Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered farm labor contractor with social security number 264-86-0916 and certificate number 4-3266-K 86 I. He is part owner of Highlands Harvest Corporation and is registered with Petitioner as the Corporation's representative. Respondent signs payroll checks for Highlands Harvest, hires and fires its workers, and was referred to as the "bossman" by his brothers, Stanley and Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Zephrin Augustine. On or about February 18, 1987, and March 2, 1987, Respondent recruited and hired farm workers for a fee, and directed, controlled and supervised their work as well as that of farm labor contractors who were not registered with Petitioner. Specifically, he hired and supervised Ortland Williams and Stanley Hawthorne as farm labor contractors, neither of whom had current and valid certificates of registration at the time. Respondent contracted with Ortland Williams and Stanley Hawthorne, who were acting as farm labor contractors, for the employment of farmworkers in February and March, 1987 before said contractors displayed to him a current certificate of registration issued by Petitioner. Respondent's actions were taken on behalf of Highlands Harvest Corporation for growers in Highlands County, Florida. However, as registered agent of the Corporation and based upon his role as the principal managing partner of the Corporation, Respondent is responsible for these actions. Therefore, his argument that the Corporation, not he, should be held responsible is rejected. Ortland Williams and Stanley Hawthorne functioned as "goat drivers," as the term is used in the industry, at all times material hereto. Specifically, they gave directions to, and controlled the daily work of up to 15 farm workers under their direct supervision. They received a fee based upon the number of boxes picked each day by their crew. Williams transported such workers to the groves in February, 1987, and Stanley Hawthorne was responsible for recruiting and hiring the workers, according to a statement, he gave to Larry Coker, compliance officer, on March 2, 1987. As such, Williams and Stanley Hawthorne were acting as farm labor contractors. An administrative penalty of $1000 has previously been assessed against Respondent for violating Section 450.35, Florida Statutes, following an administrative hearing in DOAH Case Number 87-1644.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner issue a Final Order assessing an administrative penalty of $2000.00 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3636 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 6, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant to this case. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Ruling on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Rejected in Finding of Fact 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle East Montgomery Building, Suite 117 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Andrew B. Jackson, Esquire 150 North Commerce Avenue Sebring, Florida 33870 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2590 Executive Center Circle East 206 Berkeley Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle East 131 Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2151
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Wallace Moorehand, was an employee of Respondent, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as defined by the Florida Civil Rights of 1992, at the time alleged discriminatory employment practice(s) took place.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Wallace Bruce Moorehand, is an African- American male residing in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. Petitioner holds Florida insurance agent license A183690, which was issued on February 27, 1991. Petitioner studied extensively and was subject to a formal examination in order to obtain his license. Respondent, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm),1/ is a private entity headquartered in Bloomington, Illinois, engaged in the business of selling and servicing various types of insurance products including auto, health, and fire insurance for personal and business customers. Petitioner maintains that he is an employee of State Farm, rather than an independent contractor therefore, allowing him to bring a claim of unlawful employment discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Between March 1991 and February 1993, Petitioner worked as a Trainee Agent with State Farm. It is undisputed that Petitioner was a State Farm employee during his tenure as a Trainee Agent. On March 1, 1993, Petitioner executed a State Farm Agent’s Agreement. Among the relevant contractual provisions are the following: The purpose of this Agreement is to reduce to writing the objectives, obligations, and responsibilities essential to the relationship between the Agent, operating as an independent contractor, and State Farm. [State Farm] believe[s] that agents operating as independent contractors are best able to provide the creative selling, professional counseling, and prompt and skillful service essential to the creation and maintenance of successful multiple-line companies and agencies. We do not seek, and will not assert, control of your daily activities, but expect you to exercise your own judgment as to the time, place, and manner of soliciting insurance, servicing policyholders, and otherwise carrying out the provisions of this Agreement. You have chosen this independent contractor relationship, with its opportunities for financial reward and personal satisfaction, in preference to one which would place you in an employee status. * * * Section 1 – MUTUAL CONDITIONS AND DUTIES * * * You are an independent contractor for all purposes. As such you have full control of your daily activities, with the right to exercise independent judgment as to time, place, and manner of soliciting insurance, servicing policyholders, and otherwise carrying out the provisions of this Agreement. State Farm will furnish you, without charge, manuals, forms, records, and such other materials and supplies as we may deem advisable to provide. All such property furnished by us shall remain the property of [State Farm]. * * * Information regarding names, addresses, and age of policyholders of [State Farm]; the description and locations of insured property; and expiration or renewal dates of State Farm policies acquired or coming into your possession during the effective period of this Agreement, or any prior Agreement, except information and records of policyholders insured by [State Farm] pursuant to any governmental or insurance industry plan or facility, are trade secrets wholly owned by [State Farm]. All forms and other materials, whether furnished by State Farm or purchased by you, upon which this information is recorded, shall be the sole and exclusive property of [State Farm]. The expense of any office, including rental, furniture, and equipment; signs; supplies not furnished by us; the salaries of your employees; telegraph; telephone; postage; advertising; and all other charges or expense incurred by you in the performance of this Agreement shall be incurred at your discretion and paid by you. * * * L. We retain the right to prescribe all policy forms and provisions; premiums, fees, and charges for insurance; and rules governing the binding, acceptance, renewal, rejection, or cancellation of risks, and adjustment and payment of losses. Petitioner testified that it was his intent to enter into an independent contractor relationship with State Farm. On January 1, 1997, Petitioner entered into a second State Farm Agent’s Agreement, containing similar, if not identical, provisions. The record was not clear why Petitioner entered into a second Agent’s Agreement in 1997. Petitioner testified that State Farm eliminated some retirement benefits in 1997, requiring all agents to execute a new Agreement. However, on cross-examination, Petitioner testified, “I misspoke”2/ and admitted that the original Agent’s Agreement does not refer to a pension or other retirement benefit. Petitioner has conducted business as an agent of State Farm at the same location in Mary Esther, Florida, for 21 years. State Farm compensates Petitioner through commission on sales of insurance policies and other products. According to the Agent’s Agreement, State Farm also offers a sales incentive of five percent of production earnings in the prior year. State Farm has never paid Petitioner a salary. Pursuant to the Agent’s Agreement, State Farm also compensates Petitioner by providing a life insurance policy of $100,000 payable to his designated beneficiary upon his death, provided that Petitioner has not obtained age 70 or terminated the Agent’s Agreement. Petitioner has his own Federal employer tax ID number. Petitioner owns the building in which his State Farm office is located. Petitioner pays all the expenses of his office, including telephone, electricity, water, furniture, office supplies, and office equipment. Petitioner currently has two employees, but has previously employed up to nine people at his State Farm office. Petitioner pays his employees a salary, rather than on an hourly basis, at his choosing. Petitioner sets his employees’ work schedules. Petitioner pays his employees’ payroll taxes, decides whether they will receive commissions, and, if so, the amount of said commissions. Petitioner offers his employees paid holidays, vacation time, and sick leave. Petitioner does not receive either vacation time or sick leave from State Farm. Petitioner has elected to secure health insurance through State Farm for himself and his family. Petitioner offers his employees the opportunity to participate in the same health insurance plan he has elected to purchase. State Farm reports Petitioner’s earnings to the Federal Government on IRS Form 1099, not Form W-2. State Farm does not withhold social security, Medicare, or federal income taxes, from Petitioner’s commission checks. Despite overwhelming evidence of Petitioner’s independent contractor relationship with State Farm, Petitioner maintains that State Farm exercises a degree of control over Petitioner’s livelihood that renders the independent contractor status a sham. Petitioner testified that State Farm controlled Petitioner’s business, not only by contract, but also “by innuendo, by assertion, by intimidation.”3/ First, Petitioner testified that there was no difference between the way State Farm managed Petitioner’s business as a Trainee Agent and as an independent contractor. However, Petitioner admitted that only as a Trainee Agent was he required to submit daily time logs and weekly accountings of his activities. Petitioner offered into evidence a letter in which a State Farm Agency Manager criticized Petitioner’s priorities, time utilization, attitude, and required him to attend a series of training meetings. However, the letter was clearly written when Petitioner was a Trainee Agent. Next, Petitioner argues that State Farm controls whom he hires at his agency, as well as the hours his agency must be open to the public. Any employee of Petitioner who will be licensed to sell State Farm products on behalf of Petitioner is required to undergo background screening and enter into an Agent’s Licensed Staff Agreement. The Agreement defines the nature of the employment as with the Agent, rather than State Farm; defines the scope of the employee’s authority, i.e., the Agent may delegate to employees in-office binding authority on motor vehicle, residential risks, and personal property-casualty insurance coverage. Petitioner’s clerical staff, and any other non- licensed staff, is not required to undergo background screening or enter into an Agent’s Licensed Staff Agreement. Petitioner’s office is open 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each weekday. Petitioner testified that he chose those hours because those are the ones “clients most wanted.” State Farm does not dictate the particular hours Petitioner works. State Farm provides an after-hours call center from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. on weekdays to take calls from clients and potential clients when Petitioner’s office is closed. Petitioner maintains that because the call center is only available after 5:00 p.m., State Farm dictates that his office remains open until 5:00 p.m. daily. If Petitioner chose to close his office before 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, the only consequence would be missed business opportunities. Next, Petitioner argues that State Farm controls his business by requiring Petitioner to sell “multiple lines” of insurance, rather than selling only automobile or homeowners’ policies. Petitioner testified that State Farm pressures him to sell life and health insurance policies, as well as banking products more recently-available through State Farm. State Farm does not set quotas for any product line. Agents are free to choose which products they will sell as part of their overall business decisions. State Farm encourages its Agents to sell all products offered by the company in order to service the needs of clients. Some State Farm products require special licenses, such as a securities license to sell mutual funds offered by State Farm. State Farm does not require agents to obtain any specialty license. Petitioner voluntarily obtained a securities license to offer mutual funds to his clients. Next, Petitioner argues that State Farm does not allow him to operate his agency in a truly independent manner. Rather, Petitioner maintains that he is required to submit a business plan for approval by State Farm and attend extensive trainings which interfere with the independent nature of his relationship with State Farm. State Farm requires agents to attend one training session per year. The training is on compliance with State Farm customer service guidelines. Agents may access the training online and do not need to travel to take the training. State Farm provides a number of incentives to encourage agents to maximize their performance. For example, if an agent submits a business plan, laying out the goals and direction for his or her agency, the agent is eligible to receive leads on prospective clients that are received through the State Farm website. However, there are no negative consequences to those agents who choose not to submit a business plan. Finally, Petitioner argues that State Farm restricts Petitioner from writing policies for other insurer’s products. The parties offered a great deal of testimony regarding Petitioner’s authority to write policies for “take-out companies” assuming coverage previously provided by Citizens’ Insurance, and flood insurance policies through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The undersigned finds this testimony irrelevant to the issue at hand. Petitioner is an agent of State Farm insurance company. He chose that relationship. He could have chosen to work with an independent insurance agency which writes policies for any number of companies. Petitioner did not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss Complaint of Discrimination No. 2014-00242 filed by Wallace B. Moorehand on August 14, 2014. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 2015.
Findings Of Fact During January and February, 1987, Respondent acted as a farm labor contractor without a certificate of registration having been issued to him by Petitioner. Specifically, he was hired by Goodson Farms as a farm labor contractor, after holding himself out as such, and did act as a farm labor contractor by supplying and transporting 55 to 75 farm workers for the harvesting of cauliflower at Goodson Farms. He received payment for his services and disbursed payments to these workers. Respondent has failed to possess, for a period of three years, proof of payments he has made to each farm worker for whom he has acted as a farm labor contractor. Records he did provide to Herb Mize, crew chief compliance officer, were incomplete and did not include a record of payments for social security, income taxes withheld, and deductions for food and transportation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order assessing an administrative penalty of $1400.00 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 23rd day of October, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle East Montgomery Building, Suite 117 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 James Quillen, II, Esquire 509 North Morgan Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2590 Executive Center Circle East 206 Berkeley Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle East 131 Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2151
The Issue Whether Respondents, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. (Ag-Mart), and its employees' Justin Oelman (in DOAH Case No. 06-0729) and Warrick Birdwell (in DOAH Case No. 06-0730), committed some, any, or all of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints detailed herein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with administration of the Florida Pesticide Law, Chapter 487, Part I, Florida Statutes. Among the duties of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring within the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services are the designation and regulation of restricted-use pesticides, the testing and licensure of certified pesticide applicators, and the enforcement of federal worker protection standards regarding the exposure of farm workers to pesticides. §§ 487.011, 487.042, 487.044, and 487.051, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-2.039. The Administrative Complaints allege two types of violation of the Florida Pesticide Law. First, they allege that Ag-Mart harvested tomatoes prior to the end of the pre-harvest interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied to a tomato plant before that plant's fruit may be safely harvested. The pre-harvest interval is specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. Second, they allege that Ag-Mart allowed workers to enter sprayed fields prior to the end of the restricted entry interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied before it is safe for a worker to enter or remain in the treated area. The restricted entry interval is also specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. In 2004, Ag-Mart operated farms in several locations in Florida and North Carolina. Ag-Mart operated packing houses in Plant City, Florida, and in New Jersey. Ag-Mart grows, packages, and distributes grape tomatoes under the "Santa Sweets" label, and a round-type tomato marketed as "Ugly Ripe." During all times relevant to this proceeding, Ag-Mart's principal administrative offices were located in Plant City, Florida, and Ag-Mart's operations were managed by its president, Donald Long. At the final hearing, several Ag-Mart employees, including Mr. Long, testified as to Ag-Mart's practices in establishing planting and pesticide spraying schedules, carrying out those schedules in the field, and ensuring that legal restrictions on pesticide use are observed. This testimony is credited as to Ag-Mart's general pattern and practice, but does not disprove the Department's evidence as to particular instances of pre-harvest interval or restricted entry interval violations. Among other duties, Mr. Long was responsible for scheduling Ag-Mart's cultivation of tomato plants at the company's farms, so that product is available year-round. Mr. Long prepared a 2004 planting schedule that spaced the planting of new crops a week to ten days apart to ensure a continuous flow of tomatoes once the plants matured. For the 2004 season, the South Florida farm began planting in September 2003, with harvesting commencing in December 2003 and continuing through May 2004. The North Florida farm started its spring season plantings in March and April 2004, with harvest beginning in early June 2004 and lasting until August 2004. Each "planting" at Ag-Mart consists of a specific amount of acreage that is cultivated for a specific period of time to produce an expected yield of tomatoes. Mr. Long determines the size of each planting based on past yields and projected needs. A single planting of grape tomatoes is harvested multiple times. Depending on conditions, a planting of grape tomatoes at the South Florida farm can be harvested between ten and 15 times in the fall, with fewer harvesting opportunities in the spring. A planting of grape tomatoes at the North Florida farm may be harvested between eight and ten times. Each planting takes up portions of acreage called "fields," which are divided by land features and irrigation systems. Fields are of varying sizes, depending on the nature of the terrain and the irrigation system. The fields are numbered, and a planting is usually done in a certain number of roughly contiguous fields. A field is further divided into separately numbered "blocks," each block consisting of six rows of tomato plants, three rows on each side of a "drive area" through which tractors and harvest trucks can maneuver to reach the plants. The blocks are numbered in sequence from the beginning to the end of the field. At the South Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated ten separate plantings of between 79 and 376 gross acres. Each planting contained as few as three and as many as ten separate fields. At the North Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated five separate plantings of between 92 and 158 gross acres. Each planting contained either two or three separate fields.2 The cycle of farming activities at the Ag-Mart farms included ground preparation, planting, staking, tying, harvesting, and post-harvest clean-up. Farm laborers were recruited and transported to the fields by crew leaders, who must be registered as farm labor contractors with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation pursuant to Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61L-1.004. The crew leaders supervised the field laborers and prepared their weekly time cards. The crew leaders were directed by Ag-Mart's labor supervisors as to where the laborers were to work and which tasks were to be performed at any given time. Crew leaders providing services to Ag-Mart in 2004 included: Sergio Salinas, d/b/a Salinas & Son, Inc.; Pascual Sierra; and Juan Anzualda, d/b/a Juan Anzualda Harvesting, Inc. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda were crew leaders at the South Florida farm in the spring 2004 season. Mr. Sierra was a crew leader at the North Florida farm in 2004. At the South Florida farm, Mr. Salinas and three or four supervisors called "field walkers" oversaw the daily work of the 150 to 200 farm laborers who worked in Mr. Salinas' crew. Mr. Salinas owned and operated buses that transported the workers to and within the farm. Mr. Salinas also operated trucks to haul the harvested tomatoes from the fields to the shipping dock on the South Florida farm. A truck was also needed to move portable toilets to the fields for the use of the laborers. Because of the amount of equipment necessary to conduct a harvest, and the intense hand labor required to pick a row of tomatoes, Mr. Salinas always kept his crew together in one location while harvesting. During the period of January through May 2004, Mr. Salinas' crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day, and never more than four fields in one day. Mr. Anzualda and his 15 field walkers supervised a crew of 150 laborers at the South Florida farm during March and April 2004. Mr. Anzualda always kept his crew together when performing harvesting activities, due to the amount of equipment and the time necessary to set up near the work areas. Mr. Anzualda estimated that it took between 45 and 90 minutes to set up his equipment and line up his workers along the rows before harvesting could commence in a given field. Mr. Anzualda's crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day at the South Florida farm during the peak harvest period of March and April 2004, and never in more than four fields in one day. Ag-Mart paid the farm laborers the piece rate of $2.50 per tub of grape tomatoes. A "tub" weighs about 21 pounds. Different piece rates applied to different forms of work. For tying activities, the laborers under Mr. Salinas were paid $0.75 per 100 linear feet of work, while those under Mr. Anzualda were paid $0.50 per 100 linear feet. The laborers were paid the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour for some work, such as weeding and the harvest of Ugly Ripe tomatoes. In any event, the laborers were guaranteed the minimum wage, and were paid $5.15 per hour if that amount was greater than their pay would have been under piece work rates. Planting activities are performed by hand. Tomato plants are started in greenhouses, and then transplanted to the field when they are six weeks old and about six inches high. Staking is performed manually and by machine, as stakes are placed between the tomato plants to support the plants as they mature. Tying is performed manually, from about the second week after planting until the eighth or ninth week. "Tying" involves tying the tomato plants with string to the stakes to allow them to grow up the stakes as they mature. The tomato plants are six to seven feet tall at maturity. After the tomatoes were planted in 2004, Ag-Mart's farms began the application of pesticides according to a company-wide spray program devised by Mr. Long prior to the season. The spray program outlined the type and volume of pesticide products to be applied to the maturing tomato plants from the first week of planting through the end of the harvest. Once tying and harvesting activities began, Ag-Mart's spray program called for the application of pesticides "behind the tying" or "behind the harvest," meaning that spraying was done immediately after tying or harvesting was completed in a field. The spraying was done behind the workers because picking and tying opens up the plants, which enables the pesticide to better penetrate the plant. The timing of the spraying also allows fungicide to cover wounds from broken leaves caused by picking, thus preventing infection. Harvesting is performed manually by the farm laborers, who pick the ripe fruit from the tomato plants and place it into containers. The crew leader lines up the laborers with one person on each side of a row of tomatoes, meaning that a crew of 150 laborers can pick 75 rows of tomatoes at a time. The farm workers pick all of the visible fruit that is ripe or close to ripe on the blocks that are being harvested. Once the picking is complete on a block, it takes seven to ten days for enough new fruit to ripen on that block to warrant additional harvesting. Justin Oelman was Ag-Mart's crop protection manager at the South Florida farm in 2004. Mr. Oelman worked for Ag-Mart for eight years as a farm manager and crop protection manager before leaving in 2005 and had three years prior experience as a crop protection manager for another tomato grower. As crop protection manager in 2004, Mr. Oelman was the licensed pesticide applicator responsible for ordering chemicals and directing the application of pesticides. His job included writing up the "tomato spray ticket" for each pesticide application. The spray ticket is a document that, on its face, indicates the date and time of a pesticide application and its location according to planting, field, and block numbers. The spray ticket also states the name of the tractor driver who physically applies the pesticide, the type and amount of the pesticide applied, and the number of acres treated. Licensed pesticide applicators are required by Department rule to record the information included on the spray ticket. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032. In applying pesticides to the South Florida farm's grape tomato crop in 2004, Mr. Oelman followed the spraying program designed by Mr. Long before the season. Because the pesticides were applied behind the farm workers' field activity, Mr. Oelman maintained close communications with Josh Cantu, the Ag-Mart labor supervisor in charge of tying activities on the South Florida farm, and with Eduardo Bravo, the labor supervisor in charge of grape tomato harvesting. Mr. Bravo in turn directed crew leaders such as Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda on where to take their crews to conduct harvesting work. These communications kept Mr. Oelman apprised of where the crews were working and how much progress the tying or harvesting activities were expected to make by the end of the day. Mr. Oelman was then able to plan the next day's pesticide applications so that his tractor drivers would be ready to enter the field and apply the pesticides soon after the tying or harvesting activities were completed. Mr. Oelman typically wrote the spray tickets on the day before the actual pesticide application, based on the information gathered from Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu. Thus, the starting times shown on the tickets are times that were projected by Mr. Oelman on the previous afternoon, not necessarily the time that spraying actually commenced. Spraying could be delayed for a number of reasons. At times, the work in the fields would not progress as quickly as Mr. Cantu or Mr. Bravo had anticipated, due to the heaviness of the harvest. Pesticides are not applied to wet plants; therefore, rain could delay a planned spray application. Mr. Oelman's practice was to write a new spray ticket if a day's planned application was completely cancelled. However, if the planned spray application was merely delayed for a time, Mr. Oelman did not create a new spray ticket or update the original ticket to reflect the actual starting time. Mr. Oelman failed to explain why he did not always create a new ticket when the information on the existing ticket ceased to be accurate. Mr. Oelman directly supervised the Ag-Mart employees who drove the tractors and operated the spray rigs from which pesticides were applied to the tomato plants. Mr. Oelman trained the tractor drivers not to spray where people were working, but to wait until the tying or harvesting activities in designated fields had been completed. Once the fields had been sprayed, Mr. Oelman would orally notify Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu of the location of the pesticide applications. Mr. Oelman would also post copies of the spray tickets at the farm's central posting board, on which was posted relevant information regarding the pesticides being used at the farm, the restricted entry intervals and pre-harvest intervals for the pesticides, and other safety information.3 When restricted-use pesticides4 were to be applied, Mr. Oelman posted the entrances to the field with warning signs before the application began. The signs, which stated "Danger/Pesticides/Keep Out" in English and Spanish, were left in place until twelve hours after the expiration of the restricted entry interval for the applied pesticide. Mr. Oelman attested that he always made these postings when restricted-use pesticides such as Monitor and Danitol were applied at the South Florida farm. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda testified that they never harvested tomatoes from fields posted with pesticide warning signs. Mr. Anzualda checked for warning signs every day to ensure that his crew was not being sent into fields where pesticides had recently been applied. The restricted entry interval (REI) and the pre- harvest interval (PHI) are set forth on the manufacturer's label of each restricted-use pesticide, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Parts 156 (labeling requirements for pesticides and devices) and 170 (worker protection standard). The REI, a worker safety standard, is the time period after application of a restricted- use pesticide that must elapse before workers are allowed to enter the treated area. The PHI, a food safety standard, is the time period that must elapse after a spray application before harvesting can begin. The REI and PHI vary according to individual pesticides. In 2004, Warrick Birdwell was the farm manager at Ag- Mart's North Florida farm in Jennings. Prior to 2004, Mr. Birdwell had worked ten years for other tomato growers in Virginia and Florida. As farm manager, Mr. Birdwell was responsible for all operations from ground preparation through post-harvest clean-up at the North Florida farm. Mr. Birdwell was also a licensed restricted-use pesticide applicator and was responsible for the application of pesticides at the North Florida farm. In 2004, Mr. Birdwell was assisted in carrying out the spray program by Dale Waters, who supervised the tractor drivers and equipment.5 During 2004, grape tomatoes were harvested at the North Florida farm on a rotation of at least seven days per block, meaning that it would take at least seven days after a harvest, in a given field, to grow enough vine ripe fruit to warrant another harvest. Mr. Birdwell prepared the spray tickets for the planned application of pesticides. He created his spray tickets a day or two before the actual date that the application was scheduled to take place. At times, delays occurred due to weather, equipment failures, or slower than anticipated progress in the harvest. Mr. Birdwell's practice was to create a new ticket and destroy the old one if the delay prevented a scheduled application from occurring on the scheduled date. However, if the spraying was commenced on the scheduled date, but had to be completed on the next day, Mr. Birdwell kept the original spray ticket without amendment. Mr. Birdwell failed to give a reason why a new ticket was not created each time the information, included in the original ticket, ceased to be accurate. Mr. Birdwell communicated throughout the day with Charles Lambert, the North Florida farm's labor supervisor, to monitor the progress of the harvesting activities and ensure that workers did not enter fields where REIs or PHIs were in effect. Mr. Birdwell also directed that warning postings be placed at the entrances to fields where restricted-use pesticides had been applied. Farm labor crews were allowed to move on the farm property only at the specific direction of Mr. Lambert, whose constant communication with Mr. Birdwell helped ensure that labor crews stayed out of treated fields until it was safe to enter them. Harvested product received at Ag-Mart's packing houses is tracked by foreman receiving reports, which identify the product and its quantity, the name of the crew leader responsible for harvesting the product, the farm from which the product was shipped, and the planting number from which the product was harvested. The receiving reports are used to calculate the commission payments due to the Ag-Mart crew leaders, who are paid based on the amount of fruit their crews harvest, and to analyze the yields of specific plantings. The "date received" column on the receiving reports showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse. In March 2005, the Palm Beach Post published an article stating that three women, who harvested tomatoes for Ag- Mart in 2004, bore children who suffered from birth defects. The article questioned whether the birth defects were connected to the pesticides used by Ag-Mart on its tomatoes. The women had worked at both the South Florida and North Florida farms, and at an Ag-Mart farm in North Carolina. In response to the article, the Collier County Health Department began an inquiry to determine the cause of the birth defects and asked for the Department's help in performing a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm, where the three women, identified as Francisca Herrera, Sostenes Salazar, and Maria de la Mesa (also called Maria de la Mesa Cruz), worked from February through July 2004. The Department's investigation commenced with a work request sent from Tallahassee to Environmental Specialist Neil Richmond in Immokalee on March 7, 2005.6 Mr. Richmond regularly conducts inspections at golf courses, farms, chemical dealers, and fertilizer plants throughout Collier County. The work request directed Mr. Richmond to obtain pesticide use records for Ag-Mart covering the period of February through July 2004 and employee records showing the names of the three employees and the dates they worked in 2004. The work request further directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm to document the pesticide products used in the field. Finally, the work request directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a full worker protection standard inspection to document the posting of fields, central posting information, and REIs at the South Florida farm. Mr. Richmond initially visited Ag-Mart's South Florida farm on March 28, 2005, accompanied by two persons from the Collier County Health Department. During the course of the inspection, Ag-Mart's farm manager, Doug Perkins, produced spray tickets for both the South Florida and North Florida farms for the period February through July 2004. Mr. Perkins also produced a spreadsheet identifying the dates worked and the farm locations for each of the three women named in the newspaper article. This spreadsheet was prepared at the direction of Ag- Mart's human resources manager, Angelia Cassell, and was derived from the three workers' timesheets for 2004. On March 30, 2005, Mr. Richmond filed a written report with the documents he received from Ag-Mart. The Department's Bureau of Compliance Monitoring then assigned the matter to Case Reviewer Jessica Fernandez in Tallahassee. Ms. Fernandez was given the task of reviewing all the information gathered by the Department's inspectors to determine whether Ag-Mart had violated the Florida Pesticide Law or any of the Department's implementing rules. On April 12, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent a request for additional information to Mr. Richmond, which stated in relevant part: According to the work log included in this file, Ms. Fransisca [sic] Herrera, Ms. Maria de la Mesa Cruz and Ms. Sostenes Salazar worked at the Ag-Mart farm located in Immokalee between January 2004 and October 2004. Please obtain as much information as possible regarding the specific Planting, Field and Block numbers in which these workers worked during the period of February 2004 through June 2004. Mr. Richmond went to the South Florida farm on March 13, 2005, and communicated this request for additional information to Mr. Oelman, who responded that it would take several days to gather the requested information. Mr. Richmond returned to the farm on April 15, 2005. On that date, Mr. Oelman explained to Mr. Richmond the sequencing of harvesting and spray activities at the South Florida farm. Mr. Oelman told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's harvest records indicate, only, which planting the laborers were working in on a given day and that a planting includes more than one field. Mr. Oelman also told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's spray records are kept according to field and block numbers and that his practice was to spray behind the picking. On April 22, 2005, Ms. Cassell faxed to Mr. Richmond a spreadsheet entitled "Field Locations for SFL 2/04 thru 6/04." All involved understood that "SFL" referred to the South Florida farm.7 With the assistance of subordinates in her office, Ms. Cassell produced this document to show, in her words, "the total of what field locations the [three] women might have worked in." Ms. Cassell started with time cards, which indicated the dates and hours the three women worked. Then she obtained foreman receiving reports, which she understood to tell her which plantings were harvested on which dates. Finally, she obtained, from the farm, a handwritten document showing which fields were included in each planting. From this information, Ms. Cassell was able to fashion a spreadsheet indicating the range of fields each woman could have worked in from February through June 2004. Mr. Richmond testified that he read the spreadsheet's title and understood the document to show where the women actually worked each day. The document appeared self- explanatory. No one from Ag-Mart told Mr. Richmond that the spreadsheet showed only where the women could have worked, or "possible" locations. Mr. Richmond passed the spreadsheet on to Ms. Fernandez, with a report stating that it showed "the field locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa where they worked on respective dates." Ms. Fernandez also operated on the assumption that the spreadsheet showed what its title indicated, the actual field locations of the three women on any given day from February through June 2004. Ms. Cassell testified that she put the title on the spreadsheet without much thought, simply as an identifier for the file on her computer's hard drive. Ms. Cassell understood that she was creating a spreadsheet of all the fields the women could possibly have worked in on a given day. She could be no more precise, because Ag-Mart did not keep records that would show the specific fields where an individual worked on a given day. The president of Ag-Mart, Mr. Long, confirmed that Ag- Mart does not keep records on which fields a worker is in on a given day. At the time the Department made its request, Mr. Long told Ms. Cassell that there was no way Ag-Mart could provide such precise worker location data. The closest they could come would be to correlate harvest or receiving data, which showed what plantings a crew had harvested from, with the workers' time cards. Ag-Mart knew whose crew each woman had worked in; so the spreadsheet listed all the fields in the planting worked by the crew, as a way of showing which fields the women might have worked in. On May 4, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent Compliance Monitoring Bureau Chief Dale Dubberly a request for additional information, which Mr. Dubberly forwarded to Mr. Richmond the next day. Ms. Fernandez first requested the time work started and ended for each worker in each field on every date listed in the spreadsheet provided on April 22, 2005. Ms. Fernandez next asked for the field location for each worker from July 2004 to November 2004. She asked for the block numbers corresponding to each of the fields in North Florida, South Florida, and North Carolina during the 2004 season and a map showing the distribution of blocks, fields and plantings for those farms during the 2004 season. She asked for spray records for South Florida for October and November 2004. Finally, Ms. Fernandez requested a more legible copy of the spreadsheet, which she stated "shows each worker's field location." Upon receiving this request through Mr. Richmond, Ms. Cassell, her staff, and Ag-Mart farm compliance manager, Amanda Collins created a new spreadsheet, which Ms. Cassell titled "Field Locations for 3 Employees for 2004." This spreadsheet was identical in format to the earlier document, but was expanded to include the dates the three women worked for all of 2004. For each worker, the spreadsheet provided a cell for each day worked, and within that cell a list of field numbers. Again, the Department took these field numbers to represent fields in which the women actually worked, when Ag-Mart actually intended them to represent fields in which the women possibly worked. Some of the cells listed as many as 23 field numbers for one day. The method of developing this spreadsheet was similar to that employed for the first one. The weekly time cards of the three women were used to provide the days they worked. Ag-Mart's weekly time cards show the name of the employee, the rounded hours worked each week, the number of piece units worked, the hours worked for minimum wage, and the initials of the crew leader for whom the employee worked that week. For their South Florida farm work in 2004, Ms. Herrera and Ms. Salazar worked exclusively for crew leader Sergio Salinas. Ms. de la Mesa worked at South Florida for crew leader Juan Anzualda and at North Florida for crew leader Pascual Sierra.8 To identify the fields where the three women might have worked on a given day, Ms. Cassell and her staff again used foreman receiving reports and planting schedules. The receiving reports were understood to provide the dates of shipping for harvested product, and these were correlated to the dates on which the three women worked. Again, Ms. Cassell listed every field within a planting as a possible work location, because Ag-Mart kept no data that identified the fields in which the women actually worked on a given date. On May 6, 2005, Mr. Richmond met with Ms. Cassell and Ms. Collins at Ag-Mart's Plant City administrative offices. The meeting lasted no more than 15 minutes and consisted of Ag-Mart employees turning over various documents to Mr. Richmond, along with some explanatory conversation. Ms. Cassell specifically recalled explaining to Mr. Richmond that the field location spreadsheet indicated the "total possible fields that the three employees could have worked in." Mr. Richmond denied that Ms. Cassell gave him any such explanation. Ms. Collins recalled that Mr. Richmond and Ms. Cassell had some discussion about the spreadsheet, but could recall no particulars.9 Mr. Richmond forwarded the documents received at the May 6, 2005, meeting to Ms. Fernandez in Tallahassee. His written summary, also dated May 6, 2005, represents Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous understanding of the meaning of the documents he was given at the Plant City meeting. The summary stated, in relevant part: Ms. Collins provided the times which the three ladies worked at the various locations which came from the three ladies time cards (See Exhibits V-1 through V-3, copies of time worked information). Ms. Collins stated that this has the start and finished [sic] times, but does not have which fields they worked at a particular time as they may pick in several fields throughout the day. Ms. Collins provided another copy of the field locations for each of the three ladies (See Exhibits W-1 and W-2, copies of field locations of workers). Ms. Collins also provided maps with field locations depicting blocks and plantings (See Exhibits X-1 through X-13, maps depicting field locations with blocks and plantings). The field no. is the main number in each block, the first two numbers are the numbers of the planting, while the remaining number in the set is the block number. . . . At the hearing, Mr. Richmond testified that he "absolutely" would have communicated to Ms. Fernandez any conversation he had with, either, Ms. Cassell or Ms. Collins indicating that the field location spreadsheet was anything other than a document showing where the women worked on a given day. This testimony is credible and, coupled with Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous written statement, leads to the finding that Mr. Richmond's testimony regarding the May 6, 2005, meeting in Plant City should be credited. On May 12, 2005, Ms. Cassell sent Mr. Dubberly an e- mail with an attachment correcting some aspects of the spreadsheet. Ms. Cassell's e-mail message stated: I have attached the the [sic] revision to the original sheet given on the 3 woman's [sic] field locations. I included which field location for NC. There was one revision I made for Francisca on week ending 4/24/05 [Ms. Cassell clearly means 2004]. She was in NC that week and on the last two days of that week I had SFL field numbers and it should of [sic] been NC [sic] please discard old report and replace with revised one. The Department cites this e-mail as further indication that Ag-Mart represented the spreadsheet as indicating actual field locations for the three women, or at least that Ag-Mart said nothing to clarify that the spreadsheet showed something other than the fields where the women actually worked. Ms. Fernandez, the case reviewer whose analysis led to the filing of the Administrative Complaints against Ag-Mart, believed that the field location spreadsheets prepared by Ms. Cassell and her staff reflected the actual work locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa. As a case reviewer, Ms. Fernandez receives files compiled by the field staff and reviews the files to determine whether a violation of the Florida Pesticide Law has occurred. The procedure of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring appears designed to ensure that the case reviewers have no contact with the subjects of their investigation and, instead, rely on field inspectors to act as conduits in obtaining information from companies such as Ag-Mart. As a result, Ms. Fernandez had no direct contact with anyone from Ag-Mart and, thus, had no direct opportunity to be disabused of her assumptions regarding the field location spreadsheet. Ms. Fernandez conceded that she had never been on a tomato farm at the time she conducted her review of the Ag-Mart case. She did not take into consideration the acreage of the fields or the size of the work crews and their manner of operation. She made no attempt to visualize the effort it would take for one worker to harvest in ten or 20 fields in one day. She assumed that each woman worked in at least part of each field listed on the spreadsheet for each day listed. Ms. Fernandez believed that the spreadsheet was clear on its face and saw no need to make further inquiries as to the plausibility of the assumption that it reflected actual, not possible, field locations. As found above, Ag-Mart made no statement to any Department employee to qualify that the spreadsheet meant only possible field locations. Nonetheless, common sense should have caused someone in the Department to question whether this spreadsheet really conveyed the information that its title appeared to promise. On some days, the spreadsheet places a single field worker in 23 fields. Ag-Mart's crew leaders credibly testified that their crews never worked in more than four fields in one day and more often worked in only one or two. Even granting Ms. Fernandez' ignorance, Mr. Dubberly or some other superior in the Department should have had enough knowledge of farm operations to question the plausibility of Ms. Fernandez' assumptions. While Ag-Mart is at fault for not explaining itself clearly, the Department is also at fault for insisting that the spreadsheet be taken at face value, no matter how implausible the result.10 At the hearing, Ms. Fernandez explained how she used the documents provided by Ag-Mart to draft the Administrative Complaints. As an example, Counts I and II of the North Florida Complaint provide: Count I On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre- harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count II The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 7-8 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on June 6, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. Ms. Fernandez obtained the information regarding the date, time, and manner of pesticide application from the spray tickets described above. She obtained the Monitor and Danitol PHI information from the product label. She obtained the harvest information from the spreadsheet, which indicated that Ms. de la Mesa worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Counts I and II alleging violations of the PHIs for Monitor and Danitol had an accompanying Count XIX, alleging a violation of the REI for Monitor arising from the same set of facts: Count XIX The Monitor 4 Spray and the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray labels contain the following language: "AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE) and restricted entry interval. The requirements in this box only apply to users of this product that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard." On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The application started at 11:30 am and ended at 5:30 pm on June 6, 2004. The Monitor 4 Spray label states: "Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry interval (REI) of 48 hours." Work records show that Ms. de la Mesa, directed by licensed applicators Mr. Charles Lambert (PV38793)11 and Mr. Warrick Birdwell (PV36679), worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004, and that her working hours for June 7, 2004, were 8:00 am to 6:30 pm. Therefore, Ms. de la Mesa and other workers were instructed, directed, permitted or not prevented by the agricultural employer, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. from entering treated fields before the expiration of the REI stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Throughout the hearing, Ag-Mart contended (and the Department did not dispute) that no statute or rule requires Ag-Mart to keep a daily log of the fields where its employees work. The Department also conceded that Ag-Mart was cooperative throughout its investigation.12 Ag-Mart contends that all counts should be dismissed because of the Department's reliance on the field location spreadsheet, which shows only the possible field locations of the workers. This contention goes to far. For example, the counts set forth above are well taken, because the spray tickets indicate that fields 7 and 8 were sprayed on June 6, 2004, and the field location spreadsheet indicates that Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Ag-Mart further attacked the spreadsheet by suggesting the unreliability of the dates on the foreman receiving reports. As found above, the receiving reports generally showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse, as well as the crew leader who provided the tomatoes and the planting from which the tomatoes were harvested. At the hearing, Ag-Mart contended that the date the product was shipped was not always the same date it was harvested. Further, Ag-Mart demonstrated that one of the receiving reports relevant to this proceeding showed the date the product was received at the packing house, rather than the date the product was shipped from the farm, due to a clerical error. Ag-Mart argued that this example showed that the receiving reports were not a reliable source for determining the precise dates of harvest in a given field on the North Florida farm. Ag-Mart's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the unreliability of the receiving reports, where Ag-Mart itself relied on the reports to provide the Department with the spreadsheet showing possible field locations of the three workers. Ag-Mart had ample opportunity to make a thorough demonstration of the reports' alleged unreliability and failed to do so. Ag-Mart also attempted to cast doubt on the accuracy of the spray tickets through the testimony of Mr. Oelman and Mr. Birdwell, both of whom stated that the spray tickets are written well in advance of the pesticide applications and are not invariably rewritten or corrected when the spraying schedule is pushed back due to rain or slow harvest. However, the pesticide applicator is required by law to maintain accurate records relating to the application of all restricted-use pesticides, including the date, start time and end time of the treatment, and the location of the treatment site. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(1). The Department is entitled to inspect these records. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(6). Ag-Mart may not attack records that its own employee/applicators were legally required to keep in an accurate fashion. The Department is entitled to rely on the spray tickets as accurate indicators of when and where pesticide applications occurred. Thus, the undersigned has accepted the accuracy of the spray records and the receiving reports, but not of the field location spreadsheet. However, there are some dates on which the fields shown on the spreadsheet perfectly match the fields shown on the spray tickets, as in Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint set forth above. It is found that the Department has proven these counts by clear and convincing evidence. In addition to Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint, the Department has proven the following counts of the North Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence: Counts XI, XII, and XXII (spraying in fields 7 and 8 on June 17, 2004; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 19, 2004); and Count XIII (spraying Agrimek 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide, with PHI of seven days, in fields 7 and 8 on June 3, 2005; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004). The Department has proven none of the counts in the South Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Some explanation must be made for the finding that Counts XXXI and XXXII were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Those counts allege as follows: Count XXXI On April 17, 2004, Mr. Lorenzo Reyes, Mr. Demetrio Acevedo and Mr. Francisco Vega treated approximately 212.5 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 11, 6 and 4, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6 and 4 on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count XXXII The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 11, 6 and 4 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on April 17, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. These counts base their allegation that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6, and 4 on April 21, 2004, on the field location spreadsheet, which indicates that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in fields 4, 6, 9, 10, and/or 11 on April 21, 2004. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the three sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were also applied to fields 9 and 10 on April 15, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on April 21, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. However, the Department did not amend the South Florida Complaint to allege the fact of the second spray ticket, and, so, must be held to the allegations actually made in the complaint. Ag-Mart may not be found guilty of facts or violations not specifically alleged in the South Florida Complaint. See Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (facts not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). See also B.D.M. Financial Corporation v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 698 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (violations not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). In similar fashion, Counts XLI and XLII of the South Florida Complaint allege that fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 were sprayed with Monitor and Danitol on May 15, 2004, and allege PHI violations in fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 on May 20, 2004, based on the field location spreadsheet's indication that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in one or more of fields 18 through 25 on that date. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the four sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were, also, applied to fields 20, 23, 24, and 25 on May 14, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on May 20, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. Again, however, the Department failed to amend the South Florida Complaint to reflect its subsequently developed evidence. Subsection 487.175(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that the Department may enter an order imposing an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. The statute further provides as follows: When imposing any fine under this paragraph, the department shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying the damage, the amount of money the violator benefited from by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and the compliance record of the violator. Mr. Dubberly testified that the Department does not have a rule for determining the amount of fines, but uses a matrix, attaching a rating of 0 to 5 for each of the criteria named in the quoted portion of the statute, with 5 representing the most egregious violation. The extent of harm caused by the violation is divided into two classifications: (A) the degree and extent of harm related to human and environmental hazards and (B) the degree and extent of harm related to the toxicity of the pesticide(s). The remaining criteria considered in the matrix are: (C) the estimated cost of rectifying the damage, (D) the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and (F) the compliance record of the violator. Each factor is given its numerical value. The values for factors (B) through (F) are added, then the total is multiplied by the value for factor (A). The resulting number is then multiplied by $100.00 to determine the amount of the fine. The PHI violations were primarily food safety violations, the concern being that there might be an unacceptable pesticide residue on the tomatoes if they were harvested within the PHI. The REI violations were based on concerns for worker safety from pesticide exposure. In determining the fines for PHI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 2 for factor (A). In determining the fines for REI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 3 for factor (A), based on a reasonable probability of human or animal death or injury, or a reasonable probability of serious environmental harm. For purposes of this proceeding, all the pesticides used by Ag-Mart were restricted-use pesticides. In considering the value to be assigned to factor (B), the Department relied on the pesticide labels, which contain signal words for the category of potential hazard to human or animal life posed by that pesticide. Monitor contained the signal word "Danger," which represents the highest level of potential hazard. A value of 5 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving the use of Monitor. Danitol and Agrimek contained the signal word "Warning," which indicated a lesser potential hazard. A value of 3 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving Danitol or Agrimek. Because the estimated cost of rectifying the damage and the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance was unknown, the Department assigned a value of 0 to factors (C) and (D). As to factor (E), dealing with the willfulness of the violation, the Department assigns a value of 0 if there is no evidence of willfulness, a value of 1 if there is apparent evidence of willfulness, and a value of 5 if it determines the violation was intentional. Because of the large number of alleged PHI and REI violations, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (E), finding apparent evidence of willful intent for each alleged violation. As to factor (F), dealing with the violator's compliance history, the Department considers the three years immediately preceding the current violation. The Department assigns a value of 0 if there are no prior violations, a value of 1 for a prior dissimilar violation, a value of 2 for multiple prior dissimilar violations, a value of 3 for a prior similar violation, and a value of 4 for multiple prior similar violations. Because Ag-Mart had one prior dissimilar violation within the preceding three years, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (F) for each alleged violation. Because the sole basis for finding apparent evidence of willful intent was the number of alleged violations, the Department calculated its recommended fines in two ways: by assigning a value of 0 based on no evidence of willful intent and by assigning a value of 1 based on apparent evidence of willful intent. In DOAH Case No. 06-0730, the North Florida Complaint, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,200 (no evidence of willful intent) or $1,400 (apparent evidence of willful intent) for each of the PHI violations alleged in Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, and XI, which involved the use of Monitor. The Department recommended a fine of either $800 (no evidence) or $1,000 (apparent evidence) for Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, and XII, involving the use of Danitol, and for Counts XIV, XV, and XVI, involving the use of Agrimek. For each of the REI violations alleged in Counts XIX through XXII, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,800 (no evidence) or $2,100 (apparent evidence). The Department established by clear and convincing evidence seven of the 20 counts of the North Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing, and none of the 58 counts of the South Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing. The undersigned accepts the Department's calculation of the recommended fines for these violations and recommends that the Department apply the lower calculation for each of the violations. Thus, the recommended fines are as follows: Count I, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count II, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XI, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count XII, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XIII, PHI violation involving the use of Agrimek, $800; Count XIX, REI violation, $1,800; and Count XXII, REI violation, $1,800. Thus, the total recommended fine for the seven proven violations is $8,400. In conclusion, it is observed that these cases demonstrate a gap in the enforcement mechanism of the Florida Pesticide Law, at least as it is currently understood and practiced by the Department. The law requires licensed applicators to comply with the PHI and REI restrictions on the labels of the restricted-use pesticides they apply to these crops. The law requires the applicators to keep accurate records of when and where they apply pesticides and of the kind and quantity of pesticides applied in each instance. Yet all parties to this proceeding agreed that the law does not require either the applicators or the growers to keep accurate records of when and where farm workers enter the fields and conduct the harvest. This failure to complete the record- keeping circle makes it extremely difficult for the Department to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a PHI or REI violation has taken place. The PHI and REI restrictions appear virtually unenforceable through company records, except when some fluke of record keeping allows the Department to establish that a given worker could only have been in a recently sprayed field on a given day. It does little good to know when the pesticides were applied to a field if there is no way of knowing when workers first entered the field or harvested tomatoes after the spraying. Ag-Mart credibly demonstrated that its general practices are designed to minimize worker exposure and guarantee safe harvest, but the company keeps no records to demonstrate to its customers that it observes these practices in particular instances and is under no legal obligation to keep such records. This state of regulatory affairs should be as disturbing to Ag-Mart as to the Department, because purchasers of tomatoes in Florida's grocery stores do not require clear and convincing evidence in order to switch brands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order that provides as follows: That Ag-Mart committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, XI, XII, and XIII of the North Florida Complaint, for which violations Ag-Mart should be assessed an administrative fine totaling $8,400; That Ag-Mart pay to the Department $3,000 to resolve Counts L through LIV of the South Florida Complaint and Counts XVII and XVIII of the North Florida Complaint; and That all other counts of the North Florida Complaint and the South Florida Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be assessed a civil penalty for acting as a farm labor contractor without a certificate of registration?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence addressed at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On or about February 26, 1987 the Respondent was charged with failure to register as a farm labor contractor as that term is defined in Section 450.28(1), Florida Statutes. As a result of this charge, Respondent registered as a farm labor contractor on March 2, 1987 and was issued a certificate of registration on March 6, 1987 which expired on October 3, 1987, the day after Respondent's birthdate, for failure to make application for renewal in accordance with Section 450.31, Florida Statutes. On November 30, 1989, during a routine check of farm labor contractors in DeSoto County, Florida, the Respondent was found to be transporting ten farm laborers who he had hired to pick at 18 per box. Respondent was being paid a fee of 75 per box to have the fruit picked. Respondent was responsible for, and supervised, the ten farm laborers referred to in paragraph 2. In addition to being paid for harvesting the fruit, Respondent received $75.00 per trailer to drive the van and load fruit on the trailer and other duties. Another farm labor contractor, Chris Marroquin, owns the van in which Respondent was transporting the farm laborers and was the individual who paid Respondent for picking the fruit, driving the van and loading the trailer. Although Respondent was acting as a farm labor contractor as that term is defined in Section 450.28(1), Florida Statutes, on November 30, 1989, he did possess a certificate of registration as required under Section 450.30, Florida Statutes. The Respondent was charged with: (a) failure to register in violation of Section 450.30, Florida Statutes; (2) failure to put registration in violation of Section 450.33(4), Florida Statutes and; (3) transporting farm laborers without authorization in violation of Rule 38H-11.006(5), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent applied for a certificate of registration on December 1, 1989 and was issued same on December 5, 1989.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness and the factors set forth in Rule 38H-11.012(2)(a-q), Florida Administrative Code, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter a Final Order assessing civil penalty against the Respondent, Leopoldo Cantu, Jr. in the account of $500.00. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 20th day of September, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Berkeley Building, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152 Stephen Barron, General Counsel 2012 Capitol Circle, S.E. Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Leopoldo Cantu, Jr. Route 6, Box 495L Edinburg, TX 78539 Moses Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle Suite 117 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Ruth Ann Weaver Bureau of Agricultural Progrms Post Office Box 1698 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1698
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated Sections 450.33(5), (6), (9), and (10) and 450.35, Florida Statutes (1997), by failing to make, keep, or preserve payroll records; failing to maintain the required inspection of a vehicle used to transport workers; failing to maintain insurance on such a vehicle; utilizing an unregistered crew leader; allowing an unlicensed driver to transport workers; driving without authorization; transporting workers without authorization; and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating farm labor in the state. Respondent is a registered farm labor contractor and crew leader pursuant to certificate of registration CO4-957228I98R. Respondent’s certificate of registration was effective through September 30, 1999. On December 10 and 11, 1998, Respondent and his crew were harvesting fruit in Polk County, Florida. Compliance Officer Teresa McCutchen approached the crew and asked for the crew leader. Respondent identified himself as the crew leader and produced his certificate of registration. The registration did not authorize Respondent to drive or transport farm workers. Respondent transported his crew to the field on December 10, 1998, through Respondent’s employee, Mr. Roberto Gomez-Gonzalez. Mr. Gomez-Gonzalez is an unlicensed driver and acted as a farm labor contractor, within the meaning of Section 450.28(1)(a), without being registered as a farm labor contractor. At Respondent’s direction, Mr. Gomez-Gonzalez drove Respondent’s crew to the field on December 10, 1998, in a blue 1984 Chevrolet van. The license plate on the van was issued to Respondent for a 1994 Pontiac two-door sedan. The 1984 Chevrolet lacked insurance coverage for the transportation of farm workers and had not received the required safety inspections. Respondent did not maintain required payroll records for his crew. On December 11, 1998, Officer McCutchen returned to the field with Compliance Officer Joe Machado to interview the Spanish-speaking crewmembers. That morning, Respondent had driven the crewmembers to the field in the 1984 blue Chevrolet van. Respondent has a prior history of similar violations. On January 7, 1997, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with Petitioner. Petitioner had assessed a civil penalty of $1,250 against Respondent for failure to maintain insurance on a vehicle used to transport workers, failure to maintain safety inspections, and the unauthorized transportation of workers. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Respondent paid a civil penalty of $1,000. Section 450.35 authorizes Petitioner to impose a civil penalty up to $7,000 for the seven violations in the Administrative Complaint. The $5,750 civil penalty is reasonable based on the facts in this case and Respondent’s prior disciplinary history involving similar violations. Failure to impose a civil penalty would result in an economic inducement for Respondent to violate state requirements to maintain vehicle insurance, safety inspections, and payroll records. Respondent could reduce the cost of goods sold by evading the cost of insurance premiums, vehicle maintenance required to comply with safety inspections, and accounting fees for record keeping. A civil penalty operates to negate the economic benefit to Respondent from violating applicable law and also tends to reduce the competitive advantage Respondent’s violations give him over other businesses which comply with state law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a civil penalty of $5,750. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 7th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Francisco R. Rivera, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Porfirio Loredo Post Office Box 5503 Eloise, Florida 33880
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a registered farm labor contractor whose Social Security number is 266-30-9569. Respondent worked as a farm labor contractor only during the potato season which usually begins in March or April. Therefore, Respondent did not apply for certification as a farm labor contractor until March 31, 1986 even though his previous certification as a farm labor contractor had expired on December 31, 1985. There was credible evidence that Respondent had been using a 1968 Chevrolet vehicle to transport farm workers which carried a valid inspection sticker and was covered by Respondent's liability insurance. The 1968 Chevrolet "broke down" and was replaced by a 1974 Dodge Van on May 6, 1986 which had passed inspection on May 6, 1986 and added to Respondent's liability insurance policy on the same date. There was credible evidence that a valid inspection certificate and insurance certificate for the 1974 Dodge Van had been furnished to Petitioner's local office in Palatka on May 1986 but was not received in Petitioner's Tallahassee Office where the official files are maintained until a later date. On May 6, 1986, Respondent was cited for failure to have the 1974 Dodge Van properly insured and inspected. There were other violations cited but the Petitioner resolved those in favor of Respondent. There was credible evidence that Respondent had operated as a farm labor contractor for a substantial number of years without being cited for any violations under the Farm Labor Registration Law, Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a farm labor contractor as that term is defined in Section 450.2(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, enter a Final Order dismissing all charges filed against the Respondent. Respectfully submitted and entered this 9th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 9th day of July, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Security Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Willis Glover 21 North Main Street Crescent City, Florida 32012 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issue is whether the application filed by Mr. Johnson for a certificate of registration as a Florida Farm Labor Contractor should be issued by the Department.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Johnson had been the subject of a prior administrative complaint by the Department of Labor and Employment Security Case No. 88-3795. In that proceeding he was represented by Mr. Thomas Montgomery, Esquire, of Belle Glade, Florida. That proceeding involved an earlier application by Mr. Johnson for a certificate of registration as a Florida Farm Labor Contractor, which the Department denied because Mr. Johnson was liable for unpaid unemployment compensation taxes in the amount of $1,400, and under Rule 38B-4.06(5), Florida Administrative Code, he was ineligible for registration until those unemployment compensation taxes had been paid. The parties had reached a stipulated settlement in that action, under which Mr. Johnson agreed to pay $100.00 per month until the balance due had been paid in full. That stipulation had been signed by Mr. Montgomery, the lawyer for Mr. Johnson. The stipulation was filed on November 18, 1988, with the Division of Administrative Hearings, and consequently an Order Closing File was entered in Case No. 88-3795. Mr. Johnson failed to make payments in accordance with the stipulation agreement. Given the accrued interest and penalties, Mr. Johnson is currently indebted to the State of Florida for unpaid employment compensation taxes, interest, penalties and filing fees in the amount of $2,213.94. Mr. Johnson's failure to make payment as required under the stipulation which he entered into in settlement of Case No. 88-3795, his prior application for a certificate of registration as a Farm Labor Contractor, causes the Hearing Officer to disbelieve that Mr. Johnson was mistaken as to the location of the hearing. The Notice of Hearing was clear. Mr. Johnson has also failed to answer requests for admissions and interrogatories served upon him in this proceeding. Mr. Johnson is continuing to engage in a pattern of conduct designed to evade his responsibility to pay unemployment compensation taxes which he owes. His application for a certificate of registration filed June 4, 1990, should be denied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the application of James Johnson for a certificate of registration as a Florida Farm Labor Contractor. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 30th day of November, 1990. Copies furnished: Francisco Rivera, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 James Johnson 391 Shirley Drive Pahokee, Florida 33034 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Berkeley Building, Suite 200 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Stephen Barron, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: On January 9, 1986, Ron Brooks, Crew Chief Compliance Officer for the Bureau of Agricultural Programs performed a compliance check in a citrus grove on Lindsey Road, Indian River County, owned by Hamilton Groves of Vero Beach, Florida. Brooks observed Hector Florez and Juan Florez apparently supervising two crews harvesting crops across the road from one another. When Brooks confronted the two men, neither Hector nor Juan Florez could produce a certificate of registration and there were no "Work Conditions Statement" postings at either worksite. Both Hector and Juan Florez stated that the Respondent, Noe Florez, was the contractor and that they worked for him. They stated that Respondent was running another crew at a different location. Later that day, Brooks' investigation revealed that Richard Kirkland was the primary contractor. When Brooks spoke with Kirkland, Kirkland stated that the workers were split up into three crews and that Respondent worked for him and was in charge of all three crews. On January 9, 1986, the Respondent was not registered as a farm labor contractor with the Department of Labor and Employment Security. Brooks subsequently issued violation citations to Richard Kirkland for working an unregistered crewleader and to Respondent, for failure to register as a farm labor contractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a civil penalty of $1,000 be assessed against Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of April, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4344M The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner (None submitted) Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as unnecessary and/or subordinate. Addressed in Procedural Backgrounds Section. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire. Department of Labor and Employment Security The Montgomery Bldg., Suite 117 2562 Executive Center, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 Noe B. Florez 6990 45th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 Hugo Menendez Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Bldg. 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
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
