Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings are fact are determined: In this examination for licensure challenge, petitioner, Mason L. Flint, contends that he is entitled to a higher score on the March 1994 deputy pilot examination for the Port of Jacksonville. The examination is administered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) on behalf of respondent, Board of Pilot Commissioners (Board). Although the original petition challenged the grade in twelve respects, petitioner now contends that only two items are in issue, item 21 relating to the local knowledge part of the examination, and item 270 relating to the aids to navigation part of the examination. Both are true-false questions. Unlike the more than fifty other professional licensure examinations administered by the DBPR, the seven-part pilot examination requires a candidate to achieve a minimum passing grade on each part, but candidates doing so then compete with each other for vacant positions. In other words, if only one position at a particular port is open, the candidate achieving the highest score above the minimum passing grade is the only candidate receiving a license. In this case, three deputy pilot positions were available at the Port of Jacksonville, and thus the candidates having the three highest scores among those exceeding the minimum passing grade would be given a license. Petitioner finished sixth on the original grading, but after having his examination regraded by the Board prior to hearing, he was ranked number four. By this challenge, he seeks to have his grade changed on items 21 and 270 so as to raise his ranking to number three. In order to preserve the confidentiality of Item 21 for future examinations, it is suffice to say that the item required a response of true or false concerning limitations on vessels leaving the Talleyrand Docks in Jacksonville, Florida. The examination answer key shows true as the correct response. In preparing all questions pertaining to local knowledge, including item 21, the Board's consultant used the U. S. Coast Pilot, a compilation of operational guidelines governing the movement of vessels in the St. Johns River (and Port of Jacksonville). The specific source of authority for item 21 was paragraph (16) on page 153 of the 1993 edition of the U. S. Coast Pilot. That paragraph reads in pertinent part as follows: (16) Outbound vessels: Vessels with a draft of over 23 (sic) feet sailing between Main Street Bridge to, and including, U. S. Gypsum Co. Pier, shall get underway after 1-1/2 hours after flood current with a cut off time at the beginning of ebb current . . . Because Talleyrand Docks lies between the Main Street Bridge and the U. S. Gypsum Company Pier, this paragraph has application to vessels leaving those docks. The 1993 version of the U. S. Coast Pilot contained a typographical error. Rather than "23" feet, the guidelines should have read "32" feet. To correct this error, paragraph (16) was revised in mid-March 1994, or the same month the examination was given, to provide that any vessel drawing more than 32 feet would be subject to the above movement restrictions. However, candidates were advised that only revisions to the U. S. Coast Pilot through January 1, 1994, would be included in the March 1994 examination. Besides the limitation described in paragraph (16), two other paragraphs on the same page of the U. S. Coast Pilot made reference to the correct 32 foot limitation. In addition, the Guidelines of Vessel Movements on St. Johns River, which form the basis for the data in the U. S. Coast Pilot, used the correct 32 foot limitation. Candidates familiar with those provisions should have been on notice that a typographical error existed in paragraph (16). Although the Board's suggested response is arguably correct, the more persuasive evidence shows that the statement in item 21 was confusing and unclear due to the typographical error in the U. S. Coast Pilot and the conflicting provisions on the same page of the source material. Thus, item 21 does not reliably measure the specified area of competency. Under these circumstances, a candidate should be given credit for either a true or false response, or alternatively, the question should be discarded in calculating a candidate's final score. Accordingly, petitioner's grade should be adjusted in this respect. Petitioner has also contended that only a false response is correct since the question implies that a restriction exists because of its use of the words "up to the beginning of ebb current." The evidence shows, however, that a candidate could reasonably reject that suggested implication and properly make a true response. Item 270 requires a true or false response to a statement regarding identifying marks or buoys marking a channel. The item identifies a set of conditions and then states that such a marking "could" properly be made. The examination answer key shows true as the correct response. The primary source of authority for item 270 is 33 CFR 62.43. According to that federal regulation, buoys marking the side of a channel (lateral aids) are always a solid color, and all solid color buoys marking a channel are numbered. The regulation goes on to provide that, in addition to a number, all solid color numbered buoys may also carry a letter suffix to aid in their identification, or to indicate their purpose. They cannot, however, be identified by letter only, but only by number and letter. Because the more credible and persuasive evidence shows that the question, as stated on the examination, clearly suggests that only a letter could be used for identification of a sidemark buoy, the correct response should be false. Therefore, petitioner should be given credit for his answer. The record is not altogether clear as to how changing petitioner's overall grade will impact his ranking. According to the DBPR psychometrician who is in charge of the pilot examination development, both petitioner and the third ranked candidate gave the same response on one of the challenged questions. On the other item, the two gave different responses, but if either response is deemed to be a correct response, it would have no bearing on their overall ranking. The pychometrician added that if an item is challenged and credit given to the protesting candidate, the answer key is changed and all candidates' scores are adjusted to reflect the change in the answer key.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board regrading petitioner's examination consistent with the above findings and conclusions. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 18th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5327 Petitioner: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4-5. Rejected as being unnecessary. 6-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 14-27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3-8. 28-39. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9-11. Respondent: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 9-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 12. Rejected. See finding of fact 11. Note: Where a proposed findings has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejcted as being unnecessary, irrelevant, subordiante, not supported by the evidence, or cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: Mason L. Flint 1605 Brookside Circle East Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Wellington H. Meffert, II, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Susan J. Foster, Executive Director Board of Pilot Commissioners 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0773
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On August 14, 1980, respondent Warwick G. Cahill applied to the Board of Pilot Commissioners for certification to take the examination to become a deputy pilot. To the questions on the application "Have you ever been a party in a criminal proceeding?" and "Have you ever been arrested?," respondent answered "No." On April 16, 1975, respondent was arrested and charged with "driving under the influence" in violation of Section 316.028, Florida Statutes. He was convicted of the misdemeanor charge, his driver's license was suspended for ninety days, he was fined $150.00 and he was placed on probation for six months. Respondent's record shows no prior or subsequent involvement in any criminal or traffic court proceedings. On November 24, 1976, respondent applied for tug employment with the St. Phillip Towing Company. On that application, the following responses were made to the question: "Have you ever been arrested?": Yes, one time, on charges of DWI. On August 4, 1980, Rickie Wayne Baggett applied to the Board of Pilot Commissioners to take the same pilot's examination for which the respondent had applied. To the question, "Have you ever been arrested?," Mr. Baggett answered "Yes," explaining that he had been arrested for driving while intoxicated and his license had been suspended for one year. In the space provided for him to state his driver's license number, Mr. Baggett noted that it had been suspended for one year. At a meeting held on September 5, 1980, the Board of Pilot Commissioners considered the applications of respondent and Mr. Baggett, along with others, to take the October 17, 1980, examination for certificated deputy pilot. The Board unanimously approved a motion to give conditional approval to the applicants Baggett and Cahill pending the receipt of information confirming their maritime background. At a later date, both Baggett and respondent were certified as eligible to take the October 17, 1980 pilot's examination. An investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation who has routinely investigated matters pertaining to licensed pilots since March of 1980 has never been requested to investigate any pilot for a DWI-related offense. The respondent's DWI offense was discovered during an investigation concerning an unrelated matter. While fully aware of the fact that he had been arrested for a driving while intoxicated charge, respondent Cahill claims to have forgotten about the arrest at the time he made application for examination and did not realize that such was a criminal proceeding. Mr. Cahill was born in Australia, came to the United States in 1972 and is a naturalized citizen.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed on November 9, 1981, as amended on March 16, 1982, be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 21st day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 21st day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: W. B. Ewers, Esquire Suite 204 2170 S. E. 17th Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 C. Steven Yerrid, Esquire Holland & Knight Post Office Box 1288 Tampa, Florida 33601 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Pilot Commissioners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Richard L. Hensch submitted to the Department of Transportation (DOT) an Airport Site Approval and License Application dated December 8, 1987, for a private seaplane base on Lake Fairview in Orange County. On the application, Mr. Hensch indicated that flight activities that would be conducted from the proposed site could be sight-seeing flights, seaplane rides and tours and occasional seaplane instruction. Mr. Hensch plans to offer these activities to the public and charge fees for them. Attached to the Application was a letter dated December 17, 1987, from Ms. Sharon Smith, the Orange County Zoning Director, in which she states: Please be advised that insofar as Orange County Zoning requirements are concerned, our department has no jurisdiction over the use of water bodies of lakes; rather such use falls under the jurisdiction of the State of Florida. This letter was written at the request of the Petitioner. While the above-referenced application was under consideration by DOT, Petitioner applied for and received from the County tentative approval for an occupational license for his proposed operation. F.A.A. airspace determination approval letter for the proposed site was dated June 1, 1989. A Notice of Intent about the "proposed Private Seaplane Base" was issued by the Department of Transportation on June 21, 1989. A public meeting in connection therewith was conducted on August 28, 1989. Bronson Monteith, working for the DOT in Orange County, conducted the public meeting and recommended site approval relying on the letter by Orange County, dated December 17, 1987, as to the zoning. The Orange County Commission at its meeting held on August 14, 1989, objected to the placement of a seaplane base at Lake Fairview based on a determination by the zoning director and the county attorney's office that the proposed seaplane base did not comply with the zoning ordinance. The Lake Fairview area property is zoned predominantly residential, R- 1A, R-1AA with some C-2, R-T and R-3 zoning within the lake. Included within the commercial-type operations along and on the lake are jet-ski, sailboat and other watercraft rentals. Airports can be located only by special exception in A1 and A-2, agricultural zoning districts, and are permitted outright in I-5, Industrial Airport Zoning District. None of the lake area or shoreline areas are zoned A-1, Z-2 or I-5. During August of 1989, the Assistant Zoning Director, Joanne McMurray, who as Acting Zoning Director, received a memorandum from Mr. Hartman, Acting Director of the County's Administrative Services Office, about the seaplane base proposal whereby she researched the zoning regulations as to airport facilities and zoning districts and permitted uses. She determined the proposed seaplane site would not comply with the Orange County zoning requirements. Ms. McMurray had received information from the county legal department that Zoning had jurisdiction to govern the use of lakes. Lacy Moore, DOT's Chief of Airport Inspection, indicated that licensing followed site approval and was subject to annual renewal. Licensing was subject to revocation or denial of renewal if zoning changes occurred that made the airport out of compliance with zoning. DOT sought clarification from the County as to whether the proposed site was in compliance with the Orange County zoning regulations. Phillip N. Brown, Orange County Administrator, sent a letter to Mr. Moore dated October 30, 1989, advising that the proposed seaplane site was not a permitted use in the County zoning district for Lake Fairview. As a result of Mr. Brown's letter, Petitioner's application was denied on November 1, 1989, based on failure to comply with local zoning requirements. An "airport" is defined by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance as "any area of land or water designated and set aside for the landing and taking off of aircraft and utilized or to be utilized in the interest of the public for such purpose." No amendments to the zoning ordinance or zoning district map have been enacted since the filing of Petitioner's Application of December 8, 1987. On or about November 11, 1988, Ms. Smith, Orange County Zoning Director, by letter, stated that there were no zoning regulations in force in connection with another unrelated application for site approval and licensure of a private seaplane base on Big Sand Lake in Orange County, Florida. Licensed private airports have been authorized by DOT to provide services to the public such as airplane rides and flight instruction and charge fees. At the formal hearing held on this matter, several residents of the Lake Fairview area expressed opposition to the proposed seaplane site and indicated their concerns as to noise and safety because of extensive activity on the lake. Some people spoke in favor of the seaplane base indicating operational safety. Members of the public, including lake residents and others who spoke at the hearing, were not under subpoena by either party.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by the agency head denying site approval for a private seaplane base on Lake Fairview in Orange County, Florida, because it does not comply with applicable county zoning as required by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-6714 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10 (discussed in Preliminary Statement). Rejected as argument: 8,11. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: 1,2,3,4,5 COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Brian D. Stokes, Esquire Post Office Box 538065 Orlando, Florida 32853-8065 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, MS 58 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Thomas A. Baggett, was at all times material hereto licensed by the State of Florida as a pilot in Tampa Bay. On May 15, 1984, Captain Baggett was employed to undock the M/V Hybur Tropic (Tropic) from Berth 264, Port of Tampa, and to pilot her outbound through Tampa Bay. The Tropic is 238 feet long, with approximately a 32 foot beam, and a draft of over 7 feet. She is powered by a direct drive diesel engine and backs to port. Because the Tropic is direct drive, it takes a minute to a minute and a half to shift the direction of the engine; and another minute to a minute and a half to make headway in the opposite direction. At slow astern, the Tropic will achieve a speed of 2-3 knots in less than two ships' lengths. At or about 1820 hours, May 15, 1984, Captain Baggett ordered the Tug Dorothy to make up a hawser to the center chock aft of the Tropic and pull the stern of the Tropic, which was moored port side to Berth 264, away from the dock. Captain Baggett maneuvered the Tropic's stern around the bow of the M/V Carib Haven which was moored within 100 to 150 feet of Berth 264 on the south side of the slip, and positioned the Tropic in the center of the west end of the slip. Captain Baggett then ordered the Tug Dorothy to pull the Tropic backward out of the slip and ordered the Tropic's engine to slow astern. As the stern of the Tropic exited the slip into Ybor Channel, Captain Baggett ordered the Tug Dorothy to pull the stern of the Tropic to the north, but did not order any engine change. Finally, as the bow of the Tropic cleared the slip, and was in the Ybor Channel, Captain Baggett ordered the Tropic's engines to slow ahead. When she entered the Ybor Channel the Tropic was making a minimum of 2-3 knots, and with the assist provided by the Tug Dorothy more probably 4-5 knots. Captain Baggett's handling of the Tropic placed the Tug Dorothy in a position of peril, and rendered her ineffectual. By continuing slow astern, after ordering the tug to pull the Tropic's stern to the north, the Tropic's tendency to back to port worked against the tug's efforts. By continuing to back the Tropic's engine until her bow had cleared the slip, the Tropic backed past the tug and began to trip her. With water coming over the tug's port side, and the danger of tipping over imminent, the tug's deckhand released the hawser to the Tropic, and the Tropic backed past her into the side of the barge IOS 3301, which was moored on the east side of the Ybor Channel immediately east of the slip the Tropic exited. Captain Baggett's assertion that a collision would have been avoided if the Tug Dorothy had not released the hawser is unpersuasive. At the time the hawser was released, Captain Baggett's handling of the Tropic had already rendered the tug ineffectual, and a collision with the barge 105 3301 inevitable. When Captain Baggett finally ordered the Tropic's engine slow ahead, her bow had cleared the slip and she was moving astern at a minimum of 2 knots. By that time, the Tropic's stern was only 180 feet from the side of the barge 105 3301. At 2 knots the Tropic would cover 200 feet in one minute. Accordingly, before the Tropic's engine could even start ahead, she had backed into the barge. Captain Baggett sought to justify his backing of the Tropic through testimony that he used the Tropic's tendency to back to port to keep her bow from falling down on the M/V Carib Haven. However, by the time the Tropic's stern exited the slip, her bow was already clear of the M/V Carib Haven. Further, Captain Baggett conceded that the Tug Dorothy, even with existing shipping in the slip, was capable of safely towing the Tropic into the Ybor Channel without any assist from the Tropic's engine. Captain Baggett failed to offer any persuasive evidence which would exculpate him. 1/ Wind, weather and current conditions were not unfavorable at the time of the collision, and the Tropic did not experience any mechanical problems.
The Issue Whether American Airlines committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the employment discrimination charges filed by Petitioners and, if so, what relief should Petitioners be granted by the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the extensive factual stipulations set forth in the parties' February 23, 2006, Corrected Joint Prehearing Stipulation2: Petitioners are both Hispanic. Hispanics represent a substantial portion of the workforce in American's maintenance department at Miami International Airport (MIA). Among these Hispanic employees in the maintenance department are those who occupy supervisory positions. American’s Vice-President for Maintenance, Danny Martinez, is Hispanic. As aviation maintenance technicians for American, Petitioners' job duties, as set forth in the written job description for the position, were as follows: In addition to the work specified for the Junior Aviation Maintenance Technician, an Aviation Maintenance Technician's responsibility also includes the following: troubleshooting, individually or with Crew Chief, management or professional direction, disassembly, checking and cleaning, repairing, replacing, testing, adjusting, assembling, installing, servicing, fabricating, taxing or towing airplanes and/or run-up engines, de-icing aircraft, required to maintain the airworthiness of aircraft and all their components while in service or while undergoing overhaul and/or modification. Certifies for quality of own workmanship, including signing mechanical flight releases for all work done on field work. In those work positions where stock chasers are not utilized and/or available at the time may chase own parts. May have other Mechanic personnel assigned to assist him/her in completing an assignment. Works according to FAA and Company regulations and procedures and instructions from Crew Chief or supervisor. Completes forms connected with work assignments according to established procedures and communicates with other Company personnel as required in a manner designated by the Company. Performs the following duties as assigned: cleaning of aircraft windshields; connection/removing ground power and ground start units; pushing out/towing of aircraft and related guideman functions, fueling/defueling, de-icing of aircraft. At all times material to the instant cases, Petitioners were members of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between American and the TWU (TWU Contract), which contained the following provisions, among others: ARTICLE 28- NO DISCRIMINATION, AND RECOGNITION OF RIGHTS AND COMPLIANCE The Company and the Union agree to make it a matter of record in this Agreement that in accordance with the established policy of the Company and the Union, the provisions of this Agreement will apply equally to all employees regardless of sex, color, race, creed, age, religious preferences, status as a veteran or military reservist, disability, or national origin. The Union recognizes that the Company will have sole jurisdiction of the management and operation of its business, the direction of its working force, the right to maintain discipline and efficiency in its hangars, stations, shops, or other places of employment, and the right of the Company to hire, discipline, and discharge employees for just cause, subject to the provisions of this Agreement. It is agreed that the rights of management not enumerated in this Article will not be deemed to exclude other preexisting rights of management not enumerated which do not conflict with other provisions of the Agreement. * * * Copies of the Peak Performance Through Commitment (PPC) Program will be available to all employees upon request. Any changes to the PPC Program will be provided and explained to the TWU prior to implementation. ARTICLE 29- REPRESENTATION * * * The Union does not question the right of the Company supervisors to manage and supervise the work force and make reasonable inquiries of employees, individually or collectively, in the normal course of work. In meetings for the purpose of investigation of any matter which may eventuate in the application of discipline or dismissal, or when written statements may be required, or of sufficient importance for the Company to have witnesses present, or to necessitate the presence of more than the Company supervisor, or during reasonable cause or post accident drug/alcohol testing as provided in Article 29(h), the Company will inform the employee of his right to have Union representation present. If the employee refuses representation, the supervisor's record will reflect this refusal. At the start of a meeting under the provisions of Article 29(f), the Company will, except in rare and unusual circumstances, indicate the reason that causes the meeting and then provide an opportunity for the employee and his Union representative to confer for a reasonable period of time. Following that period, the 29(f) meeting will be reconvened and continue until concluded by the supervisor. Before written notification of discipline or dismissal is given, an employee will be afforded the opportunity to discuss the matter with his supervisor. If he desires, he will have a Union representative in the discussion. . . . * * * ARTICLE 30- DISMISSAL An employee who has passed his probationary period will not be dismissed from the service of the Company without written notification of that action. The notification will include the reason or reasons for his dismissal. Appeal from dismissal will be made, in writing, by the employee within seven (7) calendar days after receiving the notification and will be addressed to the Chief Operating Officer, with a copy to the appropriate Human Resources Office. The Chief Operating Officer will fully investigate the matter and render a written decision as soon as possible, but not later than twelve (12) calendar days following his receipt of the appeal, unless mutually agreed otherwise. A copy of the written decision will be provided to the Union. * * * If the decision of the Chief Operating Officer is not satisfactory to the employee, the dismissal and decision will be appealed in accordance with Article 30(c), provided, however, the appeal must be submitted within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of the decision rendered by the Chief Operating Officer. An appeal from the decision of the Chief Operating Officer will be submitted to the appropriate Area Board of Adjustment in accordance with Article 32. . . . * * * ARTICLE 31- GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE An employee who believes that he has been unjustly dealt with, or that any provision of this Agreement has not been properly applied or interpreted, or against whom the Company has issued written disciplinary action, may submit his grievance in person or through his representatives within seven (7) calendar days. The grievance will be presented to his immediate supervisor, who will evaluate the grievance or complaint and render a written decision as soon as possible, but not later than seven (7) calendar days following his receipt of the grievance. . . . If the written decision of the immediate supervisor is not satisfactory to the employee whose grievance is being considered, it may be appealed within ten (10) calendar to the Chief Operating Officer, with a copy to the appropriate Human Resources Office. The Chief Operating Officer will fully investigate the matter and will render a written decision as soon as possible, but not later than twelve (12) calendar days, unless mutually agreed otherwise, following his receipt of the appeal. . . . If the decision of the Chief Operating Officer is not satisfactory to the employee, the grievance and the decision may be appealed to the System Board of Adjustment, as provided for in Article 32. * * * ARTICLE 32- BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT * * * Area Board of Adjustment, Discipline and Dismissal Cases * * * (2) Each Area Board will be composed on one member appointed by the Company, one member appointed by the Union, and a neutral referee acting as Chairman. . . . * * * Procedures Generally Applicable to the Boards * * * Employees and the Company may be represented at Board hearing by such person or persons as they may choose and designate. Evidence may be presented either orally or in writing, or both. The advocates will exchange all documents they may enter and the names of witnesses they may call in their direct case not later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date set for hearing. Nothing in this paragraph will require either advocate to present the documents or the witnesses provided above during the course of the hearing. The advocates will not be restricted from entering documents or calling witnesses that become known subsequent to the ten (10) ten calendar day exchange, provided a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours notice is provided to the other party and a copies are submitted to the other party prior to the presentation of the direct case. The party receiving the late document or witness has the option to postpone the hearing in light of the new document or witness. Upon the request of either party to the dispute, or of two (2) Board members, the neutral referee will summon witnesses to testify at Board hearing. The Company will cooperate to ensure that all witnesses summoned by the board will appear in a timely fashion. Reasonable requests by the Union for employee witnesses will be honored. The requests for witnesses will normally not be greater than the number, which can be spared without interference with the service of the Company. Disputes arising from this provision will be immediately referred to the Director of the Air Transport Division and the Vice President-Employee Relations, or their respective designees, for resolution. A majority of all members of a Board will be sufficient to make a finding or a decision with respect to any dispute properly before it, and such finding or decision will be final and binding upon the parties to such dispute. . . . * * * ARTICLE 36- MEAL PERIODS Meal periods will be thirty minutes, except when a longer period is agreed upon between the parties. Meal periods will be scheduled to begin not earlier than three (3) hours after commencement of work that day and not later than five hours after commencement of work that day. The commencement of work is from the start of the employee's regular shift. If an employee is not scheduled for a meal period within the foregoing time span, the meal period will be provided immediately before or after it. In the event that a meal period has not been provided in accordance with the foregoing, the employee is then free, if he so desires, to take his meal period. At all times material to the instant cases, American had Rules of Conduct for its employees that (as permitted by Article 28(b) of the TWU Contract) were applicable to TWU- represented bargaining unit members, including Petitioners. These Rules of Conduct provided, in pertinent part, as follows: As an American Airlines employee, you can expect a safe and productive workplace that ensures your ability to succeed and grow with your job. The rules listed below represent the guidelines and principles that all employees work by at American. Attendance * * * During your tour of duty, remain in the area necessary for the efficient performance of your work. Remain at work until your tour of duty ends unless you are authorized to leave early. * * * 17. Work carefully. Observe posted or published regulations. * * * Personal Conduct * * * 34. Dishonesty of any kind in relations with the company, such as theft or pilferage of company property, the property of other employees or property of others entrusted to the company, or misrepresentation in obtaining employee benefits or privileges, will be grounds for dismissal and where the facts warrant, prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. Employees charged with a criminal offense, on or off duty, may immediately be withheld from service. Any action constituting a criminal offense, whether committed on duty or off duty, will be grounds for dismissal. (Revision of this rule, April 10, 1984) * * * Violations of any of the American Airlines Rules of Conduct (listed above) . . . could be grounds for immediate termination depending of the severity of the incident or offense and the employee's record. . . . At all times material to the instant cases, American had a Peak Performance Through Commitment Policy (PPC Policy) to deal with employee performance and disciplinary problems. The policy, which (as permitted by Article 28(b) of the TWU Contract) was applicable to TWU-represented bargaining unit members, including Petitioners, provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Peak Performance Through Commitment (PPC) is a program that fosters ongoing communication between managers and employees. It encourages managers . . . to regularly recognize outstanding performance and to work together with employees to address and correct performance issues fairly. For the few employees whose performance does not respond to regular coaching and counseling, the following steps advise them that continued performance problems have serious consequences, ultimately leading to termination: -First Advisory for employees with problem performance or conduct who do not respond to coaching or counseling. -Second Advisory for employees whose performance fails to respond to initial corrective steps. -Career Decision Advisory for employees whose problem performance or conduct warrants termination. They are given a paid Career Decision Day away from work to consider their future and continued employment with American Airlines. -Final Advisory for employees whose problem performance or conduct requires termination, or those who have failed to honor the Letter of Commitment signed after their Career Decision Day. Please note that steps can sometimes be skipped, in instances where the nature of the conduct is very serious. It is your responsibility as an employee to know the company's rules of conduct and performance standards for your job, and to consistently meet or exceed those standards. In the event that your performance does not measure up to the company's expectations, your manager will work with you to identify the problem and outline steps to correct it. * * * SERIOUS INCIDENTS OR OFFENSES Some violations of our guiding principles and rules of conduct will result in immediate termination. For example, insubordination, violating our alcohol and drug policy, abusing travel privileges, aircraft damage, violations of the work environment policy, and job actions could be grounds for immediate termination, depending on the severity of the incident and the employee's record. Hate-related conduct and dishonesty will always result in termination. In cases when immediate termination may be appropriate but additional information is needed, the employee may be withheld from service while an investigation is conducted. At all times material to the instant case, Petitioners' regular shifts were eight and a half hours, including an unpaid, thirty minute "meal period" (to which TWU-represented bargaining unit members were entitled under Article 36 of the TWU Contract). Although they were paid to perform eight hours of work during their eight and a half hour shifts, TWU-represented bargaining unit members, including Petitioners, were, in practice, allowed to take up to an hour for their meals, without penalty. TWU-represented bargaining unit members "clocked in" at the beginning of their shift and "clocked out" at the end of their shift. They were expected to remain "on the clock" during their "meal periods" (which, as noted above, were to be no longer than one hour). During his eight and a half hour shift which began on July 30, 2004, Petitioner Castellanos was assigned to perform a "routine 'A' [safety] check" on a Boeing 757 aircraft, an assignment it should have taken a "well qualified [aviation maintenance technician] working quickly but carefully" approximately four hours to complete. At the time he left MIA that evening to go to the Quench nightclub, Mr. Castellanos was two hours and 15 minutes into his shift. During his eight and a half hour shift which began on July 30, 2004, Petitioner Pena was assigned to perform "PS checks" on two Boeing 737 aircraft, an assignment it should have taken a "well qualified [aviation maintenance technician] working quickly but carefully" at least six hours to complete. At the time he left MIA that evening to go to the Quench nightclub, Mr. Pena was three hours and 45 minutes into his shift. Walter Philbrick, an investigator in American's corporate security department, covertly followed Petitioners when they left MIA that evening and kept them under surveillance until their return almost four hours later. Petitioners did not clock out until following the end of their shifts on July 31, 2004. In so doing, they effectively claimed full pay for the shifts, notwithstanding that, during the shifts, they had been off the worksite, engaged in non-work- related activity, for well in excess of the one hour they were allowed for "meal periods." Mr. Philbrick prepared and submitted a report detailing what he had observed as to Petitioners' movements and conduct during the time that they had been under his surveillance. Mike Smith is American's maintenance department station manager at MIA. He is "responsible for the entire [American] maintenance operation in Miami." Mr. Smith assigned his subordinate, Anthony DeGrazia, a day shift production manager at MIA, the task of looking into, and taking the appropriate action on behalf of management in response to, the matters described in Mr. Philbrick's report. Neither Mr. Smith nor Mr. DeGrazia is Hispanic. Mr. DeGrazia met separately with both Mr. Pena and Mr. Castellanos. The meetings were held in accordance with the provisions of Article 29(f) of the TWU Contract. Before conducting the meetings, Mr. DeGrazia had reviewed Mr. Philbrick's report. Mr. Castellanos stated, among other things, the following in his meeting with Mr. DeGrazia: on the evening in question, he was trying to complete his assignment as fast as possible because he wanted to have an alcoholic beverage; that evening, he was "away from work" for approximately four hours, which he knew was wrong; and he and Mr. Pena had engaged in similar activity on perhaps six or seven previous occasions. Mr. Pena stated, among other things, the following in his meeting with Mr. DeGrazia: on the evening in question, he was "off the field" for three to four hours, which he knew was not "okay"; this was something he had done "sometimes" in the past; and American was a "great company" to work for. Based on his review of Mr. Philbrick's report and the information he had obtained from Petitioners, Mr. DeGrazia concluded that Petitioners had committed "time clock fraud" in violation of Rule 34 of American's Rules of Conduct and that they therefore, in accordance with American's policy that "dishonesty will always result in termination" (as expressed in the PPC Policy), should be terminated. Before taking such action, Mr. DeGrazia consulted with Mr. Smith and "someone" from American's human resources department, who both "concurred" with Mr. DeGrazia that termination was the appropriate action to take against Petitioners. On August 12, 2004, Mr. DeGrazia issued Final Advisories terminating Petitioners' employment. The Final Advisory given to Mr. Castellanos read, in pertinent part, as follows: On Friday, July 30, 2004, your scheduled tour of duty was 2230-0700. During your scheduled shift you were assigned to complete an A-check on a 757 aircraft. At approximately 0045, Corporate Security observed you leaving the premises and going into a nightclub in Coconut Grove. While there, you were observed at the bar drinking from a plastic cup. You were observed leaving the nightclub at 0315 and driving towards the airport. By your own account, you returned to the airport approximately 0400. During a company investigation, you admitted to leaving the premises, during your scheduled tour of duty and going to a restaurant/bar. Further, you admitted to consuming alcoholic beverages. Additionally, when asked how it was possible for you to complete your assignment in such a short amount of time you stated that you were, "trying to complete the job as fast as I can because I was getting the urge of getting a drink." Based on the above information I have concluded that your actions fall far short of that which may be reasonably expected of our employees and are a direct violation of American Airlines' Rules of Conduct, Rules 3, 4, 17, and 34 . . . . In view of the above rule violations your employment with American Airlines is hereby terminated effective today, August 12, 2004. * * * The Final Advisory given to Mr. Pena read, in pertinent part, as follows: On Friday, July 30, 2004, your scheduled tour of duty was 2100-0530. During your scheduled shift you were assigned to complete two PS-checks on 737 aircraft. At approximately 0045, Corporate Security observed you leaving the premises and going into a nightclub in Coconut Grove. While there, you were observed at the bar drinking from a plastic cup. You were observed leaving the nightclub at 0315 and driving towards the airport. By your own account, you returned to the airport approximately 0400. During a company investigation, you admitted to leaving the premises, during your scheduled tour of duty and going to a restaurant/bar. Further, you admitted to consuming alcoholic beverages. Additionally, when you[] were asked if it is acceptable to go to lunch for 3-4 hours you stated, "no, according to Company Rules, it's not OK." Based on the above information I have concluded that your actions fall far short of that which may be reasonably expected of our employees and are a direct violation of American Airlines' Rules of Conduct, Rules 3, 4, and 34 . . . . In view of the above rule violations your employment with American Airlines is hereby terminated effective today, August 12, 2004. * * * That Petitioners were Hispanic played no role whatsoever in Mr. DeGrazia's decision to terminate them. Mr. DeGrazia terminated Petitioners because, and only because, he believed that they had engaged in dishonesty by committing "time clock fraud." Mr. DeGrazia has never encountered another situation, in his capacity as a production manager for American, where an aviation maintenance technician over whom he had disciplinary authority engaged in conduct comparable to the conduct for which he terminated Petitioners. No one has ever reported to him, nor has he ever observed, any aviation maintenance technician other than Petitioners taking "meal periods" that were longer than an hour while remaining "on the clock." Petitioners both grieved their terminations pursuant to Article 31 of the TWU Contract. Neither of them advanced any allegations of anti-Hispanic discrimination in his grievance. Petitioners' grievances were ultimately denied on September 9, 2004, by William Cade, American's managing director for maintenance. Petitioners appealed the denial of their grievances to the American and TWU Area Board of Adjustment for Miami, Florida (Board), in accordance with Article 32 of the TWU Contract, which provided for "final and binding" arbitration of disputes arising under the contract. A consolidated evidentiary hearing was held before the Board on April 28, 2005. At the hearing, Petitioners were represented by counsel. Through counsel, they called and cross- examined witnesses, submitted documentary evidence, and presented argument. Neither of them testified. The Board issued a decision on June 27, 2005, denying Petitioners' grievances. The TWU Board member dissented. The Discussion and Opinion portion of the decision read, in pertinent part, as follows: There is no dispute that the rule violations by grievants['] actions on July 30, 2004 constituted time card fraud and violation of rules relating to remaining at work. This was not some minor taking of time, such as overstaying lunch for a shortened period. It was a well-planned event. They had with them a change of clothes - in effect "party clothes" apropos to a late night-early morning South Florida nightclub. They had even done this several times before. Once at this nightclub they actually drank very little. Grievant Pena had two drinks and grievant Castellanos appeared to have just one. In fact, when he was later tested after his return to work almost five hours later, the result was negative for drugs and alcohol. Clearly, they failed to remain at work for their tours of duty in violation of Rules 3 and 4. These rules, however, do not by themselves call for immediate discharge nor do any of the Company documents relating to rules, such as its PPC, refer to them as serious violations that would incur discharge. The seriousness here concerns the grievants' badging out after their eight-hour tour and being paid for eight hours, almost five of which they did not work. There is no question that this is time card fraud and as such it involves dishonesty that is covered by Rule 34's "dishonesty of any kind." Numerous arbitrators for the parties have found such conduct to be violative of Rule 34 and have concluded that stealing time from the Company is dishonesty that requires immediate dismissal. * * * [T]he grievants engaged in this misconduct on multiple occasions that involved more than half of their shift being spent at a nightclub. And they knew it was wrong as they readily admitted when finally caught. Mitigation based on the grievants' EAP involvement is insufficient to overcome and reduce in any fashion their core responsibility to be honest employees and abide by all Company rules and regulations. The Company made this clear enough in its current Drug and Alcohol policy, and, as seen, other Boards have found it reasonable, as does this Board. To all of this the Union argues that there are other mitigating factors - seniority, disparate treatment, failure to consider employment records and a common practice permitting employees to extend lunch breaks. As to the latter, there is no evidence that any employee has been allowed to stay away from work for almost five hours with the knowledge or consent of management at any level. There is some evidence of employees overstaying the break by 30 minutes, of employees going for food for the crew and arriving back late and even some two-hour absences. None of this is comparable to the grievants' conduct. Nor is the evidence concerning supervisor Delgadillo enough to warrant the finding of a practice. She was not Pena's supervisor. She called grievant Castellanos' cell, but that alone does not mean that she knew he was off several hours at that point socializing and drinking in Coconut Grove on July 30 or at other times. She may have gone out with them while she was a mechanic, but the evidence does not show that she went for these long journeys to drink and socialize at a night club. Most importantly, the grievants never claimed a practice existed but instead readily admitted at the 29(f)s that their conduct was wrong and they violated Company rules. As to the disparate treatment incidents, although the dishonesty issue appears similar, different treatment only becomes disparate when the employees being compared also have factual situations and records that are similar. The comparators here did not leave work on more than one occasion, or on any occasion, for four hours or more to drink and socialize in a nightclub. Thus, Mora's 45-minute late punch-in resulted from his retrieving his drivers' license; he then immediately informed management of what he did. He did not have to be put under security surveillance for this type of conduct occurring in the past. Although his 30-minute extended lunch was part of the practice referred to above, it hardly qualifies as like conduct when compared to the grievants' activities. The claim by Vizcaino that he was sick when he used his Company travel privilege is the type of violation referred to the Travel Abuse Committee under a rule penalizing employees by suspending their travel privileges. The facts of that incident and the reasoning of this committee are not known to make any clear and relevant comparison. Even if accepted as a valid comparison, it is only one employee incident that by itself is insufficient to show that management disparately treated these grievants. Nor is their any proof that Rule 34 was involved in either of these situations. Manager DeGrazia disclosed that he did not consider the grievants' prior record or their seniority. He explained that the seriousness of their conduct was sufficient for his decision. The Board fully recognizes that the grievants cooperated during the investigation, had no prior discipline, and had seniority from 1989 and 1996. Each of these factors is significant in assessing the suitability of the penalties. But it is well established by the parties and even in arbitration cases involving outside parties, that in light of the gravity of time card fraud, these factors need not be evaluated. The Chairman notes nonetheless, that seniority and work records cannot be entirely ignored. But here, the grievants' propensity in the past to engage in this same outlandish conduct, and to do so undetected, significantly minimized, for mitigation purposes, much of their good record and seniority. Petitioners subsequently filed employment discrimination charges with the FCHR, alleging for the first time that their terminations were products of anti-Hispanic discrimination. There has been no persuasive showing made, in support in these allegations, that the decision to terminate them was motivated by anything other than legitimate business considerations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding the American not guilty of the unlawful employment practices alleged by Petitioners and dismissing their employment discrimination charges. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2006.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's examination challenge should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice architecture. Respondent is also responsible for administering examinations for such licenses on behalf of the state. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner has been unlicensed as an architect. Petitioner took the Predesign part of the Architecture Examination given in June, 1995. Respondent's Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner by Examination Grade Report dated September 6, 1995, that Petitioner had earned a score of 74 on the Predesign part of the examination. The minimum score needed to pass the Predesign part of the examination is 75. Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing. A formal hearing was conducted on March 12, 1996. At the formal hearing, Petitioner challenged questions 74 and 105. Petitioner also challenged Respondent's failure to award credit for 10 pretest, or "pilot," questions included in the examination. Petitioner selected answer D to question 74. The correct answer is B. Petitioner selected answer A to question 105. The correct answer is D. The correct answer to each question is the answer identified by Respondent. The correct answer to each question is not the answer selected by Petitioner. Questions 74 and 105 are clear and unambiguous. Each question contains enough correct information to allow Respondent to select the correct response. Questions 74 and 105 are supported by reference materials which are approved and generally accepted in the architectural community. The correct responses to questions 74 and 105 do not require knowledge which is beyond the scope of knowledge that reasonably could be expected from a candidate for licensure. Pretest questions or "pilot items" are questions that are placed within an examination to determine their validity and reliability. No candidate, including Petitioner, may receive credit for correctly answering pretest questions. Before administering the examination, Respondent notified all candidates, including Petitioner, that pretest questions would be included as part of the examination. Petitioner is not entitled to credit for pretest questions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's examination challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, 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 29th day of April 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Architecture and Interior Design Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Vasantro Shere, pro se 117 Rabun Court Sanford, Florida 32773 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether the Respondent failed to meet acceptable standards of safe pilotage as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Warwick G. Cahill (Respondent) is, and at all times material hereto has been, licensed as a harbor pilot by the State of Florida, license number SP 0000111. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Pilot Commissioners, is the state agency responsible for prosecution of alleged violations of disciplinary rules applicable to harbor pilots. On July 28, 1993, the M/V Grecian Star (GS) left the dock at the CF Industries Terminal in the Port of Tampa, Florida. The GS is a Cypress flag vessel approximately 656 feet long, with and 81 foot beam and a draft of 32 feet 11 inches. The equipment and machinery on the GS were in good working condition. The Respondent piloted the outbound GS from the Port of Tampa, under the authority of his Florida State Pilot's license. He had boarded the ship at approximately 1:50 PM. Although the ship's Master is ultimately responsible for the safety of the ship, the Master will defer to the local pilot's knowledge and directional skills in navigating local waters. The ship departed from the dock approximately ten minutes after the Respondent boarded. The weather was good, with visibility of approximately eight miles. The sea was slick calm. Winds were from the northwest at not more than four knots. The port tide was at ebb. The current was variable but less than one-half knot. As the GS transited Tampa Bay, the Respondent made several slight course corrections due in part to drift, but the ship's travel was uneventful as it entered Egmont Channel. In the area of Egmont Channel buoys 11 and 12, the pilot boat arriving to permit the Respondent to disembark from the GS contacted the GS bridge by radio and requested that the placement of the port side pilot ladder be raised. The Respondent directed the third mate of the ship to attend to the placement of the pilot ladder. The third mate left the bridge. On of the responsibilities of the third mate is to monitor orders given by the pilot to the helm and to ascertain whether the orders have been followed. At all times during the transit of the GS, the Respondent gave verbal orders regarding the pilotage of the ship. The Respondent expected that such orders would be repeated to him. Orders which were not repeated would be delivered again. At no time during the GS transit of Tampa Bay into Egmont Channel did the Respondent give orders to the helmsman by hand motion or by any other gesture. All orders were delivered verbally to the helmsman by the Respondent and were repeated by the helmsman. At the time the ship was in the area of Egmont Channel buoys 11 and 12, the Respondent stood in front of the helmsman. At some point while still in the position, the helmsman and the Respondent briefly looked at each other. At or about the same time as the two looked at each other, the Respondent moved his left hand or arm. The evidence is clear that the Respondent gave no verbal order to alter the ships course at that point. The helmsman interpreted the "look" and the movement of the Respondent's left arm to indicate an order to turn the ship ten degrees to port. There is no evidence as to how the helmsman determined from a "look" and a gesture that the ship's course was to be altered by ten degrees. The helmsman testified that he verbally stated "port ten" prior to altering the ship's course. There is no evidence that any person on the bridge heard the helmsman repeat the supposed command. There is no evidence that, at any other time during the Respondent's pilotage of the GS, there was any difficulty in hearing any orders given by the pilot or repeated by the helmsman. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that the supposed command was verbalized by the helmsman. After standing in front of the helmsman, the Respondent walked to the chart table on which a chart of lower Tampa Bay was displayed and began to respond to questions of the GS Master. The chart table is located aft and on the starboard bulkhead of the wheelhouse. The conversation between the Respondent and the Master lasted between one and two minutes and consisted of a discussion related to the vessel's position, the disembarkation of the pilot, reported traffic, water obstructions, range markers and the monitoring of radio channels. At the time the Respondent walked to the chart table, the ship was on course in the center of the channel. No command was given to alter the course. No command was repeated by the helmsman. Based on the lack of command or response, and on the fact that the ship was on course and centered in the channel, it was reasonable for the Respondent and the Master to conduct their discussion. Based on the estimated speed of the ship at the time of the grounding, the ship moved no more than 1600 to 2000 feet during the conversation between the Respondent and the Master. Based on the beam of the boat and the width of the channel, the ship could move 300 feet to either side without incident. Upon completion of the discussion, the Respondent and the Master simultaneously noticed that the ship's course was incorrect and that buoys 9 and 10 were positioned off the starboard bow rather than dead ahead. The Respondent immediately stated "hard starboard rudder," directing the helmsman to take corrective action, but the ship ran aground on the south bank of Egmont Channel approximately two ship lengths past buoys 11 and 12. The accident caused no injury to person or cargo. No pollution resulted from the grounding. The next day, the GS was re-floated. Although the ship grounded while the Respondent was responsible for the navigation of the ship, the weight of the evidence fails to establish that the grounding was due to any error or omission in the Respondent's performance of his duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Pilot Commissioners enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Warwick G. Cahill in this case. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 24th day of May, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6170 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 16. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent intentionally "made" a gesture with his hand. 18. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 22. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence which establishes that the conversation was initiated by the Master. 28-31. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, irrelevant. There is no credible evidence that any crew member accept the "unusual movement of the vessel without question, though it is actually a result of pilot error." Rejected, irrelevant. There is no credible evidence that any crew member had only a rudimentary understanding of the English language or that such contributed to this incident. 37-38. Rejected, contrary to the weight of the evidence which fails to establish that the Respondent's "inattention" permitted the ship to ground. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are rejected as not timely filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan J. Foster, Executive Director Board of Pilot Commissioners Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Dept. of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 David Pope, Esquire Suite 1700 First Union Center 100 South Ashley Drive Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact The Garemore airport is located in Marion County and is known as the Greystone Airport. The Garemores were issued a private airport license for the period September 24, 1980, through September 30, 1981, and have made timely application for annual renewal of this license. Neighboring property owners and residents who objected to grant of the initial license also object to renewal. Generally, their objections concern excessive noise and unsafe aircraft operations. Several Petitioners raise and breed thoroughbred horses on property adjacent to the airport. They fear for their personal safety and the well-being of these horses and other livestock. These Petitioners also contend that aircraft noise and low flying upset their animals and interfere with mating. However, Respondent introduced opposing evidence, and Petitioners' contention was not established as factual. Through unrebutted testimony, Petitioners established that crop dusters routinely originate operations from Greystone Airport, and that crop dusting chemicals are stored on the site. About six months ago, a crop duster taking off from Greystone Airport dumped his chemical load on a Petitioner's property and subsequently crashed on this property. Petitioners also argue that the airport glide slope does not meet accepted criteria and that runway surfacing is inadequate. Respondent DOT has recently inspected the facility and through the testimony of its airport inspector, demonstrated that the glide slope has been measured and meets the 20 to 1 requirement set forth in Section 14-60.07, Florida Administrative Code. The runway is not surfaced and Petitioners contend it is not hard enough for aircraft operations during the rainy season. As evidence of this, they cite an incident where a visiting airplane ground looped on landing and appeared to lose a wheel. This incident did not establish a runway deficiency, however, nor did Petitioners offer evidence that the runway surface fails to meet any statutory or rule standard. Petitioners related numerous examples of low flying, night flying and acrobatic maneuvering at and near the Greystone Airport. They contend that these activities along with the concentration of World War II and antique aircraft, and the crop dusting operations, have made this a commercial facility.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the private airport license issued to James and Geraldine Garemore be renewed subject to a restriction against crop dusting operations. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 30th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Clark Hardwick 900 Northeast 100th Street Ocala, Florida 32677 Charles and Terry Kerr 8149 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32670 Mr. John P. Edson 8610 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32671 Sherry and Vince Shofner Post Office Box 467 Anthony, Florida 32617 Frank and Carol Constantini 8545 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32670 Mr. James B. Banta, Sr. 9349 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32670 Ms. Deborah Allen 8263 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32671 Mr. Worthy E. Farr, Jr. 8215 West Anthony Road, Northeast Ocala, Florida 32671 Mr. Michael J. Stavola Post Office Box 187 Anthony, Florida 32617 Frances Spain Post Office Box 128 Anthony, Florida 32617 Ms. Beatrice Shepherd Post Office Box 215 Anthony, Florida 32617 J. W. Houston 900 Northeast 100th Street Ocala, Florida 32670 John F. Welch, Esquire Post Office Box 833 Ocala, Florida 32678 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Suite 562 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the application of the Fort Pierce Pilots Association for an increase in the pilotage rates for the Port of Fort Pierce should be granted in whole or in part, or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the hearings on April 26- 28 and August 23, 2011, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties Petitioner ACL is the largest user of the Port of Fort Pierce (the Port). ACL operates three vessels on a regular "liner" schedule operating six days per week from the Port to a few foreign ports. Approximately 95 percent of the vessel traffic at the Port is generated by these three vessels. ACL is affected by the rates of pilotage set for the Port since it is required by chapter 310, Florida Statutes, to utilize and compensate a state-licensed pilot each time one of its vessels enters or departs the Port. The rates that must be paid by ACL are established by Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Pilotage Rate Review Committee. Accordingly, ACL is substantially affected by and has standing to maintain this challenge to the former Board's preliminary decision set forth in the Notice of Intent. Petitioner IRT owns the terminal at the Port, as well as warehouses, offices and equipment at the Port. The pilotage rate increase preliminarily approved by the Board in the Notice of Intent will make the pilotage rates at the Port higher for the small vessels which can utilize the Port than the rates these same size vessels would pay at the Port of Palm Beach, Port Canaveral and/or Port Everglades. This is significant because IRT competes to attract new business from vessel owners and/or operators whose vessels call on South Florida. Accordingly, IRT is substantially affected by and has standing to maintain this challenge to the Board's preliminary decision set forth in the Notice of Intent. The Pilotage Rate Review Committee (formerly the Pilotage Rate Review Board), Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), is a state agency created by section 310.151, Florida Statutes. It is established as part of the Board of Pilot Commissioners, and consists of seven members. With regard to an application for a change in pilotage rates, the Committee must investigate and determine whether a rate change will result in fair, just and reasonable rates of pilotage pursuant to chapter 310, Florida Statutes, and rules implementing those provisions. The decisions of the Committee however, are made independent of the Board of Pilot Commissioners, and are not appealable to the Board of Pilot Commissioners. Intervenor Fort Pierce Pilots Association (FPPA) is an association of harbor pilots with one member, William Wetzel, LLC. Captain William Wetzel is, in turn, the sole member of William Wetzel, LLC and is the state-licensed pilot for the Port. The FPPA, through Captain Wetzel and occasionally a cross-licensed pilot from the Port of Palm Beach, perform the pilotage services at the Port. The Florida State Pilots Association, Inc. (FSPA) has a business address in Tallahassee, Florida. FSPA is a voluntary organization representing the interests of Florida’s 97 state- licensed harbor pilots, who participate in the FSPA through the 11 local pilot associations that serve Florida’s deepwater ports. The Piloting Profession Chapter 310, Florida Statutes, sets forth a comprehensive body of regulation addressing the practice of piloting in this state. The purpose of such regulation, as elsewhere in the country, is to ensure the efficient movement of maritime commerce while guarding against vessel incidents that could injure persons and property, as well as the state’s economy and environment. From this standpoint, the most dangerous part of any sea voyage for the ship and for the public at large is when the ship is moving into or out of port. In the maritime industry, the crew of a vessel, which is employed by the ship’s owner or operator, is under significant pressure to bring that vessel into and out of port efficiently and without delays. In light of the risks posed if those economic interests were to override public safety, Florida, and every other state with a significant maritime industry, requires vessels to utilize the services of an independent state-licensed pilot. The pilot is a mariner with many years of experience who is thoroughly familiar with every facet of a particular port and who has the skills necessary to maneuver a wide variety of ships. Because the pilot is not employed by the vessel owner, the pilot can exercise independent judgment, free from the pressures normally associated with the ship’s business operations. The value added by the pilot in terms of safety is widely recognized throughout the maritime industry, as evidenced by the fact that even ships calling on U.S. ports for which a pilot is not required by state law, i.e., U.S.-flagged vessels, routinely use the services of the port’s state-licensed pilots. The risks faced by pilots are unique. Pilots are transferred from their pilot boat out at sea onto and off of large moving vessels. Once the pilot boat maneuvers alongside the vessel, the pilot typically boards the ship by stepping from the pilot boat onto a ladder hanging from the ship’s side. Unfortunately, pilots are frequently injured and sometimes killed in the course of this dangerous transfer, particularly in bad weather. One expert in the piloting profession testified that over the course of a 30-year career, a pilot has a one-in-20 chance of being killed in a boarding accident. Once on board, the pilot must familiarize himself or herself with the ship’s navigational equipment, performance characteristics, and mechanical condition. The pilot conducts a conference with the ship’s master, during which the two exchange technical information on the ship, as well as details of the planned passage. If the vessel is fit for the transit, the pilot then “takes the conn,” assuming navigational control of the vessel and directing the ship’s movements by giving verbal commands on steering and engine power to the ship’s crew. The crew will have varying levels of maritime experience and often speak little or no English. The pilot must deal with a wide variety of ships and equipment. The vast majority of ocean-going vessels are flagged in foreign countries rather than the U.S., thus avoiding a great deal of regulation, as well as taxation. Piloting Selection and Training A mariner wanting to become a state pilot in Florida must await an opening declared by the state’s Board of Pilot Commissioners in one or more ports where he or she has an interest in serving. If the mariner is determined to have sufficient experience and qualifications, the next step in the process of deputy pilot selection is successful completion of a very difficult written examination, designed and administered by the State of Florida. This comprehensive two-day examination encompasses International & Inland Rules of the Road, Seamanship & Shiphandling, Federal & State Pilotage Laws, and port-specific Chart Work & Local Knowledge, and requires the candidate to reproduce from memory a complete and accurate chart of the port and its channels. These examinations are extremely difficult, and candidates will have typically spent several months and hundreds of hours in preparation. Only about 20 percent of those who sit for the exam will pass. The examination, however, is not one where the applicant is only required to achieve a minimum score to demonstrate basic competency. Rather, in Florida, the goal of the deputy pilot candidate is to achieve the top score among all candidates taking the exam. This is because the DBPR Secretary will be presented with a list of the top five scores on the exam and will typically appoint as the deputy pilot the person scoring highest. Once the DBPR Secretary has selected a deputy pilot to fill an opening at a Florida port, the deputy is issued a 12-month temporary certificate. The temporary certificate becomes permanent when the deputy has proven suitable in all respects for continued training as a state pilot. Once in receipt of the temporary certificate, the deputy pilot then begins a minimum two-year training program at the port, as approved and monitored by the Board of Pilot Commissioners. Under the supervision of the fully licensed pilots of the port, this training program allows the deputy pilot to initially handle smaller vessels of limited size and tonnage, with gradual increases in size and tonnage over time. While in training, the deputy earns only a portion of what a full pilot would earn. The Board of Pilot Commissioners approves each deputy pilot’s advancement to a higher level in the training program, after thorough review of the records and the recommendations of the local pilots in the port. Some deputy pilots “wash out” of training and fail to complete the program, never becoming pilots. Upon completion of all training, the deputy pilot must pass yet another rigorous exam administered by the state before he or she can be appointed and licensed by DBPR as a full state pilot for the specific port in which the deputy pilot has trained. The Rate Application and Review Process On or about March 30, 2009, the FPPA submitted an application (the Application) to the former Board, requesting an increase in pilotage rates at the Port. The Application sought an increase in the rates of pilotage at the Port over a four- year period, as follows: 157% in year one, 13.9% in year two, 16.7% in year three and 18.7% in year four. The total requested increase from year one to year five was 206%, from a $150.00 minimum fee before the Application, to a $608.00 minimum fee after the final requested year four rate increase. As prescribed by statute and the Committee’s rules, two contract consultants were assigned to be the Investigative Committee. One consultant, Richard Law, is a CPA, and has served as an investigative consultant on pilotage rate proceedings for DBPR for 16 years. The other consultant, Galen Dunton, is a retired Coast Guard commander with 18 years of experience as an investigative consultant for DBPR in pilotage matters. The Investigative Committee made its initial visit to the Port on July 10, 2009. During this process of investigation, several interested persons provided comments in opposition to the requested rate increase. Following the investigation, the Investigative Committee submitted its findings to the former Board on September 8, 2009. The FPPA requested the following pilotage rate increases in its application: Draft Charge $12.50 Year 1 $26.60 Year 2 $30.25 Year 3 $35.20 Year 4 $41.20 (min. of 10 feet) Tonnage $.015 (min. of 1667 GT) $.060 $.0685 $.080 $.098 Total Min. Fee $150.00 $386.00 $439.50 $512.00 $608.00 % Increase 157% 13.9% 16.7% 18.7% On December 11, 2009, at a Board public meeting, a number of interested persons provided comments and testimony in opposition to and in support of, the requested change in rates. Captain Wetzel, as well as representatives of both Petitioners, addressed the Board. The Investigative Committee included in its Report findings and comments relating to each of the criteria enumerated in section 310.151(5), Florida Statutes (2009). The Board reviewed the Investigative Committee’s findings and the statutory criteria and approved the requested rate increase for Year 1 only. The increases requested for Years 2, 3 and 4 were denied. The statutory criteria reviewed by both the Investigative Committee and the Board (now Committee) consisted of the following: (5)(a) In determining whether the requested rate change will result in fair, just, and reasonable rates, the board shall give primary consideration to the public interest in promoting and maintaining efficient, reliable, and safe piloting services. The board shall also give consideration to the following factors: The public interest in having qualified pilots available to respond promptly to vessels needing their service. A determination of the average net income of pilots in the port, including the value of all benefits derived from service as a pilot. For the purposes of this subparagraph, "net income of pilots" refers to total pilotage fees collected in the port, minus reasonable operating expenses, divided by the number of licensed and active state pilots within the ports. Reasonable operating expenses of pilots. Pilotage rates in other ports. The amount of time each pilot spends on actual piloting duty and the amount of time spent on other essential support services. The prevailing compensation available to individuals in other maritime services of comparable professional skill and standing as that sought in pilots, it being recognized that in order to attract to the profession of piloting, and to hold the best and most qualified individuals as pilots, the overall compensation accorded pilots should be equal to or greater than that available to such individuals in comparable maritime employment. The impact rate change may have in individual pilot compensation and whether such change will lead to a shortage of licensed state pilots, certificated deputy pilots, or qualified pilot applicants. Projected changes in vessel traffic. Cost of retirement and medical plans. Physical risks inherent in piloting. Special characteristics, dangers, and risks of the particular port. Any other factors the board deems relevant in determining a just and reasonable rate. The board may take into consideration the consumer price index or any other comparable economic indicator when fixing rates of pilotage; however, because the consumer price index or such other comparable economic indicator is primarily related to net income rather than rates, the board shall not use it as the sole factor in fixing rates of pilotage. § 310.151(5), Fla. Stat. On March 31, 2010, the Board issued a Notice of Intent to approve in part and deny in part the application by FPPA to increase the pilotage rates at the Port. In its decision, the Board determined findings of fact with respect to each of the criteria listed in section 310.151(5), Florida Statutes. In granting the FPPA’s requested rate increase for the first year the Board approved the following charges at the Port, effective May 1, 2010: A draft charge of $26.60 per draft foot, measured up to the next 1/10th foot, with a minimum charge for ten (10) feet; i.e., $266.00; A tonnage charge of $.0600 per Gross Registered Ton (GRT) with a minimum charge for 2000 GRT, i.e., $120.00; Docking/undocking fees are eliminated; Shifting rates are increased as follows: Same Slip - $250.00 Different Slip - $386.00 A towed barge charge of .0300 per GRT with no minimum charge. Pursuant to section 310.151(5)(a), the Committee “shall give primary consideration to the public interest in promoting and maintaining efficient, reliable, and safe piloting services” when dealing with a requested pilotage rate change. However, the Board is also required to consider additional specific factors in determining whether to approve or deny a requested rate change. Statutory Pilotage Rate Review Criteria The public interest in having qualified pilots available to respond promptly to vessels needing their service. (section 310.151(5)(b)1, Florida Statutes) In its Notice of Intent, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee as reflected on page C-1 of the Investigative Committee Report. Among other things, the Investigative Committee observed with respect to this criterion: The pilots are essential to the safe movement of vessels within the pilotage waters of the State. In addition to their navigation and supervisory skills, they must be knowledgeable of local weather, hazards, silting, speed and direction of currents, and timing and direction of tidal movements. They provide development of safety and operational guidelines for the port operation and participate in the process of port and professional regulations. Petitioners assert that this record does not support a finding that the use of a state-licensed pilot at the Port is "essential" to safety at the port. Petitioners argue that the captains of ACL's three small vessels have more experience entering and exiting the Port than does Captain Wetzel, and that the use of a state-licensed pilot, although mandated by law, does not increase safety for ACL's vessels, the Port, or the public at large. Petitioner's contention in this regard is rejected. As noted above, harbor pilots must not only possess excellent navigational skills, they must also be knowledgeable of a host of constantly-changing variables that affect the safe transit of vessels within their home port. Moreover, even if the current captains of ACL's three vessels have more experience entering and exiting the Port than does Captain Wetzel, there is no assurance that those same captains will continue in the employ of ACL in the future. The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain any evidence to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Notice of Intent with respect to this criterion. A determination of the average net income of pilots in the port, including the value of all benefits derived from service as a pilot. For the purposes of this subparagraph, “net income of pilots” refers to total pilotage fees collected in the port, minus reasonable operating expenses, divided by the number of licensed and active state pilots within the ports. (section 310.151(5)(b)2, Florida Statutes) There are approximately 1,200 state-licensed harbor pilots in the United States. The average compensation for a state-licensed pilot nationally is about $400,000.00 per year. However, state regulatory boards do not set pilot compensation, they set pilotage rates. Thus, a pilot’s compensation depends upon how much revenue is generated by the vessel traffic in that port, net of operating expenses. The pilot in a small port like Ft. Pierce would not be expected to make the same amount as a pilot in a larger port, such as Miami or Tampa. In these larger ports, large draft and tonnage vessels generate higher pilotage fees and this revenue supplements the cost of bringing in smaller vessels. In Ft. Pierce, that is not possible because of the physical limitations of the Port, which will not accommodate large vessels. Higher minimum rates therefore have to be set in Ft. Pierce because of the small size of the vessels, and to compensate a Palm Beach pilot (cross-licensed for Ft. Pierce) for making the two-hour plus drive to Ft. Pierce to handle a vessel if the Ft. Pierce pilot is unavailable for some reason. In its Notice of Intent, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee, as reflected on page C-2 of the Investigative Committee Report, as corrected at the public hearing, which set the pilot’s net income for years 2007 and 2008 at $112,800.00 and $92,700.00 respectively. In the "Analysis and Decision" section of the Notice of Intent, the Board also stated: Further, the pilots are charged with maintaining or securing adequate pilot boats, office facilities and equipment, and other equipment and support services necessary for a modern, dependable piloting operation. Although the Pilot currently has an arrangement with the Port’s largest user regarding the use of a converted crew boat, the evidence presented to the Board shows that in some aspects this assignment has been less than satisfactory. The Board opines that an increase in pilotage rates sufficient to permit the Pilot to procure an adequate pilot boat and/or secure such services is warranted. (Notice of Intent, p. 10, 11) Compared to the typical piloting operation in which the pilots in a port provide their own pilot boat to ferry them to and from transiting ships, the Investigative Committee determined that Captain Wetzel’s operating expenses were very low, since ACL had been providing the pilot boat in Ft. Pierce. In its Notice of Intent, the Board approved the first year schedule of rate increases only, specifically noting that the increase was intended in part to address the unsatisfactory pilot boat arrangement between FPPA and ACL: Based upon these findings, the Board determines that the proposed three-year schedule of rate increases sought by the Pilot should not be granted in its entirety at this time. The Board finds that a more modest increase to account for the progressively higher operating costs, inflation, and to permit the Pilot to obtain or secure pilot boat services, will provide fair, just and reasonable rates, and will continue to ensure that sufficient back-up pilots will be available to serve Fort Pierce. Accordingly, the Board approves the requested first-year schedule of increase only. (Notice of Intent, p. 12) The FPPA application projected the pilot boat as an expense of $325,000.00, with annual depreciation of $32,500.00. After the issuance of the Board’s decision in March 2010, granting only the first year of the FPPA’s requested rate increase, circumstances dictated that the FPPA purchase a less expensive pilot boat than the one anticipated in the FPPA rate application.2/ Specifically, when Captain Wetzel began to look for a suitable pilot boat, he was significantly hindered by the pending challenge to the Board’s decision. Pursuant to section 310.151(4)(b), the difference between the old rate and the new rate for each vessel movement was being deposited into an escrow account pending resolution of the Petitioners’ challenge, so the increased cash flow could not be relied upon by a lender to secure the loan necessary to obtain the desired $325,000.00 boat. Captain Wetzel and the Petitioners discussed the possibility of continuing to use the Kacey Lynn (owned by I.R.T) as a pilot boat, but negotiations were unsuccessful. Captain Wetzel then had to obtain his own pilot boat and settle on getting a much less expensive one that will not be as durable or long-lived as necessary. Ultimately, FPPA purchased a temporary pilot boat from Ameracat for about $92,000.00 and it was delivered to Captain Wetzel in mid-May 2010. As noted, the evidence established that the type of pilot boat purchased by Captain Wetzel will have a shorter lifespan than a typical pilot boat, because it will not be able to withstand the banging and pounding that occurs when a pilot boat comes alongside a commercial vessel. In order to purchase the Ameracat pilot boat, Captain Wetzel had to withdraw money from his retirement account so he could pay cash for the boat. Petitioners do not take issue with the Board’s decision that an increase in pilotage rates in Ft. Pierce is warranted so that Captain Wetzel can procure an adequate pilot boat. However, they contend that Captain Wetzel’s decision to purchase a pilot boat that cost significantly less than the one contemplated in the Application results in undue income to Captain Wetzel, which should result in the rates being decreased to reflect reduced expenses, including the boat’s purchase price, maintenance costs and interest expense. As will be discussed in greater detail infra, FPPA’s projected costs as set forth in the Application were accurate at the time submitted. The evidence of record does not support a finding that Captain Wetzel intended to mislead the Board in the projected cost of $325,000.00 for a pilot boat, or that he does not intend to purchase a more durable replacement once the escrowed funds from the approved rate increase are released. Rather, given the circumstances of the administrative challenge to the rate increase, Captain Wetzel acted reasonably and of necessity in purchasing a less expensive, temporary pilot boat. Petitioners' contention that Captain Wetzel’s purchase of a pilot boat costing less than the one projected in his rate application will result in undue income to Captain Wetzel (justifying elimination or reduction in the approved rates) is not supported by the greater weight of evidence in this record, and is rejected. The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Notice of Intent with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the preceding paragraphs. Reasonable Operating Expenses of Pilots (section 310.151(5)(b)3, Florida Statutes) In its Notice of Intent, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee shown on pages C-2 and C-3 of the Report. The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its decision with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the following paragraphs. Prior to the rate increase under challenge in this proceeding, the pilotage rates in effect at the Port were unchanged since their initial adoption in 1980 -– a minimum draft and tonnage charge of $150.00 plus a docking/undocking fee of $60.00, for a total minimum pilotage fee of $210.00. In late 2007, ACL stopped having the pilot perform docking and undocking of ACL’s vessels and discontinued payment of the corresponding $60.00 fee to the pilot, reducing the effective minimum pilotage fee for ACL and most other vessels to $150.00. A rate increase application in 2003 filed by the previous Ft. Pierce pilot was withdrawn, based upon an informal, unwritten agreement that Petitioners would provide an old crew boat formerly used on the Great Lakes (the Kacey Lynn) to ferry the pilot to and from vessels at no cost, dropping the $75.00 fee previously charged to the pilot for each use of the crew boat. At that time, the Port was primarily being served by cross-licensed pilots from other ports, as the permanent pilot in Ft. Pierce was injured and unable to continue working. In light of the circumstances, the cross-licensed pilots were not eager to invest in a pilot boat and other infrastructure, so use of the Kacey Lynn, while not ideally suited for safely transferring the pilot to or from a transiting ship, was a useful accommodation while a new permanent pilot was sought for Ft. Pierce. For non-ACL vessels, IRT billed the owners of some of those vessels from $75.00 up to $150.00 for the use of the Kacey Lynn to ferry the pilot to or from a ship. In the only other Florida port in which the pilots do not provide their own pilot boats, Pensacola, the pilot is ferried to and from transiting ships by a tug company that charges $400.00 per trip. As set forth in its application, FPPA’s projected pilot boat cost of $325,000.00 with $32,500.00 per year depreciation is reasonable, especially when compared to the costs of pilot boats serving other ports. Credible testimony established that a pilot boat in a major port would cost $1.2 million to $2 million, with annual maintenance costs typically at 5% of the purchase price. The pilot association in Jacksonville, Florida, recently spent $1.2 million on a pilot boat, while pilots in Miami purchased a pilot boat several years ago for approximately $600,000.00. More recently, the Miami pilots association rebuilt two of their pilot boats at a cost of approximately $350,000.00. In comparison to the cost of pilot boats in other ports, FPPA’s projected operating costs as set forth in its application are relatively conservative. As noted above, Captain Wetzel's purchase of a temporary pilot boat (with correspondingly lower operating expenses) for use during the pendency of this administrative challenge does not render the projected operating expenses in the application unreasonable. Pilotage Rates in Other Ports (section 310.151(5)(b)4, Florida Statutes In the Notice of Intent, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee as reflected on pages C- 4 through C-7 of the Investigative Committee Report. The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Notice of Intent with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the following paragraphs. Petitioners assert that Table 4 on page C-6 of the Investigative Committee Report understates the FPPA's revenue per handle hour by overstating the FPPA's average "handle time." "Handle time" is generally defined as the time "that the pilot takes the conn to the time he relinquishes it", i.e., the time that the pilot is actually directing the guidance of the navigation of a vessel. According to Petitioners, the average handle time for pilots operating in the Port is closer to 30 minutes per handle than the 1.5 hours per handle used by the Investigative Committee. When a handle time of 30 minutes per handle is applied, Petitioners argue, the FPPA is currently earning $370.00 per handle hour, rather than the $123.00 per handle hour shown in the Investigative Committee Report.3/ There is evidence in this record that until recently, there has not been a statewide standard for measuring handle times. Although the Board of the Florida State Pilots Association recently adopted a definition, the data appearing in Table 4 of the Investigative Committee Report relies upon older historical data (2007 and 2008), which in some cases may be outdated due to the change in the size of ships using various ports.4/ As such, it would be inappropriate to compare the Ft. Pierce revenue per handle hour using a handle time of 30 minutes without also updating the handle times of the other ports used in the comparison. Approval of the Year 1 rate increase would not create a competitive disadvantage at the Port. The pilotage fee is a very small and relatively insignificant factor in the overall decision on whether to bring a ship into a particular port. In light of the considerable operating costs of a commercial vessel, the $175.00 difference between the new minimum pilotage fee in Ft. Pierce and the lower minimum pilotage fee in Palm Beach (the closest competing port) would not be significant enough to warrant shifting a subject vessel from Ft. Pierce to Palm Beach. The amount of time each pilot spends on actual piloting duty and the amount of time spent on other essential support services. (section 310.151(5)(b)5, Florida Statutes In the Notice of Intent the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee as reflected on pages C7 and C8 of the Investigative Committee Report. The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain any evidence to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or as a supplement to, the facts relied on by the Board in its decision with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the following paragraphs. Time spent on actual piloting duty includes handle time, transit time to and from the vessel, and administrative time related to that handle. Time spent on other essential support services generally involve matters pertaining to the port in question, e.g., dealing with the Coast Guard on port security or safety issues, dealing with the Army Corp of Engineers regarding the ship channel, etc. In its Report, the Investigative Committee considered "handle time' to be the time the pilot is actually engaged in traveling to a ship, piloting the ship, and returning to home port, i.e., dock to dock. The Investigative Committee did not attempt to verify the historical data regarding handle time but did utilize a shorter figure of 1.5 hours per handle.5/ No compelling evidence was presented that indicates that this 1.5 hour handle time figure was grossly incorrect. While ACL operates a “liner service” with a published schedule that its ships adhere to most of the time, actual arrival and departure times for ACL ships frequently vary from this schedule. Moreover, the pilot must be available to respond to vessels requiring his assistance 24-hours a day, seven days a week. Although the Petitioners argue that actual handle time might make a part-time job for the Ft. Pierce pilot, it does not matter if it is an hour or two hours, it is still a huge time commitment throughout each week to be available and on call to serve the needs of the port. The Investigative Committee also observed: The schedule varies for each day of the week. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays he must “mobilize” early in the mornings to meet vessels arriving at 7:00 A.M. and then re-mobilize later in the afternoon to handle the 5:00 P.M. departures. Consequently, the two-step mobilizations increase his daily time requirements by an amount greater than the average handle times. The schedule also requires additional standby time between some of the back-to-back handles. (Investigative Committee Report, P. C-7) The prevailing compensation available to individuals in other maritime services of comparable professional skill and standing. (section 310.151(5)(b)5, Florida Statutes) In its Notice of Intent, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee, reflected on page C-8 of the Investigative Committee Report, supplemented as follows: As was discussed in the Port Everglades Order, supra, the Board accepts the proposition that the pre-pilot career path is the same for persons who remain as senior bridge officers on American-flagged ships and for those who become pilots. As was noted in the Port Everglades Order, however, pilots are not employees but are rather professional consultants and self-employed business persons who take the risks and accept the benefits of such status. In addition, section 310.151(5)(b)6, F.S., sets the wage rate of “comparable professions” as the floor for pilot income – not the ceiling. As was also noted in the Port Everglades and Tampa Orders, the Board has accepted that the wage rate of senior masters on American-flagged ships varies greatly and, thus, the Board can find no specific number to use as the only acceptable “floor” for pilot compensation. The Board, thus, uses the range of masters’ salaries as a range of “floors” on pilots’ income to be applied depending on the amount of vessel traffic at a port, the characteristics of a port, and the need for pilotage services at a port. Thus, a pilot’s berth at the major ports, such as the Port of Tampa Bay, Port Everglades, Miami, Jacksonville or Palm Beach would be considered as akin to the most prestigious, responsible, and highly paid masters’ berths (Master, Mates and Pilots scale – c. $220,000.00 - $230,000.00 per year) while lesser ports, with correspondingly lesser amounts of traffic and need for pilotage services would have a lower “floor” for income. Nonetheless, the Board also finds that the pilotage rates need to be sufficient to ensure that licensed pilots remain willing and financially able to serve the ports of this State. As reflected in the Report of the Investigative Committee, the current Pilot’s schedule has grown to a full-time position, with no backup pilot available. Thus, the Pilot must rely on cross-licensed pilots from Palm Beach for backup, who currently earn substantially more at their home port. Accordingly, the Board finds that the rates must be increased sufficiently to continue to attract cross-licensed pilots to serve as back up at Fort Pierce, and eventually, if traffic warrants, candidates for a deputy pilot position. (Notice of Intent, pages 7, 8) The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Notice of Intent with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the following paragraphs. While background as a master or mate is useful, a pilot must possess superior close-quarter ship handling skills and the ability to handle a wide variety of vessels. Foreign licensed mariners are not allowed to become a pilot in Florida. There was contradictory evidence on the prevailing annual compensation for masters serving on US-flagged ships of comparable skill and standing to Florida state-licensed pilots, ranging from $143,000.00 - $181,000.00 (inclusive of wages and benefits) to $300,000.00 for union personnel. However, it is significant that these are salaried positions that do not require the employee to invest in infrastructure or training, or to directly participate in the economic risks of the business. Petitioners argue that there are other maritime industry positions, in addition to master of a U.S.-flagged vessel, which are comparable in professional skill and standing as that of a Florida state-licensed pilot. Specifically, Petitioners assert that masters and deck officers of inland vessels and U.S.-flagged integrated tug and barge units (ITBs) require a comparable level of professional skill and standing. Petitioners' witness on this issue opined that the master of an "upper end" inland vessel (e.g., jumbo barge) would make a salary ranging from $116,000.00 to $131,000.00, while a deck officer would make less than $100,000.00. Similarly, the annual salary for the master of a "premier" ITB would range from $106,000.00 to $132,000.00, while senior mates would have total compensation of less than $100,000.00. Generally, pilots receive about 50% more in total compensation than masters on US-flagged ships. This disparity is necessary in order to motivate the most desirable professional mariners (a master or chief mate with 10-12 years of experience) to leave their current maritime employment, including giving up valuable pension benefits, to take on the risks of self-employment as a pilot. This career change entails significant physical risks, civil and criminal liability risks in the event of accidents, investment in infrastructure, management of a business, etc. While Petitioner may be correct that masters and deck officers in other maritime industries are generally compensated less than state-licensed pilots, those employees bear none of the risks of self-employment. The pool of professional U.S. mariners qualified to move into the pilot career path is relatively small -– a little over 2,000, and ports across the U.S. compete against each other to attract the best individuals to piloting. Indeed, ports within Florida compete with each other for the best qualified candidates. While large Florida ports historically would have had 20-30 applicants for a pilot opening, the number of applicants for even large ports like Miami and Jacksonville has decreased in the last 4-5 years. Most recently there were only 11 mariners testing for two openings at Jacksonville and eight mariners testing for three openings in Miami. The pilot in a small port like Ft. Pierce would not be expected to receive the same compensation as the master of a large container ship (or a pilot in a large Florida port like Tampa or Miami), but the compensation must still be high enough to attract and retain a qualified pilot and to pay for cross- licensed pilots as back-up. Pilots in the port of Palm Beach, where each of the five pilots recently worked about 600 handles per year (similar to the number of pilot handles in Ft. Pierce), netted annual income of approximately $150,000.00. Even in a best case scenario, Captain Wetzel’s net income would only match those of Palm Beach pilots, and it is more likely that, due to increased expenses, it will still fall below that level even with the approved rate increase. The impact rate change may have in individual pilot compensation and whether such change will lead to a shortage of licensed state pilots, certificated deputy pilots, or qualified pilot applicants. (section 310.151(5)(b)7, Florida Statutes) In the Notice of Intent, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee as reflected on page C-9 of the Investigative Committee Report. The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain any evidence to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Notice of Intent with respect to this criterion. At the hearing before the former Board, Petitioners disputed the need for any pilotage rate increase to enable the FPPA to purchase and operate its own pilot boat. As of the time of the administrative hearing, the pilot had already purchased a temporary pilot boat, and Petitioners assert that the increase approved by the former Board should be reduced to cover the expenses relating to the pilot boat actually purchased, and operating such boat, but not provide for an increase in net revenue (compensation) to the pilot. For the reasons stated in paragraphs 34-40 above, the Petitioners' contention in this regard is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. In addition, the undersigned notes that the operating expense projections contained in the Application were merely that. . . projections. Moreover, the expense projections, including the $325,000.00 expenditure for a pilot boat, were expressly predicated upon approval of the rate increases requested in the application.6/ Although an applicant must certify that the statements contained in a pilotage rate change application are true and correct when made, expense projections set forth in an application are not binding on the applicant, and the Board (now Committee) has no authority to compel the expenditure of specific funds identified in an application. Given the Board's denial of the requested rate increases (with the exception of Year 1) it was not unreasonable for Captain Wetzel to refrain from making the specific expenditures projected in the application, particularly for a $325,000.00 pilot boat. As noted above, the projections when made were reasonable, but changed circumstances necessitated adjustment of those expenditures. In the Notice of Intent, the Board did not "earmark" a specific portion of the revenue increase for the purchase of a pilot boat, but rather recognized the need for "a modest increase to account for the progressively higher operating costs, inflation, and to permit the Pilot to obtain or secure pilot boat services . . ." (Notice of Intent, p. 12) Projected changes in vessel traffic. (section 310.151(5)(b)8, Florida Statutes) Cost of retirement and medical plans. (section 310.151(5)(b)9, Florida Statutes) Physical risks inherent in piloting. (section 310.151(5)(b)10, Florida Statutes) Special characteristics, dangers, and risks of the particular port. (section 310.151(5)(b)11, Florida Statutes) Any other factors the board deems relevant in determining a just and reasonable rate. (section 310.151(5)(b)12, Florida Statutes) The board may take into consideration the consumer price index or any other comparable economic indicator when fixing rates of pilotage; however, because the consumer price index or such other comparable economic indicator is primarily related to net income rather than rates, the board shall not use it as the sole factor in fixing rates of pilotage. (section 310.151(5)(c), Florida Statutes) The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain any evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Notice of Intent with respect to the criteria set forth in 310.151(5)(b)8-12, and 310.151(5)(c), above. Taken in its entirety, the evidence presented by the Petitioners, Respondent and Intervenors in this proceeding with respect to the statutory factors set forth in section 310.151(5)(b) and (c), yielded findings of fact in addition to those found by the Board in its Notice of Intent. There was not sufficient credible and persuasive evidence presented by the Petitioners to support any findings of fact materially contrary to the findings of the Board in its Notice of Intent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pilotage Rate Review Committee consider the additional facts established by the evidence presented at the hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings in determining, in accordance with its interpretation of its statutory mandate, its expertise, and the appropriate policy considerations, whether the decision on the PFFA Pilotage Rate Increase Application in the Port of Ft. Pierce, filed March 30, 2009, will result in fair, just, and reasonable pilotage rates at the Port of Ft. Pierce. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2012.
