Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Gro Mor Co., Inc., has been engaged in the fertilizer, seed and pesticide business in Florida since approximately the year 1933. On January 2, 1958, the Department of State issued to the Petitioner Charter No. 208744 permitting the use of the corporate name Gro Mor Co., Inc. In 1968 the Petitioner registered "Gro Mor" as a trademark with the Florida Department of Agriculture, and it now has some 265 registered fertilizer mixes which are protected under the "Gro Mor" trademark, in addition to approximately 20 registrations of unmixed materials. Gro Mor Co., Inc. has annual gross revenue of approximately 1.1 million dollars. It is presently operating in 11 Florida counties, some of which overlap with counties where Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. does business. On November 7, 1980, the Department of State issued Charter No. F04615 to the Respondent, permitting the use of the corporate name Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. Although Gro Mor Co., Inc. and Gro-More Farm Service Center are both in the fertilizer business, they do not compete directly with each other because the product mix of the two companies is different. Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. is a custom-blend fertilizer plant, and in general each company has its own customers for its own products. On occasion, however, Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. has done business with some companies which also deal with Gro Mor Co., Inc. Sometime in 1980, the representative from Gro Mor Co., Inc. became aware that the Respondent was doing business as Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. Since 1980, the Petitioner has received four invoices which should have been directed to the Respondent, and one invoice which was received late because it was mailed to the Respondent instead of to the Petitioner. These invoices were introduced and received in evidence; other instances of customers misdirecting invoices have been disregarded as self-serving assertions not corroborated by evidence that is available to the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner admitted that it has regularly received properly addressed invoices from the same firms which sent the misdirected invoices to Gro Mor Co., Inc. On one occasion when the Petitioner's representative requested information on the Petitioner company from the Department of Agriculture, he received information on both Gro Mor Co., Inc. and Gro-More Farm Serviced Center, Inc. No evidence was presented to indicate that this happened more than once. When Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. was in the incorporation process, the attorney for the company was directed to select a name and draw up the charter. The incorporators had no knowledge of the existence of Gro Mor Co., Inc. Since the corporate purpose was to engage in the fertilizer business, the name Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. was selected because fertilizer makes crops grow more. In the two or more years the Respondent has been operating as Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc., its representatives cannot recall getting invoices which should have been directed to Gro Mor Co., Inc.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Gro Mor Co., Inc. be DENIED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9 day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: David H. Galloway, Esquire Post Office Box 1119 Plant City, Florida 33566 George J. Ellis, Jr., Esquire 1721 Memorial Park Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32204 William S. Stevens, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners and the Respondent had a business relationship under which the Respondent purchased watermelons from the Petitioners during the 1978 harvest season. Watermelons are at times sold on a "cash basis", which means that a buyer purchases the melons at the field for a set price per pound. At other times watermelons are sold on a "handle basis" or a "brokerage basis". Under these arrangements a buyer picks up a load of melons, sells it at the best obtainable price, and a portion of the sale price goes to the producer and a portion to the buyer. Prior to the 1978 harvest season, the Petitioners had had some unhappy experiences selling watermelons on a "handle" or "brokerage" basis. They decided to sell melons during the 1978 season only on a cash basis. The Respondent purchased several loads from the Petitioners during 1978 on a cash basis. A dispute arose as to four loads of melons which the Respondent purchased from the Petitioners late in the 1978 harvest season. The Petitioners understood that the transactions would continue to be on a cash basis. The Respondent, who was represented by W.B. Stevens in the transactions, appears to have had the honest belief that the transactions would be on a brokerage basis. Mr. Stevens did not, however, reduce the brokerage arrangement to writing, and he did not adequately advise the Petitioners that the terms of the transactions would be different from previous transactions that year. The four transactions were as follows: On May 30, 1978, the Respondent purchased 2,000 Grey watermelons which weighed 44,650 pounds at a quoted price of 4.75 cents per pound. On June 2, 1978, the Respondent purchased 1,330 Jubilee watermelons which weighed 45,470 pounds at 5.25 cents per pound. On June 5, 1978, the Respondent purchased 1,560 Grey watermelons which weighed 40,080 pounds at a quoted price of 4.50 cents per pound, and 1,550 Jubilee watermelons which weighed 44,100 pounds at a quoted price of 5.00 cents per pound. The total amount the Respondent owed the Petitioners for these four loads was $8,516.66. The Respondent issued the Petitioners a check for the loads in the amount of $5,453.72. The Petitioners are thus owed an additional $3,062.94. The Respondent offered several affidavits into evidence. These were identified for the record as Respondent's Exhibits 1-5, but they were rejected. Even if the affidavits had been admissible, they would not serve to alter the findings of fact set out herein. The affidavits identified as Respondent's Exhibits 1, 3 and 4 relate to the quality of the watermelons. Since it has been found that the melons were sold on a cash basis, the Respondent took ownership of the melons when they were loaded onto the Respondent's trucks. The quality of the melons would not, therefore, affect the amount the Respondent owed the Petitioners. If the Respondent were going to reject the melons, it should have done so when they were loaded onto the trucks. The affidavit which was identified as Respondent's Exhibit 2 relates to a truck shortage that existed in Florida at the time that the Petitioners' melons were harvested. While this affidavit may tend to support the Respondent's contention that it intended these loads to be sold on a brokerage basis, it does not alter the fact that the Respondent did not adequately communicate this understanding to the Petitioners. The affidavit which was marked as Respondent's Exhibit 5 is unsigned. Furthermore, it relates only that Mr. Stevens believed that the transactions would be handled on a brokerage basis. The affidavits are hearsay and are not cumulative of other evidence in this case. They are therefore inadmissible. Even if the affidavits were admissible, however, they would have no relevance to the issues. The Respondent is licensed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as an agricultural commodity dealer. The Respondent has a $20,000 bond on file with the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services finding that the Petitioners are entitled to $3,062.94 in additional compensation for agricultural commodities which they sold to the Respondent, and requiring the Respondent to pay this sum to the Petitioners. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. W. B. Stevens President Eastern Marketing Services, Inc. P.O. Box 2156 Bartow, Florida 33830 Mr. Thomas H. Mancil P.O. Box 303 Clewiston, Florida 33840 L. Earl Peterson, Chief Bureau of License & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert A. Chastain General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Respondent, William R. Daniels, has been a farm labor contractor since 1949. Respondent retained the services of Edward J. Smith to assist him in fruit harvesting activities during the 1987 season. On February 18, 1988, Tommy L. Sumpter, a Compliance Officer employed by Petitioner, performed a compliance check on fruit harvesting activities located off 66th Avenue in Vero Beach, Florida. The compliance check by Sumpter revealed, that Edward J. Smith was supervising citrus workers on behalf of Respondent. Smith transported workers to the citrus field in Vero Beach in van owned by Respondent. Smith displayed his Federal Certificate of Registration which was valid through December 1988. Smith displayed his State Certificate which expired in December 1987. A confirmation check of Smith's Florida Certificate of Registration reveals that his certificate, in fact, expired on December 31, 1987. Smith registered at the Petitioner's Fort Pierce Job Service Office on February 23, 1988. Mr. Smith was cited for failing to register as required by section 450.30, Florida Statutes. Respondent submitted a verification of employment form which indicates that Smith was employed by him on October 15, 1987, and was paid $75.00 minus social security contributions, per truck load of citrus harvested by Smith's workers. By letter dated May 3, 1988, Respondent was issued the subject Administrative Complaint and notified that a civil money penalty was being assessed against him in the amount of $500.00 on the basis that he contracted for the employment of farm workers with a farm labor contractor before that contractor displayed a current certificate of registration issued by Petitioner. When Respondent retained the services of Smith, as a farm labor contractor, Smith's Florida Certificate of Registration was expired and he therefore could not have displayed a current certificate of registration to Respondent before he was employed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order imposing a $500.00 civil penalty against Respondent payable within thirty days of the issuance of its final order, for contracting for the employment of farmworkers with a farm labor contractor before the farm labor contractor displayed to him a current certificate of registration issued by Petitioner. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 117, Montgomery Building 590 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 William R. Daniel 227 Sterrett Circle Port St. Lucie, Florida 33395 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
The Issue Whether Respondent contracted for the employment of farm workers with a farm labor contractor before the contractor displayed a current certificate of registration in violation of Section 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of relevant facts are determined: Respondent, David Torres, is a farm labor contractor licensed in Florida. On January 31, 1991 Larry Coker, during a routine grove inspection, observed a crew of farm workers picking fruit in the Happy Acres Grove, in Hardee County, under the supervision of Respondent. Respondent utilized Billy Handford and Antonio Torres to transport the farm workers to the grove. Mr. Handford was employed to recruit and transport farm workers for a fee to be paid by Respondent. Billy Handford did not have a Florida FLC license which authorized him to engage in this occupation. On January 31, 1991, Billy Handford recruited and transported six farm workers from the Bartow area to the Happy Acres grove in Hardee County. Respondent was cited for three violations of Chapter 450, on January 31, 1991.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent has violated Section 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be fined $500 (dollars) and such fine to paid within thirty days from date of the final order entered by the Division. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: FRANCISCO R. RIVERA, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 2012 CAPITAL CIRCLE, S.E. SUITE 307, HARTMAN BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0658 DAVID TORRES, POST OFFICE BOX 842 HAINES CITY, FL 33844 FRANK SCRUGGS, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 303 HARTMAN BUILDING 2012 CAPITAL CIRCLE, S.E. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2152 STEPHEN BARRON, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 307 HARTMAN BUILDING 2012 CAPITAL CIRCLE S.E. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2152
The Issue Whether respondents owe petitioner money on account of sales of potatoes?
Findings Of Fact In order to finance his 1991 crops, petitioner Daniel Methvin of Hastings, had to borrow money at the end of the year before. To do that, he was told, he needed to execute contracts for the sale of the potatoes he intended to grow. He had been glad to have future contracts for the 1990 season, when a glut of potatoes pushed the price below three dollars a hundredweight (cwt). Respondent J.P. Mach Agri-Marketing, Inc. (or the company of which it is a subsidiary) had honored those contracts and paid considerably more than the market price for potatoes then. On November 24, 1990, Mr. Methvin executed a contract entitled "Sales Confirmation" agreeing to sell 10,000 cwt of "REPACK REDS", Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 ("92% US #1 INCH AND 1/2 MIN. AT LEAST 95% SKIN, Id.) to J.P. Mach, Inc. during the period April 28 to May 31, 1991, at $6.50 per cwt. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Consolidating smaller, earlier agreements, Mr. Methvin executed another contract entitled "Sales Confirmation" agreeing to sell 45,000 cwt of Atlantics ("85% U.S. #1") to J.P. Mach, Inc. during the period April 28 to May 31, 1991, at $5.75 per cwt, guaranteeing the potatoes would be suitable for chips. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. With these contracts (or, as to the chipping potatoes, their predecessors) as collateral, Mr. Methvin raised the funds necessary to plant. Both contracts between Mr. Methvin and J.P. Mach, Inc. had "act of god clauses" excusing Mr. Methvin's nondelivery of potatoes he failed to harvest on account of, among other things, tornadoes or hail. As it happened, tornadoes and hail prevented Mr. Methvin's reaping all he had sown. Petitioner only harvested 6,300 cwt of red potatoes and approximately 43,000 cwt of Atlantic potatoes. Another result of the bad weather was extremely high market prices, at some times exceeding $20 per cwt. On April 27, 1991, J.P. Mach visited Mr. Methvin's farm and the two men discussed incentives to keep Mr. Methvin from "jumping his contract," i.e., selling his potatoes to others at the market price. In the course of their conversation, Mr. Methvin said he needed to realize $450,000 from that year's potatoes; and Mr. Mach replied, "I will help you out", and "I will keep you in business." There was general talk of incentives and bonuses. Eventually, Mr. Mach said he would pay a premium over the contract price if Mr. Methvin fulfilled the original contracts to the fullest extent possible, by delivering all the potatoes he had; and Mr. Mach began remitting premium prices, as promised. On June 1, 1991, however, Mr. Methvin advised Mr. Mach of his intention to sell what remained of his harvest, some 1100 cwt of Atlantics, on the open market. When he carried through on this, Mr. Methvin realized approximately $200,000. Even at that, he lost $40,000 that season. Meanwhile Mr. Mach and his companies were sued for $550,000 for failure to deliver potatoes; and were not paid another $172,000 for potatoes they shipped to chip plants and others to whom they had promised still more potatoes. (Mr. Methvin was not the only grower who defaulted on contracts to ship potatoes to J.P. Mach, Inc.) As of June 1, 1991, Mr. Mach, his companies or his agents had paid Mr. Methvin "about $200,000," which was more than the contract price of the potatoes Mr. Methvin had loaded. Neither Mr. Mach nor his companies paid Mr. Methvin anything after June 1, 1991. At hearing, Mr. Methvin calculated the value of the loads as to which nothing had been remitted as of June 1, 1991, as "a few hundred more than $36,000," assuming the contract price plus the premium. But Mr. Mach and his companies or employees recalculated the price of the loads he had paid for by eliminating the premium, since Mr. Methvin had not, as promised on his side, delivered all his potatoes. J.P. Mach, Inc. was duly licensed during the 1990 season. After its license lapsed, a new license was issued to J.P. Mach Agri-Marketing, Inc. on April 24, 1991. A $50,000 certificate of deposit was filed with First Performance Bank as a condition of licensure.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's complaint be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 3rd day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Methvin Route 1, Box 92 Palatka, Florida 32131 Jeffrey P. Mach, President J. P. Mach Agri-Marketing, Inc. P.O. Box 7 Plover, Wisconsin 54467 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agricutlure 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue This proceeding was initiated on June 27, 1985, when Petitioner filed its complaint for $51,680.00 with the Florida Department of Agriculture. Respondents were Dade Tomato and its surety, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. of Columbus, Ohio. After payment of $38,880.00 was received, Homestead Tomato reduced its claim to $12,800.00 in an amended complaint dated July 22, 1985. Dade Tomato responded with a timely request for formal hearing. The issue at hearing was whether $12.00 or $16.00 was the price per box of 5 x 7 tomatoes purchased by Dade Tomato from Homestead Tomato on January 13th and 21st, 1985. Homestead Tomato presented the testimony of two witnesses and nineteen exhibits; Dade Tomato presented seven witnesses and thirteen exhibits; State Automobile Insurance Company was noticed, but did not appear. Both parties submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. These have been carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order, and an outline of the adoption or rejection of each proposed finding is included in Appendix A, attached to, and incorporated in this order. A document styled Reply Brief of Petitioner Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc., was filed on January 9, 1986. It was not authorized and was not considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Homestead Tomato is agent for Strano Farms of Florida City, Florida, a producer of tomatoes. Rosario Strano is president of Homestead Tomato and co-owner of Strano Farms. (R. Strano) Dade Tomato, a tomato repacking company, is located in Miami, Florida. Its president is Joe Lococo. It is licensed as a dealer in agricultural products and is bonded by State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company. (J. Lococo, Amended Complaint dated July 22, 1985) The week of January 20-26, 1985, was a memorable week for the Florida tomato industry: a savage freeze hit south Florida, crops were devastated and the market awoke from its earlier torpor. For days prior to the 20th, Rosario Strano had carefully watched the weather services. By the 15th, when the freeze forecast appeared to be a sure thing, Strano Farms worked night and day and into the weekend harvesting tomatoes. (T. Banks, R. Strano) On January 19th, a representative from Dade Tomato contacted Tom Banks, an employee of Homestead Tomato, and asked for a load (1600 boxes) of 6 x 7 tomatoes. Banks explained that they were ready to sell, but not ready to price, since they expected a high demand as a result of the impending freeze. It was established that the "following week's price would control." The load was shipped that same day. On Monday, the Dade Tomato called for another load the same size. Prices still had not been established, but the load was shipped, again the same day. (T. Banks) After the freeze, around the middle of the week, Rosario Strano called together Tom Banks and a few other key employees and established a price for their tomatoes: $20.00 box for 5 x 6 (largest) $18.00 box for 6 x 6 (next size down) $16.00 box for 6 x 7 (medium) $12.00 box for 7 x 7 (small) Banks was instructed that the buyers were to be notified the price was set. Anyone "booked in" didn't have to take the order or could back out. Strano wanted to be told immediately of any problems with the tomatoes on the other end, and he would take them back. He was confident that he had a good market for his unique, pre-freeze tomato supply. Several buyers backed out, some tomatoes did come back, but the entire supply was sold (approximately 40-48 loads). (T. Banks. R. Streno) In setting his prices for the week of the freeze, Strano obtained information from the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Report, a daily publication of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, out of Winter Park, Florida. (R. Strano) The sheets include price quotations for a wide variety of commodities in different parts of the state obtained by telephone survey of packing houses and producers the prior date. (Petitioner's Exhibits #15-19) It is a guideline rather than an "official" market price indicator. (J. Strother, R. Cohen) In some eases the prices quoted to the survey are later adjusted by the producer. (R. Cohen) The issue dated January 24, 1985, reflected for #1 quality tomatoes a price of $20.00, $18.00 and $16.00 for 5 x6, 6 x 6, and 6 x 75 respectively. The following two days showed the same. Prior days, January 22 and 23 quoted no prices but stated "practically all sales prices to be established later". (Petitioner's Exhibits #15-19) After hearing the prices established by Strano, some of his customers, including Joe Lococo and his broker, began to protest. (T. Banks, J. Lococo) While refusing to budge, end arguing that he was charging the same price to his other customers for his pre-freeze, quality tomatoes, Strano resorted to offering rebates of 2.00 a box for prompt payment and, later, for settlement of cases that otherwise would have gone to court. (T. Banks) In short, Strano had difficulty getting some of his customers to pay the price he had set. Not all of Strano's customers bought and had tomatoes shipped on a price to be settled basis. Of the ten invoices admitted as Petitioner's Exhibits #5- 14, three represented sales on the same basis as the sales to Dade Tomato: Exhibits 5, 6 and 7. The remaining invoices represented sales to customers who had the price established prior to sale. Each of the invoices reflect the price of a box of 5 x 7 tomatoes to be $15.00. The invoices do not reveal which may have received the $2.00 rebate. Dade Tomato purchased ten loads of tomatoes during the week of the freeze. With the exception of the two loads from Homestead Tomato, the highest price for 6 x 75 was $12.00. Most of the tomatoes picked prior to the freeze were priced from $10- 12.00, with tomatoes picked after the freeze (salvage) going for as low as $6.00 for 6 x 7s. (J. Lococo, Respondent's Exhibits #1- 12) "Market price" is a highly fluid, highly subjective standard. During the course of a tomato season from 25-30% of sales are made on a "market price" basis, that is, the parties do not establish a firm price prior to sale, but wait to see what the market does. The market can be settled in a few days in a normal condition or longer in an abnormal condition, such as after a freeze. Market relates to supply and demand. A price is tried, then accepted or rejected, depending on whether the buyer in turn can find a market to sell at this price. Failure by a seller to adjust downward, or overpricing can result in animosity and the refusal of customers later to purchase at reasonable prices in a different season. (J. Strother, R. Cohen, F. Campisi) Various agents and brokers testified at the hearing on behalf of Dade Tomato as to what they felt was the market during the week of January 20-26th, 1985. James Strother, with thirty- three years in the produce business, came out that week with prices of $16.00, $14.00 and $12.00, and $16.00, $15.00 and $12.00, with $12.00 for the 6 x 75. He told his customers, "You're looking at the low and I expect to get paid for it." He had heard rumblings of a higher market, but set his market price to insure that he would get paid, and he moved his tomatoes. While he avowed respect for Strano, he testified that their thoughts on the market that week differed. He knew others were quoting higher than $12.00, he just wanted to be sure he sold. Florida Tomato Packers, Inc., is one of the largest packers in Florida. They initially sold 6 x 7 tomatoes during the freeze market at $16.00, but later adjusted the invoices down to $12.00. (D. Holden, Respondent's Exhibit #1) No one explained exactly how or why this was done by Florida Tomato Packers. Other exhibits produced by Respondent showed adjustments downward to varying prices. (Respondent's Exhibits # 7 and 8) After the initial complaint was filed by Homestead Tomato, Lococo made two payments for a total which amounts to $12.00 a box, the level which he insists the proper price should be. He does not dispute the quality or condition of the tomatoes sold by Homestead Tomato. (J. Lococo)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered requiring that the balance of $12,800.00 be paid by Dade Tomato to Homestead Tomato. In the absence of payment, Co-Respondent, State Automobile Insurance Company, should be required to pay said sum in accordance with Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1986, in MARY CLARK 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 15th day of January, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-3487A 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. Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in paragraph 1, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 2, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 5, except that instead of a set number of loads of tomatoes sold, the testimony of R. Strano was a range from forty to forty-eight loads. Adopted in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. The names of the buyers and total amounts of each purchase are immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 6, Findings of Fact. The substance of this paragraph relating to Florida Tomato Packers, Inc., is adopted in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. The sentence relating to the market price is incorporated in essence in paragraph 5, Conclusions of Law. These facts are covered in the "Issues and Procedural Matters" preceding the Findings of Fact, and in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. The substance of this paragraph relating to when the market settles is adopted in paragraph 9, Findings of Fact. The bias of witnesses who testified as to when the market settled is irrelevant as the time that the market settled is irrelevant. The statement that " Respondent agrees that the contract for the tomatoes was at a price to be established during the week of January 21-26 1985' . . . " is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The first sentence is adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. The second sentence is substantially modified in paragraph 4 by a finding that the agreement was that the following week's price would control". Same as paragraph 1, above. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 7, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. The second sentence, relating to all of the sales at $16.00 as being a set price, is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The remaining sentences are adopted in paragraphs 5 and 7, Findings of Fact. Partially adopted in paragraph 8, Findings of Fact. The basis of the price paid is immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as a misconstruction of the testimony. James Strother testified that his price was 12.00 a box. Adopted in paragraph 6, Findings of Fact. 14 - 16. The substance of these paragraphs have been adopted. However, they are presented here as simply testimony of witnesses rather than findings of fact. The "market price" description is rejected for reasons set out in paragraph 4, Conclusions of Law. Adopted in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: David V. Lococo, Esquire LOCOCO, KLEIN, TOUBY & SMITH 901 Northeast 125th Street Suite C North Miami, Florida 33161 Joe W. Kight, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 416 - Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 State Automobile Insurance Company 515 E. Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 Alexander Pires, Esquire SCOTT, HARRISON and McLEOD 2501 M. Street N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20037 Robert Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513 - The Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Robert J. Walsh and Company, Inc. has been in the business of selling agricultural products since 1962. It is a "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in s. 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (1985). It is not a "producer" as defined in s. 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (1985). Walsh's modus operandi which it has used for many years is to have its salesmen call on landscapers, nurseries and other customers for trees, plants and other agricultural products to determine their needs. These salesmen have the prices of products and their availability from producers and the salesmen take orders from these purchasers. This order is sent to the producer who delivers the product to the purchaser and sends Walsh a copy of the delivery ticket. Walsh bills the customer for the product delivered and the producer bills Walsh for the consumer-cost of the product less a 20-25 percent discount from which Walsh derives its profit from the sale. The producer relies solely on Walsh for payment for the product it produces and delivers to the customer. Walsh has no authority to sell the product at a price other than that set by the producer. In any event, the producer bills Walsh for the product delivered at the producer's established price less the discount it gives Walsh for acting as intermediary in the sale. If products are damaged in transit, the producer's driver will make any necessary adjustment with the customer or return the damaged plant for replacement by the producer. Walsh does not represent the grower if such a situation develops. Similarly, if the product is rejected by the purchaser for not meeting quality standards, that issue is resolved between the grower and the customer without input from Walsh. Whatever agreement is reached between the grower and the customer is reflected on the invoice signed by the customer and forwarded to Walsh who has the responsibility of collecting from the customer. The grower bills Walsh for the cost of the product less Walsh's commission. The sales forming the bases for the complaints filed by Walsh with Respondent involve sales to Paul Pent, d/b/a Paul Pent Landscape Company, Dean Pent and J & W Landscape. On January 31, 1985, Walsh sold Pent three laurel oaks grown by Stewart Tree Service for a total price of $467.46 including sales tax (Ex. 2). On March 27, 1985, Walsh sold various trees and plants grown by Goochland Nurseries to J & W Landscape for a total price of $403.98 (Ex. 3). On April 22, 1985, Walsh sold two live oaks grown by Stewart Tree Service to Pent Landscape Company for a total price of $336.00 (Ex. 4). On July 3, 1985, Walsh sold various plants grown by Goochland Nurseries to J & W Landscape for a total price of $564.96 (Ex. 5). On all of these sales the producers billed Walsh for the product and were paid by Walsh. Walsh billed the customers who did not pay and Walsh filed the complaints (Ex. 8, 9 and 10), denied by Respondent on grounds Walsh was not an agent or representative of the producers. In 1976, Petitioner filed a complaint against the bond of the Ernest Corporation, a licensed dealer in agricultural products and received $5,589.20 from Respondent who recovered from the bonding company. In the complaint Walsh alleged that it was agent for Southeast Growers, Inc., selling their nursery stock throughout Florida. Respondent's witnesses could not recall what additional evidence they saw to conclude that Walsh was, in fact, an agent for the producer. However, these witnesses all testified that had they then believed Walsh was solely responsible to the producer for payment for the products sold they would not have concluded Walsh was the agent or representative of the producer. The bond on which Petitioner is attempting to recover provides that if the principal "shall faithfully and truly account for and make payment to producers, their agents or representatives, as required by Sections 604.15 - 604.30, Florida Statutes, that this obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect." (Ex. 11 and 12)
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of these proceedings. Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1985) provides in pertinent part: Any person claiming himself to be damaged by any breach of the conditions of a bond or certificate of deposit, assignment or agreement given by a licensed dealer in agricultural products as herein before provided may enter complaints thereof against the dealer and against the surety, if any, to the department, which complaint shall be a written statement of the facts constituting the complaint. Section 604.15(1) , Florida Statutes (1985) provides: "Dealers in agricultural products" means any person, whether itinerant or domiciled within this state, engaged within this state in the business of purchasing, receiving, or soliciting agricultural products from the producer or his agent or representative for resale or processing for sale; acting as an agent for such producer in the sale of agricultural products for the account of the producer on a net return basis; or acting as a negotiating broker between the producer or his agent or representative and the buyer. (emphasis supplied) One of the complexities of this case which leads to some confusion is the fact that both Pent and Walsh were dealers in agricultural products as above defined. Walsh fits into the category of a person claiming himself to be damaged by a breach of any condition of the bond of Pent. However, he has the burden of showing that he is a person covered by the bond. According to the terms of the bond, coverage is provided only for "producers, their agents or representatives." Walsh is clearly not a producer in this case but claims coverage as an agent or representative. In construing "agent" or "representative" the legislative intent should be considered. The purpose of these provisions of the statute requiring licensing and bonding of dealers in agricultural products, as expressed in Section 604.151, Florida Statutes, is to protect producers from economic harm. Economic harm sustained by an agent or representative is imputed back to the principals, which in this case are the producers. An agency may be defined as a contract either expressed or implied upon a consideration, or a gratuitous undertaking, by which one of the parties confides to the other the management of some business to be transacted in the former's name or on his account, and by which the latter assumes to do the business and render an account of it. 2 Fl. Jur. 2d "Agency," Section 1. Here, Walsh was selling agricultural products on its own account, which products it was purchasing from the producers. The producer sold its product to Walsh and delivered it to the address Walsh indicated. The customer receipted for the product and the producer billed Walsh for the total cost, including transportation, to the ultimate buyer, less the 20-25 percent commission Walsh received. Walsh paid the producer and billed the customer. Whether or not Walsh collected from the customer had no bearing on the debt Walsh owed the producer for the product. It could be said that the producer was the agent for Walsh in delivering the product to the user. Even though Walsh never had actual possession of the product the sale to Walsh was complete when the producer delivered the product to the user. The entire transaction clearly is a buy-and-sell operation by Walsh and not Walsh acting as an agent for the producer. The fact that Walsh sells the producer's product does not make Walsh the agent or representative of the producer, when the producer holds only Walsh responsible to pay for the product. Nor was Walsh a representative of the producers. Representative is defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977 Ed.) as: "standing or acting for another esp. through delegated authority." Walsh had no delegation of authority to act for the producer. Walsh had no authority to modify the price, settle disputes, or any other function normally performed by a representative. The above interpretation of those having standing to file a complaint against a dealer in agricultural products is the same interpretation of the applicable statutory provisions that is made by Respondent. As stated in Natelson v. Dept. of Insurance, 454 So.2d 31 (Fl 1st DCA 1984): Agencies are afforded a wide discretion in the interpretation of a statute which it [sic] administers and will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous. The reviewing court will defer to any interpretation within the range of possible interpretations. (citations omitted). This interpretation limiting recovery on an agricultural bond to producers and their agents or representatives is certainly within the range of possible interpretations, especially considering the purpose of these statutory provisions to be the protection of the economic well being of the producer. From the foregoing, it is concluded that Robert J. Walsh & Company, Inc. was not the agent or representative of Goochland Nurseries and Stewart Tree Service and does not have standing to file a complaint against Dean Pent, d/b/a Pent Landscape Company, and Paul Pent, d/b/a Paul Pent Landscape Company, and their surety, Transamerica Insurance Company.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the petition as contained in Petitioner's letter dated March 24, 1986. ENTERED this 14th day of July 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 14th day of July 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas M. Egan, Esquire Phillip Kuhn, Esquire Post Office Box 7323 Winter Haven, Florida 33883 Ronnie H. Weaver, Esquire Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joe W. Right Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 The issue is whether respondent, Eugene Martinez, should have a $1,500 civil penalty imposed for allegedly violating Sections 450.33(5) and and 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989)
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy arose on the morning of January 29, 1990, when Larry Coker, a compliance officer with petitioner, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor, Employment, and Training (Division), made a routine inspection of a citrus harvesting crew working in an orange grove owned by Adrian Chapman and located one-half mile east of State Road 39 in DeSoto County, Florida. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether the crew and its supervising contractor were in compliance with state regulations. Upon entering the premises, Coker observed a crew of approximately seventeen workers harvesting fruit in the citrus grove. An individual by the name of Martin R. Olvera was operating a high lift at the work site. Coker approached Olvera and asked him who was the farm labor contractor for the crew. Olvera responded that the licensed farm contractor was respondent, Eugene Martinez, but that Martinez had authorized him (Olvera) to supervise the crew that day in Martinez's absence. Olvera acknowledged that he was being paid $40 per day by respondent to supervise the loading of fruit and transport the workers from LaBelle to the grove. Division records reflect that Olvera is not licensed by the Division to perform those activities. A few minutes after Coker completed his inspection, respondent arrived at the work site. He readily acknowledged that Olvera was acting as a farm labor contractor without a license. By allowing Olvera to supervise a crew without a proper license, respondent used an unregistered farm labor contractor in contravention of the law. Olvera had transported the workers to the field that day in respondent's 1973 Ford bus. Respondent acknowledged that he did not have the proper liability insurance on the vehicle or the required inspection sticker. Both are required by law and agency rules. After being issued a citation that morning, respondent obtained the necessary insurance on his vehicle that afternoon. A vehicle inspection was obtained two days later. In addition, respondent initiated the necessary paperwork for Olvera to become a registered farm labor contractor. Because of those prompt efforts to satisfy Division requirements, respondent asked that he be given leniency on any civil fine. He has been unable to work since losing his right leg in an accident in May 1990 and is presently experiencing financial problems. There is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined by the Division for a violation of the law or agency rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that respondent Eugene Martinez has violated Sections 450.33(5) and (9) and 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989). It is further recommended that respondent be fined $600, such fine to be paid within thirty days from date of the final order entered by the Division. DONE and ENTERED this 9 day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9 day of November, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner: Partially adopted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. Note - Where a finding of fact has been partially used, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, cumulative, subordinate, irrelevant or not supported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Frances R. Rivera, Esquire The Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0657 Mr. Eugene Martinez P. O. Box 2194 LaBelle, FL 33935 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Steven D. Barron, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners (complainants) are entitled to recover $5,640.19 or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and Respondent surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are growers of watermelons and qualify as "producers" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company is surety for Respondent Griffin d/b/a Quality. Petitioners' claims against the dealer and his bond are listed in the Amended Complaint in the following amounts and categories: 6-18-92 Inv. #657 45,580 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $2,279.00 Advance - 700.00 NWPB* - 9.12 $1,569.88 6-19-92 Inv. #668 2,490 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $ 124.50 (paid for 42,860 lbs. short 2,490 lbs.) NWPB* - .50 124.00 6-20-92 Inv. #695 6,818 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $ 340.90 (paid for 39,062 lbs. short 6,818 lbs.) NWPB* 1.36 339.54 6-20-92 Inv. @ #702 .05 39,880 lbs. Sangria melons lb. $1,994.00 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 7.98 Pmt. - 90.00 1,186.02 6-21-92 Inv. @ #706 .05 44,740 lbs. Sangria melons lb. $2,237.00 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 8.95 1,518.05 6-22-93 Inv. @ #716 .04 11,280 lbs. Crimson melons lb. NWPB* - 2.32 460.88 6-22-92 Inv. @ #709 .04 46,740 lbs. Crimson melons lb. $1,869.60 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 9.35 1,150.25 Deducted for #706 - 441.82 441.82 PAID 708.43 Total Claimed $5,640.19 *NWPB = National Watermelon Promotion Board Fee Petitioners and Respondent dealer have had an oral business relationship for four to five years. Both parties agree that their oral agreement initially called for a federal inspection to be done on each load if the load were refused in whole or in part by the ultimate recipient. Respondent Griffin contended that over the years there had been further oral agreements to "work out" or "ride out" small discrepancies or partial refusals of loads without resorting to federal inspections, the cost of which inspections could eliminate the entire profit on single loads. Petitioners denied that such an amended oral agreement was ever reached and further maintained that the amounts of the loads at issue herein could not be considered "small" by any interpretation. Respondent submitted no evidence as to what the relative terms, "large" and "small," mean in the industry. Consequently, it appears that there was never a meeting of the minds of the parties on the alleged oral contract amendments relied upon by Respondent. Respondent testified that in past years, prior to 1992, he had interpreted the term "ride it out" to mean that he would simply accept the hearsay statements of ultimate recipients that named poundages of melons were bad and he would let the ultimate recipients pay for only the melons they said were good. Respondent would thereafter absorb any losses himself, not passing on the loss by deducting any amount from the full amount he would normally pay to the growers within ten days. However, 1992 was such a bad year for melons that the Respondent dealer chose not to absorb the greater losses and passed them on to the growers by way of deductions on "settlement sheets." In 1992 Respondent sent Petitioners the settlement sheets with the deductions explained thereon with the net payments as much as thirty days after the ultimate sales. Upon the foregoing evidence, it appears that Respondent had established a course of business whereby Petitioners could reasonably have expected him to absorb any losses occasioned by Respondent's reliance on hearsay statements of the ultimate recipients concerning poor quality melons unless Respondent chose not to test the questionable melons with a federal inspection. Petitioners obtained Exhibit P-5 for load 657 at Respondent dealer's place of business, but were not certain it applied to the load Mr. Tucker claimed he delivered to Respondent on 6-18-92 because Mr. Tucker did not know his load number that day. The exhibit represents the weight ticket Petitioners believe applies to the load which Mr. Tucker claimed to have delivered to Respondent dealer on 6-18-92. However, the exhibit bears two other names, "Jones and Smith," not Petitioners' respective names of Tucker or Watson. It has "WACC" handwritten across it, which Mr. Tucker claimed signified the name of his watermelon field. The number "657" also has been handwritten across it. There is no evidence of who wrote any of this on the exhibit. Respondent denied that load 657 was received from Mr. Tucker. The exhibit shows a printed gross weight of 78,900 lbs., tare weight of 32,860 lbs. and net weight of 66,800 lbs. Net weights are supposed to signify the poundage of melons delivered to the dealer. Nothing on the exhibit matches Mr. Tucker's journal entry (Petitioners' Exhibit 3) of delivering 45,580 lbs. of watermelons to Respondent dealer on 6- 18-92. Mr. Tucker testified that he was never paid for his delivery. Respondent denied there was such a delivery and testified that he paid Jones and Smith for load 657. Petitioners have established no entitlement to their claim of $1,569.88 on Invoice 657. Petitioners' Exhibit P-4 represents two weight tickets secured from Respondent dealer's records that Petitioners contend apply to load 668. The first page has "45,350/6-19-92/Scott Tucker WACC" handwritten across it. None of the four poundages imprinted thereon match any of the amounts claimed by Petitioners for invoice 668, and subtracting amounts testified to also does not conform these figures to Petitioners' claim on load 668. The second page weight ticket shows a date of 6-18-92 and a weight of 34,260 lbs. It also does not match Petitioner's claim that they were owed for 45,350 lbs. but were paid for only 42,860 lbs., being paid 2,490 lbs. short. Exhibit P-8 is the 668 invoice/settlement sheet which Respondent provided to Petitioners and shows invoice 668 with date of 6-19-92, tare and pay weight of 42,860 lbs. at $.05/lb. for $2,143.00 less $8.57 melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB, see supra) for $2,134.43, less a $700.00 advance and $10.00 for packing straw for a total due Petitioners of $1,424.43 which Respondent has already paid. Petitioners have established no entitlement to their claim of $124.00 on Invoice 668. Petitioners Exhibit P-6 represents two weight tickets secured from Respondent dealer's records. The first page has "45,880 lbs./6-20-92/Scott Tucker Crimson WACC 695" handwritten across it. None of the printed gross, tare, or net weights thereon match any of the amounts claimed by Petitioners for invoice 695. The second page shows the date 6-20-92 and a printed net weight of 32,000 lbs. Respondent dealer provided Petitioners with Exhibit P-7, invoice/settlement sheet 695 dated 6-20-92 showing tare and pay weights of 39,062 lbs. priced at $.05/lb. totalling $1,953.10, less melon adv. assoc. (a/k/a NWPB) fee of $7.81, for $1,945.29, less $700.00 advanced, less $10.00 for packing straw for a total of $1,235.29. The foregoing do not support Petitioner Tucker's claim based on his journal entry (P-3) that he was entitled to be paid for 45,880 lbs. he claims he delivered that day instead of for 39,062 pounds (short by 6,818 pounds) with balance owing to him of $339.54. Respondent has paid what was owed on invoice 695. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 9 shows that Petitioner Tucker delivered 39,880 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-20-92 and Petitioner Watson received back from Respondent dealer an invoice/settlement sheet 702 showing 39,880 pounds @ $.05/lb. equalling $1,994.00 and that although $1,994.00 was owed Petitioners, Respondent thereafter subtracted for $800.00 worth of returned melons, a $700.00 advance, $7.98 for melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB), and $10.00 for packing straw, and that a balance was paid to Petitioners of only $90.00. This is arithmetically illogical. The subtractions total $1,517.98. Therefore, if all of Respondent's subtractions were legitimate, the total balance due Petitioners would have been $476.02. If the right to deduct for the $800.00 in returned melons were not substantiated by Respondent dealer, then Petitioners would be due $1,276.02. Since all parties acknowledge that $90.00 was already paid by Respondent dealer, then Petitioners are due $1,186.02 if Respondent did not substantiate the right to deduct the $800.00. Load 702 was "graded out," i.e. accepted as satisfactory, by a representative of Respondent dealer or a subsequent holder in interest when the melons were delivered by Petitioners to Respondent dealer. That fact creates the presumption that the melons were received in satisfactory condition by the Respondent dealer. Nothing persuasive has been put forth by the Respondent dealer to show that the situation concerning the melons' quality had changed by the time the load arrived at its final destination. Respondent got no federal inspection on this load and relied on hearsay statements by persons who did not testify as to some melons being inferior. In light of the standard arrangement of the parties over the whole course of their business dealings (see Findings of Fact 5-7 supra), Petitioners have proven entitlement to the amount claimed on load 702 of $1,186.02. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite 10 shows Petitioners Tucker and Watson delivered 44,740 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-21-92. At $.05/lb., Petitioners were owed $2,237.00, less melon adv. association fee (a/k/a NWPB) of $8.95, $700.00 for an advance, and $10.00 for straw. Those deductions are not at issue. Therefore, Petitioners would be owed $1,518.05, the amount claimed, from Respondent. However, the invoice also notes that Respondent made a $268.18 deduction for melons returned. Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1 purports to be a BB&W Farms Loading Sheet and Federal Inspection Sheet. Respondent offered this exhibit to show that only $68.18 was realized by him on load 706 which he attributed to Petitioner Watson. However, the federal inspector did not testify as to the results of the inspection, the inspection sheet itself is illegible as to "estimated total," the "estimated total" has been written in by another hand as "$62.60," and there was no explanation on the Composite Exhibit or in testimony as to how Respondent dealer came up with $200.00 in "return lumping charges" as also indicated on Exhibit R-1. Accordingly, Petitioners have established that with regard to load/invoice 706, they delivered watermelons worth $2,237.00 to Respondent dealer and Respondent dealer did not affirmatively establish that any melons were bad, despite the federal inspection sheet introduced in evidence. Petitioners have proven entitlement to their claim on invoice 706 for $1,518.05. However, Petitioners conceded that Respondent actually paid them $441.82 on invoice/settlement sheet 706. Therefore, they are only entitled to recoup a total of $1,076.23 on their claim for Invoice 706. In the course of formal hearing, Respondent dealer admitted that, with regard to load invoice 716, (Tucker) he did owe Petitioners $460.88 for 275 watermelons, and that it had not been paid purely due to clerical error. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 12 (Invoice and Weight Tickets 709, Watson) shows Petitioner Watson delivered 46,740 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-22-92 and at $.04 lb., Petitioners were owed $1,869.60, less appropriate deductions. Petitioners conceded that Respondent dealer appropriately deducted $9.35 for melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB), $700.00 for an advance, and $10.00 for packing straw, bringing the amount they were owed to $1,150.25. Petitioners and Respondent are in agreement the Respondent paid only $708.43 of the $1,150.25 owed on invoice/settlement sheet 709 because Respondent dealer also deducted from the amount owed on invoice 709 the $441.82 he had previously paid out on Invoice 706. See, Finding of Fact 13, supra. Since Petitioners have established that they were owed $1,518.05 on invoice 706 but were paid only $441.82 thereon, it appears that Petitioners should be paid $1,076.23 on Invoice 706 and realize nothing on Invoice 709.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order awarding Petitioners $1,186.02 on invoice 702, $1,076.23 on invoice 706, and $460.88 on invoice 716 for a total of $2,723.13, dismissing all other claimed amounts, and binding Respondents to pay the full amount of $2,723.13, which in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company's case shall be only to the extent of its bond. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Tucker and Phillip Watson Route 2 Box 280 Trenton, FL 32693 Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage Post Office Box 889 Immokalee, FL 33934 William J. Moore USF&G Post Office Box 31143 Tampa, FL 33631 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, MD 21203 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Division of Marketing, Bureau of Licensure and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
