, through approximately April 27, 1998, when Petitioner terminated her employment. As detailed below, Petitioner monthly provides its employees with a specified amount of leave, based on their years of service. Petitioner credits all leave in a single account. Employees then draw on their leave account by taking scheduled and unscheduled leave. This case involves Respondent's use of allegedly excessive amounts of leave. In 1989, Respondent used 125.76 hours of unscheduled leave. On May 23, 1989, she received an interim performance evaluation noting that she was "below acceptable" in unscheduled leave time and needed to improve her relations with other employees. On October 13, 1989, she received an annual performance evaluation stating that she had had 18 days "sick leave" in the preceding 12 months and was below "operational standard" in attendance and relations with others; all of her other categories were marked as meeting operational standard. The attached narrative notes a "slight improvement" since her May 1989 interim performance evaluation. In 1990, Respondent used 198.5 hours of unscheduled leave. Her October 12, 1990, annual performance evaluation states that Respondent was again below operational standard in attendance with 23.25 days of "sick leave." She had raised her relations with others to operational standard and work habits to above operational standard. The narrative attached to the evaluation states that the evaluator has spent a sizable amount of time conferring with Susan regarding causes to her illnesses and resulting time off due to illness. Officer Von Halla does have problems with migraine's and when she experiences one, she is [less than] an effective part of the shift in fulfilling her normal duties. I have tried to understand why she experiences so many migraines and have suggested different activities (i.e. physical exercise, stress reduction). I am confident that despite the significant amount of time taken due to illness, when this officer calls in sick, she is sick and does not use this time for other unknown reasons. I feel, currently, Officer Von Halla is attempting to minimize the amount of times she calls in sick. Despite some improvement recently, Officer Von Halla still is in need of progress in this area so her time reserved starts reflecting this. The narrative concludes that Respondent can improve her weak point, which is attendance, by "finding new ways to minimize the migraine potential and making a genuine effort towards this." Another evaluative document speaks in a very different tone from the annual performance evaluation, which is signed by a sergeant who was Respondent's immediate supervisor. On October 2, 1990--only 10 days before the 1990 annual evaluation-- a captain reviewed Respondent's use of unscheduled leave and warned: you are hereby notified that this level of unscheduled leave time usage will no longer be tolerated. You will be required to achieve a level of usage that is consistent with the national and department average which equates to approximately sixty hours per year, or five hours per month. If you fail to maintain this rate between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1990 I will request that the Chief of Police consider terminating your employment effective January 1, 1991. If you are successful, you will be expected to maintain this average with the exception of documented major medical complications that require the use of extended leave. By memorandum dated December 14, 1990, from the captain to the police chief, the captain stated: On October 2, 1990, I advised Officer Von Halla that she would be required to maintain an acceptable level of unscheduled leave usage through December 31, 1990. The level of usage was established at five (5) hours per month, or a total of 15 hours for the period of October 2, 1990, through December 31, 1990. . . . Since October 2, 1990, Officer Von Halla has chosen to utilize forty (40) hours of leave. Thirty-two (32) hours were for illness as noted by her chiropractor and eight (8) for unexpected visitors. The captain's memorandum reasons: "In analyzing Officer Von Halla's unscheduled leave, it is clear that her utilization of unscheduled leave far exceeds any norms and Officer Von Halla is clearly abusing this city benefit." The memorandum states that, after consulting with the city attorney and city manager, the captain was recommending that Petitioner initiate termination proceedings against Respondent. By memorandum dated January 17, 1991, the captain asked a lieutenant to convene a Command Review Board to evaluate Respondent's excessive absenteeism and her violation of three groups of general orders prohibiting feigning of illness and failing to perform duties, abusing sick leave, and engaging in any conduct adversely affecting the morale and efficiency of the Department. The memorandum explains the last alleged violation as noting that the department had had to use 66 hours of overtime, at a cost of $1125, to cover shift shortages caused by Respondent's unscheduled absences. The Command Review Board sustained the allegation that Respondent had abused her unscheduled leave, but rejected the allegations of feigning illness and failing to perform duties and engaging in any conduct adversely affecting the morale and efficiency of the department. Accordingly, the Command Review Board recommended that the police chief suspend Respondent without pay for one day. By memorandum dated February 2, 1991, the police chief adopted the findings and determinations of the Command Review Board and suspended Respondent for one day. By memorandum dated February 14, 1991, Respondent protested the proposed discipline and demanded a hearing. The arbitrator entered a decision on June 24, 1991, that the police chief had just cause for suspending Respondent for one day without pay. Respondent served this suspension. The next annual performance evaluation is dated January 25, 1992. Respondent earned marks of above operational standard in job knowledge, quality of work, initiative, work habits, and appearance. Her only mark of below operational standard was in attendance. In the preceding 15.5 months, Respondent had used 18 days of "sick leave" and had one day without pay, due to her exhaustion of leave. From May 1990 through April 1991, Respondent used 148 hours of unscheduled leave. The evaluations and memoranda from 1992 through 1994 are largely the same: average or above-average performance in all areas but attendance. The records note only the excessive use of unscheduled leave, but do not attribute the use to fraud. From January 13, 1994 through December 26, 1997, Respondent used 691.72 hours of unscheduled leave. On February 12, 1995, the former captain, now a major, recommended that the Department suspend Respondent without pay for three days due to excessive use of unscheduled leave. By memorandum dated February 27, 1995, the police chief, "with some reluctance," concurred with the recommendation of three days' suspension. On April 18, 1995, a Departmental disciplinary review board met and failed to agree on corrective action. The board recommended only that the Department remove Respondent from field duty and place her in a noncritical position. Upon further deliberations, the board agreed upon a two-day suspension. Respondent served this suspension in June 1995, and the following month a quarterly evaluation dated July 1, 1995, notes that she was still using unscheduled leave. A memorandum dated September 10, 1995, notes that Respondent used 213 hours of unscheduled leave in the first eight months of 1995. By memorandum dated September 20, 1995, the major and three of his subordinates, including the person with immediate supervisory authority over Respondent, recommended to the police chief that the Department terminate Respondent due to excessive use of unscheduled leave. Rejecting the recommendation for termination, the police chief imposed a 30-day suspension without pay, based partly on the assurance of Respondent's physician that the cause of her constant illness had been corrected. Respondent served her suspension from November 22- December 21, 1995. Quarterly evaluations in June 1996 and March 1997 note some improvement in the use of unscheduled leave. From October 1996 through September 17, 1997, Respondent used 180 hours of unscheduled sick leave. From October 1, 1997, through January 26, 1998, Respondent used 82 hours of unscheduled leave. By memorandum dated January 26, 1998, the major advised the police chief of Respondent's continued use of unscheduled leave and recommended termination. By notice to Respondent from the police chief dated February 13, 1998, the chief advised Respondent that he was considering disciplinary action, including termination. The notice cites the following grounds from Article Seven, Section C, Ordinance 50-94: excessive unauthorized tardiness or absence from work, violation of Department work rules or operating procedures, actions or conduct detrimental to Petitioner's interests, or any other properly substantiated cause that adversely affects Petitioner. The notice alleges that Respondent's conduct also violates department General Order D-1.IV.36, which prohibits excessive use of unscheduled leave. The notice summarizes Respondent's past use of unscheduled leave and the discipline that she had received. The notice asserts that she had used 96 hours of unscheduled leave in the past four months. By letter dated March 12, 1998, Respondent advised the police chief that her ear, nose, and throat physician had placed her on Predisone, which had eliminated her debilitating headaches. By letter dated March 16, 1998, the police chief provided Respondent final notice of proposed disciplinary action for the four grounds mentioned in the prior notice. Respondent has raised an issue of disparate treatment. However, the record fails to reveal other, similarly situated employees with comparable patterns of usage of unscheduled leave. The record contains a detailed record of Respondent's relevant payroll history from January 1, 1994, through May 1, 1998, on which date Petitioner terminated her. By year, these records disclose the following totals of hours for unscheduled leave and leave without pay, the latter of which is due to Respondent's exhaustion of her granted leave: 1994--190 and 48.22; 1995--201 and 148; 1996--94 and 42; 1997--174 and 58; and 1998 (four months)--32.72 and 0. The respective totals are 691.72 and 296.22 hours. Respondent's use of unscheduled leave and leave without pay far exceed the averages for the Department. Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit, which is represented by the Florida State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). Petitioner and FOP negotiated a collective bargaining agreement in effect from October 1, 1997, through September 30, 2000 (Agreement). Article 3, Section 1, of the Agreement provides: Except as specifically abridged or modified by a provision of this Agreement, City will continue to have, whether exercised or not, all of the rights, powers and authority heretofore existing, including, but not limited to, the following: . . . to hire, transfer, promote and demote employees; to direct employees, to take disciplinary action up to, and including, termination; to relieve employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons; [and] to issue rules and regulations . . .. Article 10, Section 2, of the Agreement describes the forms of discipline as follows: In accordance with Police Department General Order D-1 (as dated April 1, 1993), forms of corrective action will be utilized by City with the approval of the Police Chief shall include: Counseling or Re-Training--to correct and improve employee performance; Reprimand--a written statement warning the employee of the consequence of future misconduct of a similar nature; Suspension-- suspension from duty without pay; Demotion--a change to a position of lesser responsibility and salary; and Termination--dismissal from the Police Department. Article 10, Section 3, of the Agreement provides that Petitioner shall use "[p]rogressive corrective action," unless the severity of the offense dictates a more severe action. Article 11 of the Agreement provides that Petitioner may take disciplinary action against an employee for "just cause." Article 15, Section 1(a), of the Agreement grants employees with five or less years of continuous service 25 days of annual leave per year. Article 15, Section 1(b), grants employees with 6-10 years of continuous service 30 days of annual leave per year. The remaining subsections grant more leave based on years of service. Article 15, Section 1(g), of the Agreement provides: The use of annual leave for other than illness must be scheduled with the employee's supervisor. In case of illness, an employee must notify his/her supervisor not later than two (2) hours before the beginning of the scheduled work day or in accordance with Police Department Rules and Regulations. The Agreement provides that Petitioner may discipline covered employees for "just cause," but does not identify what constitutes "just cause." Ordinance 50-94 (Ordinance) sets forth the rules and regulations governing all of Petitioner's employees. Article One, Section B.2, states that the Ordinance covers employees who are parties to a collective bargaining agreement, "except that in the event of a conflict between the terms of this Ordinance and the collective bargaining agreement, the collective bargaining agreement shall govern." Article Six, Section E, provides that an employee may be dismissed for "just cause," but that the department head must comply with the procedures in Article Seven prior to termination. Article Seven, Section B, requires progressive discipline for "the same or similar conduct by the employee," although Petitioner reserves the right to impose the most severe discipline as an initial measure "when circumstances warrant." Article Seven, Section C, cites several grounds for discipline, including "[g]ross neglect of duty or specific serious failure to perform assigned duties"; "[m]ental or physical impairment, normally as supported by written documentation from not less than two licensed physicians, that prevents the employee, even with reasonable accommodation, from performing the essential functions of his or her position"; "[a]bsence without leave, or failure to give proper notice of absence"; "[e]xcessive unauthorized tardiness or absence from work"; "[v]iolation of Department work rules or operating procedures"; "[a]ctions or conduct detrimental to the interests of the City"; or "[a]ny other properly substantiated cause which adversely affects the City." Article Seven, Section D, requires that the employee proceed with a grievance for proposed discipline under the ordinance or collective bargaining agreement. Section E.5 describes the hearing conducted under the ordinance, which is the procedure that Respondent elected, and states, at Subsubsection 7, that the Administrative Law Judge is to determine if Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence "just cause" for the discipline. Subsubsection 8 provides that the order is a final order. Subsubsection 9 provides for judicial review. Article Eleven describes attendance and leave. Section A.6.a provides that fulltime employees shall be present at their assigned jobs, "unless absence from duty is authorized by the Department Head as provided herein." Section A.6.c states in part: Excessive unscheduled absences or tardiness shall be grounds for disciplinary action. For purposes of this paragraph, "excessive unscheduled absences or tardiness" shall mean use which is in excess of the average number of hours and/or occurrences of unscheduled leave taken by other City employees in the same or similar positions . . .. Article Seven, Section E.3, defines unscheduled leave as that which the employee requests and the supervisor approves on the day that it is taken. This section states: "An employee's excessive use of unscheduled leave may be grounds for disciplinary action." Section E.1 contains a schedule for the accrual of leave, and the applicable monthly accrual rate, which increases with seniority, applies to the total of each employee's scheduled and unscheduled leave. Department General Order D-1 (General Order), as last revised on December 11, 1995, provides, at Section II, that it applies to [ALL] members of the Department. This section states that the police chief will use progressive discipline, "unless the severity of the offense dictates a more severe action." Section IV prohibits various acts, including feigning illness, avoiding responsibility, or failing to perform one's duties; "excessive use of unscheduled leave"; or engaging in conduct that adversely affects the morale and efficiency of the department. By memorandum dated July 20, 1987, a major in the Department advised all operations division personnel that absences, "regardless of cause," weaken the Department's ability to serve the public though personnel shortages, increase personnel costs due to overtime to cover absences, and increase burdens on other employees. The safety of the public and law enforcement officers requires a minimum staffing of law enforcement officers on each shift. The absence of a scheduled officer requires that the Department pay overtime for an unscheduled officer to report for duty. The record does not demonstrate that unscheduled absences of an officer, up to the total amount of granted leave, compromise the safety of the public or other officers. The contrary inference is precluded in part by the fact that, in the Agreement, Petitioner grants each officer a certain amount of leave and does not further restrict the officer's choice to use his or her granted leave as unscheduled leave. However, the use of unscheduled leave in excess of the granted leave is not anticipated by the Agreement and may compromise the safety of the public and other officers.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent was a career-service employee of Respondent. She served as a health service representative assigned to the Seminole County Public Health Unit. Her specific task was to investigate and follow up on contacts for sexually transmitted diseases. Petitioner's Employee Handbook, which Respondent received when she was hired, states: You may request annual leave for any purpose desired, but you must obtain Your supervisor's approval before taking annual leave. If an emergency develops, tell your supervisor of the emergency and ask for verbal approval to use annual leave. When you return to work, complete the leave request form for your supervisor's signature. The Handbook also Provides that certain employees are entitled to one eight-hour personal holiday "at a time which is mutually agreeable to the individual and the immediate supervisor." The local policy of the Seminole County Public Health Unit required each employee to request leave by filling out the back of a timesheet. In this manner, the employee would show the type of leave requested, the date and time of the leave, the employee's initials. The form provided spaces for the signature of the supervisor and the date described in detail in the Paragraph 5 below. The back of the timesheet states: "All Leave and Overtime must be requested and approved in advance." The Handbook requires advance approval of annual leave. Although the blanket statement on the back of the timesheet requires advance approval of all leave and overtime, the Seminole County Public Health Unit routinely did not require advance approval for all types of leave. For instance, sick leave, overtime, and annual leave for less than a few hours were normally approved after the fact. On at least two occasions, including one involving Respondent, annual leave for an entire day was also approved after it had beef taken. However, the Seminole County Public Health Unit normally requires advance approval of annual leave for a Period of one day or more. The instructions on the timesheet direct that the date next to the supervisor's signature indicate the date of the request for leave. Consistent with the varying policies governing leave, the date beside the supervisor's signature on the timesheet was used to show the date of approval of a request for annual leave and the date of the request for sick leave and certain other types of leave. By negative implication, the Handbook also requires written approval of annual leave for nonemergencies because it expressly permits "verbal approval" for annual leave for emergencies. There are no requirements in the Handbook or the timesheets for written approval of requests for other forms of leave, and the Seminole County Public Health Unit did not maintain enforceable policies to that effect. Two persons were authorized to approve requests of Respondent for annual leave. The first person was Charlotte Blades, who was the coordinator of the sexually transmitted disease program of the Seminole County Public Health Unit. Ms. Blades was Respondent's immediate supervisor The other person authorized to approve requests for annual leave was Bernice Duncan, who was the senior community health nurse of the Seminole County Public Health Unit and Ms. Blades' supervisor. In practice, the written approval of Ms. Blades could be revoked by Ms. Duncan. On one occasion, Respondent requested eight hours' annual leave to attend her son's high school graduation on June 9, 1989. Ms. Blades signed the timesheet on May 23, 1989. Between that date and the date of the leave, Ms. Duncan told Respondent that, although Ms. Blades had signed the timesheet, the leave was not approved. Ultimately, Respondent received approval for leave through 2:30 p.m., rather than 5:00 p.m., on the day of the graduation. In late July or early August, 1989, Respondent submitted a timesheet requesting 32 hours' annual leave from August 28-31, 1989. About one week later, before Ms. Blades or Ms. Duncan had acted on the request, Respondent changed the request to September 1, which was the Friday before Labor Day weekend, and September 13-14, 1989. In addition, she requested leave with pay for September 15, 1989, as her personal holiday. According to the timesheets, Ms. Blades approved the September 1 leave request on August 25, 1989, which was a Saturday. She assured Respondent that she would discuss with Ms. Duncan the remaining requests for leave. Respondent followed up with Ms. Blades several times, explaining that she wanted the leave to attend her son's graduation ceremonies from military basic training in South Carolina. Despite her assurances, Ms. Blades had not mentioned Respondent's request to Ms. Duncan before Ms. Blades became sick and missed work from September 6-9. On the second day of Ms. Blades' absence, Respondent took her request to Ms. Duncan, who said that she had not been aware of Respondent's request. Ms. Duncan told Respondent that Ms. Blades was on sick leave and did not respond further. The following day, Respondent spoke again with Ms. Duncan, who this time assured her that if Ms. Blades were not at work on Monday, September 11, Ms. Duncan would sign the timesheet approving the leave requested for September 13-15. Ms. Blades returned to work on Monday, September 11. When Respondent asked her in the morning to sign the timesheet, Ms. Blades refused to do so and told her that it had not yet been approved. Consistent with her prior conversations with Respondent, though, Ms. Blades did not say that the request had been disapproved. Respondent then left the office for much of the day. When she returned, Ms. Blades and Ms. Duncan were both out. The next day, Tuesday, September 12, Ms. Blades spoke with Respondent, but still declined to say whether the request was approved or rejected. She continued to say merely that the request had not yet been approved. Tuesday afternoon, Respondent told a coworker to tell Ms. Blades that Respondent was going to South Carolina and would be back the following Monday morning. While still in town, Respondent telephoned both supervisors shortly after 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, but they had not arrived at work yet. Respondent asked the receptionist to remind Ms. Blades that Respondent had gone to South Carolina and would return the following Monday morning. Both messages were delivered to Ms. Blades, who relayed them to Ms. Duncan. Respondent then departed for South Carolina, where she remained through at least September 15. At the time of her departure, Respondent knew that her request for annual leave had not been approved and that she was taking unauthorized annual leave. When she arrived back in the office on September 18, Respondent received a copy of a letter dated September 15 that had been mailed to her the prior Friday. The letter states that Respondent had been separated from State service for abandonment of position, effective at the close of business on September 15, 1989. The second paragraph of the letter contains material misstatements of fact. It states that Respondent had been advised that, due to the present work situation, her leave could not be approved. The letter also states that she did not contact her supervisor that she would be absent. No one ever advised Respondent that her leave could not be approved or in fact was rejected until after her return from South Carolina. Also, Respondent informed both supervisors, directly and through third parties, that she would be absent, where she was going, why, and when she would return. However, she did not contact them during the three-day absence. Concerning the request for leave for a personal holiday, neither Ms. Blades nor Ms. Duncan ever informed Respondent that the date was inconvenient. Under the circumstances, Respondent could reasonably infer that the date was agreeable with Ms. Blades. At no time did Respondent intend to abandon her career-service position. The facts do not support a reasonable inference that Respondent abandoned her job during the three days in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has not abandoned her position in Career Service employment with the State of Florida. ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE 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 28th day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda L. Parkinson Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 701 Orlando, FL 32801 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Alva J. Barfield 1010 Locust Avenue Sanford, FL 32771
The Issue Whether the Petitioner abandoned his position with the Respondent and resigned from Career Service pursuant to the personnel rules of the Career Service System?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent for more than five years. At all times relevant hereto, the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent. During the month of December, 1986, and the portion of January, 1987, prior to the date the Petitioner was removed from his position, the Petitioner was assigned to the Blountstown, Florida, road maintenance office. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Mr. Gustavev Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin was an HMT-3 with the Respondent and supervised a maintenance crew of three men, including the Petitioner. Mr. Goodwin was the Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Lloyd Blackburn, a Highway Maintenance Supervisor with the Respondent, was Mr. Goodwin's immediate supervisor. Mr. Blackburn supervises all crews operating out of the Blountstown office. The Petitioner and his crew worked a 10-hour day, 4 days a week. Mr. Goodwin prepares a weekly crew report on a daily basis. Mr. Goodwin records the hours a crew member worked or, if a crew member was not present, Mr. Goodwin notes the absence and the reason for the absence. Mr. Blackburn transfers the information recorded on the weekly crew reports to timesheets which are used for payroll purposes. If approval of a request for leave is required, employees are required to report to their crew supervisor or Mr. Blackburn. The Petitioner would have been required to obtain approval of leave from Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn, if prior approval had been required. In cases of sick leave, employees were expected to call by telephone on the day of the illness or injury and inform Mr. Blackburn. Mr. Blackburn was at the office each work day in the morning before the crews completed fueling their trucks and departed for the day. Mr. Blackburn was then out of the office during most of the remainder of the day. During the last week of December, 1986, Mr. Goodwin, the Petitioner and the other members of Mr. Goodwin's crew were "bull skating" (joking and talking). The Petitioner told Mr. Goodwin in response to some comment, probably pertaining to the work that would be done the first week of January, 1987, that "I won't be here next week anyway. I be in the hospital." Although Mr. Goodwin did not remember the Petitioner having made these comments, the Petitioner and one of the crew members, Mr. Arthur Jackson, both testified that the comments were made. Neither Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn told the Petitioner that he could be absent from work during the first week of January, 1987. The Petitioner was absent from work during the first week of January, 1987 -- January 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1987. Neither Mr. Goodwin nor Mr. Blackburn were contacted on January 5-8, 1987, by the Petitioner or anyone on behalf of the Petitioner, about the Petitioner's absence. Neither Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn told the Petitioner that his absence on January 5-8, 1937, was approved. The Petitioner had obtained approval of annual leave prior to the period at issue in this case. The Petitioner had planned to go to the hospital on January 5, 1987, because of problems he has had with his legs, and to remain in the hospital for the remainder of the week. Because of the problems with his legs and his automobile, the Petitioner did not go to the hospital or see a doctor on January 5, 1987. On January 8, 1987, the Petitioner had a friend drive him to Panama City, Florida, where he remained under the care of Dr. Ernest G. Haslam, M.D., in the hospital, until January 12, 1987. Although the Petitioner does not have a telephone at his residence, Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn could have been contacted by Petitioner's wife, who works at Hardees, or by a friend. The Petitioner acknowledged receipt on April 14, 1983, of the Florida Department of Transportation Employee Handbook and his responsibility to review the handbook in detail and to request clarification, if necessary. On page 43 of the handbook it is provided that "[a]fter an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from Career Service ..." On page 22 of the handbook it is provided that "[i]f a medical appointment is necessary during work hours, you should obtain `approval, in advance, to use your earned sick leave." By certified letter from Allen Potter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department, dated January 8, 1976, the Petitioner was informed that he was deemed to have abandoned his position with the Respondent and to have resigned from the Career Service because of his absence from work during the first week of January, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration rule that the Petitioner, Albert T. Smith, has not abandoned his position with the Respondent, the Department of Transportation, and has not resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0450 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s), if any, in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RD ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner has filed a letter dated April 10, 1987. The only proposed finding of fact contained in this letter concerns the question of whether the Petitioner told his supervisor, Mr. Goodwin, that he would not be at work during the period of time at issue in this case. The proposed finding of fact has been accepted in RD 10. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding RD Number of Acceptance of Fact Number or Reason for Rejection 1 RD 1-4 and 8. 2 RD 5-7 and 9. 3 RD 10-11. 4 RD 11 and 13. The evidence did not prove that the Petitioner had obtained prior approval for sick leave subsequent to the period of time involved in this case. The evidence only proved that the Petitioner had on other occasions received prior approval of annual leave. 5 RD 19-20. RD 16 and 18. The evidence does not prove that the Petitioner got into a car and drove to town. RD 21. The Petitioner was not, however, "absent from his position without authorized leave ..." COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Kay N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, MS 58 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mr. Albert T. Smith Route 1, Box 135, B 69A Blountstown, Florida 32424 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated "for being absent without approved leave," as recommended in the Superintendent of Schools of the School District of Palm Beach County's Petition for Involuntary Resignation.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) and support facilities within the jurisdictional boundaries of the School District. Systemwide testing programs in the School District are coordinated by the School District's Department of Research, Evaluation, and Accountability (DREA). At all times material to the instant case, Marc Baron headed DREA. DREA operates a test distribution center. Cherie Boone is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, in charge of the DREA test distribution center. Ms. Boone supervises four employees. As their supervisor, she is "responsible for [among other things, their] time and attendance." Respondent is employed as a materials handling technician with the School District. At all times material to the instant case, he was assigned to work in the DREA test distribution center under the direct supervision of Ms. Boone. As a materials handling technician employed by the School District, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the National Conference of Firemen & Oilers, Local 1227 (NCF&O) and, at all times material to the instant case, has been covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School District and NCF&O (NCF&O Contract). Article 7 of the NCF&O Contract discusses "employees['] contractual rights." It provides as follows: SECTION 1. Probationary Employees All newly hired or rehired employees may be subject to a probationary period of ninety (90) workdays. Employees who have not completed such period of employment may be discharged without recourse. Probationary employees shall not be eligible for any type of leave except accrued sick leave, annual leave, or short term unpaid leave (due to illness) not to exceed five (5) days. SECTION 2. Permanent Employees Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee status shall be continuous unless the Superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). In the event the Superintendent seeks termination of a continuous employee, the School Board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined in accordance with Article 17 - Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline). Article 8 of the NFC&O Contract addresses the subject of "[m]anagement [r]ights." It provides as follows: NCF&O and its members recognize the responsibility of the District to operate and manage its affairs in all respects in accordance with its responsibilities as established by law and as delegated by the State Board of Education; and the powers of authority which the District has not officially agreed to share by this agreement, are retained by the District. It is the right of the District to determine unilaterally the purpose of each of its constituent agencies, set standards of services to be offered to the public, and exercise control and discretion over its organization and operations. It is also the right of the District to manage and direct its employees, establish reasonable rules and procedures, take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons, provided, however, that the exercise of such rights shall not preclude employees or their representatives from raising grievances, should decisions on the above matters have the practical consequences of violating the terms and conditions of this agreement in force. The District has the sole authority to determine the purpose and mission and the amount of the budget to be adopted by the School Board. The District and NCF&O agree that the District has and retains unaltered, its legal right to select, assign, reassign, or relocate any of its employees, and to carry out its mission under the law and State Board of Education Regulations, unless otherwise specifically enumerated herein. Except to the extent it has been done prior to May 26, 1998, no bargaining unit work which would result in the loss of jobs by members of the bargaining unit, shall be contracted out without prior consultation with the Union. It is understood that changes under this Article may not be arbitrary and capricious, and it is agreed that the District has those rights which are enumerated within Florida Statute 447; however, nothing herein shall relieve the parties of their ability to request impact bargaining. Among the "rules and procedures" that the School District, through the School Board, has established in exercising its "[m]anagement [r]ights" are School Board Directive 3.27 and School Board Policy 6Gx50-3.80, which provide, in pertinent part, as follows: School Board Directive 3.27 * * * Resignations. If employees desire to be released from their employment contract the following procedures are to be followed: * * * c. When employees do not report for duty for three (3) consecutive days without notifying their supervisor, the principal/department head will initiate a certified letter to the employee stating that their resignations will be recommended to the School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting. * * * Suspension/Termination. The Principal/Department Head may recommend to the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Relations disciplinary action against an employee if the employee commits one or more of the following offenses, including but not limited to: * * * b. Willful absence from duty without leave in violation of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes.[2] * * * Employees included in a bargaining unit are subject to suspension/dismissal provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. * * * 6. When a recommendation for suspension and termination is made, the procedures listed in School Board Policy 3.27 shall be followed. * * * School Board Policy 6Gx50-3.80 A leave of absence is permission granted by the Board, or allowed under its adopted policies, for an employee to be absent from duty for specified periods of time with the right of returning to employment on the expiration of the leave. All absences of School Board employees from duty shall be covered by leave duly authorized and granted. Leave shall be officially granted in advance by the School Board and shall be used for the purposes set forth in the leave application. Leave for sickness or other emergencies may be deemed to be granted in advance if prompt report is made to the proper authority. No leave except military leave shall be granted for a period greater than one (1) year. A new leave application may be filed and granted at the expiration of leave, but automatic renewals of leave shall not be allowed. Leave may be with or without pay and provided by law, rules of the State Board of Education, School Board policy, and negotiated contracts. If the terms of the collective bargaining agreement differ from this Policy, the language of the employee's agreement will take precedence. The following types of leave are available for School District employees: Leave for personal reasons Annual leave for 12-month personnel Sick leave Catastrophic leave Injury or illness in-line-of-duty leave Sabbatical leave Temporary military leave Regular military service leave Professional leave and extended professional leave Charter school leave Voluntary/extended military leave Leave of absence for the purpose of campaigning for political office Personal leave including maternity/ recovery and child care Paid Leaves * * * c. Sick Leave * * * iv. An employee requiring more than thirty (30) working days of paid leave for recovery may be required to submit medical evidence at reasonable intervals supporting the need for additional leave. * * * Sick leave claims shall be honored as submitted by the employee for personal illness, as well as illness or death of father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, child or other close relative or member of the employee's own household. Sick leave without pay may be granted for employees who have used all accumulated sick leave, but who would otherwise qualify for sick leave. The Superintendent may require a doctor's statement of verification of illness. A request to the Superintendent for a verification of claim may be initiated by the principal or supervisor. * * * Unpaid Leaves * * * e. Personal Leave -- An employee requesting short-term or long-term personal leave shall make written application to the supervisor, stating reasons for such leave. The Board shall satisfy itself in terms of the need of the requested leave. Personal leave may be used to extend a leave of absence due to sickness when that sickness has extended beyond all compensable leave for the duration of up to one (1) calendar year when supported by doctor's statements verifying the necessity of the extended leave. An employee requesting return to duty who has served efficiently and exhibited those qualities called for in the position held prior to such leave will be given every consideration for reemployment provided the conditions of employment have been met and the request is supported by a doctor's statement certifying that his physical condition is satisfactory to return to normal duties. * * * Article 17 of the NCF&O Contract, as noted in Article 7 of the contract, deals with the "[d]iscipline of [e]mployees." It provides as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Union, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of the Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written charge of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee as soon as possible after the investigation has begun. Any information which may be relied upon to take action against an employee will be shared promptly with said employee and his/her Union representative as soon as possible. Copies of any written information/correspondence that is related to the action of the employee or the investigating administrator(s) will be provided promptly to the employee and his/her Union representative. An employee against whom action is to be taken under this Article and his/her Union representative shall have the right to review and refute any and all of the information relied upon to support any proposed disciplinary action prior to taking such action. To this end, the employee and the Union representative shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare and present responses/refutations concerning the pending disciplinary action and concerning the appropriateness of the proposed disciplinary action. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee’s personnel file or which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph #7 below may be cited if these previous actions are reasonably related to the existing charge. Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Article, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended without pay, or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent and final action taken by the District. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable School Board rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. Such written notation shall be placed in the employee’s personnel file and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee, unless there is another reasonably related act by that same employee within a twenty-four (24) month period. Written Reprimand. A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee’s personnel file upon a receipt of a copy to the employee by certified mail. Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay by the School Board may be issued to an employee, when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Article. The notice and specifics of the suspension without pay shall be placed in writing, dated, and signed by the giver of the suspension and a copy provided to the employee by certified mail. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee’s personnel file in keeping with provisions of Chapter 119 and 231.291 of the Florida Statutes. An employee may be dismissed when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Article, including just cause and applicable laws. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has/have been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. However, if the disciplinary action(s) is/are to be taken by the District, then the employee shall have a choice of appeal between either the Department [sic] of Administrative Hearings in accordance with Florida Statutes or the grievance procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. Such choice must be exercised within fifteen (15) days of receipt of written notification of disciplinary action being taken, and the District notified accordingly. If the grievance procedure is selected, the grievance shall be initiated at Step Three. Article 18 of the NCF&O Contract describes the grievance procedure available to bargaining unit members who allege a "misapplication or misinterpretation of the agreement." The described procedure consists of an "informal level" and four formal "levels," the final one being "arbitration before an impartial arbitrator, using the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services." Pursuant to Section 4B. of Article 18, "if NCF&O decides to withdraw its support of an alleged grievance, the individual may continue to process the claim on his/her own, so long as all costs are borne by that individual"; however, according to Section 4E. of Article 18, "[a]grievance, once [actually] withdrawn, may not be reopened without the mutual written agreement between the [School District] and [the] NCF&O." "[L]eave [w]ithout [p]ay" is the subject of Article 25 of the NCF&O Contract, which provides as follows: SECTION 1. Personal Leave of Absence Personal leave of absence as described herein is leave without pay and may be requested by a member of the bargaining unit for purely personal reasons. A member of the bargaining unit may request short-term personal leave of absence within the school or department to which the employee is assigned. Personal leave as described herein shall be requested through the principal or department head for his/her approval and subsequently approved by the Superintendent. An employee granted an unpaid leave of absence shall be returned to his/her former classification if the leave is less than ninety (90) days, notwithstanding the layoff provisions contained in this agreement. An employee granted a leave of absence and who wishes to return before the leave period has expired, may submit a request to return to the principal/department head. An employee granted a leave of absence in excess of ninety (90) days will be permitted to return to work provided there is an opening in the same job classification in the work unit. If the former position is not available, the employee, upon written request, shall be listed as an eligible applicant for a period of six (6) months. Group Life and Hospitalization Insurance coverage may be continued for a period equal to the authorized leave of absence, provided full premium payments, including the Board's payment, are kept current by the employee. SECTION 2. Return from Leave Failure to return to work at the expiration of approved leave shall be considered as absence without leave and grounds for dismissal.[3] This section should be subject to extenuating circumstances preventing timely return, as determined by the Superintendent.4 Section 2 of Article 35 of NCF&O Contract protects employees from "[h]arassment." It provides as follows: No employee shall be subjected to or be part of: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, offensive, lewd or suggestive comments. Also includes the creation of a hostile, intimidating, or offensive work environment. Verbal or physical abuse is submitted to by an employee. An adverse decision is made against an employee after such abuse is rejected. Racial/ethnic slurs, jokes, or other inappropriate conduct. Verbal or physical abuse. An adverse decision shall not be made against an employee after such abuse is rejected. Racial/ethnic slurs, jokes, or other inappropriate conduct. There came a time when Respondent claimed, in a Level One grievance filed under the NCF&O Contract, that he was a victim, at the hands of Ms. Boone, of the "[h]arassment" proscribed by Section 2 of Article 35 of the contract. The grievance was filed (with the support of NCF&O) on or about April 8, 2004, several weeks following an incident in which Ms. Boone "yell[ed]" at Respondent for returning "a little bit late[]" from a delivery run. It contained the following "[g]rievance [s]tatement" and description of the "[r]elief [s]ought": Grievance Statement: (Include Date of Occurrence) Mr. Ellis fe[e]ls that he is working in a hostile work environment. He had meeting with the Dept. Head to express his feelings. On March 31, the employee was issued a written reprimand when there has never been any discipline for the employee. Relief Sought: The reprimand is withdrawn from all personnel files. All intimidation of the employee to cease immediately. Ms. Boone, on behalf of the School District, responded to the grievance by providing Respondent with the following written "disposition": After careful consideration of all available information, it has been determined that there has not been a violation, misapplication, or misinterpretation of the collective bargaining procedures. The grievance was not pursued beyond Level One. Since March 16, 2004, Respondent had not been reporting to work, notwithstanding that he had not received authorization to be absent. On or about April 5, 2004, Respondent submitted a request for leave of absence without pay for the period from April 5, 2004, to July 5, 2004. The type of leave without pay he requested was personal leave. By letter dated April 8, 2004, Mr. Baron advised Respondent that Respondent's request was being denied. In his letter, Mr. Baron wrote: You were absent without approved leave on April 5, 2004, April 6, 2004, and April 8, 2004. On Monday, April 5, 2004, you reported your intended absences and requested personal leave of absence starting April 5, 2004 through July 5, 2004. Pursuant to Article 25, Section 1, of the Agreement between The School District of Palm Beach County and National Conference of Firem[e]n & Oilers, "Personal leave of absence as described herein is leave without pay and may be requested by a member of the bargaining unit for purely personal reasons. A member of the bargaining unit may request short-term personal leave of absence within the school or department to which the employee is assigned. Personal leave as described herein shall be requested through the principal or department head for his/her approval and subsequently approved by the Superintendent." Your request for personal unpaid leave is denied. You are directed to return to work on Monday, April 12, 2004. Continued unapproved absences will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. Respondent did not return to work on April 12, 2004, as directed. The matter of Respondent's unauthorized absences was then "turn[ed] . . . over to [the School District's] personnel [office]" to "deal with." The personnel office decided to ask the School Board to terminate Respondent's employment for his having been absent without authorization. Before the School Board took any action, Respondent submitted another request for leave of absence without pay. The type of leave without pay he requested this time was sick leave. On the request form, Respondent indicated that he wanted the leave period to begin on April 16, 2004, "but there was no end date" written in anywhere on the form. Without an "end date," the form could not be processed. Sherry Kleinman, a School District analyst assigned to the personnel office (whose job duties include processing "all the leaves of absence for School [District] employees"), telephoned Respondent and "asked him what end date he wanted" her to place on the form for him. During their telephone conversation, Ms. Kleinman and Respondent "agreed upon" a May 17, 2004, "end date." Ms. Kleinman inserted this "end date" in the appropriate space on the form and then completed processing Respondent's leave request. Respondent was granted leave without pay for the period starting April 16, 2004, and ending May 17, 2004. Moreover, the personnel office "pulled" its recommendation that the School Board terminate Respondent for his having been absent without authorization. Respondent did not report to work at any time following the expiration of his authorized leave on May 17, 2004, nor did he seek an extension of this leave. There has been no showing made that there were extenuating circumstances present preventing Respondent's timely return to work; nor has it been shown that the issue of whether such extenuating circumstances existed has ever been presented to the Superintendent for determination. Personnel office staff attempted to reach Respondent by telephone to encourage him to seek an extension of the authorized leave that had expired. These efforts were unsuccessful. Upon being advised of the situation by Ms. Kleinman, NCF&O business agent Carolyn Killings, who had helped Respondent in filing his "[h]arassment" grievance, offered to try to contact Respondent, but she too was unable to "reach him." By letter dated June 14, 2004, Ernie Camerino, the assistant director of the personnel office, advised Respondent of the following: You were recently notified by your supervisor of your failure to return to work. As a result of such action, Personnel is currently processing your involuntary resignation from employment with the School District. Please be advised that I will recommend at the July 21, 2004 meeting of the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, your involuntary resignation. Subsequent to the July 21, 2004 Board meeting you will have fifteen (15) days to file an appeal under Section 120.[6]8, Florida Statutes. Unless a timely request for an administrative hearing (DOAH) is made within fifteen (15) days stated herein pursuant to Section 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes the District will consider this matter closed. This action is taken in accordance with Section 1001.42 and 1001.51, Florida Statutes. Failure to timely request an administrative hearing shall waive all rights to request a DOAH hearing on such matters and shall be subject only to appeal rights under Section 120.[6]8, Florida Statutes. You have a choice of filing a grievance or requesting a hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). Questions regarding the appeals process should be referred to the District's Legal Department. If you find this letter inconsistent with the action taken above, you may contact Mr. Camerino immediately at . . . to resolve this matter prior to School Board Action. By letter dated July 8, 2004, Respondent informed the School District's legal department that he was "requesting an appeal" of Mr. Camerino's "involuntary resignation" recommendation. On August 23, 2004, the same day the Superintendent filed his Petition for Involuntary Resignation recommending that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment, the School District referred Respondent's appeal to DOAH.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment based on his failure to return to work following the expiration of his leave without pay on May 17, 2004. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 14th day of February, 2005.
The Issue The ultimate issue in the instant case is whether Petitioner abandoned his position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Petitioner was formerly employed as an Unemployment Compensation (UC) Adjudicator in Respondent's Miami UC office. In this capacity, he interviewed claimants seeking unemployment compensation and made initial determinations regarding the validity of their claims. Petitioner was often absent because of illness. When he was at work, however, he performed his duties competently. Petitioner and his fellow employees at the Miami UC Office were required to notify supervisory personnel no later than the beginning of the workday if they were going to be absent that day. Petitioner was made aware of this requirement on various occasions prior to the absences that led to the termination of his employment with Respondent. On Tuesday, September 5, 1989, Petitioner telephoned his supervisor and told her that he would be absent that day because of an ankle injury he had sustained. He did not indicate during the conversation whether he would be at work the following day. On Wednesday, September 6, 1989, and Thursday, September 7, 1989, Petitioner neither reported to work nor contacted his supervisor at any time during the day to give notification of his absence. On Friday, September 8, 1989, Petitioner again failed to report to work. He did, however, telephone his supervisor concerning his absence, but he did not do so until 4:50 p.m., 20 minutes after the shift to which he was assigned had ended. By letter dated September 11, 1989, Respondent notified Petitioner that it had determined that Petitioner had abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service effective the close of business September 8, 1989, in view of his unauthorized absence from work on September 6, 7, and 8, 1989. It is this determination that is the subject of the instant controversy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a final order sustaining Respondent's determination that Petitioner abandoned his UC Adjudicator position with Respondent and resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of February 1990. STUART H. 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 16th day of February 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact To the extent that Petitioner asserts in his letter that he contacted his supervisor on September 5, 1989, and again on September 8, 1989, his proposed findings of fact have been accepted and incorporated in substance in this Recommended Order. To the extent that he claims that he "did not have 3 consecutive days of unauthorized absences," his proposed factual findings have been rejected because they are contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact First Sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second Sentence: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. First and second sentences: Rejected because they add only unnecessary detail; Third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First, second and fifth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Third and fourth sentences: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Cooper 1601 Northwest 17th Street, #2 Miami, Florida 33125 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 William A. Frieder Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Florida, Department of Labor and Employment Security Berkeley Building, Suite 200 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issues raised in this case are those set forth in a petition of May 18, 1987, in which the Petitioner, Richard Herring, challenged former Rule 22SM- 3.007, Florida Administrative Code, which became effective on May 29, 1986, and the amendment to that rule which had an effective date of February 1, 1987. In particular, Petitioner believes that the rule in its prior and existing forms exceeded the authority of the enabling legislation which is stated to underlie the promulgation. Petitioner contends that the rule in the prior and present form is arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner claims that the rule in its terms establishes penalties not authorized by the legislature. Petitioner believes that material changes were made to the rule following public hearing which were not supported or noticed or required by statute. Finally, Petitioner argues that the economic impact statements associated with the prior version of the rule and the February 1, 1987, version are not adequate, in that they do not apprise the Petitioner or others similarly situated of the negative implications of the rule. Exhibits and witnesses Richard Herring testified in his own behalf and called as witnesses Pam Hill and Vivian Pyle. In furtherance of his claims he submitted Petitioner's Exhibits 1-29, 32-39 and 42-45 which were received into evidence. Respondent offered Don Bradley as a witness in defense of this action.
Findings Of Fact On July 30, 1984, Richard Herring became a member of the Senior Management Service Personnel System within the State of Florida. He was recognized as a member of Senior Management from that day until March 2, 1987, the date he voluntarily left that system. During that time he served as Deputy Director of Developmental Services within the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). In confirmation of his elevation to the status of Senior Management employee, correspondence of August 3, 1984, was sent to the Petitioner over signature of Vivian Pyle, Central Personnel Officer for HRS. A copy of that letter may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. As had been explained in his recruitment, the letter reminded the Petitioner that any future annual leave which he accumulated in excess of 480 hours effective as of the anniversary date of his employment would be converted to sick leave on an hour for hour basis. It further stated that at the point of separation from Senior Management Service, Herring, as an appointee to that system, would be paid for unused annual leave, not to exceed 480 hours. The rule provision pertaining to annual leave in effect at the time of Petitioner's acceptance into Senior Management Service was Rule 22SM-1.12(3), Florida Administrative Code. That rule became effective on March 16, 1981. A copy of the rule may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. The rule in the aforementioned subpart stated: (3) A Senior Management appointee shall be paid for unused annual leave upon separation, not to exceed 480 hours; all other Senior Management benefits shall cease. Payment for sick leave may be made when permitted by Section 110.122, Florida Statutes. The Department of Administration determined to revise the existing rules pertaining to Senior Management Service. To this end, on February 21, 1986, Respondent gave notice of its proposed rule changes. This notification was given in the Florida Administrative Weekly. A copy of the notice, together with the full text of the proposed rule as contemplated in the notice, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5 submitted into evidence. The notification states that the change calls for the repeal of existing Rules 22SM- 1.01 through 22SM-1.14, Florida Administrative Code, and the contemporaneous adoption of Rules 22SM-3.001 through 3.011, Florida Administrative Code. This meant that the Respondent had in mind the repeal of the aforementioned Rule 22SM-1.12(3), Florida Administrative Code. The stated purpose of these changes was ". . . to provide a more clearly defined rule structure for the Senior Management Service and to allow for 1985 statutory revisions." The statement of economic impact of the rule was that it would be limited only to the administrative cost of promulgation of the new rules. As noticed, the proposed Rule 22SM-3.007 at Section (6) stated: Upon appointment to a Senior Management position of a person moving from a position in state government outside the Senior Management Service, any leave accrued and unused by the person in the prior position shall be subject to the following: Special compensatory leave credits shall be paid for in cash prior to appointment to the Senior Management Service. Regular compensatory leave shall not be transferred into the Senior Management Service. Annual leave shall be retained and be credited to the employee's account for use by the employee with approval of the agency head pursuant to Section 22SM-3.007(3) or paid for on termination from state government. Termination from state government shall mean that the person is not on any state payroll for at least thirty-one (31) calendar days following separation from the Senior Management Service. Sick leave not paid for shall be retained and be used or be subject to terminal payment in accordance with Subsection (4) above. Subsection (6)(c) to proposed Rule 22SM-3.007 as it speaks to the payment previously earned for annual leave upon termination from state government pertains to new employees who would be appointed to Senior Management positions following the effective date of the rule. It does not contemplate the question of payment of annual leave for those persons who had been appointed to Senior Management Service prior to the effective date of the proposed rule. In fact, the overall Chapter 22SM-3 as proposed did not speak to the question of payment of unused annual leave accrued by those existing employees when they left Senior Management. Conversely, Subsection (4) to this proposed rule spoke to the matter of payment for sick leave for employees who were in Senior Management before the effective date of the proposal, a counterpart to Subsection (6)(d) dealing with employees who would come after the effective date of the proposed rule. The statement of the summary of the rule changes contemplated by the notice of February 21, 1986, may be found in a copy of the summary, Petitioner's Exhibit 6 admitted into evidence. In that summary it indicated: . . . The rule sets certain requirements agencies must conform to in the areas of appointments, performance evaluations, attendance and leave for employees appointed to positions in the Service. Agencies are required to maintain personnel files and records which shall be subject to post audit review by the Department of Administration. Under the statement of economic impact in the summary dealing with cost or benefits to persons directly affected, it was stated: It is estimated that the leave benefits will benefit Senior Management Service employees, but calculation of the amount is not feasible, since such depends upon salary and individual leave utilization patterns. . . . A public hearing was held on the proposed Chapter 22SM-3. The hearing date was March 7, 1986. In the summary of the hearing and changes, a copy of which may be found as part of Petitioner's Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence, it is noted that the State of Florida, Department of Insurance, recommended that the payment be made for excess annual leave when an employee leaves Senior Management Service and moves to another service. That change was not adopted. The executive summary of the proposed Rules 22SM-3, found as part of Petitioner's Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence identified the fact of the replacement of Chapter 22SM-1 with proposed Chapter 22SM-3 and the fact that any changes to the noticed version of the rule of February 21, 1986, were said to represent only minor technical changes recommended by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee. It was stated that no changes were made as a result of the public hearing held on March 7, 1986. This is taken to mean that there were no substantive changes made in that the summary of the public hearing and changes did identify certain modifications to the proposal that were recommended and adopted following the public hearing session. None of those changes that resulted from the public hearing spoke to proposed Rule 22SM-3.007. On May 6, 1986, Glenn W. Robertson, Jr., Secretary to the Administration Commission, wrote to Gilda H. Lambert, Secretary, Department of Administration, to advise her that on that date the Administration Commission had approved with amendment the request to repeal existing Rules 22SM-1.01 through 1.14, Florida Administrative Code, and to adopt proposed Rules 22SM- 3.001 through 3.011. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 8, together with the statement of the executive summary identifying the proposed permanent rule amendments which were contemplated by the Administration Commission. Within the statement of amendments promoted by the Administration Commission was an amendment to proposed Rule 22SM- 3.007(6)(c), which stated: (6)(c) Annual leave shall be retained and credited to the employee's account for use by the employee with approval of the agency head pursuant to Section 22SM-3.007 or if the employee is transferring to Career Service, up to 240 hours of Annual leave will be transferred. Any Annual leave balance after the 240 transfer will be paid for except that the amount accrued (sic) since the employee's last anniversary will be paid for on a prorated basis in accordance with the appropriate accrual rate for Career Service. Annual leave will be paid for on termination from state government. Termination from state government --. This change to proposed Rule 22SM-3.007(6)(c) was at the instigation of the Commissioner of Agriculture in the language. . . . or if the employee is transferring to Career Service, up to 240 hours of Annual leave will be transferred. Any Annual leave balance after the 240 transfer will be paid for except that the amount accrued (sic) since the employee's last anniversary will be paid for on a prorated basis in accordance Service. Annual leave will be paid for on termination from state government. This was not the choice of the Department of Administration in terms of the substance or placement of this language. Ultimately, the language set forth in the amendments to the proposed Rule 22SM-3.007(6)(c) as found in Petitioner's Exhibit 8 made their way into the final version of the rule. The language prompted by the Agriculture Commissioner had not been contemplated by the language noticed when the rule was proposed on February 21, 1986, nor was it the product of public comment in the public hearing of March 6, 1986, or based upon remarks received from the APA committee or material received by the proposing agency within 21 days of notice of the proposed rule. The language was never noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly. In May 1986, upon an unspecified date, certification was given from the Department of Administration to the Secretary of State confirming the adoption of Rules 22SM-3.001 through 22SM-3.011, Florida Administrative Code. The effective date of this adoption was May 29, 1986. A copy of that certification to the Department of State may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 9. A copy of the summary of changes by the Administration Commission in its May 6, 1986 meeting setting out the suggested language of the Agriculture Commissioner on the topic of Rule 22SM-3.007(6)(c), Florida Administrative Code, may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit 10. This item, as well as the language from Subsection (6)(c) and which was sent to the Secretary of State's office and became the final version of that rule subsection, included an additional sentence which stated, "Termination from state government shall mean that the person is not on any state payroll for at least thirty-one (31) calendar days following separation from Senior Management Service," and which had not been set out completely in the executive summary sent to Secretary Lambert on May 6, 1986, found as Petitioner's Exhibit 8 admitted into evidence. This most recently quoted language is, however, the same language as found in the last sentence of Subsection (6)(c) to the notice of that matter given on February 21, 1986. In the final analysis, the changes suggested by the Commissioner of Agriculture were a part of the Administration Commission's deliberations. The final summary of the rules amendments which was filed with the Secretary of State on May 9, 1986, did not depart from the initial summary of the rules amendments pertaining to the replacement of Rules 22SM-1.01 through 22SM-1.14 with Rules 22SM-3.001 through 22SM-3.011. The statement of economic impact remained the same as well. A copy of the summary of the rules amendments and the final statement of economic impact may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 11 admitted into evidence. The final version of proposed Rule 22SM-3.007(6)(c), which was enacted, was no more specific on the subject of payment of annual leave credits upon termination of an employee who had been appointed to Senior Management Service prior to the effective date of the rule than was the version of that provision noticed on February 21, 1986. When Subsection (6)(c) is read in the context of the overall Section (6), the language describes that experience pertaining to persons appointed to Senior Management following the effective date of the rule and their leave credits brought with them. It does not describe those who were already employees in the Senior Management system before the effective date of the rule and their annual leave credits or annual leave credits earned by new employees upon admission to the Senior Management Service. This circumstance, taken together with the repeal of the previous Rule 22SM- 1.12(3), Florida Administrative Code, means that the question of the payment for annual leave hours upon the termination from Senior Management Service after May 29, 1986, for those who had been appointed to Senior Management Service before that date was unresolved by rules of the Department of Administration beyond May 29, 1986, as was the matter of how to deal with hours earned by the new members who came into the Senior Management Service. This circumstance would remain until the passage of an amendment to Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, effective February 1, 1987. Petitioner challenged Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, effective May 29, 1986, by petition of May 18, 1987. In that same petition, he challenged Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, effective February 1, 1987. All accumulated annual leave for which Petitioner claims entitlement to payment had been accumulated prior to February 1, 1987. As forecast, Respondent determined to amend certain rules within Chapter 22SM-3, Florida Administrative Code, to include Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code. To this end, on October 17, 1986, Respondent gave notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intention. The summary given by the notice of October 17, 1986, stated: The rule amendments provide for clarification of the designation of positions to be included in the Senior Management Service, provide for the transfer of leave between services, provide for the accrual of 240 hours of annual leave and 120 hours of sick leave each year, and provide for membership in the Senior Management Service class of the Florida Retirement System. The comments on economic impact found in the notice were to the effect: The executive agencies will be required to expend approximately $11,628 in the aggregate to implement the provisions of this rule. The overall purpose and effect of the rules changes was explained as being implementation of provisions made by the 1986 Legislature, as to Part IV, Chapter 110, Florida Statutes. See Petitioner's Exhibit 13/14 admitted into evidence. In this amendment to Rule 22SM-3.007, Section (6) in existing language becomes Section (10) in the new language. Subsection (6)(c) in the existing language is modified at Subsection (10)(c) by referring to employees as members and deleting the language beginning with " . . or if the employee is transferring . . ." to the end of that Subsection (6)(c). There are added Sections (5) and (6) in the proposed rule which address the circumstance of annual leave credit for persons who were in Senior Management Service at the point the prospective effective date of the rule noticed on October 17, 1986, as well as annual leave credits earned by employees who became members after the effective date of the amendment to the rule. This is a new addition not found in Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, effective May 29, 1986, which was silent on the treatment of annual leave credits for persons who had been in Senior Management Service before May 29, 1986, and the leave credits yet to be earned by those who became members after that date. For Petitioner's purposes, in this challenge, the proposal to add Sections (5) and (6) was tacit recognition of the fact that in the provisions set forth in Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, effective May 29, 1986, the question of payment for annual leave upon termination of employees who had been hired before the effective date of that rule was not addressed. The language of the proposed amendment to Rule 22SM- 3.007 at Section as noticed on October 17, 1986, indicated: Upon transfer of a Senior Management Service member to a position in state government outside the Senior Management Service, annual leave credits shall be retained and shall be calculated and credit as follows: All annual leave credits accrued on the member's last anniversary date shall be prorated at the rate of 20 hours monthly or 9.230 hours biweekly for each period worked thereafter. If the member is transferring to the Career Service, up to 240 hours of annual leave will be transferred and any annual leave balance in excess of 240 hours shall be paid for in cash. Subsection (5)(b) in the proposed amendment spoke to the transfer of 240 if the employee transferred to Career Service, and payment for excess balance over 240 hours earned while Senior Management employees for all that class of employees regardless of their point of employment in the same way Subsection (6)(c) of the May 29, 1986, rule spoke to those matters of payment for annual leave brought with them related to employees who would become members of the Senior Management Service on May 29, 1986, and subsequently. A second category of payment for annual leave was described in the proposed rule noticed on October 17, 1986, Rule 22SM-3.007(6), which stated: Annual leave will be paid for upon termination from state government. Termination from state government shall mean that the person is not on any state payroll for at least thirty-one (31) calendar days following separation from the Senior Management Service. This statement pertained to those employees who were members of the Senior Management Service prior to the enactment of the proposed rule and those who would become members and earn credits after the enactment. None of the provisions in the proposed amendments advertised on October 17, 1986, dealt specifically with transfer of or payment for annual leave credits for persons who were not leaving state government, not going to Career Service, but leaving the Senior Management Service to go into other positions within state government over which the Department of Administration had no control as to personnel matters. Effective March 3, 1987, Petitioner transferred to such an organization, namely, the State Legislature. The proposed amendment to Rule 22SM-3.007 noticed October 17, 1986, at Section (3) increased the credit for annual leave and sick leave from 176 hours to 240 hours and 104 hours to 120 hours, respectively. It is couched in terms of giving these benefits upon the appointment and on the anniversary date of appointment to the Senior Management Service. At the commencement of the steps taken to amend Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, the overall summary of the amendments spoke in terms of the provision for transfer of leave between the personnel services, and the increase in accrued leave to 240 hours of annual leave and 120 hours of sick leave and the provision of membership in the Senior Management Service class of the Florida Retirement System. The statement of the economic impact indicated that the executive agencies would be required to expend approximately $11,628 in the aggregate to implement this rule. The statement of costs or benefits to persons directly affected was said to be: It is estimated that the leave benefits will benefit Senior Management Service members, but calculation of the amount is not feasible, since such depends upon salary and individual leave utilization patterns. This comprehensive statement of the summary of rules and the economic impact statement may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 15 admitted into evidence. A public hearing was scheduled for November 7, 1986, and was held in the Larson Building auditorium, Tallahassee, Florida. This was the sole public hearing held to consider the amendments contemplated by the October 17, 1986, notice. By letter of November 5, 1986, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 16 admitted into evidence, James J. Parry, Director of the Office of Human Resources, State University System of Florida, made mention of his concerns about the proposed amendments. In particular, he was concerned that the higher annual leave and sick leave credits provided in the Senior Management Service and the ability to convert those to sick leave presented potential liability to the State University System when hiring individuals who had been members of the Senior Management Service. He urged change in the language of proposed Rule 22SM-3.007(5) which would make it clear that the annual leave credits had to be transferred from Senior Management Service to the receiving employer according to that governmental body's personnel plan, if unaffiliated with the Department of Administration. Furthermore, he suggested that if the annual leave had been converted to sick leave while the employee was with Senior Management Service, upon the affiliation of the employee with the State University System there was a potential of passing along the cost of payment of that unused sick leave upon the termination of that employee's affiliation with the State University System or other governmental employer. He pointed out his belief that the economic impact statement in the proposed rule amendment only spoke to the increase in annual leave credit when in fact there would be an increase in sick leave credit as well. This references the economic impact statement at paragraph 1 to Petitioner's Exhibit 15 where mention is made of the cost incurred to an agency for annual leave accrual rates without mention of concomitant increases in cost for sick leave credits. Parry, by his November 5, 1986, remarks set out in the Petitioner's Exhibit 16, did not reference any specific concern about whether the agency for whom a Senior Manager had worked prior to transfer to the State University System would be liable for payment of annual leave hours accrued prior to transfer. Don Bradley, Chief of the Bureau of Classification and Pay, Department of Administration, received the November 5, 1986, Parry letter on November 6, 1986, a day before the public hearing. (Bradley is the principal author of the version of Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, under consideration.) That letter was introduced into the record of the public hearing. Bradley recalls that Parry's concern as expressed in the letter and at the point of the public hearing revolved around the fact that the State University System would not allow accumulation of annual leave credit as high in total hours as was allowed by the Senior Management Service. Parry, according to Bradley, wanted to see a revision to the rule amendment which specifically stated that any transferred hours from Senior Management Service to the State University System be in accordance with the personnel rules on annual leave credits utilized by the State University System. Parry is not reported to have expressed an interest at the public hearing on the question of the employing agency of an employee within the Senior Management Service needing to pay for unused annual leave credits prior to transfer of the employee into the State University System, per se. Bradley recalls that there was a related discussion on who would pay for annual leave the State University System did not accept in an effort by Parry to clarify that his organization would not be responsible for payment. The proposed amendments to existing Rule 22SM-3.007 were presented to the Administration Commission. This was done by transmittal to the Office of Planning and Budget of the Governor's Office and from there to the Cabinet Aides to members of the Administration Commission. This submission occurred a week prior to the Cabinet meeting at which the Administration Commission considered the question of the amendments. As set out in Petitioner's Exhibit 17 containing a memorandum from the Department of Administration Secretary, Gilda H. Lambert, dated November 25, 1986, reference is made to the Cabinet Aides' consideration of proposed amendments to 22SM-3.007, described in that document as 22SM-1.007 and changes brought about in this session. That meeting of Cabinet Aides took place on the morning of November 25, 1986, causing certain revisions to be made to the proposed rules on Senior Management Service. It is unclear how the notice was given of the Cabinet Aides' meeting at which point Mr. Bradley and Mr. Parry discussed changes to the proposed amendment to Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code. In any event, it does not appear that Petitioner would have been apprised of this session. Among those items addressed by Secretary Lambert was a description of what was referred to there as 22SM-1.007 on attendance and leave at Section (5) on page 8 wherein she says that the revision was made to: Clarify that upon transfer to a position in state government outside the Senior Management Service, unused annual leave credits shall not be paid for and may be transferred subject to the rules governing the system into which the member is transferring. Within Petitioner's Exhibit 17 is the exact nature of Section (5) with the revision being employed. The new language is underlined in this rendition of the version of Section (5) after the Cabinet Aides' meeting. Upon transfer of a Senior Management Service member to a position in state government outside the Senior Management Service, annual leave credits shall not be paid for and may be transferred subject to the rules governing the system into which the member is transferring. All annual leave credits accrued on the member's last anniversary date shall be prorated at the rate of 20 hours monthly or 9.230 hours biweekly for each pay period or portion thereof, worked subsequent to the member's last anniversary date. As can be seen by this action, Subsection (5)(b) was deleted. These changes were not noticed by publication in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Mr. Bradley describes the underlined changes alluded to in the preceding paragraph as a product of ongoing negotiations between him and Mr. Parry which took place at the point of the Cabinet Aides' meeting dealing with the proposed amendment to Rule 22SM-3.007(5), Florida Administrative Code. In the response to the Parry concerns, Mr. Bradley did not feel that it was necessary to change the proposed language put out in the notice of October 17, 1986, pertaining to Rule 22SM-3.007(5) dealing with transfer of hours to a personnel system not administered by the Department of Administration, in that the receiving employers outside DOA controls were not obligated to receive annual credits above what was called for in their personnel systems. Nonetheless, he acquiesced in the inclusion of language in Section (5) arrived at in the Cabinet Aides meeting which made this point abundantly clear. It is that aspect of the change dealing with the transfer of annual leave credit subject to the rules of the governing system into which the member would be transferring that is seen to address Parry's concerns. The portion of the changes that deal with the unwillingness to pay for annual leave credits unless the employee is leaving Senior Management Service to go out of state government as contemplated by Section (6) may be seen as a related matter, in that the nonpayment of annual leave could cause the entire amount of those credits to be transferred over to the State University System or the Legislature to which Petitioner made his transfer. Nevertheless, Parry's emphasis was to make certain that the State University System not have to accept more annual leave credit than it would allow its employees to carry at any given point in time. The fact of nonpayment increases the potential liability for payment of unused annual leave on the part of a receiving agency. This reality does not comport with Parry's contribution before and at the point of public hearing in protecting his organization. His secondary concern expressed at the public hearing about not paying for excess annual leave his agency would not accept coincides with the idea that he wished to minimize the financial exposure of the State University System. This auxiliary position is not tantamount to advocacy which called for the abolishment of all payment for annual leave upon transfer. Finally, this last expression on the topic of payment for unused annual leave left at point of transfer does not give rise to the notion that it was sufficiently debated to notice interested parties that a rule would be enacted that disallowed payment for annual leave upon transfer to any state agency from Senior Management Service. The changes that came about in Section (5) by the Bradley/Parry discussion at the Cabinet Aides' meeting brought forth the additional penalty to the employee in Senior Management Service that annual leave credit would not be paid for in the future. This expression was contrary to the repealed Rule 22SM- 1.12(3), Florida Administrative Code, in effect prior to May 29, 1986, which allowed payment for annual leave upon any transfer, overturned the silence on this point in Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, effective May 29, 1986, and set aside the less restrictive statement on payment for annual leave in Section (5) as advertised on October 17, 1986. On balance, the addition of the language following the Cabinet Aides' meeting in which it is stated that annual leave credits shall not be paid for in transfer to other state government employment is seen to be a product of the thinking of the Department of Administration, not sufficiently foreseen by actions in the public hearing on November 7, 1986, not duly noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly and not based upon remarks received from the APA committee or material received by the proposing agency within 21 days of the October 17, 1986 notice. The summary of the hearing on November 7, 1986, pertaining to the proposed amendment to the rule describes the participation on the question of proposed Rule 22SM-3.007 of other agencies in state government, as well as Mr. Parry from the State University System. A copy of that summary of hearing and changes may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 20 admitted into evidence. The statement of changes found within that exhibit included the elimination of the payment of annual leave in excess of 240 hours if an employee transfers to another position in state government outside of the Selected Exempt Service. This is taken to mean transfer of a Senior Management Service employee to Career Service as described in Subsection (5)(c) noticed on October 17, 1986. It does not speak to the absolute prohibition of payment for annual leave hours accrued prior to transfer from Senior Management Service to any receiving governmental agency. On December 30, 1986, the amendments to Rule 22SM- 3.007 were filed with the Secretary of State. A copy of that filing may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 19 admitted into evidence. Those amendments to Rule 22SM-3.007, to include the changes at Section (5) disallowing payment for annual leave credits upon transfer to another state government agency from Senior Management Service are included. In accordance with the final language of the rule, there is set forth a summary of the rule amendments which may be found as part of Petitioner's Exhibit 21. It states: The rule amendments provide for clarification of the designation of positions to be included in the Senior Management Service, provide for the transfer of leave between services, provide for the accrual of 240 hours of annual leave and 120 hours of sick leave each year, and provide for membership in the Senior Management Service class of the Florida Retirement System. The statement of justification for the amendments was that the changes were made to implement 1986 legislation of Part IV, Chapter 110, Florida Statutes. The economic impact statement found within Petitioner's Exhibit 21 said that the aggregate cost to the executive agencies was $11,628. It stated that the number of position descriptions that were involved would be approximately four hundred. On January 31, 1987, there were 1370+ positions in Senior Management Service before the new rule provisions were placed in effect. On February 1, 1987, as a result of the implementation of the 1986 amendment to Chapter 110, Florida Statutes, there were left approximately three hundred fifty Senior Managers. Within the economic impact statement as finally established for the amendments effective February 1, 1987, it is said: It is estimated that the leave benefits will benefit Senior Management Service members, but calculation of the amount is not feasible, since such depends upon salary and individual leave utilization patterns. Mr. Bradley, author of Chapter 22SM-3, Florida Administrative Code, effective May 29, 1986, and the amendment to those provisions as printed out on February 1, 1987, said that the Department of Administration had in mind the creation of a Senior Management Service system to try to retain Senior Managers. This included the idea of the discontinuation of payment to Senior Managers except under circumstances where they left state government. He had in mind limiting the idea of automatic payment when a Senior Management Service employee went to the Legislature or the State University System or the court system. To his way of thinking, this would encourage the senior management to remain with the employing agency. As described before, his desired outcome is not achieved until such point as the last version of Rule 22SM-3.007(5), Florida Administrative Code, effective February 1, 1987, came into effect. This was an arrangement without due notice and without regard for the hardship created by the imposition of the nonpayment for transfer rule, unless it can be said that the increase in annual leave credit and sick leave credit contemplated by the February 1, 1987, version of Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, is seen as an offset. It cannot be so regarded for persons such as the Petitioner who gained very little profit from the increase in annual leave and sick leave hours while losing a substantial number of annual leave credits when he left HRS to go to the Legislature. Petitioner had been made aware sometime in December 1986, of the language of the proposed amendment noticed on October 17, 1986, pertaining to Rule 22SM-3.007. The language discussing the purpose and impact of the proposed amendments would not have given rise to any concerns on his part about the changes that were eventually brought forth in the final version of the rule effective February 1, 1987. On December 10, 1986, Petitioner had an annual leave balance of approximately 536 hours. He used some leave around the Christmas holidays and reduced that, having in mind his belief that only 480 hours could be carried forward into the new year. He felt that he was being threatened in his position as a Senior Manager at HRS, given the fact that a number of Senior Managers were being replaced in that organization in late 1986. By cashing in an amount approaching 500 hours of annual leave, he expected to be paid an amount approximating $10,000, which might assist him in his change in job positions. On April 23, 1987, having not received word on his request for payment of annual leave for Senior Management Service, Petitioner wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Administration to ascertain the outcome of his request for payment. The Secretary was and is Adis Vila. At the same time he wrote to Vivian Pyle, HRS personnel official, making the same request. He expressed concern in his correspondence on the subject of an excessive amount of leave balance being shown by his present employer, the Florida Legislature. Copies of the correspondence to those two individuals may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits 26 and 27 admitted into evidence. By way of response, as noted in Petitioner's Exhibit 28 admitted into evidence, Ms. Pyle answers his inquiry and cites to the fact that Rule 22SM- 3.007(5), Florida Administrative Code, effective February 5, 1987, does not allow for the payment of annual leave upon transfer into the State Legislature system. In correspondence of that same date from Secretary Vila, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 29 admitted into evidence, the Department of Administration makes reference to the fact that the May 29, 1986, Sections 22SM- 3.007(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code, indicated that the annual leave should be transferred subject to the rules governing the system where the employee was transferred and that accrued annual leave would be paid only upon termination from state government. The rule referred to in the correspondence does not contemplate persons who had been employed before the rule became effective transferring annual leave to the State Legislature from Senior Management or being paid for that annual leave. Moreover, at the time of his transfer, the applicable version of the rule was the February 1, 1987, statement which specifically disallowed payment for annual leave in any circumstance other than leaving state government. Although an interpretation may be given that the Department of Administration believes that the version of Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, effective May 29, 1986, controls the question of the entitlement of Petitioner to payment for annual leave upon his termination from Senior Management Service on March 2, 1987, that interpretation is not an appropriate one. That version of the rule was amended on February 1, 1987, and by such amendment the language of the May 29, 1986, rule was superseded, regardless of the construction given the May 29, 1986, version of the rule. Consequently, the resolution of the Petitioner's claim to entitlement for payment for annual leave credits accrued must necessarily be resolved under the terms of the rule effective February 1, 1987, if controlled by rule. Based upon computer printout information about Senior Management Service employees who were in the program as of February 1, 1987, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 32 admitted into evidence, Petitioner made calculations as to the value of accumulated annual leave for those employees if they were paid by the Department of Administration at that juncture. That value was in excess of $1.9 million. The calculation made by the Petitioner concerning the amount of potential money Senior Managers would have been entitled to upon transfer does not take into account the possibility of reduced payments in transfer to Career Service under the terms of Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, effective May 29, 1986. Obviously, under that version of the rule and the version of February 1, 1987, termination from state government would allow for the payment of all outstanding annual leave. Petitioner's Exhibit 34 admitted into evidence is a copy of the employee handbook in effect at the time that Petitioner took his position with the Florida Legislature. It establishes that the employee may only carry 360 hours of annual leave forward into January 1 of an ensuing year. Hours above that are converted into sick leave. The sick leave credits are not paid in full if the Petitioner leaves state government after working in the Florida House of Representatives. The value of those sick leave hours would be 1/4 of all hours not to exceed 480 hours. When Petitioner left HRS, he asked to be paid for all but approximately 24 hours accumulated annual leave. It was determined subsequently that this meant that 432 hours were being requested for payment. Instead, HRS transferred 432 hours of annual leave to the Florida House of Representatives. The beginning balance of annual leave hours with the Florida House of Representatives was limited to 360 hours with the balance of 72 hours being subject to conversion to sick leave. The conversion of 72 hours of annual leave to sick leave upon the date of employment with the Florida House of Representatives was further exacerbated by the fact that 476.15 hours of sick leave was also sent over. The significance of this was that with the addition of 3.85 sick leave hours, he would reach the maximum number of allowable sick leave hours to be maintained at any given point by an employee of the Legislature. That amount of hours would have been added in the first month in that 8 hours and 40 minutes of sick are obtained for each month of employment by an employee of the Florida House of Representatives. Consequently, not only had 72 of his hours been disallowed as annual leave credit hours but also 68.15 hours within that 72 hours would have no value, in that 476.15 hours had been transferred as sick leave hours, leaving only 3.85 hours to be converted to sick leave from the 72 annual leave hours. Finally, throughout the 1987 year, Petitioner would earn annual leave credits and compensatory leave credits with the Florida House of Representatives, creating a potential loss in annual leave hours at the conclusion of the calendar year 1987 based upon the maximum number of hours having been transferred into the Florida House of Representatives personnel system upon his hiring and the influence of additional hours added to that total. In the payment for sick leave and annual leave as a member of the Legislature, Petitioner would receive a reduced hourly rate compared to the Senior Management position which Petitioner held with HRS, evidencing further economic disadvantage imposed by disallowing the Petitioner's request for payment for the annual leave upon transfer from HRS to the Florida House of Representatives. To further explain, when Petitioner transferred to the Florida House of Representatives, he took an $8,640 pay cut. Again, payment for the claimed hours of annual leave would have been somewhere approximating $10,000, which would have offset the dire consequences of the salary reduction when changing from HRS to the Florida House of Representatives. Petitioner never sought to present evidence or argument concerning Rule 22SM-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, effective May 29, 1986, and the amendment to that rule effective February 1, 1987. Prior to this case, he did not participate in the public hearing which was conducted concerning those matters.
The Issue Whether the petitioner abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service System under the circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed as a permanent full-time employee in the Bureau of Workers' Compensation within the Division of Risk Management in the Department of Insurance. Her job title was Secretary Specialist. Her immediate supervisor was Lawrence Sharp, Chief of the Bureau. However, on February 6, 1985, Mr. Sharp was on annual leave, and Ms. Peggy Veigas was the acting supervisor. On February 6, 1985, Petitioner took two hours of authorized leave from work from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., in order to attend a Leon County Court hearing on charges of cashing bad checks. The checks had been repaid in advance of the hearing: however, petitioner was immediately adjudicated guilty of writing bad checks, sentenced to 12 days in jail, and taken into custody. Petitioner was due to return to work at 10:00 a.m., but was unable to do so because of circumstances beyond her control. She was taken directly from her court appearance to the Leon County Jail. However, prior to being transported to the jail, she was able to ask her husband, who had accompanied her to court, to call her employer and ask for emergency leave to cover the 12 days she would be serving her sentence. Mr. Penney called petitioner's office at about 2 p.m. on February 6, 1985, and in the absence of Mr. Sharp the call was referred to Ms. Veigas, the acting supervisor. Mr. Penney explained that Mrs. Penney would not be at work for the next eight to ten days and requested emergency leave for that period of time. Mr. Penney was very vague about the nature of the emergency and Mrs. Penney's whereabouts. He did not explain that Mrs. Penney was in jail because he felt it would be embarrassing to Mrs. Penney. Ms. Veigas stated that emergency leave could be granted but she would have to talk to Mrs. Penney. She told Mr. Penney to have Mrs. Penney call her. Mr. Penney stated that Mrs. Penney could not call in and implied that Mrs. Penney was out of town. Ms. Veigas explained that Mrs. Penney needed to call her as soon as she could get to a phone and, if necessary, for her to call collect. Mr. Penney interpreted Mrs. Veigas' statement, that she could grant the leave but Mrs. Penney would have to call as soon as possible, as meaning that the leave was approved and that Mrs. Penney had to call work as soon as she was able to do so. However, in making the statement, Mrs. Veigas meant only that there was a possibility that leave would be granted and Mrs. Penney needed to call and explain the nature of the emergency. The subsequent actions of both Mr. Penney and Mrs. Veigas were consistent with their respective conceptions of the conversation. That afternoon, after the telephone call, Ms. Veigas went to the personnel office and discussed the matter with Ms. Cooper. Ms. Veigas wanted to find out how she should handle the request for leave and whether she should wait for Mr. Sharp to return from his vacation. Mr. Yohner, the Chief of Personnel Management, was consulted, and he stated that when Mrs. Penney called, Ms. Veigas would have to determine whether she would approve the leave or not. Ms. Veigas was told by Ms. Cooper to wait until Ms. Veigas heard from Mrs. Penney "so we would know whether it was an illness or whatever it was." (T-47) However, the nature of the emergency was determined without the necessity of a call from Mrs. Penney. Within a short period of time after the call from Mr. Penney, Ms. Veigas mentioned the request for emergency leave to Ms. Benefield. Ms. Benefield told Ms. Grissom about the call from Mr. Penney, and the two speculated that Mrs. Penney might be in jail. They were aware that Mrs. Penney had financial problems. While Ms. Grissom stood by, Ms. Benefield telephoned the jail and was told that Mrs. Penney was in jail for passing bad checks. They immediately communicated the information to Ms. Veigas, and the three of them, along with a woman named Edna, discussed the situation for about five or ten minutes. Ms. Veigas then conveyed the information to Mr. Yohner, Ms. Cooper and Mr. Beardon, the Director of the Division of Risk Management, who had previously been informed of the call from Mr. Penney. The following day Mr. Sharp returned to work and was informed of the entire situation. Mr. Sharp discussed the matter with Mr. Beardon. Mr. Beardon had his assistant call the State Attorney's Office to verify that Mrs. Penney was in jail. Thus, by the end of the workday on February 7, 1985, Mrs. Penney's co-workers, her immediate supervisor, the Chief of Personnel Management, and the Director of the Division of Risk Management were all aware that Mrs. Penney, through her husband, had requested emergency leave, and they were all aware that the emergency leave had been requested due to Mrs. Penney's incarceration. On either February 6th or 7th, Mr. Yohner notified Mr. Gresham, the Director of the Division of Administration and Mr. Yohner's supervisor, that a possible abandonment of position situation existed. Mr. Gresham was not informed that petitioner had requested emergency leave. On Friday, February 8th, or on the following Monday, Mr. Sharp called a friend of his in the Department of Administration, Don Bradley, to gain advice on application of the rule relating to abandonment of position. He was told that when someone missed three days of work without having authorization, it was the same thing as resigning and required termination. Mr. Sharp relayed the information to Mr. Beardon. Mr. Sharp did not consider petitioner's leave request and did not know whether he had the authority to approve the leave since at least a portion of the leave requested would have been without pay.2 After three days expired and Mrs. Penney had neither reported for work nor called the office, Mr. Beardon contacted Mr. Yohner to discuss the situation. He also discussed the situation with his superior in the Department. Though Mr. Beardon was aware that Mrs. Penney had requested leave through her husband and was aware that she was absent from work only because she had no choice, Mr. Beardon did not consider her request for leave. His reason was that Mrs. Penney did not personally request the leave. He did not consider the possibility that Mrs. Penney was not able to call in person. Mr. Beardon felt that a call from Mrs. Penney was necessary to find out "all of the pertinent facts and why the request was needed." However, it is apparent that Mr. Beardon already knew why the requested leave was needed and had already discovered the pertinent facts. Nevertheless, Mr. Beardon determined that, under the abandonment rule,3 petitioner had abandoned her job and her employment should be terminated. He recommended that the personnel office proceed with the action in accordance with the rule. Mr. Yohner informed Mr. Gresham of Mr. Bearden's recommendation that petitioner be terminated from the Career Service via the abandonment rule. A letter was prepared for Mr. Gresham's signature, notifying Petitioner of her termination from the Career Service. Mr. Gresham signed the letter and mailed it to petitioner at her home address. By the letter dated February 11, 1985, and then by an amended letter dated February 12, 1985, petitioner was notified that she had been absent without authorized leave for three consecutive days, and therefore she was deemed to have abandoned her position pursuant to Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and to have resigned from the Career Service. Meanwhile, Mr. Penney was under the impression that the emergency leave had been granted. He was able to speak with his wife for the first time on February 9, 1985, and the first question petitioner asked her husband was whether the leave had been granted. He told her that it had been, and she displayed visible signs of relief at the knowledge. Petitioner's husband also told her that she should call Ms. Veigas at her earliest opportunity. Mrs. Penney made diligent attempts to contact her employer both before and after she spoke with her husband on February 9, 1985. On each day of her incarceration she made written requests to the Captain at the jail for permission to use the telephone to call her employer. However, she received no response. In accordance with jail policy, which allowed one phone call per week at a set time, she was permitted use of the telephone on only one occasion, on February 11, 1985 at about 11 p.m. in the evening. Mrs. Penney's sentence was reduced by Judge McClamma and she was released from jail on February 14, 1985. She received the termination letter that evening when she got home. The next morning she called Mr. Yohner and stated that she wanted to return to work. Mr. Yohner informed her that she was no longer an employee of the Department. Mrs. Penney's position was advertised on February 19th and readvertised on March 4, 1985. Sometime after March 4, 1985, a replacement was hired. Although the workers compensation bureau had a very heavy case load, Mrs. Penney's work performance had been satisfactory. Indeed, she had been promoted to the position of Secretary Specialist from her previous position of Clerk-Typist III with the bureau. Petitioner had no intent to abandon her position in the Career Service, and she had no intent to resign her position. The Department had actual knowledge of the petitioner's whereabouts during her absence from work, and had actual knowledge that she intended to return to work as soon as she could. Further, the Department was aware that petitioner had requested leave to cover the period of time she would be gone. However, instead of taking action on the request, one way or the other, the Department left the request in limbo. A decision was never made to approve or disapprove the request. The only explanation given for not considering the request was that Mrs. Penney had not made it personally. However, it is quite clear that at the time of Mr. Penney's call the Department considered the call a legitimate request for leave from Mrs. Penney even though the call was not made by her. Ms. Veigas did not tell Mr. Penney that the leave could not be granted because Mrs. Penney had not called in person. Indeed, the first thing Ms. Veigas did after the telephone call was go to the personnel office to find out how she should "process the request". The only reason that the Department wanted to talk to Mrs. Penney personally, prior to determining whether leave should be granted, was to discover the nature of the emergency. Although Mr. Penney explained that there was an emergency, that Mrs. Penney was unable to call, and that leave was being requested to cover the period of time that Mrs. Penney would be unable to work, he was very vague about the nature of the emergency. The Department understandably wanted to know the reason for the request before deciding to grant leave. However, once the Department discovered Mrs. Penney's circumstances, it was in a position to make an informed decision on the leave request, and there was no rational basis for its failure to do so. Although the granting of leave is discretionary, the discretion must be exercised. Apparently, the Department officials believed that Mrs. Penney's absence from work for three consecutive days mandated termination notwithstanding the pending request for leave. Because the Department failed to take any action on the leave request, Mrs. Penney was never notified that her request for leave had been denied. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, it must be concluded that Mrs. Penney did not abandon her position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered ruling that the circumstances presented by this case do not constitute abandonment of position as contemplated by Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a) and directing that the petitioner be reinstated to her former position as of February 15, 1985. DONE and ENTERED this ;26th of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of December, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Respondent was overpaid in the amount of $129.29 while he was employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Dunn was initially employed in a Career Service position by the State of Florida on December 14, 1984. He remained in that position until August 7, 1986, when he separated from state government. On April 13, 1987, the Respondent accepted a position within the Career Service System with the Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The position was paid through a biweekly payroll system. The earning of annual leave and sick leave credits was also accounted for on a biweekly basis. Due to his eight-month break in service, Respondent was not entitled to credit for the previous state service when his annual leave earnings were credited to his leave account during his first year with the Department. On April 3, 1988, Respondent was continuously employed by the Petitioner for one full year. Within the Career Service System, this date is referred to as a career service employee's continuous creditable service date. When a reemployed career service worker completes continuous employment for one year following the date of his reemployment, he is entitled to credit all previous state service when eligibility for higher annual leave credits is computed by the employing agency and credited to his leave account. After five years of continuous and creditable service, a career service employee earns a higher rate of annual leave hours during a biweekly period. The number of annual leave hours earned and credited changes from four hours biweekly to five hours biweekly. Respondent Dunn became eligible for the five hour annual leave credit during the biweekly pay period that began on August 3, 1990. Respondent's supervisor mistakenly began crediting him with annual leave at the rate of five hours each biweekly pay period starting with the pay period beginning December 8, 1989. If Respondent had not had a break in continuous service, the supervisor's calculations as to annual leave hour credits would have been correct. His leave was calculated on continuous service instead of continuous and creditable service, as required by the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the Career Service System. Petitioner and Respondent relied upon the records maintained by the supervisor to determine how much annual leave the Respondent had accumulated and when he would be able to take such leave. During the biweekly pay period of August 3, 1990 through August 16, 1990, Respondent used thirty-six hours of annual leave under the mistaken belief that he was entitled to use that many hours of leave during that pay period. Permission to take this leave was given by his supervisor. If the leave had been properly calculated during the time period from December 12, 1989 to August 2, 1990, Respondent's total accumulated annual leave would have been only twenty-two hours. Respondent received a paycheck during this time period that give him credit for thirty-six hours of annual leave. This resulted in a salary overpayment of $129.29 as fourteen of those annual leave hours were not earned. The agency's calculation error as to Respondent's accumulated annual leave and the subsequent salary overpayment were discovered by Petitioner during the routine annual leave audit conducted when Respondent moved from his Career Service position with Petitioner to a Career Service position with the Department of Environmental Regulation. The amount of salary overpayment was reviewed and confirmed by the Division of Banking and Finance, Bureau of State payrolls once it was discovered by Petitioner. Action was taken by the Petitioner to correct the overpayment on January 2, 1992. This was within the two year period immediately following the date of payment. The salary overpayment to Respondent was the result of an administrative or clerical oversight. Petitioner's attempt to recover the funds was neither a disciplinary action nor an attempt to punish Respondent for moving to another agency. Respondent conducted himself lawfully during his employment with Petitioner in all matters relating to annual leave. The blame for the error in the calculation of accumulated annual leave should not be imputed to Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended Respondent Dunn should refund $129.29 to the Petitioner for the salary overpayment that occurred in the biweekly pay period that began on August 3, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: JACK E FARLEY ESQ HRS - DISTRICT VI LEGAL OFFICE 4000 W DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD TAMPA FL 33614 WILLIAM DUNN 9717 FOX HOLLOW RD TAMPA FL 33647 RICHARD S POWER AGENCY CLERK DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700 JOHN SLYE ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, a former employee of the Respondent, was overpaid in the amount of $1,165.76, and should be required to repay that amount to the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a career service employee of the Respondent and was initially employed on November 17, 1997. The Petitioner’s employment with the Respondent was terminated on June 30, 2003, due to layoffs created by the outsourcing of the Family Services Unit of the Respondent. The Petitioner’s annual rate of pay at the time of her termination was $19,797.44, paid bi-weekly. By letters dated August 26, 2003, October 14, 2003, and February 16, 2004, the Petitioner was informed that six separate salary overpayments had occurred. The Petitioner actually worked 56 hours during the pay period of June 20, 2003 through July 3, 2003, but was inadvertently paid for 80 hours of work. The Petitioner was inadvertently paid for working the days of July 1, 2, and 3, 2003, although her employment had been terminated effective June 30, 2003. The overpayment was for 24 hours, amounting to $183.79, based upon the Petitioner’s annual rate of pay. The Petitioner was no longer employed by the Respondent during the pay period of July 4, 2003 through July 17, 2003, but was inadvertently paid for 80 hours of work. The overpayment amounted to $601.70, based upon the Petitioner’s annual rate of pay. Following termination of employment, the Respondent’s Human Resources Department conducted an audit of the terminated employee’s leave. An audit was performed by the Respondent concerning the Petitioner’s leave. In the course and scope of the Respondent performing the audit of the Petitioner’s leave, the Respondent discovered that the Petitioner had been overpaid for four pay periods in 2003. Once an employee of the Respondent no longer has sick leave remaining, annual leave is used to cover any shortages in sick leave. Once an employee of the Respondent no longer has either sick leave or annual leave remaining, the employee cannot be paid for additional time taken as leave. The additional time becomes “leave without pay.” The Petitioner was overpaid in four separate pay periods when she had insufficient sick or annual leave as follows: 1/31/03-2/13/03: 16.50 hours 4/11/03-4/24/03: 22.75 hours 4/25/03-5/08/03: 4.25 hours 5/23/03-6/05/03: 4.75 hours The sum of the hours of overpayment is 48.25, which translates to the amount of $380.27 in overpayment to the Petitioner for the referenced pay periods. The total amount of the Respondent’s overpayment to the Petitioner, based upon the salary payments for July 1, 2, and 3, 2003, July 4 through 17, 2003, and the four pay periods in which the Petitioner was overpaid when her sick and annual leave had run out is $183.79 plus $601.70 plus $380.27, which totals $1,165.76. The Petitioner was not at fault for the overpayment. She did not falsify her leave reports or timesheets, nor was she accused by the Respondent of having done so. The Petitioner believed that the pay she received for July 4, 2003 through July 17, 2003, was severance pay since she had been terminated when her position had been eliminated. The Respondent does not issue severance pay to terminated employees. The Petitioner believes that some of the leave she had taken during the four pay periods when her sick and annual leave had run out should have been considered administrative leave which, according to the Respondent, was offered to employees in the Family Services Unit who were facing termination as an aid to finding new jobs. Administrative leave was available to employees whose positions were being eliminated to allow them to use the Internet while at the office to search for jobs, and to leave the office for interviews or any testing required for re- employment. The Petitioner failed to document leave time, if any, during the pay periods at issue in this proceeding, that she took for purposes of job testing or interviews. The Petitioner failed to properly designate administrative leave on the automated leave system, Time Direct, for the pay periods at issue in this proceeding, even though, as a secretary specialist for the Respondent for seven years, her duties included keeping track of leave for the people in her work unit. The Respondent offered several of the Petitioner’s timesheets that reflect the Petitioner’s having taken administrative leave on more than 30 occasions from October 2002 through May 2003. These time entries for administrative leave include time during each of the four pay periods at issue in this proceeding, January 31, 2003 through February 13, 2003, April 11, 2003 through April 24, 2003, April 25, 2003 through May 8, 2003, and May 23, 2003 through June 5, 2003.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order requiring the Petitioner to repay the Respondent $1,165.76. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 5th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Rosanna Boyd Apartment 162 3400 Townsend Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32277 Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Jerry Regier, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
