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 The issue presented is whether the $5.00 per gallon tax on perchloroethylene provided for in Section 376.75, Florida Statutes, is subject to Florida sales and use tax pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. STIPULATED FACTS Petitioner is a for-profit Florida corporation that sells perchloroethylene and other dry-cleaning supplies to the dry-cleaning industry. It is a "wholesale supply facility" as that term is defined in Section 376.301(17), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a member of the Florida Drycleaners' Coalition, a state-wide trade association whose members consist of the owners/operators of dry-cleaning facilities and wholesale supply facilities. In 1993 and prior to and during the 1994 Florida legislative session, the Florida Drycleaners' Coalition employed lawyers-lobbyists to suggest and seek passage of amendments to Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, commonly known as the Florida Dry-Cleaning Solvents Cleanup Program. In 1994, the Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 94- 355, Laws of Florida, which amended Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. Chapter 94-355 created Section 376.3078(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that: All penalties, judgments, recoveries, reimbursements, loans, and other fees and charges related to the implementation of this section and the tax revenues levied, collected, and credited pursuant to ss. 376.70 and 376.75, and registration fees collected pursuant to s. 376.303(1)(d), shall be deposited into the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund, to be used upon appropriation as provided in this section. Charges against the funds for dry-cleaning facility or wholesale supply site rehabilitation shall be made in accordance with the provisions of this section. Chapter 94-355, Laws of Florida, also created Section 376.75, Florida Statutes, which provides, in part, as follows: Beginning October 1, 1994, a tax is levied on the privilege of producing in, importing into, or causing to be imported into the state perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene). A tax of $5.00 per gallon is levied on each gallon of perchloroethylene when first imported into or produced in the state. The tax is imposed when transfer of title or possession, or both, of the product occurs in this state or when the product commingles with the general mass of this state. Petitioner's corporate secretary and 50 percent shareholder is David J. Pilger. He contributed financially to the employment by the Florida Drycleaners' Coalition of lawyers- lobbyists charged with seeking passage of amendments to Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and met several times with those lawyers- lobbyists in Tallahassee. He was assured during those meetings that it was the opinion of those lawyers-lobbyists that there was no danger of Florida sales tax being applied to the $5.00 per gallon tax on perchloroethylene. The Department conducted an audit of Petitioner for the period of January 1, 1993, through January 31, 1998. At no time prior to the Department's audit of Petitioner's financial records did Petitioner receive from the Department materials of any kind indicating that Florida sales and use tax would apply to the $5.00 per gallon tax on perchloroethylene. The Department had, however, adopted emergency Rule 12BER94-2, effective October 1, 1994, and Rule 12B-12.003(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, effective February 19, 1995. The 1998 Florida Legislature amended Section 376.75, Florida Statutes, by enacting Chapter 98-189, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1998, which added a sentence regarding the $5.00 per gallon tax, as follows: "This tax is not subject to sales and use tax pursuant to ch. 212." The Department has assessed and/or collected from certain taxpayers Florida sales and use tax on the sales price of perchloroethylene and the $5.00 per gallon tax on perchloroethylene. The sales and use taxes are deposited into the general revenue fund pursuant to Section 212.20(1), Florida Statutes. The $5.00 per gallon tax on perchloroethylene is deposited into the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund, pursuant to Section 376.3078(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment to Petitioner on October 22, 1998, assessing sales and use tax of $39,098.66, penalties of $19,549.64, and interest of $11,184.10 through October 22, 1998, with interest of $12.85 to accrue per day. The Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment to Petitioner on October 22, 1998, assessing indigent care surtax of $2,128.98, penalties of $1,064.48, and interest of $611.97 through October 22, 1998, and interest of $.70 to accrue per day. Petitioner charged its customers and remitted to the Department the $5.00 per gallon tax on perchloroethylene provided for in Section 376.75, Florida Statutes, but neither collected from the customer nor remitted to the Department sales and use tax on this $5.00 per gallon tax. The $5.00 per gallon tax collected by Petitioner from its customers was reflected at the bottom of Petitioner's invoices as "the ENVRN TAX." Petitioner charged its customers and remitted to the Department the excise tax provided for in Section 206.9935(2), Florida Statutes, but neither collected from its customers nor remitted to the Department sales and use taxes or indigent care surtax on this excise tax. This tax was reflected at the bottom of Petitioner's invoices as "PERC TAX." Petitioner does not contest the Department's assessment of sales and use taxes and indigent care surtax on the water quality tax provided for in Section 206.9935(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner does not dispute that its sales to its customers during the audit period were paid for by its customers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining the assessment against Petitioner, together with interest, but compromising the entire penalty amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 22nd day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Jarrell L. Murchison, Esquire John Mika, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Fred McCormack, Esquire Landers & Parsons, P.A. 310 West College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Joseph C. Mellichamp, III, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issues in this case are: whether Petitioners have standing to challenge the agency statements in the Division of Workers' Compensation Bulletin No. 234; whether the agency statements in Bulletin No. 234 constitute a "rule" as defined by Subsection 120.52 (15), Florida Statutes; and, if yes, whether the Department violated Subsection 120.54(1), Florida Statutes, by not adopting the statements in accordance with the rulemaking procedures.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the 2002 legislative session, pursuant to Sections 440.02 and 440.05, Florida Statutes (2001), certain persons in the construction industry could elect to be exempt from the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2001). Pursuant to Section 440.05(3), Florida Statutes (2001), upon receipt of proper notice and documentation, the Department issued certificates of exemptions to persons seeking the Workers' Compensation exemption, unless the Department determined that the information contained in the notice was invalid. Between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2002, approximately 130,000 construction-related exemptions were active. Pursuant to Subsection 440.05(6), Florida Statutes (2001), a construction industry certificate of election to be exempt is valid for a period of two years after the effective date on the certificate, unless the certificate was properly revoked. Prior to July 1, 2002, the certificates of exemption were issued pursuant to Subsection 440.05(3), Florida Statutes (2001). These certificates of exemptions were applicable without regard to the value or cost of any particular building project on which the exemption holder may be working. During the 2002 legislative session, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 5, Chapter 2002-236, Laws of Florida. Portions of this law amended Section 440.02(14), Florida Statutes. These amendments ("2002 Amendments") state, in relevant part, the following: (14)(b) "Employee" includes any person who is an officer of a corporation and who performs services for remuneration for such corporation within this state, whether or not such services are continuous. Any officer of a corporation may elect to be exempted from this chapter by filing written notice of the election with the division as provided in Section 440.05. As to officers of a corporation who are actively engaged in the construction industry, no more than three officers may elect to be exempt from this chapter by filing written notice of the election with the division as provided in s. 440.05. However, any exemption obtained by a corporate officer of a corporation actively engaged in the construction industry is not applicable with respect to any commercial building project estimated to be valued at $250,000 or greater. An officer of a corporation who elects to be exempt from this chapter by filing a written notice of the election with the division as provided in s. 440.05 is not an employee. Services are presumed to have been rendered to the corporation if the officer is compensated by other than dividends upon shares of stock of the corporation which the officer owns. 1. "Employee" includes a sole proprietor or a partner who devotes full time to proprietorship or partnership and, except as provided in this paragraph, elects to be included in the definition of employee by filing notice thereof as provided in s. 440.05. Partners or sole proprietors actively engaged in the construction industry are considered employees unless they elect to be excluded from the definition of employee by filing written notice of the election with the division as provided in s. 440.05. However, no more than three partners in a partnership that is actively engaged in the construction industry may elect to be excluded. A sole proprietor or partner who is actively engaged in the construction industry and who elects to be exempt from this chapter by filing a written notice of the election with the division as provided in s. 440.05 is not an employee. For purposes of this chapter, an independent contractor is an employee unless he or she meets all of the conditions set forth in subparagraph (d)1. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph 1., the term "employee" includes a sole proprietor or partner actively engaged in the construction industry with respect to any commercial building project estimated to be valued at $250,000 or greater. Any exemption obtained is not applicable, with respect to work performed at such a commercial building project. "Employee" does not include: 1. An independent contractor, if: * * * Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph or any other provision of this chapter, with respect to any commercial building project estimated to be valued at $250,000 or greater, a person who is actively engaged in the construction industry is not an independent contractor and is either an employer or an employee who may not be exempt from the coverage requirements of this chapter. * * * (Amendments are underlined.) The above-quoted 2002 amendments became effective on July 1, 2002. After the legislature enacted Chapter 2002-236, Laws of Florida, but prior to its effective date, the Department issued Bulletin No. 234 ("Bulletin No. 234" or "Bulletin"), which states in relevant part the following: TO: All Exemption Holders FROM: Annemarie Craft, Interim WC Administrator DATE: June 20, 2002 SUBJECT: Law Changes Regarding Exemptions On July 31, 2002, important changes in the workers' compensation law regarding exemptions take effect. This Bulletin is intended to notify you of some of those changes. Exemption holders working on a commercial building project valued at $250,000 or greater must purchase workers' compensation coverage, or be covered under a valid Florida Workers Compensation policy. The changes apply to you if you are: A corporate officer of a corporation that is actively engaged in the construction industry; A sole proprietor or partner who is actively engaged in the construction industry; or A person who is actively engaged in the construction industry as an independent contractor. Beginning July 1, 2002, if you are a corporate officer of a corporation that is actively engaged in the construction industry, or a sole proprietor or partner who is actively engaged in the construction industry, then your exemption will not apply to any work performed at a commercial building project valued at $250,000 or greater. If you work at a commercial building project valued at $250,000 or greater, then you must secure workers' compensation coverage in accordance with s. 440.38. The value of the project is the value of the entire project and not merely the value of a part, such as the amount attributed to a particular subcontract. This applies to projects in existence on July 1, 2002, as well as projects to be started on or after July 1, 2002. * * * 5. If you are a sole proprietor, partner, or corporate officer, you are permitted to maintain a certificate of election to be exempt issued pursuant to s. 440.05, F.S., while actively working on a commercial building project valued at $250,000 or greater; however, that exemption is not applicable with respect to work performed at a commercial building project valued at $250,000 or greater. In summary, Bulletin No. 234 states unequivocally the Department's practice which limits the use of exemption certificates for workers' compensation insurance. According to the Bulletin, beginning July 2, 2002, "exemption holders working on a commercial building project valued at $250,000 or greater must purchase workers' compensation coverage, or be covered under a valid Florida Workers' Compensation policy." Next, the Bulletin states that, beginning July 1, 2002, "if you are a corporate officer of a corporation that is actively engaged in the construction industry, or a sole proprietor or partner engaged in the construction industry, then your exemption will not apply to any work performed at a commercial building project valued at $250,00 or greater." Finally, the Bulletin provides that, "this applies to projects in existence on July 2002, as well as projects to be started on or after July 1, 2002." The Department contends that the Bulletin is only for informational and notification purposes and that it merely paraphrases the provisions of Section 5, Chapter 2002-236, Laws of Florida. Furthermore, the Department asserts that the Bulletin was never intended to create any obligations or requirements that the Department will enforce in any action that the Department engages in regarding the applicability of exemptions. Based on the Department's belief that Bulletin No. 234 was only for the purpose of notifying all exemption holders of changes in the law, the Department did not adopt the Bulletin in accordance with rulemaking procedures in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding the Department's argument in paragraph 11, as reflected within the four corners of the Bulletin, exemption holders actively engaged in the construction industry working on commercial building projects valued at $250,000 or greater after July 1, 2002, must be covered by workers' compensation insurance, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2002), regardless of when the exemption certificates were obtained. Contrary to the Department's view, the agency statements in Bulletin No. 234 adversely affect the rights of some exemption holders and require compliance with the provisions contained therein. Implicit in the terms of the Bulletin is that an exemption holder who fails to comply with its terms, will be subject to enforcement actions under Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. The extrinsic evidence presented by the Department, that it will not take such action in reliance of the Bulletin, is not controlling. The Florida Home Builders' Association ("FHBA") is a Florida corporation, comprised of approximately 15,000 members. Of those members, approximately 5,000 to 6,000 are builder members that are actively engaged in the construction of housing or other developments. Hundreds of the builder members are involved in commercial construction activities. The remaining members are associate members comprised of industries, trades, and services that do business with the builder members. Associate members who are construction subcontractors are engaged in commercial building activities. Most commercial construction projects that are new construction (as opposed to renovations) which FHBA members work on exceed $250,000 in value. FHBA members who are providing services at commercial building projects with a value over $250,000 have a reasonable expectation that they will continue to provide such services in the future. Over 2500 member companies of FHBA have active workers' compensation exemption certificates for at least one employee each, issued, prior to July 1, 2002, pursuant to Section 440.05, Florida Statutes (2001). These members are involved in commercial building projects estimated to be valued at $250,000 or greater and which started prior to July 1, 2002. Several dozen FHBA members affected by the limitations on the exemptions stated in Bulletin No. 234 have contacted the FHBA for advice. FBHA members who are contractors, whose exemptions are limited based on Bulletin No. 234, must attempt to secure workers' compensation insurance. Subcontractors to these members whose exemptions are limited must obtain insurance. To the extent the subcontractor has workers' compensation insurance obligations under existing contracts, either the subcontractor, the prime contractor or the owner of the project must absorb the cost of workers' compensation insurance premiums. The possibility also exists that the subcontractor may be forced off the job if he does not obtain the insurance and/or the cost of premiums cannot be accounted for. The FHBA lobbies the Florida Legislature and executive agencies on issues that effect the construction industry, including workers' compensation insurance. The Florida Associated General Contractors' Council ("A.G.C. Council") is a Florida corporation which has approximately 2,000 members. Of these members, approximately 800 are contractors and subcontractors actively engaged in the construction industry in Florida. The remaining members are involved in construction-related businesses. The approximately 800 A.G.C. Council members engaged in construction activities are all commercial builders. Most of the projects on which they work on are valued at over $250,000. Of the approximately 800 A.G.C. Council members engaged in construction, 48 have active exemption certificates for from one to three employees each. Approximately twenty to thirty A.G.C. Council members who worked on commercial projects valued at over $250,000 and who were under prime contracts before July 1, 2002, have contacted the A.G.C. Council's office in response to Bulletin No. 234. These subcontractors were concerned that they would have to obtain workers' compensation insurance at costs that were not anticipated when they signed their contracts. The general contractors who called the A.G.C. Council Office were concerned because they had subcontractors who were going to have to obtain insurance and the general contractors were being asked to cover the costs. In some cases, subcontractors were unable to obtain insurance and the general contractor had to remove them from the job, which created an increased cost to the contractor by having to find a replacement subcontractor. The A.G.C. Council represents its members before the Florida Legislature on a number of issues of interest to the construction industry, including codes, licensing, and workers' compensation insurance. Moreover, the A.G.C. Council represents its members in administrative and judicial proceedings. The Parrish Group is a Florida corporation which provides construction, design/build, development, and realty services to its clients. It has a number of subsidiary companies which also provide construction, development, and real estate services. The companies are all commonly owned and the finances are combined and reported on a single financial statement. The Parrish Group is involved commercial construction projects, most of which have a value of over $250,000, and it intends to continue developing such commercial projects. The Parrish Group uses subcontractors for all of its construction activities, including site construction, foundation, structure, build-out, and internal build-outs. The Parrish Group has relationships with 40 to 50 subcontractors and generally uses approximately 30 of these subcontractors on any given project. The Parrish Group does not have a valid exemption, but six of the Parrish Group's regular subcontractors, including Mark Madonia, d/b/a Chop's Acoustical Ceilings, hold active exemption certificates issued prior to July 1, 2002, pursuant to Subsection 440.05(3), Florida Statutes (2001). The Parrish Group's subcontractors who held active exemption certificates issued prior to July 1, 2002, if required to obtain workers' compensation insurance, would try to pass the cost of premiums to the primary contractor, a Parrish Group subsidiary, Parrish Builders. If the subcontractor is successful in passing the cost to the primary contractor, the primary contractor would try to pass the costs on to the owner, i.e., the Parrish Group. If the subcontractor were unable to obtain the workers' compensation insurance, the primary contractor would have the subcontractor removed from the job. Alternatively, the prime contractor could retain the subcontractor as an employee, in which case the primary contractor would have to bear the cost of the additional insurance under its policy. These increased costs would not have been accounted for in the prime contract, if that contract was in effect prior to July 1, 2002. Mark Madonia is one of Parrish Group's regular subcontractors. When faced with the prospect of having to obtain workers' compensation insurance, Mr. Madonia sought a change order from Parrish Builders. The Parrish Group, as owner, agreed to the change order and bore the additional costs. When the Parrish Group's subcontractors, who had certificates of exemption, made bids used in prime contracts that were effective before July 1, 2002, the cost of workers' compensation insurance was not included in the bid. Mark Madonia, d/b/a Chop's Acoustical Ceilings, is a sole proprietor who installs ceiling grade systems. Mr. Madonia provides these services as a subcontractor to the Parrish Group and other developers. Mr. Madonia works primarily on commercial building projects, most of which are valued at over $250,000. Mr. Madonia expects to continue to work on commercial building projects valued at over $250,000 in the future. Mr. Madonia is a member of FHBA and has a valid workers' compensation exemption certificate that was issued prior to July 1, 2002. Mr. Madonia has had an exemption since 1994 and his current certificate is in effect until May 25, 2003. Prior to July 1, 2002, Mr. Madonia had not obtained workers' compensation insurance because of his exemption. When Mr. Madonia received Bulletin No. 234 on or about July 12 through 14, 2002, he attempted to obtain workers' compensation insurance. Three companies denied him coverage because he did not have a sufficient number of employees. Mr. Madonia risked being removed from jobs had he not obtained the workers' compensation coverage required by the Bulletin. Mr. Madonia eventually contracted with an employee leasing company. In order to do so, he had to make his subcontractors his employees. The cost of the employee leasing service, including workers' compensation coverage is $27.00 per $100.00 of payroll. Mr. Madonia could have been responsible for these costs, although in this case, the Parrish Group agreed to absorb the extra costs. If a valid workers' compensation insurance exemption is limited and no longer applies to commercial construction projects with a value of $250,000 or more, the general contractor for such projects will require that the affected persons provide proof of coverage or they cannot lawfully be allowed on the job site. In the event a subcontractor with an exemption needs to obtain insurance, the subcontractor would have to obtain workers' compensation insurance. If the primary contract has already been signed by the owner and the general contractor, then the costs of the job have already been set. The subcontractor may absorb the costs or, alternatively, the subcontractor could attempt to pass the additional costs of insurance premiums to the general contractor. The general contractor could then try to pass the additional costs on to the owner. In any event, either the subcontractor, the general contractor, or the owner will have to absorb the unanticipated costs of workers' compensation insurance.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent should have a $1,000 civil penalty imposed for allegedly violating Section 450.30, Florida Statutes (1989) and Rule 38H-11.003, Florida Administrative Code (1989) by contracting for the employment of an unregistered farm labor contractor.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy arose on May 1, 1989, when Don R. Symonette, who is a compliance officer with petitioner, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor, Employment, and Training (Division), made an inspection of a farm owned by Ovid Barnett on State Road 846 some seven or eight miles east of Immokalee, Florida. The testimony as to what transpired during the course of the inspection is sharply in dispute. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, and that testimony is embodied in the findings below. As Symonette drove by the farm that day, he observed a crew of approximately eighteen workers picking bell peppers in a field. Thereafter, Symonette drove his vehicle onto the premises for the purpose of determining if pertinent statutes and Division rules were being followed. He initially observed one Abel Flores (Abel) standing by a pickup truck in the same field where the laborers were harvesting the peppers. Abel is the brother of respondent, Alfredo Flores (Alfredo). Symonette and Abel were acquainted from several meetings over the prior years. Symonette asked Abel what he was doing, and Abel answered that he was helping his brother, Alfredo, who is a registered farm labor contractor. Abel also volunteered that he was being paid by Alfredo and received approximately $40 per day in compensation. Abel further acknowledged, and the Division records show, that he is not certified as a farm labor contractor. At that point, Symonette decided to give Abel the benefit of the doubt and to interview respondent, who was supervising a crew in an adjacent field. During the course of the interview, Alfredo advised Symonette that he (Alfredo) was the supervisor in charge of the crew and it was he who had contracted with the farm to supply the workers. Even so, Symonette concluded that because Abel was the only person standing in the other field, he was "supervising" the other crew and was doing so without a certificate of registration. Accordingly, Symonette cited Alfredo for using an unregistered contractor. On April 27, 1990, or almost a year later, the Division issued an administrative complaint charging Alfredo with using an unregistered farm labor contractor. On June 7, 1990, Symonette performed a "payroll audit" by sending by mail a form to Ovid Barnett requesting information regarding Abel's employment. On an undisclosed date, the form was returned to Symonette and contains what purports to be Barnett's signature However, the contents of the completed form are hearsay in nature and cannot serve as the basis for a finding of fact. Moreover, even if the response was not hearsay, it fails to disclose the nature of Abel's employment with the farm and whether the hourly compensation allegedly given Abel was being paid at the time the form was completed in June 1990 or when the inspection occurred thirteen months earlier. All compensation received by Abel was from his employer, Ovid Barnett. In some cases, he was paid by check from the farm, and in other cases, he was paid by his brother who had in turn been paid by the farm. To bolster the contention that Abel was not acting as a farm labor contractor on May 1, 1989, a supervisor at Barnett's farm established that Abel's job was to drive trucks between the field and the packing house when the inspection occurred, and as such, it was necessary for Abel to stand by his truck while the workers loaded the truck with produce. As a driver, Abel had the responsibility of overseeing the loading of produce on his truck and, when necessary, to direct the workers on how to properly do so. It is noted that at hearing, Symonette did not describe the activities being performed by Abel except that Abel was simply "standing" around his truck and "appeared" to be supervising the work crew. Accordingly, it is found that Alfredo was not using an unregistered farm labor contractor on May 1, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the administrative complaint, with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1990. Copies Furnished: Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Moses E. Williams, Esquire 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S. E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Alfredo Flores P. O. Box 1611 Immokalee, FL 33934 Steven D. Barron, Esquire 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S. E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658
The Issue Whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioners for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners are producers and sellers of tomatoes. They own and operate Sunfresh Farms in Florida City, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products. The Controversy The instant case involves two separate transactions involving the sale of tomatoes pursuant to verbal agreements between Petitioners (as the sellers) and Respondent (as the buyer). Both transactions occurred in January of 1995. The First Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5270) Under the terms of the first of these two verbal agreements (First Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box (which was the market price at the time). In accordance with the terms of the First Agreement, Petitioners delivered 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 23, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold these 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a local produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to another local produce house. The tomatoes were eventually sold to a company in Grand Rapids, Michigan. On January 28, 1995, five days after Petitioners had delivered the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent, the tomatoes were inspected in Grand Rapids, Michigan. According to the inspection certificate, the inspection revealed: "Decay (3 to 28 percent)(mostly early, some advanced stages);" "Checksum;" and "Average approximately 85 percent light red to red." Petitioners have yet to be paid any of $1,214.40 Respondent owes them (under the terms of the First Agreement) for the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The Second Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5299) Under the terms of the second verbal agreement at issue in the instant case (Second Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 132 boxes of ("no grade") cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box. In accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement, Petitioners delivered 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 27, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold 84 of these 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a Florida produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to a company in Houston, Texas. These 84 boxes of cherry tomatoes were inspected in Houston, Texas, on January 31, 1995, four days after Petitioners had delivered them to Respondent. The defects found during the inspection were noted on the inspection certificate. Petitioners have yet to be paid in full for the 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement. Respondent tendered payment (in the form of a check) in the amount of $811.20, but Petitioners refused to accept such payment because it did not represent the full amount ($1,669.80) Respondent owed them (under the terms of the Second Agreement) for these cherry tomatoes. (Although they have not endorsed or cashed the check, Petitioners are still holding it in their possession.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent is indebted to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20, (2) directing Respondent to make payment to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20 within 15 days following the issuance of the order, (3) indicating that the $811.20 check that was previously tendered to Petitioners by Respondent (and is still in Petitioners' possession) will be considered partial payment of this $2,884.20 indebtedness, if Respondent advises Petitioners, in writing, that it desires the check to be used for such purpose and if it provides Petitioners written assurance that the check is still a valid negotiable instrument; and (4) announcing that if payment in full of this $2,884.20 indebtedness is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from the Farm Bureau, Respondent's surety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of February, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1996.
The Issue Did the Petitioner prove that the work was subject to the provisions of Section 215.19, Florida Statues? What number of hours and for what wage did Petitioner work on the project? Did the Petitioner file a timely affidavit?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner began working for the Respondent on the Ralph R. Bailey Concert Hall at the end of November or the beginning of December, 1977, terminated such employment in July, 1978, and again worked for the Respondent on the above-described project on three Saturdays between August of 1978 and the date he last worked for the Respondent, which date was either September 24, 1978, or sometime during the month of October, 1978. Petitioner's affidavit claiming noncompliance with the Florida Prevailing Wage Law was signed on April 27, 1979, and was received by the Business Affairs Office of Broward Community College on April 30, 1979. No testimony was presented regarding the date of completion or acceptance of the building.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned Hearing Officer recommends that this claim be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Benedict Matullo 341 N.W. 39th Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Byrd Booth, Jr., Esquire 2900 East Oakland Park Boulevard Post Office Drawer 11088 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mr. Luther J. Moore Administrator of Prevailing Wage Division of Labor 1321 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Sidney H. Levin Secretary of Commerce 510C Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION OF LABOR BENEDICT MATULLO, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-2227 ACCO, INC., Respondent. / FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER This cause has come before the undersigned Director of the Division of Labor for final determination pursuant to Section 215.15(3)(b), Florida Statutes, upon the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order. After notice to the parties, an administrative hearing was held on January 30, 1980 by Linda M. Rigot, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings in West Palm Beach, Florida. This matter wan heard upon an affidavit filed by Benedict Matullo alleging that he had not been paid the prevailing wage by Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc., as required by law, while working on the Ralph R. Bailey Concert Hall at Broward Community College. The Petitioner filed a letter dated March 7, 1980, which was treated as a petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing was considered and is denied.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent conducted business operations in Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage that met the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2009), for its employees, and if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency that is responsible for enforcing Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, which requires employers to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees. Respondent is a Louisville, Kentucky-based corporation that is engaged in the construction, maintenance, and painting of elevated water tanks. Respondent has a second fabrication facility located in Newnan, Georgia. Respondent’s work constitutes construction. On March 4, 2010, Petitioner’s investigator, Lawrence F. Eaton, observed Respondent’s employees working on a water tower in Pace, Florida. While visiting the worksite, one of Respondent’s employees stated that he did not have any information regarding if and how the men were covered by workers’ compensation. The employee gave Mr. Eaton a telephone number for Respondent. Next, Mr. Eaton consulted the Kentucky Secretary of State website to find information concerning the corporate status of Respondent. The website indicated that Respondent was incorporated in 1892 and that it had three corporate officers. Mr. Eaton then consulted Petitioner’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database. CCAS contains workers’ compensation policy information for each employer that has a Florida policy and information relative to workers’ compensation exemptions that have been applied for and issued to individuals by Petitioner. Mr. Eaton was unable to find any indication on CCAS that Respondent had secured workers’ compensation coverage by purchasing a Florida policy. CCAS also provided no evidence that Respondent had entered into an arrangement with an employee leasing company to provide workers’ compensation coverage to its employees. Additionally, CCAS did not show that Respondent had obtained exemptions for its corporate officers. Mr. Eaton subsequently spoke with one of Respondent’s representatives. Mr. Eaton was informed that Respondent was self-insured for workers’ compensation in Kentucky. Mr. Eaton also learned that Respondent had another workers’ compensation policy. Respondent’s representative indicated that she would send Mr. Eaton the policy paperwork. When he received the paperwork from Petitioner, Mr. Eaton determined that the insurance coverage did not comply with the requirements of Florida’s workers’ compensation law. The paperwork included an excess policy of workers’ compensation and a Georgia workers’ compensation policy. On March 5, 2010, Mr. Eaton issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent. Specifically, the Stop-Work Order states that Respondent was not in compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, because Respondent failed to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On March 5, 2010, Mr. Eaton issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Respondent. On March 8, 2010, Respondent provided Mr. Eaton with additional workers’ compensation policy information. The information included the declarations page for Chartis Company Policy No. WC 005-73-7942. The Chartis policy is a Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Policy. In Item 3A, the policy lists the states that are covered, in Part One of the policy, pursuant to each state’s workers’ compensation law. Georgia is named as a covered state in Item 3A. In Item 3C, the Chartis policy lists the states that are covered, in Part Three of the policy, as "other states insurance." Florida is listed only in Item 3C. Item 4 of the Chartis policy states that "[t]he premium of this policy will be determined by our Manuals of Rules, Classifications, Rates and Rating Plans. All information required below is subject to verification and change by audit." In response to the request for business records, Respondent provided Petitioner with payroll information for work it had performed in Florida between September 2007 and February 2010. After receiving this information, Respondent’s Penalty Calculator, Robert McAullife, calculated a penalty. Because Respondent had not provided all of the requested business records, Mr. McAullife imputed Respondent’s payroll for a portion of the relevant time period. In calculating the penalty, Mr. McAullife first sought to determine the amount of premium that Respondent would have paid had it been properly insured for the relevant three-year period. Mr. McAullife assigned a class code for each of Respondent’s employees, reflecting the work they performed. Mr. McAullife then took 1/100th of the payroll and multiplied that figure by the approved manual rate applicable to each class code. Mr. McAullife then took the previously obtained product and multiplied it by 1.5 to find a penalty in the amount of $122,242.23. This penalty is based on Respondent having $382,146.90 in Florida payroll that would have required $81,494.66 in workers’ compensation premium. There are no errors in Mr. McAullife’s penalty calculation. Mr. Eaton issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on March 23, 2010. On March 24, 2010, Respondent and Petitioner entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty that required ten percent of the penalty to be paid in advance and the remainder to be paid in 60 interest-free monthly payments. Respondent also produced a policy that provided coverage in compliance with Florida law with an effective date of March 12, 2010. As a result, Petitioner issued an Order of Conditional Release, permitting Respondent to return to work. During the hearing, Respondent presented evidence that it is a registered self-insured company in Kentucky for the first $500,000.00 of workers’ compensation. Additionally, Respondent has excess insurance for any workers’ compensation claims that exceed the $500,000.00 threshold. Because it is self-insured in Kentucky, Respondent must purchase letters of credit on an annual basis. Respondent paid the following for its recent letters of credit: (a) 2007, $26,755.54; (b) 2008, $32,438.48; (c) 2009, $33,626.38; and (d) 2010 to date, $8,931.39. The State of Kentucky assesses qualified self-insureds a six and one half percent tax based on an annual simulated premium. The amount of the simulated premium represents what a qualified self-insured would pay for a "first dollar" policy of workers’ compensation insurance. Respondent’s recent simulated premiums are as follows: (a) 2007, $453.440.00; (b) 2008, $480,637.00; (c) 2009, $623,940.00; and (d) 2010, $1,006,243.00. Respondent also maintains a "high dollar" deductible policy of insurance that provides workers’ compensation coverage for its Georgia employees. Respondent’s Georgia policy, Chartis Company Policy No. WC 005-73-7942, which includes Florida as part of "all other states" in Item 3C of the declarations page, also requires the payment of premiums. Respondent recently paid the following premiums for this insurance: (a) 2007, $124,736.78; (b) 2008, $125,950.08; and (c) 2009, $64,465.28. The premiums paid by Respondent for the Chartis Company Policy No. WC 005-73-7942 are not based on Florida rates. From 2007 to 2010, Respondent provided workers’ compensation benefits for at least four different workers that were injured while performing work for Respondent in Florida. The workers’ compensation benefits paid by Respondent on these claims totaled $147,958.25.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order, finding that Caldwell Tanks, Inc., failed to comply with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty in the amount of $122,224.22. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 8th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Claude M. Harden, III, Esquire Carr Allison 305 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jamila Georgette Gooden, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Simpro Homes, Inc., conducted business operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if so, whether the penalty in the amount of $326,861.58, was properly assessed by Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Insurers are required by law to report all workers’ compensation policies to Petitioner. Respondent is a corporation domiciled in Georgia. Respondent is engaged in the business of framing, which is a construction activity, pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6. On August 10, 2005, Petitioner's investigator, Allen DiMaria, visited 4307 Edgewater Drive, Jacksonville, Florida, on a random site visit, and interviewed a number of workers at the work site. Mr. DiMaria documented his investigation in the narrative of his Initial Investigative Report. Based upon these field interviews, Petitioner determined that the workers were employed by Respondent. Mr. DiMaria asked the superintendent on site whether Respondent had provided him with a certificate of liability insurance indicating workers’ compensation coverage, and was informed that Respondent had provided one. Mr. DiMaria was subsequently provided with the Certificate of Insurance by the general contractor on the work site. Mr. DiMaria also obtained a copy of Respondent’s workers’ compensation insurance policy which had a policy period of October 30, 2004, to October 30, 2005. The policy and the information contained in the Certificate of Insurance were consistent. Subsequent to the site visit, Mr. DiMaria continued the investigation of Respondent utilizing the Department’s Compliance and Coverage Automated System (“CCAS”) database that contains information on all workers' compensation insurance policy information from the carrier to an insured, and determined that Respondent did not have a State of Florida workers' compensation insurance policy. Petitioner, which maintains a database of all workers’ compensation exemptions in the State of Florida, also did not find any current, valid exemptions for Respondent. The St. Paul Travelers insurance policy held by Respondent at the time of Petitioner's site visit on August 10, 2005, did not contain an endorsement which utilizes Florida class codes, rates, rules, and manuals that comply with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Insurance Code, satisfy the standard. Specifically, the insurance policy did not have Florida listed as a covered state under Section 3A. There is also no evidence that Respondent secured Section 3C coverage for Florida. The premium was based on a rate that was not the Florida premium rate and on a class code that was not indicative of the actual work being performed by Respondent. The policy shows that Respondent was insured for operations under National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5645 at a premium utilizing Georgia premium rates. Class code 5645 refers to framing of one- or two- family homes. Mr. DiMaria utilized class code 5651 in his review of Respondent because Respondent was framing a dwelling that consisted of more than a two-family dwelling, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). On August 11, 2006, after consulting with his supervisor, Mr. DiMaria issued and served on Respondent a stop- work order and order of penalty assessment for failure to comply with the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and more specifically on the grounds that Respondent did not secure the payment of workers’ compensation based on Florida class codes, rates, rules, and manuals. Employers on job sites in Florida are required to keep business records that enable Respondent to determine whether the employer is in compliance with the workers' compensation law. Mr. DiMaria issued a request for production of business records to Respondent on August 11, 2006. The request asked the employer to produce, for the preceding three years, documents that reflected payroll and proof of insurance. Respondent produced check stubs for a number of employees who were not on the investigated work site, and an affidavit that stated the employees on the work site were performing framing work for Respondent. Respondent failed to produce the requested records for the employees working in Florida. Hans Prosser, Respondent's president, testified that he had provided the records to his attorney who was charged with reviewing the records and turning them over to Petitioner. Apparently, the attorney never delivered the records to Petitioner. Once Respondent failed to provide the requested information, Petitioner imputed the payroll of the employees and calculated a penalty for the time period of August 11, 2002, through August 11, 2005. Mr. DiMaria assigned a class code to the type of work performed by Respondent utilizing the SCOPES Manual, multiplied the class code’s assigned approved manual rate by the imputed payroll per one hundred dollars, and then multiplied that by 1.5. The payroll was imputed back to October 1, 2003. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), for the period prior to October 1, 2003, Petitioner assessed a penalty of $100 per day for each calendar day of noncompliance. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment ("Amended Order") which assessed a penalty of $327,969.47, was served on Respondent on September 1, 2005. The Department issued and served a second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Second Amended Order”) with an assessed penalty of $326,861.58, via a Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment to Respondent on January 6, 2006. The reduction was the result of an error in the calculation of the penalty in the Amended Order. The motion was granted by this Administrative Law Judge on March 20, 2006. Respondent contends that it had been dissolved as a corporation on February 24, 2001, and was reinstated as a corporation on January 23, 2003, and thus should not be penalized for any time prior to that date. In support of this contention, Respondent offered into evidence a certified copy of a document entitled "Certificate of Reinstatement," demonstrating that Respondent had been administratively dissolved on February 24, 2001, "for failure to comply with the requirements of Title 14 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated." The document further explains that all taxes have been paid and that Respondent "may resume its business as if the administrative dissolution had never occurred." This document was not presented to counsel for Petitioner prior to the final hearing as required by the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Assessment Order assessing a penalty of $326,861.58. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Hans Prosser Simpro Homes, Inc. 5055 Old Winder Highway Braselton, Georgia Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muñiz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent, Randolph Roundtree (Roundtree), held a Florida farm labor contractor certificate of registration. By complaint filed on behalf of thirteen seasonal agricultural workers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (District Court), hearing Case No. 84-8235-CIV-JAG, damages were sought against Roundtree for violation of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSAWPA) under the provisions of 28 USC Sections 1331 and 1337. On November 20, 1985, an order by default was entered against Roundtree which found that he had intentionally violated the MSAWPA in that he had: Failed to post in a conspicuous place at the work site a notice setting forth the rights and protections afforded the workers ... Failed to keep payroll records for each weekly pay period showing as to each Plaintiff his total earnings, all withholding from earnings, net earnings, hours worked, wages per hour, the number of units of work performed and the rate per unit ... Failed to provide each Plaintiff at the end of each weekly pay period with a statement of all sums paid to them on account of the labor of each Plaintiff, an itemized statement of the amount withheld from such payments and the purpose for each withholding * * * Failed to pay the Plaintiffs their wages when due Violated, without justification, the terms of the working agreement made with the Plaintiffs... On November 20, 1985, a final judgment in the sum of 3,000 per plaintiff was entered against Roundtree, and that judgment remains unsatisfied. By certified letter dated April 21, 1987, Petitioner, Department of Labor and Employment Security (Department), advised Roundtree that his failure to comply with the MSAWPA, as demonstrated by the District Court action, likewise constituted a violation of the provisions of Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes, and that the Department intended to revoke his certificate of registration. Roundtree filed a timely request for formal hearing. At hearing, the proof established that, as to the plaintiffs in the District Court action, Roundtree violated the provisions of Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes, by: Failing to display prominently at the site where the work was performed by the farmworkers, and in all vehicles used by him for the transportation of farmworkers, a copy of his application for a certificate of registration, and a written statement showing the rate of compensation he received from the grower and the rate of compensation he was paying the farmworkers. Failing to keep a payroll slip for each weekly pay period showing as to each farmworker his total earnings, all withholdings from earnings, net earnings, hours worked, wages per hour, number of units of work performed, and the rate per unit. Failing to provide each farmworker at the end of each weekly pay period with a statement of all sums paid to them on account of labor of each worker, and an itemized statement of the amount withheld from such payments and the proofs for each withholding. Failing to pay the farmworkers their wages when due. Violating, without justification, the terms of the working agreement he made with the farmworkers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Roundtree's Florida farm labor contractor certificate of registration be REVOKED. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 26th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Montgomery Building, Suite 117 2562 Executive Center Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 Randolph Roundtree Post Office Box 118 South Bay, Florida 33493 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact Certain hospital equipment ("Equipment") was sold in 1973 and 1974 by Hospital Contract Consultants ("Vendor") to F & E Community Developers and Jackson Realty Builders (hereinafter referred to as "Purchasers") who simultaneously leased the Equipment to Petitioner. These companies are located in Indiana. At the time of purchase, Florida sales tax ("Tax") was paid by the Purchasers and on or about March 18, 1974, the tax was remitted to the State of Florida by the Vendor. However, the Tax was paid in the name of Medical Facilities Equipment Company, a subsidiary of Vendor. In 1976, the Department of Revenue audited Petitioner and on or about April 26, 1976 assessed a tax on purchases and rental of the Equipment. On or about April 26, 1976, petitioner agreed to pay the amount of the assessment on the purchases and rentals which included the Equipment, in monthly installments of approximately Ten Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($10,000.00) each and subsequently paid such amount of assessment with the last monthly installment paid on or about November 26, 1976. On or about December, 1976, the Department of Revenue, State of Florida, checked its records and could not find the Vendor registered to file and pay sales tax with the State of Florida. Petitioner then looked to the State of Indiana for a tax refund. On or about January 4, 1977, Petitioner filed for a refund of sales tax from the State of Florida in the amount of Thirty Five Thousand One Hundred Four and 02/100 Dollars ($35,104.02). This amount was the sales tax paid to and remitted by various vendors for certain other equipment purchased in 1973 and 1974 and simultaneously leased. The amount of this refund request was granted and paid. Relying upon the facts expressed in paragraph 4 heretofore, Petitioner on or about June 2, 1977 filed with the Department of Revenue of the State of Indiana for the refund of the Tax. On or about June 7, 1979, the Department of Revenue of Indiana determined that the Vendor was registered in the State of Florida as Medical Facilities Equipment Company and therefore Petitioner should obtain the refund of the Tax form the State of Florida. So advised, Petitioner then filed the request for amended refund, which is the subject of this lawsuit, on July 16, 1979 in the amount of Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Sixteen and 28/100 Dollars ($17,216.28). This request for refund was denied by Respondent, Office of the Comptroller, on the basis of the three year statute of non-claim set forth in section 215.26, Florida Statutes. Purchasers have assigned all rights, title and interest in sales and use tax refunds to Petitioner. During the audit of Petitioner in 1976 the lease arrangement on the equipment apparently came to light and Petitioner was advised sales tax was due on the rentals paid for the equipment. This resulted in an assessment against Petitioner of some $80,000 which was paid at the rate of $10,000 per month, with the last installment in November, 1976. The auditor advised Petitioner that a refund of sales tax on the purchase of this equipment was payable and he checked the Department's records for those companies registered as dealers in Florida. These records disclosed that sales taxes on the sale of some of this rental equipment had been remitted by the sellers of the equipment but Hospital Contract Consultants was not registered. Petitioner was advised to claim a refund of this sales tax from Indiana, the State of domicile of Hospital Contract Consultants. By letter on March 18, 1974, Amedco Inc., the parent company of wholly owned Hospital Contract Consultants, Inc. had advised the Florida Department of Revenue that Medical Facilities Equipment Company, another subsidiary, would report under ID No. 78-23-20785-79 which had previously been assigned to Hospital Contract Consultants Inc. which had erroneously applied for this registration. (Exhibit 2) Not stated in that letter but contained in Indiana Department of Revenue letter of April 18, 1979 was the information that the name of Hospital Contract Consultants had been changed to Medical Facilities Equipment Company. The request for the refund of some $17,000 submitted to Indiana in 1976 was finally denied in 1979 after research by the Indiana Department of Revenue showed the sales tax had been paid to Florida and not to Indiana.
