The Issue Whether Respondent should be assessed a civil money penalty of $1,000.00 for alleged violations of Sections 450.33(10), and 316.620(3) and (4)(d) and (k), Florida Statutes (1993).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Michelle A. Blount, is a farm labor contractor licensed in Florida. On January 14, 1994, a vehicle transporting members of Respondent's farm labor crew was involved in an accident in St. Lucie County, Florida which resulted in the death of one passenger and serious injury to eight others. Respondent was hired by Willie J. Lampkin to transport, supervise, recruit and provide a crew for harvesting and loading fruit. Elva Ochoa was employed by Respondent to recruit, transport, supervise and provide a crew, in connection with Respondent's contract with Willie J. Lampkin. On January 14, 1994, ten farm workers were being transported to the groves of Lampkin at the direction of Ochoa. The vehicle used to transport the workers was a pickup truck with a cab covering the bed. It did not have secured seating, the tires were worn out and unsafe, and it did not have any means of communication between the passengers and the driver. The vehicle was not approved or insured to transport workers, nor did it have an inspection certificate on record with the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent has violated Sections 450.33 and 316.620, Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be fined $1,000.00 and such fine to paid within thirty days from date of the final order entered by the Division. Should Respondent fail to pay fine, Respondent's license as a farm labor contractor should be suspended until the fine is paid in full. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 19th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-7. Respondent did not submit proposed findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley Gooding, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Francisco R. Rivera, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Michelle A. Blount 531 North Dollings Avenue Orlando, Florida 32805
Findings Of Fact On September 17, 1987, the Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to two felonies: possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. The plea was entered in Case No. 86-342-CF, in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Florida, and the Petitioner was adjudged guilty of the offenses. In the Court's judgment of guilt, it was found to the Court's satisfaction that the Petitioner was not likely again to engage in a criminal course of conduct and that the ends of justice and the welfare of society do not require that RICHARD EPPS should suffer the penalty authorized by law. As a result of the Court's findings, the Petitioner, RICHARD EPPS, was sentenced to three years probation. He was ordered to serve five months in the county jail as a condition of that probation. On January 25, 1988, the Petitioner completed an application for a Florida Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration. The purpose of the application was to obtain a new certificate as he was no longer eligible for a renewal of his prior certificate. On March 16, 1988, the Respondent notified the Petitioner of its intent to refuse to issue the certificate of registration. The reasons given were: 1) The U.S. Department of Labor recommended against it due to the felony convictions. 2) By rule, the Respondent is required to cooperate with any federal agency. 3) Once a certificate is obtained, each contractor must comply with all applicable statutes, rules, and regulations for the protection or benefit of labor. The Petitioner has used marijuana in the past. He has never used it during working hours, and his work crew was unaware that he has ever used marijuana. He has never allowed drugs in the work place and he no longer uses marijuana. The Petitioner has never used cocaine or other illegal drugs, except for the marijuana. The Petitioner's arrest on November 6, 1986, for the possession of cocaine and marijuana was a result of his location in the wrong place at the wrong time. When he went to his marijuana supplier's home to purchase marijuana for his personal use, the house was raided by the Arcadia Police Department. Originally, all of the people within the house where individually charged with possession of all of the drugs stored there. The Petitioner's plea of nolo contendere was a result of a plea bargain agreement. The Petitioner is aware that his former drug activity was criminal in nature, and he has stopped his marijuana use with the help of voluntary counseling, his family, the fact that he is on probation, and the fact that his habit got him into serious trouble. The Petitioner will not endanger the safety of a work crew as a result of his past use of marijuana. There is no evidence that the safety of the work crew was ever endangered as a result of the Petitioner's past habit or that his presence in the fields will be harmful to farm workers. The Petitioner has never engaged in transporting farm workers beyond state lines. His crew leader activities are confined to less than twenty workers and he works for one farmer, Mr. Bobby Williams in Arcadia, Florida.
The Issue By amended petition for hearing, the Petitioner requested a hearing on the Department's determination that the Petitioner is obligated to refund to the Department the sum of $53,724.00, which the Department asserts is the amount by which the Petitioner was overpaid pursuant to Wagner-Peyser Contract No. SA016. For numerous reasons recited in its Petition and argued in its post-hearing brief, the Petitioner contends that it should not be required to refund the disputed sum. At the formal hearing, both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and both parties offered exhibits in support of their respective positions. Following the hearing, a transcript was prepared and the parties were allowed until November 19, 1988, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Thereafter, upon joint motion of the parties, the period for filing post-hearing briefs and/or proposed recommended orders was extended until December 6, 1988. Both parties timely filed post-hearing briefs in a format more customary to appellate than to administrative hearing proceedings. The parties' briefs have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. Specific rulings on the factual assertions of the parties are contained in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. In November of 1984 the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into a contract which has the following title: GOVERNOR'S WAGNER-PEYSER 10% DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FIXED-UNIT PRICE CONTRACT CONTRACT NO. SA016 "STATEWIDE FARMWORKERS JOB PLACEMENT PROJECT" Paragraph 1.A. of the subject contract contains the following description of the project activities: The Florida AFL-CIO United Labor Agency will operate a statewide job placement program to meet the increased employment needs of migrants/farmworkers and related workers in- volved in the processing of agricultural pro- ducts. The Agency will coordinate and work with farmworker advocacy organizations in Apopka and Dade City, Florida, to recruit and identify participants. Unsubsidized employ- ment opportunities will be developed with unions, apprenticeship programs, and private sector employers. The employment resources of the Agency will be coordinated and inte- grated with those of the Job Service and local PICs. Paragraph 2.A. of the subject contract contains a "work activity plan" described as follows: To recruit and provide employability counseling to migrants/farmworkers; To place 230 migrants/farmworkers into unsubsidized, non-agricultural employment with a duration of 30 days or more; To integrate the employment resources of unions and the United Labor Agency with those of the Job Service. Prepare and submit a final narrative report to DLET documenting the success and failures of the project. Paragraph 2.B. of the subject contract contains the following description of the performance units applicable to the contract: The contractor will make up to 230 place- ments in unsubsidized employment over the course of the contract period at $726.00 each, for a total amount not to exceed $166,980.00. A placement will be defined as employment by a participant engaged in work for at least 35 hours per week, in a job paying at least the minimum wage, for a period of at least 30 calendar days. At Paragraph 2.D. of the subject contract, under the subcaption "ACTIVITY/PAYMENT SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE UNITS," the contract provides, in pertinent part: The contractor will be advanced $37,062.00. The advance will be repaid monthly by deducting $6,177.00 per month from the amount of deliverables produced over a six month period, beginning with the November 1984 invoice and being completed with the April 1985 invoice. There will be one performance unit for this contract, and it will be for placement at the rate of $726.00 each. Paragraph 14.e. of the subject contract reads as follows: The Contractor is responsible for fulfilling all terms and conditions of this Contract. While the DLET shall monitor the Contrac- tor's performance under the Contract, the Contractor remains solely responsible for its performance. The DLET monitoring of the Contract shall not constitute a waiver or modification of any term or condition. Terms and conditions may only be modified by written contract amendment as specified herein. One of the documents used in the administration of the subject contract was a Form BRI-100, which was designed so that three individuals had to sign the form to certify that a valid job placement had been accomplished. The required signatures were those of the employer, the farmworker/employee, and a representative of the Petitioner. Early in the administration of the contract the Petitioner began to have problems obtaining employer signatures on Form BRI- 100, especially where employment was obtained through union hiring halls. At the behest of the Petitioner, the Respondent deleted the requirement that the employer sign the form and permitted the form to be signed by a representative of the union hiring hall. During the course of the Petitioner's performance of the subject contract, one of the Petitioner's employees submitted fraudulent documentation on numerous occasions. The fraudulent documentation purported to be evidence of successful job placements under the contract. The fraudulent documentation was submitted to the Respondent and the Respondent paid money to the Petitioner on the basis of the fraudulent documentation. A post-performance audit revealed that 74 of the job placements for which the Petitioner was paid were in fact fictitious placements supported by fraudulent documentation. As a result of the fraudulent documentation, the Petitioner was paid $726.00 for each of 74 fictitious job placements, a total of $53,724.00. The $53,724.00 which was paid on the basis of fraudulent documentation was paid to the Petitioner solely because at the time of making the payment the Respondent believed that the Petitioner had made 74 placements which, in fact, were never made. The Respondent's belief that the 74 placements had been made was based on the fact that the Petitioner submitted fraudulent documentation claiming payment for 74 job placements that had not been made. In fairness to the Petitioner it should be noted that at the time the fraudulent documentation was submitted the officers and managing agents of the Petitioner did not know that one of their employees was preparing fraudulent documentation. Further, as soon as the officers and managing agents of the Petitioner discovered that one of their employees had been submitting fraudulent documentation, they candidly reported the problem to the Respondent. The employee who prepared the fraudulent documentation described above did not abscond with the proceeds derived from his fraudulent actions. The $53,724.00 that was paid on the basis of the 74 fictitious job placements was paid to and retained by the Petitioner. The Respondent did very little in the way of monitoring the subject contract. More extensive monitoring might well have resulted in earlier detection of the fraudulent documentation submitted by Petitioner's employee.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend the entry of a Final Order finding that the Petitioner has received $53,724.00 to which it is not entitled under the subject contract and ordering the Petitioner to repay that amount to the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2755 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: The Brief of Petitioner does not contain any section specifically identified as proposed findings of fact. It does contain a distinct section captioned "STATEMENT OF THE FACTS," which I have treated as the Petitioner's proposed findings. The page numbers below refer to pages of the Brief Of Petitioner. Page 2: All but last four lines are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary background details. The last four lines are accepted in substance. Page 3: All but last five lines are accepted in substance. The last full paragraph on the page is rejected as unnecessary commentary. Page 4: First fourteen lines (plus last line on page 3) accepted in substance, but with most details omitted as unnecessary. The remainder of page 4 and the top four lines of page 5 are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details, as for the most part irrelevant, and as containing implications contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Page 5: First full paragraph is rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details; I have found that little was done to monitor the contract performance. The last four lines are rejected as argument or unnecessary commentary rather than findings of fact. Page 6: First twenty lines rejected as irrelevant and as unnecessary details. Paragraph beginning at sixth line from bottom is accepted in substance. Page 7: Top four lines (and last line of page 6) rejected as Irrelevant. Lines five through twenty-two are for the most part rejected as irrelevant or as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence, with exception of proposed finding that an employee committed fraud and that Petitioner promptly reported the fraud when it was discovered. Last four lines rejected as irrelevant. Page 8: First full paragraph is rejected as being for the most part irrelevant and as in part contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second full paragraph is rejected as argument or unnecessary commentary. Third full paragraph is rejected as Irrelevant. Last four lines accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Page 9: Top two lines rejected; the greater weight of the evidence is that all "disallowed costs" were caused by the fraud of one employee. First full paragraph rejected as irrelevant. Second full paragraph is rejected as for the most 12 part irrelevant, although some details have been included. Last three lines rejected as irrelevant. Page 10: Rejected as irrelevant. Findings proposed by Respondent: The Brief Of Respondent does not contain any section specifically identified as proposed findings of fact. It does contain a distinct section captioned "STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS," which I have treated as the Respondent's proposed findings of fact. The page numbers below refer to pages of the Brief Of Respondent. Page 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary background details. Page 3: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary background details. Page 4: First paragraph accepted in substance. The remainder of this page is accepted in substance with some details and some argumentative passages omitted. Page 5: Accepted as correct statement, but omitted as unnecessary details. Page 6: First paragraph rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Second paragraph rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Third paragraph rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Last paragraph accepted in substance with unnecessary details omitted. Page 7: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Sidney L. Matthew, Esquire Gorman & Matthew, P.A. Post Office Box 1754 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David J. Busch, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Stephen Barron, Esquire General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Santos Samarrippas, Sr., a farm labor contractor and holder of a certificate of registration issued by Petitioner at all times pertinent to these proceedings. Respondent's current certificate of registration was issued April 26, 1988. Respondent has renewed his certificate of registration on an annual basis since 1984. As of January 9, 1989, Respondent was indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $5,195.27. This sum represents unpaid unemployment compensation taxes, along with interest and penalties for nonpayment from 1984 to through 1988. In April of 1985, Respondent was informed of his liability for unpaid unemployment compensation taxes in 1984. He completed, after consultation with Petitioner's representative, requisite forms for tax reporting purposes, but neglected to pay the delinquent taxes. Respondent continued his failure to completely pay the required taxes in 1986 and 1987. He made only "pittance" payments. In 1988, Respondent and Petitioner's representative agreed upon a payment plan whereby Respondent agreed to pay the delinquent taxes, penalties and interest at a rate of $100 per week until the total amount owed by him was paid. Respondent made those payments from February 21, 1988 until April 5, 1988. He then ceased to make further payments. The proof establishes that Respondent, after subtraction of the minor payments he made, owed Petitioner a total sum for delinquent taxes, interest, and filing fees for each of the following years in the amounts shown: AMOUNT YEAR $2039 1984 $ 504 1985 $1468.09 1986 $1183.56 1988 Respondent made two timely quarterly tax reports to Petitioner out of a total of 14 required in the period 1984-88, but never made timely payments of the amounts of unemployment compensation taxes owed to Petitioner Also, Respondent never made full payments of the amount of taxes owed. As a result of Respondent's nonpayment of unemployment compensation taxes, Petitioner notified Respondent by letter dated November 17, 1988, of intent to revoke Respondent's Florida Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration for his failure to comply with applicable rules of the United States or the State of Florida relating to unemployment compensation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's certificate of registration as a farm labor contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 8th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Joel Chawk, Esquire Post Office Drawer 8209 Lakeland, Florida 33802-8209 Santos Samarrippas, Sr. 3501 Avenue K Northwest Winter Haven, Florida 33881 Moses E. Williams, Esquire Suite 117 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 Hugo Menendez, Secretary 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Stephen Barron, Esquire 131 Montgomery Building 2563 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue Whether Respondent contracted for the employment of farm workers with a farm labor contractor before the contractor displayed a current certificate of registration in violation of Section 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of relevant facts are determined: Respondent, David Torres, is a farm labor contractor licensed in Florida. On January 31, 1991 Larry Coker, during a routine grove inspection, observed a crew of farm workers picking fruit in the Happy Acres Grove, in Hardee County, under the supervision of Respondent. Respondent utilized Billy Handford and Antonio Torres to transport the farm workers to the grove. Mr. Handford was employed to recruit and transport farm workers for a fee to be paid by Respondent. Billy Handford did not have a Florida FLC license which authorized him to engage in this occupation. On January 31, 1991, Billy Handford recruited and transported six farm workers from the Bartow area to the Happy Acres grove in Hardee County. Respondent was cited for three violations of Chapter 450, on January 31, 1991.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent has violated Section 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be fined $500 (dollars) and such fine to paid within thirty days from date of the final order entered by the Division. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: FRANCISCO R. RIVERA, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 2012 CAPITAL CIRCLE, S.E. SUITE 307, HARTMAN BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0658 DAVID TORRES, POST OFFICE BOX 842 HAINES CITY, FL 33844 FRANK SCRUGGS, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 303 HARTMAN BUILDING 2012 CAPITAL CIRCLE, S.E. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2152 STEPHEN BARRON, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 307 HARTMAN BUILDING 2012 CAPITAL CIRCLE S.E. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2152
The Issue The issues presented in this action concern the Petitioner's failure to renew the Respondent's Florida Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration for the year 1981. The refusal to renew the certificate is premised upon the alleged failure on the part of the Respondent to furnish Felix Munoz and others with an itemized statement of deductions made from their payments for rent, and loans owed to the Petitioner, and by doing so purportedly acting contrary to Subsection 450.33(7), Florida Statutes. In addition, it is alleged, as a ground for refusal to renew the certificate, that Raul Saldivar, Jr., failed to distribute when due all monies or other items of value entrusted him by third persons for such purpose in violation of Subsection 450.33(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 385-4.08(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by receiving payroll checks payable to Arnulfo Ramirez, Esteban Guerraro, Carmen Cruz, Juan Cruz, Santos Martinez, and Leonel Flores; further, that Respondent took the payroll checks in the absence of the farm workers, endorsed and deposited the checks to his bank account. FINDINGS OF FACT 1/ In the years 1979 and 1980, the Respondent had been granted a Florida Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration from the State Department of Labor and Employment Security in keeping with the terms and conditions of Chapter 450, Florida Statutes. When Saldivar applied for the renewal of his Florida Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration for 1981, he was refused renewal for the reasons set forth in the issues statement of this Recommended Order. The Respondent has, in all other respects, complied with the necessary conditions for his relicensure. Beginning in August, 1979, and continuing into 1980, the Respondent was a member of a partnership known as R & S Sons. Particularly in the year 1980, Saldivar, as a member of the partnership, was involved in providing farm labor employees to various tomato growers (Corkscrew Growers, Greener's Farm, C & G Farms, Johnson's Farm, Harvey Brothers, and R & S Sons, which was the partnership farm.) There was no written contract between the growers and Saldivar. Each grower would pay Saldivar for transporting the farm laborers to the growers' farms, and in addition, pay Saldivar for running a labor camp, that is, the place at which the farm laborers resided when they were not employed picking tomatoes. This latter item was the payment for rent for the laborers. The Respondent was also paid by the growers for the units of tomatoes picked by the laborers on an increment payment basis known as a "bin." The Respondent maintained a list of farm laborers through the device of a time card for each employee that worked for a week or mere for one of the growers. Those farm employees had Social Security cards and the growers furnished Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage for the benefit of the farm laborers. There were approximately 200 farm laborers in the category being provided by the Respondent's organization. The drivers of the tomato hauling trucks worked for the growers but the trucks belonged to the Saldivar organization and the picking buckets were also provided by this latter group. The farm laborers were paid by checks issued by the various growers. They were made up from time records maintained by the Respondent's organization. The check had attached to it a stub indicating the amount of pay, and the amount of Social Security deductions and the stub was available to be maintained by the employee. The information placed on the time records was gained from field supervisors who were employees of the growers. (Although the growers had field supervisors immediately in charge of the farm laborers, Saldivar was the overall coordinator for the activities of these laborers.) No withholding amount was taken out of the checks of the laborers other than Social Security. The payroll records of the Respondent would indicate the net earnings and gross amount paid to each farm laborer. Payment to the farm laborers was made at the farm labor camp managed by the Respondent. The process for disbursing the checks was to call the laborer by name and Saldivar would hand the check to the laborer. One of the farm laborers who lived at the Saldivar camp and picked tomatoes for a grower in the area was Felix Munoz. Munoz arrived at the Saldivar camp in August, 1979. Saldivar, at that point, loaned Munoz money to pay for Munoz's transportation to Florida. There was no repayment of the travel loan for a period of time for reason of unavailability of work for Munoz. In late September, Munoz began to repay the loan, and the method of repayment was at the time wherein the Respondent disbursed the payroll check from the grower to Munoz. Munoz would in turn endorse the check over to the Respondent and receive cash in the face amount of the check, and then give the Respondent some of that cash as repayment for the loan. Munoz was not provided a statement of the amount repaid on the loan. Respondent did have the amount written on a piece of paper over which he had control. The same loan arrangements for transportation that were involved with the laborer Munoz occurred with other farm laborers living in the Saldivar camp, and the same method was utilized for handling the manner of repayment of the indebtedness, and for recording the matters of the indebtedness. Munoz and other farm laborers also paid the Respondent rent for living at the Respondent's farm labor camp and the rent was paid from the proceeds of the checks for their efforts as tomato pickers. Munoz and others were not given statements of the amount they had paid to Saldivar for rent. Arnulfo Ramirez, Esteban Guerrero, Carnen Cruz, Juan Cruz, Santos Martinez and Leonel Flores were farm laborers who arrived at the Saldivar camp in December, 1979. These individuals, as with others spoken to above, were loaned money to pay for their transportation costs to Florida. The Respondent loaned them the money, and they in turn, agreed to repay the transportation loan from salaries earned and by the method identified before. These individuals had left the area of the State when the growers issued their last paycheck. Therefore, Respondent picked up the paychecks from the growers, and acting on the advice of counsel, endorsed the farm laborers' names to the checks and deposited them in the Respondent's account and the proceeds were used as credit against the transportation loans owed by these individuals.
Findings Of Fact During late 1987 and early 1988, the Respondent, Javier Melendez, was registered by the Petitioner, the Department of Labor and Employment Security (DLES), as a farm labor contractor with authorization to transport migrant and seasonal farm workers. In March, 1988, Melendez applied to renew his registration as a farm labor contractor. On or about April 5, 1988, the DLES entered a Final Order imposing $1400 of fines on Melendez for two violations: one, a violation of Section 450.33(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 38B-4.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, for not carrying required liability insurance on the 1979 Ford van in which he was transporting migrant and seasonal farm workers on December 10, 1987; the second, a violation of Section 450.33(9), Florida Statutes, and Rule 38B-4.004(5), Florida Administrative Code, for not having a current valid inspection on the same vehicle on the same day. Melendez did not take steps to bring his 1979 Ford van into compliance with the requirements for using it to transport migrant and seasonal farm workers. On January 11, 1988, another registered farm labor contractor named Emmett Hunter was using a 1975 Ford van that Melendez owned and had loaned to Hunter for a rental charge to transport migrant and seasonal farm workers. The 1975 Ford van did not have required liability insurance for use in transporting migrant and seasonal farm workers. Melendez still has not brought either of the two vans into compliance with the requirements for use in transporting migrant and seasonal farm workers. Melendez has paid no part of the $1400 of fines that were imposed by Final Order in April 1988. Melendez did not appear at the final hearing in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, enter a final order denying the application of the Respondent, Javier Melendez, for renewal of his certificate of registration as a farm labor contractor. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 3rd day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 117, Montgomery Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Mr. Javier Melendez Post Office Box 2052 Haines City, Florida 33844 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations described in the Administrative Complaint, as amended? If so, what civil penalty or penalties should be assessed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made to supplement the factual stipulations into which the parties have entered: Respondent was born in Mexico. She has lived in the United States since October of 1974. Respondent has a fourth grade education that she received in her native land. She is unable to read or write English and speaks and understands very little of the language. She communicates primarily in Spanish. Respondent lives with her husband and five of her six children, including her 21-year old daughter, Anna, who unlike her mother, is fluent in both English and Spanish. Recently, due at least in part to the inability of family members to find work and to the lengthy hospitalization of Raphael, Jr., one of Respondent's sons, the Rivera family has experienced serious financial problems and has been unable to pay all of its bills. As a result, the family home is in foreclosure and water service to the home has been terminated. The family's plight should improve to some extent, however, inasmuch as Respondent's husband started working again approximately a week before the final hearing in this case. Respondent, though, remains unemployed, as does her daughter Anna, although they are both actively seeking employment. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent has been a Florida-registered farm labor contractor. She received the first of her farm labor contractor certificates of registration in 1990. To date, she has an unblemished disciplinary record. Since becoming registered, the only statutory and rule violations with which she has been charged are those that are the subject of the instant case. To obtain her certificates, Respondent simply had to fill out application forms. The application forms were in English. She therefore went to the local Department Job Service office to obtain the assistance of a bilingual Department employee fluent in English and Spanish to help her complete these forms. In each instance, the Department employee assisting Respondent filled out the form after obtaining the necessary information from Respondent and, after doing so, presented the completed form to Respondent for her signature. Jesus Velasquez was the Department employee who helped Respondent complete the application form for her initial certificate of registration. Velasquez has been a Compliance Officer with the Department for the past nine years. During his meeting with Respondent, Velasquez briefly described to her some of the duties and obligations of registered farm labor contractors. Andre Jeudy, who was then an Agricultural Service Representative with the Department, but is now a Department Compliance Officer, helped Respondent complete the application form she submitted to obtain her second certificate of registration. The form was completed, signed and submitted on November 20, 1990. Item 7 of the form requested the applicant to "Check Each Activity to be performed Involving Migrant and/or Seasonal Agricultural Workers for Agricultural Employment." Two "activities" were listed. The first was "Recruit, solicit, hire, employ, furnish, pay." The second was "Transport." Based upon what he had been told by Respondent, Jeudy checked the first, but not the second, of these listed activities. Item 9 of the form asked, "Will Transportation be Provided the Workers?" If the response was in the affirmative, the applicant was further instructed to "Give number and type of vehicles used to transport migrant and seasonal agricultural workers." Based upon the information that he had been provided by Respondent, Jeudy marked the "Yes" box and wrote only the following to supplement this affirmative response: "TRANSP will be provide [sic] By company Bus (Okeelanta)." By her signature, Respondent certified on the form that "all representations made by me in this application are true to the best of my knowledge and belief" and that "I have read or had explained to me and fully understand the State of Florida Farm Labor Registration Law and its implementing regulations, and will fully comply with the requirements therein." By letter dated December 4, 1990, Respondent was advised by the Department that it had issued her the new certificate of registration (hereinafter referred to as the "1990-91 Certificate") for which she had applied. The certificate, which had an "expiration date" of "11/91," was enclosed with letter. Respondent's 1990-91 Certificate indicated that Respondent was "Transportation Unauthorized." The certificate provided the following explanation as to what it meant to be "Transportation Unauthorized:" Transportation Unauthorized- You are not permitted to arrange and/or provide transportation of migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. To obtain a certificate authorizing the transportation of workers within the meaning of the Act, you must file evidence of compliance with applicable safety and health requirements as stated in the Act and regulations and with the insurance of financial responsibility requirements provided therein. On September 18, 1991, Respondent went to the local Job Service office to apply for a successor certificate. The Department employee who assisted Respondent on this occasion was Mary Ann Ruiz. Ruiz accurately conveyed on the application form the information with which she had been provided by Respondent. The application form that Ruiz helped Respondent fill out was identical to the one Respondent had used to obtain her 1990-91 Certificate. With respect to Item 7, Ruiz checked the first ("Recruit, solicit, hire, employ, furnish, pay"), but not the second ("Transport"), of the farm labor contractor activities listed. As to Item 9, Ruiz marked the "Yes" box and gave the following written explanation: "trans provided by Okeelanta." No further information regarding such transportation was furnished on the form. As she had done the year before, Respondent certified the accuracy of the information contained in the application and her knowledge of, and her intention to fully comply with, the "Florida Farm Labor Registration Law and its implementing regulations." At the time of her application, she did not intend to transport any farm workers. By letter dated December 19, 1991, Respondent was advised by the Department that it had issued her the successor certificate of registration (hereinafter referred to as the "1991-92 Certificate") for which she had applied. The certificate, which had an "expiration date" of "11/92," was enclosed with letter. Respondent's 1991-92 Certificate indicated that Respondent was again "Transportation Unauthorized" and it repeated the explanation of the term that had been set forth in the 1990-91 Certificate. In 1990 and 1991, Respondent recruited farm workers to plant sugar cane seed and perform related tasks for the Okeelanta Sugar Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Okeelanta"). Okeelanta has substantial land holdings in the Everglades Agricultural Area on which it grows and harvests sugar cane that it then processes and converts into refined sugar for sale. Okeelanta paid Respondent a total of $10,958.90 for her services ($4,550.40 for services rendered in 1990 and $6,408.50 for services rendered in 1991). Okeelanta treated Respondent as an independent contractor. The workers she recruited, on the other hand, were considered by Okeelanta to be employees of the corporation. They were paid directly by Okeelanta, which made appropriate deductions from their paychecks. The workers were organized into planting crews made up of eight or nine persons each. At any given time during the 1990-91 and 1991-92 planting seasons, there were several crews comprised of workers Respondent had recruited for Okeelanta (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent's crews"). Okeelanta employed timekeepers to maintain records of the work performed by each of the crews in its fields. Anna Rivera, Respondent's daughter, was the timekeeper responsible for maintaining the records of the work done by Respondent's crews. Respondent's crews were supervised and directed in the field by another Okeelanta employee, Zone Supervisor Raphael Colunga. As the Zone Supervisor, Colunga had the authority to discharge any crew member under his supervision. Respondent frequently went out in the field to monitor the activities of her crews. She did so because the amount of compensation she received from Okeelanta was dependent upon the work performed by her crews. Respondent used her own vehicle to make the trip to the field. There was an Okeelanta bus that drove crew members from the Okeelanta employee parking lot to the field in the morning and back to the parking lot in the afternoon. Respondent's crews did not always arrive early enough in the morning to catch these buses. On those occasions that they missed the bus, the transportation that they used to commute to work was the transportation that they used to get to the field. Every employee that Respondent recruited for Okeelanta for the 1991-92 planting season, before being hired, was screened by the Department at its Belle Glade Job Service office pursuant to a written agreement between Okeelanta and the Department, which provided as follows: RECRUITING ARRANGEMENT Okeelanta Corporation It is the intent of Belle Glade Job Service (hereafter the Job Service) and Okeelanta Corporation (hereafter the "Employer") to bring together individuals, who are seeking employment, and the Employer, who is seeking workers without charging a fee. Therefore, The Job Service and the Employer enter into this arrangement: Assist job seekers in obtaining employment from the employer; Allow the Job Service to facilitate the match between the job seekers and the employer. Both parties enter into this arrangement with the understanding that each will comply with all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations (please see attached addendum of specific responsibilities) pursuant to Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 652, 655 and 658. BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THIS RECRUITING ARRANGEMENT WILL - Continue for no longer than one year from the date both parties have signed the document. Constitute the sole exclusive arrangement indicating how they will work together. Terminate upon either party's written notice for the other party that the arrangement will be cancelled in 30 days. Abide by the attached addendums of JS and Employer obligations. Addendum I to the agreement listed the Department's obligations. These obligations were as follows: Provide the Employer notice to renew this arrangement at least 60 days prior to ending date of this arrangement or prior to the expected beginning of the season, whichever is earlier. The notice will contain a request to the employer for written response as to their satisfaction with the arrangement, information on any problem that have [sic] developed and meeting date to renew the arrangement. Provide the employer daily a log summarizing job placement activities for each day in which one or more individuals were referred to the employer. Provide I-9 Certification on individuals hired no later than 48 hours from date JS is notified of hire. Designate one Employment representative to be stationed on daily basis or as needed, to serve as the liaison responsible for working with Okeelanta Corporation. Provide the Okeelanta Corporation with reverse referral recruitment cards to give the applicants. Maintain a pool of qualified applicants for the positions listed with Job Service, who have been screened against the selection criteria of the company. Provide Okeelanta with a list of qualified applicants on file whenever an opening arises. Refer applicants from the pool, with a completed I.D. card, a completed W-4 form, JS Referral Card, (a completed I-9 on recalls) upon receipt of a job order. Addendum II to the agreement listed Okeelanta's obligations. These obligations were as follows: List all job openings for which they wish Job Service to recruit. Provide the Belle Glade JS office a supply of W-4 forms applications for completion by qualified applicants desiring to work for the company. On a daily basis inform the Belle Glade JS office of the hiring decision made on each applicant referred by the JS. Designate one of its employees, within one week of the starting date of this arrangement, to serve as the liaison responsible for working with the JS. Provide a working space for the employee designated to be stationed at the employer premises. Acknowledge receipt of the above referenced regulations as a part of this arrangement, which it will furnish the above referenced employee. The job order Okeelanta placed with the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office in accordance with the foregoing agreement for sugar cane seed planters and other agricultural workers needed for the 1991-92 planting season specified that these employees would be expected to work six days a week, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 or 4:00 p.m., weather permitting. Okeelanta hired only those prospective employees who were deemed qualified and given a referral or "yellow" card by the Department. These prospective employees were required to present their card to the Zone Supervisor. After doing so and being accepted for employment, they received an Okeelanta employee identification number and their names appeared on the Okeelanta Day Haul Master List for each day they worked. Prospective employees unable to produce a "yellow" card for the Zone Supervisor were referred to the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office. In light of Okeelanta's policy of turning away prospective employees who did not have "yellow" cards, Respondent advised every employee that she recruited for Okeelanta during the 1991-92 planting season that they had to go to the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office and obtain such a card before they could begin working for Okeelanta. Respondent was never told that she had to verify the qualifications of members of her crews who had been screened and referred to Okeelanta by the Department. She therefore believed that there was no need for her to do so. Miguel Paiz was a member of one of Respondent's crews. He was interviewed at the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office prior to the commencement of the 1991-92 planting season and, although, as he made the interviewer aware, he was only 17 years of age at the time, he was given a "yellow" card. The W-4 form that was completed during his interview indicates that, at least at the time of the interview, Paiz was married. On the morning of Friday, October 18, 1991, three or four days after the start of the 1991-92 planting season, Cruz Hernandez Alvarez, lost control of the 1978 station wagon he was driving on a private road on Okeelanta property and the vehicle went into a canal on the side of the road. Seven of the eight occupants of the vehicle were killed. Alvarez did not have a valid driver's license at the time of the accident. The vehicle he was driving belonged to Juan Andres. Its V.I.N. was 1L35U8S167733. Alvarez and some, but not all, of the other occupants of the vehicle, including the lone survivor of the accident, were members of one of Respondent's crews. Julio Mendoza Corince, a 15-year old boy, was one of the occupants of the vehicle who perished in the accident. Earlier that month, Corince had gone to the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office to obtain a "yellow" card. The Department employee with whom he interviewed, however, refused to refer him because he was underage. Corince was not a member of any of Respondent's crews. Indeed, at no time before the accident had Respondent ever met or spoken with him. After the bodies were recovered from the canal, Respondent, and later her daughter Anna, were called to the scene and asked by the police if they were able to identify any of the victims. Viewing the dead bodies was a very emotionally upsetting experience for both of them. They spent the remainder of the day at home. No work was done by any of Respondent's crews that day. State and federal investigators began their investigation shortly after the accident was reported. Compliance Officer Velasquez was the Department's lead investigator. Rene Callobre, an Assistant District Administrator with the United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, who, like Velasquez, is fluent in both English and Spanish, conducted the federal investigation. A short time after beginning his investigation on the day of the accident, Velasquez went to the Okeelanta property and asked to speak with Respondent. After being told that Respondent had left for the day, Velasquez proceeded to Respondent's home, where he interviewed Respondent. Velasquez and Respondent conversed in Spanish during the interview. Respondent was still emotionally upset at the time of the interview, but not to the extent that she was irrational or unable to effectively communicate with Velasquez. At no time did she provide an inappropriate response to his inquiries. During the interview, Respondent freely and voluntarily gave a statement in Spanish to Velasquez. Velasquez had not warned Respondent before she gave the statement that what she said could be used against her in an administrative proceeding such as the instant one. 1/ Velasquez wrote down in English what Respondent had told him in Spanish. This written, English translation of the statement, which accurately reflected Respondent's discussion with Velasquez, was then read back to Respondent in Spanish. Respondent thereupon signed the written statement, which read as follows: I am a farm labor contractor with cert # 29482 & expiration date of Nov. 1992. At present I am employed by Okeelanta Sugar Corp. My duties are to recruit & supervise farm workers to plant sugar cane. My fee for this task is $1.10 per row of cane planted by the crew. I recruited my crews by word of mouth. They know I am a contractor, so they come to my house to ask for work. The first thing I tell any worker that comes here to my house is that they must go the Job Service Office in Belle Glade and register. When they are properly registered, they go to the Okeelanta parking lot and there they are transported by company bus to the work site. I tell all the workers they must provide their own transportation to the Okeelanta parking lot. I tell all my workers this because I do not own a vehicle big enough to transport them from their home and back. I tell them that if they want to work, they must come on their own. I recruited 4 crews consisting of 8 workers each crew. Three of the crews were coming from Indiantown (Guatemalans) and one crew from this area (Mexicans). These crews, the ones from Indiantown, worked with me last year. I usually give the driver or the owner of the vehicle $100 per week for gasoline. I did this last year and was intending to do this this year also. The three crews from Indiantown came by car (station wagon) and a van. The station wagon carried 1 crew (8 workers) and the van carried 2 crews (16 workers). On this date, only one crew leader showed up, the station wagon. The van with the 2 crews did not show up. These crews started to work on Tuesday October 15, 1991. I do not pay the workers, Okeelanta does. The statement was in all respects factually accurate. Respondent had not yet during the 1991-92 planting season paid or loaned or agreed to pay or loan anyone "$100 for gasoline" in connection with the transporting of her crews. At no time did Respondent tell any state or federal investigator, including Velasquez or Callobre, otherwise. 2/ On Monday, October 21, 1991, Velasquez went out in the field to visit with Respondent and the members of her crews. Velasquez was accompanied by Compliance Officer Jeudy. Jeudy was being trained by Velasquez. Velasquez and Jeudy observed a 1977 Chevrolet van in the field. The van's V.I.N was CGL257U218651. Neither on the van nor anywhere else in the field was there posted a copy Respondent's application for a certificate of registration or a statement, in English and Spanish, showing Respondent's and her crews' rates of compensation. Velasquez asked Respondent if any of the members of her crews had been transported in the van. Respondent responded in the affirmative and indicated that two of her crews from Indiantown had travelled in the van. Velasquez then asked to speak to the driver of the van. Respondent thereupon retrieved Miguel Paiz, who was working in the field. Although he was 17 years of age and it was during normal school hours, Paiz was at work and not in school. Velasquez asked to see Paiz's driver's license and his farm labor contractor's certificate of registration. Paiz showed Velasquez his driver's license and the "yellow" card he had received from the Department. Paiz advised Velasquez that he did not have, and therefore was unable to produce, a farm labor contractor's certificate of registration. Paiz told Velasquez that Juan Lopez was paying him $10.00 a day for driving the van. During his conversation with Velasquez, Paiz erroneously identified Lopez as the owner of the van. The actual owner of the van was Julio Puentes. After speaking with Paiz, Velasquez interviewed Lopez. Based upon what he understood Lopez to have said during the interview, Velasquez prepared a written statement for Lopez's signature which provided as follows: I borrowed the (vehicle) van that this date transported 16 workers to Okeelanta Sugar Corp. to work in the planting of sugar cane. I was recruited by Araceli Rivera. I am paid $100 per week for the gasoline I use in the vehicle. I am also paid $1.00 per row of sugar cane planted by Okeelanta. I am not registered as a F.L.C. Lopez refused to sign the statement. To the extent that the statement suggests that Lopez was then being paid by Respondent for "the gasoline [Lopez] use[d] in the ['transporting'] vehicle," it is inaccurate. No such payments were made by Respondent to Lopez during the 1991-92 planting season.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) imposing upon Respondent a civil penalty in the amount of $100.00 for having violated Section 450.33(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 38H-11.008, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in paragraph (4)(h) of the Administrative Complaint, as amended, by displaying in the area where her crews were working on October 21, 1991, neither a copy of her application for a farm labor contractor certificate of registration nor the requisite statement concerning the compensation that she was receiving from Okeelanta for her recruitment activities, and (2) dismissing the remaining allegations advanced in the Administrative Complaint, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of February, 1993. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1993.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent, Eugene Martinez, should have a $1,500 civil penalty imposed for allegedly violating Sections 450.33(5) and and 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989)
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy arose on the morning of January 29, 1990, when Larry Coker, a compliance officer with petitioner, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor, Employment, and Training (Division), made a routine inspection of a citrus harvesting crew working in an orange grove owned by Adrian Chapman and located one-half mile east of State Road 39 in DeSoto County, Florida. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether the crew and its supervising contractor were in compliance with state regulations. Upon entering the premises, Coker observed a crew of approximately seventeen workers harvesting fruit in the citrus grove. An individual by the name of Martin R. Olvera was operating a high lift at the work site. Coker approached Olvera and asked him who was the farm labor contractor for the crew. Olvera responded that the licensed farm contractor was respondent, Eugene Martinez, but that Martinez had authorized him (Olvera) to supervise the crew that day in Martinez's absence. Olvera acknowledged that he was being paid $40 per day by respondent to supervise the loading of fruit and transport the workers from LaBelle to the grove. Division records reflect that Olvera is not licensed by the Division to perform those activities. A few minutes after Coker completed his inspection, respondent arrived at the work site. He readily acknowledged that Olvera was acting as a farm labor contractor without a license. By allowing Olvera to supervise a crew without a proper license, respondent used an unregistered farm labor contractor in contravention of the law. Olvera had transported the workers to the field that day in respondent's 1973 Ford bus. Respondent acknowledged that he did not have the proper liability insurance on the vehicle or the required inspection sticker. Both are required by law and agency rules. After being issued a citation that morning, respondent obtained the necessary insurance on his vehicle that afternoon. A vehicle inspection was obtained two days later. In addition, respondent initiated the necessary paperwork for Olvera to become a registered farm labor contractor. Because of those prompt efforts to satisfy Division requirements, respondent asked that he be given leniency on any civil fine. He has been unable to work since losing his right leg in an accident in May 1990 and is presently experiencing financial problems. There is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined by the Division for a violation of the law or agency rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that respondent Eugene Martinez has violated Sections 450.33(5) and (9) and 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989). It is further recommended that respondent be fined $600, such fine to be paid within thirty days from date of the final order entered by the Division. DONE and ENTERED this 9 day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9 day of November, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner: Partially adopted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. Note - Where a finding of fact has been partially used, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, cumulative, subordinate, irrelevant or not supported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Frances R. Rivera, Esquire The Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0657 Mr. Eugene Martinez P. O. Box 2194 LaBelle, FL 33935 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Steven D. Barron, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the Statutes and Rules, cited in pertinent part below, designed to regulate the practice of farm labor contractors in the State of Florida, and with enforcing compliance with that authority and imposing sanctions for violation of it. There is no dispute that James Wilson is licensed as a farm labor contractor but, as will be seen below, he was not functioning as a farm labor contractor and thus is not chargeable for the violations alleged herein with regard to the activities observed by the Department's representatives on June 17, 1986, the date pertinent to this proceeding. On June 17, 1986, Mr. W. R. Brooks, an agent for the Department of Labor and Employment Security, had cause to make an inspection of an eggplant harvesting/grading operation near Summerfield, Florida. The farm is owned by Mr. Mark Arnold. Mr. Brooks, acting on his belief that the Respondent James Wilson was functioning as a farm labor contractor and recruiting and transporting workers to the eggplant field and supervising them, made an inspection of the farm and the grading shed where the eggplants harvested were graded by Wilson and other workers. Mr. Brooks was of the belief that Wilson was hired by Mr. Arnold to recruit and transport workers to the eggplant harvesting field and grading shed and to supervise them. He partially based this belief on the fact that Willie Davis, an employee of Mr. Arnold working at the site, informed him that Mr. Wilson was the "foreman." It was not shown, however, that Willie Davis informed Mr. Brooks of any details concerning any arrangement between Mr. Wilson and the farm owner, Mr. Arnold. Mr. Brooks' testimony, based in part upon discussions he had with Willie Davis and Mr. Wilson at the farm site, failed to establish that Mr. Wilson was paid any fee or consideration of any kind in return for transporting, recruiting or supervising workers. Ms. Rosie Jenkins was also called by the Department to testify. Mr. Brooks had interviewed Ms. Jenkins early one morning when she had been drinking most of the night, and by her own admission, was still drunk as she was talking to Mr. Brooks at the door of her residence. Ms. Jenkins testified that she was too intoxicated on the occasion of her interview with Mr. Brooks to understand clearly the nature of his questions or to understand or recall the precise nature of her answers. Her testimony at hearing establishes that Mark Arnold hired her for the job and was the only supervisor at the job site. Ms. Jenkins occasionally borrowed money from James Wilson and would repay him with interest and would also pay him a dollar per trip when he transported her to the field on some occasions. Ms. Jenkins' statement that the owner, Mr. Arnold, was the only supervisor at the job site is corroborated by Willie Davis, who was also employed at the harvesting and grading operation on the day in question. He established that there was no reason for any supervision because, as Ms. Jenkins put it, all the employees already knew their jobs and, according to Mr. Davis, they were working on "piece work" anyway, which means they were paid according to how many boxes of eggplants they prepared for transportation to the packing house. The more eggplant they graded correctly and packed for transportation, the more they were paid as wages, thus, inasmuch as the workers were already trained, there was no incentive for the owner to pay any person such as Wilson to supervise them. Ms. Dorothy Walker worked for Mark Arnold at the eggplant farm for approximately three years. She worked in the grading shed area grading eggplant and established that no supervision was needed for workers in that area since they were all trained in their jobs. She was hired by Mr. Mark Arnold and on some occasions "caught a ride" with James Wilson in order to get to work. This was not shown to be a regular practice, however. She also stated that Mr. Mark Arnold was her supervisor and that James Wilson was an employee just like any other employee without supervisory authority. Each of the workers would from time to time tell another worker, who was doing something improperly, the proper means of performing the job, including Wilson, but Mark Arnold was the only person with supervisory authority over the workers. Mr. Mark Arnold, the owner of the eggplant farm in question, established that there was no contract between him and James Wilson to recruit, transport or supervise employees. Mr. Wilson's employment was not conditioned upon his recruiting, transporting or hiring employees. Mr. Arnold stated that he did not pay Wilson a fee or other valuable consideration for transporting workers to his field and Wilson was not paid a fee or other consideration for supervising or controlling the workers at the job site. Wilson was paid on an hourly basis, the same as the other workers, and additionally was paid by the box for hauling eggplants to the packing house from the farm site. Mr. Wilson was expected to work the same hours as other employees. Mr. Arnold acknowledged that on some occasions, when he had to leave the field for any reason, he would sometimes tell Wilson to look after the operation while he was gone, but this was not a regular supervisory position and Mr. Wilson was not paid by Arnold for doing so. Mr. Arnold's testimony was not rebutted by the Department and it is noteworthy that at no time in the investigatory process was Mr. Arnold contacted personally by any Department personnel concerning the allegations at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Wilson's testimony corroborated that of Mr. Arnold in demonstrating that he was paid an hourly fee the same as other employees and did not direct, supervise or control the workers, whether or not he transported them to the eggplant farm. Wilson was compensated on a per box basis for transporting the eggplants to the packing house, but that was an arrangement solely between him and Arnold and involved no other employees in terms of transportation, supervision or hiring. In years past, Mr. Wilson has worked as a farm labor contractor in the citrus industry, at which time he did recruit his own crew and transport them to the job site. Although he maintains his farm labor contractor's license at the present time, he was not acting in that capacity at the job site in question. None of the employees he recruited in the citrus industry were the same employees at the eggplant farm. He renews his farm labor contractor's license annually and hopes eventually to return to employment in that capacity in the citrus industry, which he left as a result of the late, disastrous freeze which significantly curtailed citrus operations in the central Florida area involved. In summary, it has not been established that Mr. Wilson was paid by Mr. Arnold or any third party for transporting workers to the field. It was shown at most that occasionally Mr. Wilson was compensated by the employees themselves in return for him giving them rides to work, which is nothing more than a car pooling arrangement. Moreover, it was not demonstrated that Mr. Wilson exercised any supervisory authority over the workers at the eggplant harvesting and grading site. Because of his long history of successful employment with Mr. Arnold, Mr. Arnold did occasionally entrust him with oversight of the operation while he left the field to go on errands during a given work day. The point is, Mr. Wilson was not compensated any extra for such services and was paid the same hourly wage as other workers in the field and the grading shed. Although Mr. Wilson was paid on a per box basis for transporting the eggplant from the farm to the packing house, this was not a means of compensating him for transporting, recruiting or supervising employees because he performed an additional service with his own vehicle in return for that compensation, that is, he loaded the boxes on his vehicle, transported them to the packing house, and returned, paying his own expenses. It therefore cannot be found that the payment for transporting the boxes was merely a means of giving him additional compensation for the alleged supervision, transportation and recruitment of workers.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the charges against James Wilson be dismissed in their entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 11th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3657 Department's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as to its second sentence, which is not in accordance with the preponderant testimony and evidence adduced. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented. Respondent James Wilson's Proposed Findings of Fact Rejected as not constituting a Proposed Finding of Fact, but rather legal argument. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Room 117, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Archie O. Lowry, Jr., Esquire PULLUM & JUDSON Post Office Drawer 2160 Leesburg, Florida 32748 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301
