The Issue Whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioners for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners are producers and sellers of tomatoes. They own and operate Sunfresh Farms in Florida City, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products. The Controversy The instant case involves two separate transactions involving the sale of tomatoes pursuant to verbal agreements between Petitioners (as the sellers) and Respondent (as the buyer). Both transactions occurred in January of 1995. The First Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5270) Under the terms of the first of these two verbal agreements (First Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box (which was the market price at the time). In accordance with the terms of the First Agreement, Petitioners delivered 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 23, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold these 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a local produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to another local produce house. The tomatoes were eventually sold to a company in Grand Rapids, Michigan. On January 28, 1995, five days after Petitioners had delivered the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent, the tomatoes were inspected in Grand Rapids, Michigan. According to the inspection certificate, the inspection revealed: "Decay (3 to 28 percent)(mostly early, some advanced stages);" "Checksum;" and "Average approximately 85 percent light red to red." Petitioners have yet to be paid any of $1,214.40 Respondent owes them (under the terms of the First Agreement) for the 96 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The Second Transaction (Petitioners' Invoice Number 5299) Under the terms of the second verbal agreement at issue in the instant case (Second Agreement), Respondent agreed to purchase from Petitioners, and Petitioners agreed to sell to Respondent (FOB), 132 boxes of ("no grade") cherry tomatoes for $12.65 a box. In accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement, Petitioners delivered 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to Respondent (at Petitioners' loading dock) on January 27, 1995. Respondent accepted the delivery. Respondent sold 84 of these 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes to a Florida produce house, which subsequently sold the tomatoes to a company in Houston, Texas. These 84 boxes of cherry tomatoes were inspected in Houston, Texas, on January 31, 1995, four days after Petitioners had delivered them to Respondent. The defects found during the inspection were noted on the inspection certificate. Petitioners have yet to be paid in full for the 132 boxes of cherry tomatoes they delivered to Respondent in accordance with the terms of the Second Agreement. Respondent tendered payment (in the form of a check) in the amount of $811.20, but Petitioners refused to accept such payment because it did not represent the full amount ($1,669.80) Respondent owed them (under the terms of the Second Agreement) for these cherry tomatoes. (Although they have not endorsed or cashed the check, Petitioners are still holding it in their possession.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent is indebted to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20, (2) directing Respondent to make payment to Petitioners in the amount of $2,884.20 within 15 days following the issuance of the order, (3) indicating that the $811.20 check that was previously tendered to Petitioners by Respondent (and is still in Petitioners' possession) will be considered partial payment of this $2,884.20 indebtedness, if Respondent advises Petitioners, in writing, that it desires the check to be used for such purpose and if it provides Petitioners written assurance that the check is still a valid negotiable instrument; and (4) announcing that if payment in full of this $2,884.20 indebtedness is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from the Farm Bureau, Respondent's surety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of February, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1996.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Gro Mor Co., Inc., has been engaged in the fertilizer, seed and pesticide business in Florida since approximately the year 1933. On January 2, 1958, the Department of State issued to the Petitioner Charter No. 208744 permitting the use of the corporate name Gro Mor Co., Inc. In 1968 the Petitioner registered "Gro Mor" as a trademark with the Florida Department of Agriculture, and it now has some 265 registered fertilizer mixes which are protected under the "Gro Mor" trademark, in addition to approximately 20 registrations of unmixed materials. Gro Mor Co., Inc. has annual gross revenue of approximately 1.1 million dollars. It is presently operating in 11 Florida counties, some of which overlap with counties where Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. does business. On November 7, 1980, the Department of State issued Charter No. F04615 to the Respondent, permitting the use of the corporate name Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. Although Gro Mor Co., Inc. and Gro-More Farm Service Center are both in the fertilizer business, they do not compete directly with each other because the product mix of the two companies is different. Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. is a custom-blend fertilizer plant, and in general each company has its own customers for its own products. On occasion, however, Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. has done business with some companies which also deal with Gro Mor Co., Inc. Sometime in 1980, the representative from Gro Mor Co., Inc. became aware that the Respondent was doing business as Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. Since 1980, the Petitioner has received four invoices which should have been directed to the Respondent, and one invoice which was received late because it was mailed to the Respondent instead of to the Petitioner. These invoices were introduced and received in evidence; other instances of customers misdirecting invoices have been disregarded as self-serving assertions not corroborated by evidence that is available to the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner admitted that it has regularly received properly addressed invoices from the same firms which sent the misdirected invoices to Gro Mor Co., Inc. On one occasion when the Petitioner's representative requested information on the Petitioner company from the Department of Agriculture, he received information on both Gro Mor Co., Inc. and Gro-More Farm Serviced Center, Inc. No evidence was presented to indicate that this happened more than once. When Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. was in the incorporation process, the attorney for the company was directed to select a name and draw up the charter. The incorporators had no knowledge of the existence of Gro Mor Co., Inc. Since the corporate purpose was to engage in the fertilizer business, the name Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc. was selected because fertilizer makes crops grow more. In the two or more years the Respondent has been operating as Gro-More Farm Service Center, Inc., its representatives cannot recall getting invoices which should have been directed to Gro Mor Co., Inc.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Gro Mor Co., Inc. be DENIED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9 day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: David H. Galloway, Esquire Post Office Box 1119 Plant City, Florida 33566 George J. Ellis, Jr., Esquire 1721 Memorial Park Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32204 William S. Stevens, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether petitioner should assess a civil money penalty against respondent for failing to provide wage statements to workers or to keep records of any type in violation of Section 450.38(2), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), and Rule 38B- 4.12(1), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact When respondent Herbert A. Dockery originally applied for registration as a Florida Farm Labor Contractor, on March 19, 1986, he certified that he had read and understood "the Florida Farm Contractor Rules and Regulations. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. On June 25, 1986, Marshall Alexander Carroll and Henry Jefferson Parker, crew chief compliance officers in DLES' employ, discovered that Mr. Dockery was keeping no records of moneys he paid agricultural workers. They told him such recordkeeping was legally required and gave him blank forms, like those that came in as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6, which he could use, by keeping the originals for himself and giving the workers duplicates. On November 3, 1986, in the course of a scheduled payroll audit, Mr. Parker again asked Mr. Dockery about his recordkeeping, and asked him to produce his social security records, receipts or "anything he had." But Mr. Dockery was unable to produce any records and admitted that he had kept none, saying he had only worked three days 35 as a farm labor contractor in 1986. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Beginning June 1, 1986, Tommy Price worked with Mr. Dockery "a short while" picking and loading watermelons and driving a truck hauling watermelons. Mr. Price worked for the respondent about a month all told but some of that time was in Missouri. During all the time he worked for Mr. Dockery, Mr. Price, who was paid in cash, never received any statements. Mr. Dockery didn't keep track of people's hours and might not even have known, at any one point, who was in the field working for him. The only records he kept were notations of how much he promised to pay different people for truckloads of watermelons.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner fine respondent two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00). DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of June, 19B7, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Moses E. Williams, Esquire Suite 117, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 Herbert A. Dockery Post Office Box 664 Chiefland, Florida 32626
The Issue Whether Respondents, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. (Ag-Mart), and its employees' Justin Oelman (in DOAH Case No. 06-0729) and Warrick Birdwell (in DOAH Case No. 06-0730), committed some, any, or all of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints detailed herein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with administration of the Florida Pesticide Law, Chapter 487, Part I, Florida Statutes. Among the duties of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring within the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services are the designation and regulation of restricted-use pesticides, the testing and licensure of certified pesticide applicators, and the enforcement of federal worker protection standards regarding the exposure of farm workers to pesticides. §§ 487.011, 487.042, 487.044, and 487.051, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-2.039. The Administrative Complaints allege two types of violation of the Florida Pesticide Law. First, they allege that Ag-Mart harvested tomatoes prior to the end of the pre-harvest interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied to a tomato plant before that plant's fruit may be safely harvested. The pre-harvest interval is specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. Second, they allege that Ag-Mart allowed workers to enter sprayed fields prior to the end of the restricted entry interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied before it is safe for a worker to enter or remain in the treated area. The restricted entry interval is also specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. In 2004, Ag-Mart operated farms in several locations in Florida and North Carolina. Ag-Mart operated packing houses in Plant City, Florida, and in New Jersey. Ag-Mart grows, packages, and distributes grape tomatoes under the "Santa Sweets" label, and a round-type tomato marketed as "Ugly Ripe." During all times relevant to this proceeding, Ag-Mart's principal administrative offices were located in Plant City, Florida, and Ag-Mart's operations were managed by its president, Donald Long. At the final hearing, several Ag-Mart employees, including Mr. Long, testified as to Ag-Mart's practices in establishing planting and pesticide spraying schedules, carrying out those schedules in the field, and ensuring that legal restrictions on pesticide use are observed. This testimony is credited as to Ag-Mart's general pattern and practice, but does not disprove the Department's evidence as to particular instances of pre-harvest interval or restricted entry interval violations. Among other duties, Mr. Long was responsible for scheduling Ag-Mart's cultivation of tomato plants at the company's farms, so that product is available year-round. Mr. Long prepared a 2004 planting schedule that spaced the planting of new crops a week to ten days apart to ensure a continuous flow of tomatoes once the plants matured. For the 2004 season, the South Florida farm began planting in September 2003, with harvesting commencing in December 2003 and continuing through May 2004. The North Florida farm started its spring season plantings in March and April 2004, with harvest beginning in early June 2004 and lasting until August 2004. Each "planting" at Ag-Mart consists of a specific amount of acreage that is cultivated for a specific period of time to produce an expected yield of tomatoes. Mr. Long determines the size of each planting based on past yields and projected needs. A single planting of grape tomatoes is harvested multiple times. Depending on conditions, a planting of grape tomatoes at the South Florida farm can be harvested between ten and 15 times in the fall, with fewer harvesting opportunities in the spring. A planting of grape tomatoes at the North Florida farm may be harvested between eight and ten times. Each planting takes up portions of acreage called "fields," which are divided by land features and irrigation systems. Fields are of varying sizes, depending on the nature of the terrain and the irrigation system. The fields are numbered, and a planting is usually done in a certain number of roughly contiguous fields. A field is further divided into separately numbered "blocks," each block consisting of six rows of tomato plants, three rows on each side of a "drive area" through which tractors and harvest trucks can maneuver to reach the plants. The blocks are numbered in sequence from the beginning to the end of the field. At the South Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated ten separate plantings of between 79 and 376 gross acres. Each planting contained as few as three and as many as ten separate fields. At the North Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated five separate plantings of between 92 and 158 gross acres. Each planting contained either two or three separate fields.2 The cycle of farming activities at the Ag-Mart farms included ground preparation, planting, staking, tying, harvesting, and post-harvest clean-up. Farm laborers were recruited and transported to the fields by crew leaders, who must be registered as farm labor contractors with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation pursuant to Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61L-1.004. The crew leaders supervised the field laborers and prepared their weekly time cards. The crew leaders were directed by Ag-Mart's labor supervisors as to where the laborers were to work and which tasks were to be performed at any given time. Crew leaders providing services to Ag-Mart in 2004 included: Sergio Salinas, d/b/a Salinas & Son, Inc.; Pascual Sierra; and Juan Anzualda, d/b/a Juan Anzualda Harvesting, Inc. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda were crew leaders at the South Florida farm in the spring 2004 season. Mr. Sierra was a crew leader at the North Florida farm in 2004. At the South Florida farm, Mr. Salinas and three or four supervisors called "field walkers" oversaw the daily work of the 150 to 200 farm laborers who worked in Mr. Salinas' crew. Mr. Salinas owned and operated buses that transported the workers to and within the farm. Mr. Salinas also operated trucks to haul the harvested tomatoes from the fields to the shipping dock on the South Florida farm. A truck was also needed to move portable toilets to the fields for the use of the laborers. Because of the amount of equipment necessary to conduct a harvest, and the intense hand labor required to pick a row of tomatoes, Mr. Salinas always kept his crew together in one location while harvesting. During the period of January through May 2004, Mr. Salinas' crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day, and never more than four fields in one day. Mr. Anzualda and his 15 field walkers supervised a crew of 150 laborers at the South Florida farm during March and April 2004. Mr. Anzualda always kept his crew together when performing harvesting activities, due to the amount of equipment and the time necessary to set up near the work areas. Mr. Anzualda estimated that it took between 45 and 90 minutes to set up his equipment and line up his workers along the rows before harvesting could commence in a given field. Mr. Anzualda's crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day at the South Florida farm during the peak harvest period of March and April 2004, and never in more than four fields in one day. Ag-Mart paid the farm laborers the piece rate of $2.50 per tub of grape tomatoes. A "tub" weighs about 21 pounds. Different piece rates applied to different forms of work. For tying activities, the laborers under Mr. Salinas were paid $0.75 per 100 linear feet of work, while those under Mr. Anzualda were paid $0.50 per 100 linear feet. The laborers were paid the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour for some work, such as weeding and the harvest of Ugly Ripe tomatoes. In any event, the laborers were guaranteed the minimum wage, and were paid $5.15 per hour if that amount was greater than their pay would have been under piece work rates. Planting activities are performed by hand. Tomato plants are started in greenhouses, and then transplanted to the field when they are six weeks old and about six inches high. Staking is performed manually and by machine, as stakes are placed between the tomato plants to support the plants as they mature. Tying is performed manually, from about the second week after planting until the eighth or ninth week. "Tying" involves tying the tomato plants with string to the stakes to allow them to grow up the stakes as they mature. The tomato plants are six to seven feet tall at maturity. After the tomatoes were planted in 2004, Ag-Mart's farms began the application of pesticides according to a company-wide spray program devised by Mr. Long prior to the season. The spray program outlined the type and volume of pesticide products to be applied to the maturing tomato plants from the first week of planting through the end of the harvest. Once tying and harvesting activities began, Ag-Mart's spray program called for the application of pesticides "behind the tying" or "behind the harvest," meaning that spraying was done immediately after tying or harvesting was completed in a field. The spraying was done behind the workers because picking and tying opens up the plants, which enables the pesticide to better penetrate the plant. The timing of the spraying also allows fungicide to cover wounds from broken leaves caused by picking, thus preventing infection. Harvesting is performed manually by the farm laborers, who pick the ripe fruit from the tomato plants and place it into containers. The crew leader lines up the laborers with one person on each side of a row of tomatoes, meaning that a crew of 150 laborers can pick 75 rows of tomatoes at a time. The farm workers pick all of the visible fruit that is ripe or close to ripe on the blocks that are being harvested. Once the picking is complete on a block, it takes seven to ten days for enough new fruit to ripen on that block to warrant additional harvesting. Justin Oelman was Ag-Mart's crop protection manager at the South Florida farm in 2004. Mr. Oelman worked for Ag-Mart for eight years as a farm manager and crop protection manager before leaving in 2005 and had three years prior experience as a crop protection manager for another tomato grower. As crop protection manager in 2004, Mr. Oelman was the licensed pesticide applicator responsible for ordering chemicals and directing the application of pesticides. His job included writing up the "tomato spray ticket" for each pesticide application. The spray ticket is a document that, on its face, indicates the date and time of a pesticide application and its location according to planting, field, and block numbers. The spray ticket also states the name of the tractor driver who physically applies the pesticide, the type and amount of the pesticide applied, and the number of acres treated. Licensed pesticide applicators are required by Department rule to record the information included on the spray ticket. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032. In applying pesticides to the South Florida farm's grape tomato crop in 2004, Mr. Oelman followed the spraying program designed by Mr. Long before the season. Because the pesticides were applied behind the farm workers' field activity, Mr. Oelman maintained close communications with Josh Cantu, the Ag-Mart labor supervisor in charge of tying activities on the South Florida farm, and with Eduardo Bravo, the labor supervisor in charge of grape tomato harvesting. Mr. Bravo in turn directed crew leaders such as Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda on where to take their crews to conduct harvesting work. These communications kept Mr. Oelman apprised of where the crews were working and how much progress the tying or harvesting activities were expected to make by the end of the day. Mr. Oelman was then able to plan the next day's pesticide applications so that his tractor drivers would be ready to enter the field and apply the pesticides soon after the tying or harvesting activities were completed. Mr. Oelman typically wrote the spray tickets on the day before the actual pesticide application, based on the information gathered from Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu. Thus, the starting times shown on the tickets are times that were projected by Mr. Oelman on the previous afternoon, not necessarily the time that spraying actually commenced. Spraying could be delayed for a number of reasons. At times, the work in the fields would not progress as quickly as Mr. Cantu or Mr. Bravo had anticipated, due to the heaviness of the harvest. Pesticides are not applied to wet plants; therefore, rain could delay a planned spray application. Mr. Oelman's practice was to write a new spray ticket if a day's planned application was completely cancelled. However, if the planned spray application was merely delayed for a time, Mr. Oelman did not create a new spray ticket or update the original ticket to reflect the actual starting time. Mr. Oelman failed to explain why he did not always create a new ticket when the information on the existing ticket ceased to be accurate. Mr. Oelman directly supervised the Ag-Mart employees who drove the tractors and operated the spray rigs from which pesticides were applied to the tomato plants. Mr. Oelman trained the tractor drivers not to spray where people were working, but to wait until the tying or harvesting activities in designated fields had been completed. Once the fields had been sprayed, Mr. Oelman would orally notify Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu of the location of the pesticide applications. Mr. Oelman would also post copies of the spray tickets at the farm's central posting board, on which was posted relevant information regarding the pesticides being used at the farm, the restricted entry intervals and pre-harvest intervals for the pesticides, and other safety information.3 When restricted-use pesticides4 were to be applied, Mr. Oelman posted the entrances to the field with warning signs before the application began. The signs, which stated "Danger/Pesticides/Keep Out" in English and Spanish, were left in place until twelve hours after the expiration of the restricted entry interval for the applied pesticide. Mr. Oelman attested that he always made these postings when restricted-use pesticides such as Monitor and Danitol were applied at the South Florida farm. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda testified that they never harvested tomatoes from fields posted with pesticide warning signs. Mr. Anzualda checked for warning signs every day to ensure that his crew was not being sent into fields where pesticides had recently been applied. The restricted entry interval (REI) and the pre- harvest interval (PHI) are set forth on the manufacturer's label of each restricted-use pesticide, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Parts 156 (labeling requirements for pesticides and devices) and 170 (worker protection standard). The REI, a worker safety standard, is the time period after application of a restricted- use pesticide that must elapse before workers are allowed to enter the treated area. The PHI, a food safety standard, is the time period that must elapse after a spray application before harvesting can begin. The REI and PHI vary according to individual pesticides. In 2004, Warrick Birdwell was the farm manager at Ag- Mart's North Florida farm in Jennings. Prior to 2004, Mr. Birdwell had worked ten years for other tomato growers in Virginia and Florida. As farm manager, Mr. Birdwell was responsible for all operations from ground preparation through post-harvest clean-up at the North Florida farm. Mr. Birdwell was also a licensed restricted-use pesticide applicator and was responsible for the application of pesticides at the North Florida farm. In 2004, Mr. Birdwell was assisted in carrying out the spray program by Dale Waters, who supervised the tractor drivers and equipment.5 During 2004, grape tomatoes were harvested at the North Florida farm on a rotation of at least seven days per block, meaning that it would take at least seven days after a harvest, in a given field, to grow enough vine ripe fruit to warrant another harvest. Mr. Birdwell prepared the spray tickets for the planned application of pesticides. He created his spray tickets a day or two before the actual date that the application was scheduled to take place. At times, delays occurred due to weather, equipment failures, or slower than anticipated progress in the harvest. Mr. Birdwell's practice was to create a new ticket and destroy the old one if the delay prevented a scheduled application from occurring on the scheduled date. However, if the spraying was commenced on the scheduled date, but had to be completed on the next day, Mr. Birdwell kept the original spray ticket without amendment. Mr. Birdwell failed to give a reason why a new ticket was not created each time the information, included in the original ticket, ceased to be accurate. Mr. Birdwell communicated throughout the day with Charles Lambert, the North Florida farm's labor supervisor, to monitor the progress of the harvesting activities and ensure that workers did not enter fields where REIs or PHIs were in effect. Mr. Birdwell also directed that warning postings be placed at the entrances to fields where restricted-use pesticides had been applied. Farm labor crews were allowed to move on the farm property only at the specific direction of Mr. Lambert, whose constant communication with Mr. Birdwell helped ensure that labor crews stayed out of treated fields until it was safe to enter them. Harvested product received at Ag-Mart's packing houses is tracked by foreman receiving reports, which identify the product and its quantity, the name of the crew leader responsible for harvesting the product, the farm from which the product was shipped, and the planting number from which the product was harvested. The receiving reports are used to calculate the commission payments due to the Ag-Mart crew leaders, who are paid based on the amount of fruit their crews harvest, and to analyze the yields of specific plantings. The "date received" column on the receiving reports showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse. In March 2005, the Palm Beach Post published an article stating that three women, who harvested tomatoes for Ag- Mart in 2004, bore children who suffered from birth defects. The article questioned whether the birth defects were connected to the pesticides used by Ag-Mart on its tomatoes. The women had worked at both the South Florida and North Florida farms, and at an Ag-Mart farm in North Carolina. In response to the article, the Collier County Health Department began an inquiry to determine the cause of the birth defects and asked for the Department's help in performing a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm, where the three women, identified as Francisca Herrera, Sostenes Salazar, and Maria de la Mesa (also called Maria de la Mesa Cruz), worked from February through July 2004. The Department's investigation commenced with a work request sent from Tallahassee to Environmental Specialist Neil Richmond in Immokalee on March 7, 2005.6 Mr. Richmond regularly conducts inspections at golf courses, farms, chemical dealers, and fertilizer plants throughout Collier County. The work request directed Mr. Richmond to obtain pesticide use records for Ag-Mart covering the period of February through July 2004 and employee records showing the names of the three employees and the dates they worked in 2004. The work request further directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm to document the pesticide products used in the field. Finally, the work request directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a full worker protection standard inspection to document the posting of fields, central posting information, and REIs at the South Florida farm. Mr. Richmond initially visited Ag-Mart's South Florida farm on March 28, 2005, accompanied by two persons from the Collier County Health Department. During the course of the inspection, Ag-Mart's farm manager, Doug Perkins, produced spray tickets for both the South Florida and North Florida farms for the period February through July 2004. Mr. Perkins also produced a spreadsheet identifying the dates worked and the farm locations for each of the three women named in the newspaper article. This spreadsheet was prepared at the direction of Ag- Mart's human resources manager, Angelia Cassell, and was derived from the three workers' timesheets for 2004. On March 30, 2005, Mr. Richmond filed a written report with the documents he received from Ag-Mart. The Department's Bureau of Compliance Monitoring then assigned the matter to Case Reviewer Jessica Fernandez in Tallahassee. Ms. Fernandez was given the task of reviewing all the information gathered by the Department's inspectors to determine whether Ag-Mart had violated the Florida Pesticide Law or any of the Department's implementing rules. On April 12, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent a request for additional information to Mr. Richmond, which stated in relevant part: According to the work log included in this file, Ms. Fransisca [sic] Herrera, Ms. Maria de la Mesa Cruz and Ms. Sostenes Salazar worked at the Ag-Mart farm located in Immokalee between January 2004 and October 2004. Please obtain as much information as possible regarding the specific Planting, Field and Block numbers in which these workers worked during the period of February 2004 through June 2004. Mr. Richmond went to the South Florida farm on March 13, 2005, and communicated this request for additional information to Mr. Oelman, who responded that it would take several days to gather the requested information. Mr. Richmond returned to the farm on April 15, 2005. On that date, Mr. Oelman explained to Mr. Richmond the sequencing of harvesting and spray activities at the South Florida farm. Mr. Oelman told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's harvest records indicate, only, which planting the laborers were working in on a given day and that a planting includes more than one field. Mr. Oelman also told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's spray records are kept according to field and block numbers and that his practice was to spray behind the picking. On April 22, 2005, Ms. Cassell faxed to Mr. Richmond a spreadsheet entitled "Field Locations for SFL 2/04 thru 6/04." All involved understood that "SFL" referred to the South Florida farm.7 With the assistance of subordinates in her office, Ms. Cassell produced this document to show, in her words, "the total of what field locations the [three] women might have worked in." Ms. Cassell started with time cards, which indicated the dates and hours the three women worked. Then she obtained foreman receiving reports, which she understood to tell her which plantings were harvested on which dates. Finally, she obtained, from the farm, a handwritten document showing which fields were included in each planting. From this information, Ms. Cassell was able to fashion a spreadsheet indicating the range of fields each woman could have worked in from February through June 2004. Mr. Richmond testified that he read the spreadsheet's title and understood the document to show where the women actually worked each day. The document appeared self- explanatory. No one from Ag-Mart told Mr. Richmond that the spreadsheet showed only where the women could have worked, or "possible" locations. Mr. Richmond passed the spreadsheet on to Ms. Fernandez, with a report stating that it showed "the field locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa where they worked on respective dates." Ms. Fernandez also operated on the assumption that the spreadsheet showed what its title indicated, the actual field locations of the three women on any given day from February through June 2004. Ms. Cassell testified that she put the title on the spreadsheet without much thought, simply as an identifier for the file on her computer's hard drive. Ms. Cassell understood that she was creating a spreadsheet of all the fields the women could possibly have worked in on a given day. She could be no more precise, because Ag-Mart did not keep records that would show the specific fields where an individual worked on a given day. The president of Ag-Mart, Mr. Long, confirmed that Ag- Mart does not keep records on which fields a worker is in on a given day. At the time the Department made its request, Mr. Long told Ms. Cassell that there was no way Ag-Mart could provide such precise worker location data. The closest they could come would be to correlate harvest or receiving data, which showed what plantings a crew had harvested from, with the workers' time cards. Ag-Mart knew whose crew each woman had worked in; so the spreadsheet listed all the fields in the planting worked by the crew, as a way of showing which fields the women might have worked in. On May 4, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent Compliance Monitoring Bureau Chief Dale Dubberly a request for additional information, which Mr. Dubberly forwarded to Mr. Richmond the next day. Ms. Fernandez first requested the time work started and ended for each worker in each field on every date listed in the spreadsheet provided on April 22, 2005. Ms. Fernandez next asked for the field location for each worker from July 2004 to November 2004. She asked for the block numbers corresponding to each of the fields in North Florida, South Florida, and North Carolina during the 2004 season and a map showing the distribution of blocks, fields and plantings for those farms during the 2004 season. She asked for spray records for South Florida for October and November 2004. Finally, Ms. Fernandez requested a more legible copy of the spreadsheet, which she stated "shows each worker's field location." Upon receiving this request through Mr. Richmond, Ms. Cassell, her staff, and Ag-Mart farm compliance manager, Amanda Collins created a new spreadsheet, which Ms. Cassell titled "Field Locations for 3 Employees for 2004." This spreadsheet was identical in format to the earlier document, but was expanded to include the dates the three women worked for all of 2004. For each worker, the spreadsheet provided a cell for each day worked, and within that cell a list of field numbers. Again, the Department took these field numbers to represent fields in which the women actually worked, when Ag-Mart actually intended them to represent fields in which the women possibly worked. Some of the cells listed as many as 23 field numbers for one day. The method of developing this spreadsheet was similar to that employed for the first one. The weekly time cards of the three women were used to provide the days they worked. Ag-Mart's weekly time cards show the name of the employee, the rounded hours worked each week, the number of piece units worked, the hours worked for minimum wage, and the initials of the crew leader for whom the employee worked that week. For their South Florida farm work in 2004, Ms. Herrera and Ms. Salazar worked exclusively for crew leader Sergio Salinas. Ms. de la Mesa worked at South Florida for crew leader Juan Anzualda and at North Florida for crew leader Pascual Sierra.8 To identify the fields where the three women might have worked on a given day, Ms. Cassell and her staff again used foreman receiving reports and planting schedules. The receiving reports were understood to provide the dates of shipping for harvested product, and these were correlated to the dates on which the three women worked. Again, Ms. Cassell listed every field within a planting as a possible work location, because Ag-Mart kept no data that identified the fields in which the women actually worked on a given date. On May 6, 2005, Mr. Richmond met with Ms. Cassell and Ms. Collins at Ag-Mart's Plant City administrative offices. The meeting lasted no more than 15 minutes and consisted of Ag-Mart employees turning over various documents to Mr. Richmond, along with some explanatory conversation. Ms. Cassell specifically recalled explaining to Mr. Richmond that the field location spreadsheet indicated the "total possible fields that the three employees could have worked in." Mr. Richmond denied that Ms. Cassell gave him any such explanation. Ms. Collins recalled that Mr. Richmond and Ms. Cassell had some discussion about the spreadsheet, but could recall no particulars.9 Mr. Richmond forwarded the documents received at the May 6, 2005, meeting to Ms. Fernandez in Tallahassee. His written summary, also dated May 6, 2005, represents Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous understanding of the meaning of the documents he was given at the Plant City meeting. The summary stated, in relevant part: Ms. Collins provided the times which the three ladies worked at the various locations which came from the three ladies time cards (See Exhibits V-1 through V-3, copies of time worked information). Ms. Collins stated that this has the start and finished [sic] times, but does not have which fields they worked at a particular time as they may pick in several fields throughout the day. Ms. Collins provided another copy of the field locations for each of the three ladies (See Exhibits W-1 and W-2, copies of field locations of workers). Ms. Collins also provided maps with field locations depicting blocks and plantings (See Exhibits X-1 through X-13, maps depicting field locations with blocks and plantings). The field no. is the main number in each block, the first two numbers are the numbers of the planting, while the remaining number in the set is the block number. . . . At the hearing, Mr. Richmond testified that he "absolutely" would have communicated to Ms. Fernandez any conversation he had with, either, Ms. Cassell or Ms. Collins indicating that the field location spreadsheet was anything other than a document showing where the women worked on a given day. This testimony is credible and, coupled with Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous written statement, leads to the finding that Mr. Richmond's testimony regarding the May 6, 2005, meeting in Plant City should be credited. On May 12, 2005, Ms. Cassell sent Mr. Dubberly an e- mail with an attachment correcting some aspects of the spreadsheet. Ms. Cassell's e-mail message stated: I have attached the the [sic] revision to the original sheet given on the 3 woman's [sic] field locations. I included which field location for NC. There was one revision I made for Francisca on week ending 4/24/05 [Ms. Cassell clearly means 2004]. She was in NC that week and on the last two days of that week I had SFL field numbers and it should of [sic] been NC [sic] please discard old report and replace with revised one. The Department cites this e-mail as further indication that Ag-Mart represented the spreadsheet as indicating actual field locations for the three women, or at least that Ag-Mart said nothing to clarify that the spreadsheet showed something other than the fields where the women actually worked. Ms. Fernandez, the case reviewer whose analysis led to the filing of the Administrative Complaints against Ag-Mart, believed that the field location spreadsheets prepared by Ms. Cassell and her staff reflected the actual work locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa. As a case reviewer, Ms. Fernandez receives files compiled by the field staff and reviews the files to determine whether a violation of the Florida Pesticide Law has occurred. The procedure of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring appears designed to ensure that the case reviewers have no contact with the subjects of their investigation and, instead, rely on field inspectors to act as conduits in obtaining information from companies such as Ag-Mart. As a result, Ms. Fernandez had no direct contact with anyone from Ag-Mart and, thus, had no direct opportunity to be disabused of her assumptions regarding the field location spreadsheet. Ms. Fernandez conceded that she had never been on a tomato farm at the time she conducted her review of the Ag-Mart case. She did not take into consideration the acreage of the fields or the size of the work crews and their manner of operation. She made no attempt to visualize the effort it would take for one worker to harvest in ten or 20 fields in one day. She assumed that each woman worked in at least part of each field listed on the spreadsheet for each day listed. Ms. Fernandez believed that the spreadsheet was clear on its face and saw no need to make further inquiries as to the plausibility of the assumption that it reflected actual, not possible, field locations. As found above, Ag-Mart made no statement to any Department employee to qualify that the spreadsheet meant only possible field locations. Nonetheless, common sense should have caused someone in the Department to question whether this spreadsheet really conveyed the information that its title appeared to promise. On some days, the spreadsheet places a single field worker in 23 fields. Ag-Mart's crew leaders credibly testified that their crews never worked in more than four fields in one day and more often worked in only one or two. Even granting Ms. Fernandez' ignorance, Mr. Dubberly or some other superior in the Department should have had enough knowledge of farm operations to question the plausibility of Ms. Fernandez' assumptions. While Ag-Mart is at fault for not explaining itself clearly, the Department is also at fault for insisting that the spreadsheet be taken at face value, no matter how implausible the result.10 At the hearing, Ms. Fernandez explained how she used the documents provided by Ag-Mart to draft the Administrative Complaints. As an example, Counts I and II of the North Florida Complaint provide: Count I On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre- harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count II The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 7-8 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on June 6, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. Ms. Fernandez obtained the information regarding the date, time, and manner of pesticide application from the spray tickets described above. She obtained the Monitor and Danitol PHI information from the product label. She obtained the harvest information from the spreadsheet, which indicated that Ms. de la Mesa worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Counts I and II alleging violations of the PHIs for Monitor and Danitol had an accompanying Count XIX, alleging a violation of the REI for Monitor arising from the same set of facts: Count XIX The Monitor 4 Spray and the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray labels contain the following language: "AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE) and restricted entry interval. The requirements in this box only apply to users of this product that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard." On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The application started at 11:30 am and ended at 5:30 pm on June 6, 2004. The Monitor 4 Spray label states: "Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry interval (REI) of 48 hours." Work records show that Ms. de la Mesa, directed by licensed applicators Mr. Charles Lambert (PV38793)11 and Mr. Warrick Birdwell (PV36679), worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004, and that her working hours for June 7, 2004, were 8:00 am to 6:30 pm. Therefore, Ms. de la Mesa and other workers were instructed, directed, permitted or not prevented by the agricultural employer, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. from entering treated fields before the expiration of the REI stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Throughout the hearing, Ag-Mart contended (and the Department did not dispute) that no statute or rule requires Ag-Mart to keep a daily log of the fields where its employees work. The Department also conceded that Ag-Mart was cooperative throughout its investigation.12 Ag-Mart contends that all counts should be dismissed because of the Department's reliance on the field location spreadsheet, which shows only the possible field locations of the workers. This contention goes to far. For example, the counts set forth above are well taken, because the spray tickets indicate that fields 7 and 8 were sprayed on June 6, 2004, and the field location spreadsheet indicates that Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Ag-Mart further attacked the spreadsheet by suggesting the unreliability of the dates on the foreman receiving reports. As found above, the receiving reports generally showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse, as well as the crew leader who provided the tomatoes and the planting from which the tomatoes were harvested. At the hearing, Ag-Mart contended that the date the product was shipped was not always the same date it was harvested. Further, Ag-Mart demonstrated that one of the receiving reports relevant to this proceeding showed the date the product was received at the packing house, rather than the date the product was shipped from the farm, due to a clerical error. Ag-Mart argued that this example showed that the receiving reports were not a reliable source for determining the precise dates of harvest in a given field on the North Florida farm. Ag-Mart's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the unreliability of the receiving reports, where Ag-Mart itself relied on the reports to provide the Department with the spreadsheet showing possible field locations of the three workers. Ag-Mart had ample opportunity to make a thorough demonstration of the reports' alleged unreliability and failed to do so. Ag-Mart also attempted to cast doubt on the accuracy of the spray tickets through the testimony of Mr. Oelman and Mr. Birdwell, both of whom stated that the spray tickets are written well in advance of the pesticide applications and are not invariably rewritten or corrected when the spraying schedule is pushed back due to rain or slow harvest. However, the pesticide applicator is required by law to maintain accurate records relating to the application of all restricted-use pesticides, including the date, start time and end time of the treatment, and the location of the treatment site. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(1). The Department is entitled to inspect these records. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(6). Ag-Mart may not attack records that its own employee/applicators were legally required to keep in an accurate fashion. The Department is entitled to rely on the spray tickets as accurate indicators of when and where pesticide applications occurred. Thus, the undersigned has accepted the accuracy of the spray records and the receiving reports, but not of the field location spreadsheet. However, there are some dates on which the fields shown on the spreadsheet perfectly match the fields shown on the spray tickets, as in Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint set forth above. It is found that the Department has proven these counts by clear and convincing evidence. In addition to Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint, the Department has proven the following counts of the North Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence: Counts XI, XII, and XXII (spraying in fields 7 and 8 on June 17, 2004; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 19, 2004); and Count XIII (spraying Agrimek 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide, with PHI of seven days, in fields 7 and 8 on June 3, 2005; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004). The Department has proven none of the counts in the South Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Some explanation must be made for the finding that Counts XXXI and XXXII were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Those counts allege as follows: Count XXXI On April 17, 2004, Mr. Lorenzo Reyes, Mr. Demetrio Acevedo and Mr. Francisco Vega treated approximately 212.5 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 11, 6 and 4, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6 and 4 on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count XXXII The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 11, 6 and 4 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on April 17, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. These counts base their allegation that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6, and 4 on April 21, 2004, on the field location spreadsheet, which indicates that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in fields 4, 6, 9, 10, and/or 11 on April 21, 2004. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the three sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were also applied to fields 9 and 10 on April 15, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on April 21, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. However, the Department did not amend the South Florida Complaint to allege the fact of the second spray ticket, and, so, must be held to the allegations actually made in the complaint. Ag-Mart may not be found guilty of facts or violations not specifically alleged in the South Florida Complaint. See Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (facts not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). See also B.D.M. Financial Corporation v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 698 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (violations not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). In similar fashion, Counts XLI and XLII of the South Florida Complaint allege that fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 were sprayed with Monitor and Danitol on May 15, 2004, and allege PHI violations in fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 on May 20, 2004, based on the field location spreadsheet's indication that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in one or more of fields 18 through 25 on that date. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the four sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were, also, applied to fields 20, 23, 24, and 25 on May 14, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on May 20, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. Again, however, the Department failed to amend the South Florida Complaint to reflect its subsequently developed evidence. Subsection 487.175(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that the Department may enter an order imposing an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. The statute further provides as follows: When imposing any fine under this paragraph, the department shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying the damage, the amount of money the violator benefited from by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and the compliance record of the violator. Mr. Dubberly testified that the Department does not have a rule for determining the amount of fines, but uses a matrix, attaching a rating of 0 to 5 for each of the criteria named in the quoted portion of the statute, with 5 representing the most egregious violation. The extent of harm caused by the violation is divided into two classifications: (A) the degree and extent of harm related to human and environmental hazards and (B) the degree and extent of harm related to the toxicity of the pesticide(s). The remaining criteria considered in the matrix are: (C) the estimated cost of rectifying the damage, (D) the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and (F) the compliance record of the violator. Each factor is given its numerical value. The values for factors (B) through (F) are added, then the total is multiplied by the value for factor (A). The resulting number is then multiplied by $100.00 to determine the amount of the fine. The PHI violations were primarily food safety violations, the concern being that there might be an unacceptable pesticide residue on the tomatoes if they were harvested within the PHI. The REI violations were based on concerns for worker safety from pesticide exposure. In determining the fines for PHI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 2 for factor (A). In determining the fines for REI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 3 for factor (A), based on a reasonable probability of human or animal death or injury, or a reasonable probability of serious environmental harm. For purposes of this proceeding, all the pesticides used by Ag-Mart were restricted-use pesticides. In considering the value to be assigned to factor (B), the Department relied on the pesticide labels, which contain signal words for the category of potential hazard to human or animal life posed by that pesticide. Monitor contained the signal word "Danger," which represents the highest level of potential hazard. A value of 5 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving the use of Monitor. Danitol and Agrimek contained the signal word "Warning," which indicated a lesser potential hazard. A value of 3 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving Danitol or Agrimek. Because the estimated cost of rectifying the damage and the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance was unknown, the Department assigned a value of 0 to factors (C) and (D). As to factor (E), dealing with the willfulness of the violation, the Department assigns a value of 0 if there is no evidence of willfulness, a value of 1 if there is apparent evidence of willfulness, and a value of 5 if it determines the violation was intentional. Because of the large number of alleged PHI and REI violations, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (E), finding apparent evidence of willful intent for each alleged violation. As to factor (F), dealing with the violator's compliance history, the Department considers the three years immediately preceding the current violation. The Department assigns a value of 0 if there are no prior violations, a value of 1 for a prior dissimilar violation, a value of 2 for multiple prior dissimilar violations, a value of 3 for a prior similar violation, and a value of 4 for multiple prior similar violations. Because Ag-Mart had one prior dissimilar violation within the preceding three years, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (F) for each alleged violation. Because the sole basis for finding apparent evidence of willful intent was the number of alleged violations, the Department calculated its recommended fines in two ways: by assigning a value of 0 based on no evidence of willful intent and by assigning a value of 1 based on apparent evidence of willful intent. In DOAH Case No. 06-0730, the North Florida Complaint, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,200 (no evidence of willful intent) or $1,400 (apparent evidence of willful intent) for each of the PHI violations alleged in Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, and XI, which involved the use of Monitor. The Department recommended a fine of either $800 (no evidence) or $1,000 (apparent evidence) for Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, and XII, involving the use of Danitol, and for Counts XIV, XV, and XVI, involving the use of Agrimek. For each of the REI violations alleged in Counts XIX through XXII, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,800 (no evidence) or $2,100 (apparent evidence). The Department established by clear and convincing evidence seven of the 20 counts of the North Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing, and none of the 58 counts of the South Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing. The undersigned accepts the Department's calculation of the recommended fines for these violations and recommends that the Department apply the lower calculation for each of the violations. Thus, the recommended fines are as follows: Count I, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count II, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XI, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count XII, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XIII, PHI violation involving the use of Agrimek, $800; Count XIX, REI violation, $1,800; and Count XXII, REI violation, $1,800. Thus, the total recommended fine for the seven proven violations is $8,400. In conclusion, it is observed that these cases demonstrate a gap in the enforcement mechanism of the Florida Pesticide Law, at least as it is currently understood and practiced by the Department. The law requires licensed applicators to comply with the PHI and REI restrictions on the labels of the restricted-use pesticides they apply to these crops. The law requires the applicators to keep accurate records of when and where they apply pesticides and of the kind and quantity of pesticides applied in each instance. Yet all parties to this proceeding agreed that the law does not require either the applicators or the growers to keep accurate records of when and where farm workers enter the fields and conduct the harvest. This failure to complete the record- keeping circle makes it extremely difficult for the Department to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a PHI or REI violation has taken place. The PHI and REI restrictions appear virtually unenforceable through company records, except when some fluke of record keeping allows the Department to establish that a given worker could only have been in a recently sprayed field on a given day. It does little good to know when the pesticides were applied to a field if there is no way of knowing when workers first entered the field or harvested tomatoes after the spraying. Ag-Mart credibly demonstrated that its general practices are designed to minimize worker exposure and guarantee safe harvest, but the company keeps no records to demonstrate to its customers that it observes these practices in particular instances and is under no legal obligation to keep such records. This state of regulatory affairs should be as disturbing to Ag-Mart as to the Department, because purchasers of tomatoes in Florida's grocery stores do not require clear and convincing evidence in order to switch brands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order that provides as follows: That Ag-Mart committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, XI, XII, and XIII of the North Florida Complaint, for which violations Ag-Mart should be assessed an administrative fine totaling $8,400; That Ag-Mart pay to the Department $3,000 to resolve Counts L through LIV of the South Florida Complaint and Counts XVII and XVIII of the North Florida Complaint; and That all other counts of the North Florida Complaint and the South Florida Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc., and its surety, Western Surety Company, are liable for funds due to Petitioner from the sale of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. Petitioner operates a nursery supply company that produces trees, plants, and other landscaping supplies at a location in Bunnell, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. At the time of the transactions in question, Respondent was a licensed dealer in agricultural products supported by a surety bond provided by Western Surety Company. This matter arose over a Producer Complaint filed by Petitioner on June 24, 2005, in which it alleged that Respondent owed $20,512.97, based upon five invoices for nursery goods delivered to various job sites where Respondent was providing landscaping services. The five invoices set forth in the original Producer Complaint are as follows: Date of Sale Invoice # Amount Dec. 28, 2004 64679 $2,884.72 Jan. 11, 2005 64828 3,878.75 Jan. 11, 2005 64829 1,926.00 Feb. 1, 2005 65229 2,086.50 Feb. 3, 2005 65127 9,737.00 Petitioner later amended its Complaint to withdraw its claims under Invoice Nos. 65229 and 65127, as untimely filed, resulting in an amended amount due of $8,689.47. Respondent filed a Response to the Producer Complaint on August 15, 2005, admitting the amounts due under Invoice Nos. 64679 and 64828, totaling $6,763.47, and denying the amount claimed in Invoice No. 64829, $1,926.00, as never having been filled, resulting in Respondent's using another vendor to fill the order. Respondent admitted the amounts due under Invoice Nos. 64679 and 64828; therefore, no further discussion is necessary for those items, except to note that Delivery Receipt No. 17751, relating to Invoice No. 64828 contains the note "Reject 1 Live Oak." Therefore, the amount of Invoice No. 64828 must be reduced by $214.00 ($200 for the tree and 7 percent Florida Sales Tax). With respect to Invoice No. 64829, however, Petitioner produced at hearing only an unsigned invoice without either a sales order or a receipt for delivery of goods, as was its custom concerning deliveries of nursery goods. Accordingly, Petitioner provided no proof that the order under Invoice No. 64829 was actually delivered to Respondent. Respondent and its surety, Western Surety Company, currently owe Petitioner $2,884.72 under Invoice No. 64679, and $3,664.75 under Invoice No. 64828, for a total amount owed of $6,549.47.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc., or its surety, Respondent, Western Surety Company, to pay Petitioner $6,549.47 for unpaid invoices. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher E. Green, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Marketing 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Joseph Robbins, Jr. Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc. 11025 Southeast Highway 42 Summerfield, Florida 34491 Tom Snyder Western Surety Company Post Office Box 5077 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117-5077 Donald M. DuMond Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 2970 Hartley Road, Suite 302 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Tom Robinson Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 13000 State Road 11 Bunnell, Florida 32110 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Respondent, William R. Daniels, has been a farm labor contractor since 1949. Respondent retained the services of Edward J. Smith to assist him in fruit harvesting activities during the 1987 season. On February 18, 1988, Tommy L. Sumpter, a Compliance Officer employed by Petitioner, performed a compliance check on fruit harvesting activities located off 66th Avenue in Vero Beach, Florida. The compliance check by Sumpter revealed, that Edward J. Smith was supervising citrus workers on behalf of Respondent. Smith transported workers to the citrus field in Vero Beach in van owned by Respondent. Smith displayed his Federal Certificate of Registration which was valid through December 1988. Smith displayed his State Certificate which expired in December 1987. A confirmation check of Smith's Florida Certificate of Registration reveals that his certificate, in fact, expired on December 31, 1987. Smith registered at the Petitioner's Fort Pierce Job Service Office on February 23, 1988. Mr. Smith was cited for failing to register as required by section 450.30, Florida Statutes. Respondent submitted a verification of employment form which indicates that Smith was employed by him on October 15, 1987, and was paid $75.00 minus social security contributions, per truck load of citrus harvested by Smith's workers. By letter dated May 3, 1988, Respondent was issued the subject Administrative Complaint and notified that a civil money penalty was being assessed against him in the amount of $500.00 on the basis that he contracted for the employment of farm workers with a farm labor contractor before that contractor displayed a current certificate of registration issued by Petitioner. When Respondent retained the services of Smith, as a farm labor contractor, Smith's Florida Certificate of Registration was expired and he therefore could not have displayed a current certificate of registration to Respondent before he was employed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order imposing a $500.00 civil penalty against Respondent payable within thirty days of the issuance of its final order, for contracting for the employment of farmworkers with a farm labor contractor before the farm labor contractor displayed to him a current certificate of registration issued by Petitioner. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 117, Montgomery Building 590 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 William R. Daniel 227 Sterrett Circle Port St. Lucie, Florida 33395 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations described in the Administrative Complaint, as amended? If so, what civil penalty or penalties should be assessed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made to supplement the factual stipulations into which the parties have entered: Respondent was born in Mexico. She has lived in the United States since October of 1974. Respondent has a fourth grade education that she received in her native land. She is unable to read or write English and speaks and understands very little of the language. She communicates primarily in Spanish. Respondent lives with her husband and five of her six children, including her 21-year old daughter, Anna, who unlike her mother, is fluent in both English and Spanish. Recently, due at least in part to the inability of family members to find work and to the lengthy hospitalization of Raphael, Jr., one of Respondent's sons, the Rivera family has experienced serious financial problems and has been unable to pay all of its bills. As a result, the family home is in foreclosure and water service to the home has been terminated. The family's plight should improve to some extent, however, inasmuch as Respondent's husband started working again approximately a week before the final hearing in this case. Respondent, though, remains unemployed, as does her daughter Anna, although they are both actively seeking employment. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent has been a Florida-registered farm labor contractor. She received the first of her farm labor contractor certificates of registration in 1990. To date, she has an unblemished disciplinary record. Since becoming registered, the only statutory and rule violations with which she has been charged are those that are the subject of the instant case. To obtain her certificates, Respondent simply had to fill out application forms. The application forms were in English. She therefore went to the local Department Job Service office to obtain the assistance of a bilingual Department employee fluent in English and Spanish to help her complete these forms. In each instance, the Department employee assisting Respondent filled out the form after obtaining the necessary information from Respondent and, after doing so, presented the completed form to Respondent for her signature. Jesus Velasquez was the Department employee who helped Respondent complete the application form for her initial certificate of registration. Velasquez has been a Compliance Officer with the Department for the past nine years. During his meeting with Respondent, Velasquez briefly described to her some of the duties and obligations of registered farm labor contractors. Andre Jeudy, who was then an Agricultural Service Representative with the Department, but is now a Department Compliance Officer, helped Respondent complete the application form she submitted to obtain her second certificate of registration. The form was completed, signed and submitted on November 20, 1990. Item 7 of the form requested the applicant to "Check Each Activity to be performed Involving Migrant and/or Seasonal Agricultural Workers for Agricultural Employment." Two "activities" were listed. The first was "Recruit, solicit, hire, employ, furnish, pay." The second was "Transport." Based upon what he had been told by Respondent, Jeudy checked the first, but not the second, of these listed activities. Item 9 of the form asked, "Will Transportation be Provided the Workers?" If the response was in the affirmative, the applicant was further instructed to "Give number and type of vehicles used to transport migrant and seasonal agricultural workers." Based upon the information that he had been provided by Respondent, Jeudy marked the "Yes" box and wrote only the following to supplement this affirmative response: "TRANSP will be provide [sic] By company Bus (Okeelanta)." By her signature, Respondent certified on the form that "all representations made by me in this application are true to the best of my knowledge and belief" and that "I have read or had explained to me and fully understand the State of Florida Farm Labor Registration Law and its implementing regulations, and will fully comply with the requirements therein." By letter dated December 4, 1990, Respondent was advised by the Department that it had issued her the new certificate of registration (hereinafter referred to as the "1990-91 Certificate") for which she had applied. The certificate, which had an "expiration date" of "11/91," was enclosed with letter. Respondent's 1990-91 Certificate indicated that Respondent was "Transportation Unauthorized." The certificate provided the following explanation as to what it meant to be "Transportation Unauthorized:" Transportation Unauthorized- You are not permitted to arrange and/or provide transportation of migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. To obtain a certificate authorizing the transportation of workers within the meaning of the Act, you must file evidence of compliance with applicable safety and health requirements as stated in the Act and regulations and with the insurance of financial responsibility requirements provided therein. On September 18, 1991, Respondent went to the local Job Service office to apply for a successor certificate. The Department employee who assisted Respondent on this occasion was Mary Ann Ruiz. Ruiz accurately conveyed on the application form the information with which she had been provided by Respondent. The application form that Ruiz helped Respondent fill out was identical to the one Respondent had used to obtain her 1990-91 Certificate. With respect to Item 7, Ruiz checked the first ("Recruit, solicit, hire, employ, furnish, pay"), but not the second ("Transport"), of the farm labor contractor activities listed. As to Item 9, Ruiz marked the "Yes" box and gave the following written explanation: "trans provided by Okeelanta." No further information regarding such transportation was furnished on the form. As she had done the year before, Respondent certified the accuracy of the information contained in the application and her knowledge of, and her intention to fully comply with, the "Florida Farm Labor Registration Law and its implementing regulations." At the time of her application, she did not intend to transport any farm workers. By letter dated December 19, 1991, Respondent was advised by the Department that it had issued her the successor certificate of registration (hereinafter referred to as the "1991-92 Certificate") for which she had applied. The certificate, which had an "expiration date" of "11/92," was enclosed with letter. Respondent's 1991-92 Certificate indicated that Respondent was again "Transportation Unauthorized" and it repeated the explanation of the term that had been set forth in the 1990-91 Certificate. In 1990 and 1991, Respondent recruited farm workers to plant sugar cane seed and perform related tasks for the Okeelanta Sugar Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Okeelanta"). Okeelanta has substantial land holdings in the Everglades Agricultural Area on which it grows and harvests sugar cane that it then processes and converts into refined sugar for sale. Okeelanta paid Respondent a total of $10,958.90 for her services ($4,550.40 for services rendered in 1990 and $6,408.50 for services rendered in 1991). Okeelanta treated Respondent as an independent contractor. The workers she recruited, on the other hand, were considered by Okeelanta to be employees of the corporation. They were paid directly by Okeelanta, which made appropriate deductions from their paychecks. The workers were organized into planting crews made up of eight or nine persons each. At any given time during the 1990-91 and 1991-92 planting seasons, there were several crews comprised of workers Respondent had recruited for Okeelanta (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent's crews"). Okeelanta employed timekeepers to maintain records of the work performed by each of the crews in its fields. Anna Rivera, Respondent's daughter, was the timekeeper responsible for maintaining the records of the work done by Respondent's crews. Respondent's crews were supervised and directed in the field by another Okeelanta employee, Zone Supervisor Raphael Colunga. As the Zone Supervisor, Colunga had the authority to discharge any crew member under his supervision. Respondent frequently went out in the field to monitor the activities of her crews. She did so because the amount of compensation she received from Okeelanta was dependent upon the work performed by her crews. Respondent used her own vehicle to make the trip to the field. There was an Okeelanta bus that drove crew members from the Okeelanta employee parking lot to the field in the morning and back to the parking lot in the afternoon. Respondent's crews did not always arrive early enough in the morning to catch these buses. On those occasions that they missed the bus, the transportation that they used to commute to work was the transportation that they used to get to the field. Every employee that Respondent recruited for Okeelanta for the 1991-92 planting season, before being hired, was screened by the Department at its Belle Glade Job Service office pursuant to a written agreement between Okeelanta and the Department, which provided as follows: RECRUITING ARRANGEMENT Okeelanta Corporation It is the intent of Belle Glade Job Service (hereafter the Job Service) and Okeelanta Corporation (hereafter the "Employer") to bring together individuals, who are seeking employment, and the Employer, who is seeking workers without charging a fee. Therefore, The Job Service and the Employer enter into this arrangement: Assist job seekers in obtaining employment from the employer; Allow the Job Service to facilitate the match between the job seekers and the employer. Both parties enter into this arrangement with the understanding that each will comply with all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations (please see attached addendum of specific responsibilities) pursuant to Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 652, 655 and 658. BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THIS RECRUITING ARRANGEMENT WILL - Continue for no longer than one year from the date both parties have signed the document. Constitute the sole exclusive arrangement indicating how they will work together. Terminate upon either party's written notice for the other party that the arrangement will be cancelled in 30 days. Abide by the attached addendums of JS and Employer obligations. Addendum I to the agreement listed the Department's obligations. These obligations were as follows: Provide the Employer notice to renew this arrangement at least 60 days prior to ending date of this arrangement or prior to the expected beginning of the season, whichever is earlier. The notice will contain a request to the employer for written response as to their satisfaction with the arrangement, information on any problem that have [sic] developed and meeting date to renew the arrangement. Provide the employer daily a log summarizing job placement activities for each day in which one or more individuals were referred to the employer. Provide I-9 Certification on individuals hired no later than 48 hours from date JS is notified of hire. Designate one Employment representative to be stationed on daily basis or as needed, to serve as the liaison responsible for working with Okeelanta Corporation. Provide the Okeelanta Corporation with reverse referral recruitment cards to give the applicants. Maintain a pool of qualified applicants for the positions listed with Job Service, who have been screened against the selection criteria of the company. Provide Okeelanta with a list of qualified applicants on file whenever an opening arises. Refer applicants from the pool, with a completed I.D. card, a completed W-4 form, JS Referral Card, (a completed I-9 on recalls) upon receipt of a job order. Addendum II to the agreement listed Okeelanta's obligations. These obligations were as follows: List all job openings for which they wish Job Service to recruit. Provide the Belle Glade JS office a supply of W-4 forms applications for completion by qualified applicants desiring to work for the company. On a daily basis inform the Belle Glade JS office of the hiring decision made on each applicant referred by the JS. Designate one of its employees, within one week of the starting date of this arrangement, to serve as the liaison responsible for working with the JS. Provide a working space for the employee designated to be stationed at the employer premises. Acknowledge receipt of the above referenced regulations as a part of this arrangement, which it will furnish the above referenced employee. The job order Okeelanta placed with the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office in accordance with the foregoing agreement for sugar cane seed planters and other agricultural workers needed for the 1991-92 planting season specified that these employees would be expected to work six days a week, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 or 4:00 p.m., weather permitting. Okeelanta hired only those prospective employees who were deemed qualified and given a referral or "yellow" card by the Department. These prospective employees were required to present their card to the Zone Supervisor. After doing so and being accepted for employment, they received an Okeelanta employee identification number and their names appeared on the Okeelanta Day Haul Master List for each day they worked. Prospective employees unable to produce a "yellow" card for the Zone Supervisor were referred to the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office. In light of Okeelanta's policy of turning away prospective employees who did not have "yellow" cards, Respondent advised every employee that she recruited for Okeelanta during the 1991-92 planting season that they had to go to the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office and obtain such a card before they could begin working for Okeelanta. Respondent was never told that she had to verify the qualifications of members of her crews who had been screened and referred to Okeelanta by the Department. She therefore believed that there was no need for her to do so. Miguel Paiz was a member of one of Respondent's crews. He was interviewed at the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office prior to the commencement of the 1991-92 planting season and, although, as he made the interviewer aware, he was only 17 years of age at the time, he was given a "yellow" card. The W-4 form that was completed during his interview indicates that, at least at the time of the interview, Paiz was married. On the morning of Friday, October 18, 1991, three or four days after the start of the 1991-92 planting season, Cruz Hernandez Alvarez, lost control of the 1978 station wagon he was driving on a private road on Okeelanta property and the vehicle went into a canal on the side of the road. Seven of the eight occupants of the vehicle were killed. Alvarez did not have a valid driver's license at the time of the accident. The vehicle he was driving belonged to Juan Andres. Its V.I.N. was 1L35U8S167733. Alvarez and some, but not all, of the other occupants of the vehicle, including the lone survivor of the accident, were members of one of Respondent's crews. Julio Mendoza Corince, a 15-year old boy, was one of the occupants of the vehicle who perished in the accident. Earlier that month, Corince had gone to the Department's Belle Glade Job Service office to obtain a "yellow" card. The Department employee with whom he interviewed, however, refused to refer him because he was underage. Corince was not a member of any of Respondent's crews. Indeed, at no time before the accident had Respondent ever met or spoken with him. After the bodies were recovered from the canal, Respondent, and later her daughter Anna, were called to the scene and asked by the police if they were able to identify any of the victims. Viewing the dead bodies was a very emotionally upsetting experience for both of them. They spent the remainder of the day at home. No work was done by any of Respondent's crews that day. State and federal investigators began their investigation shortly after the accident was reported. Compliance Officer Velasquez was the Department's lead investigator. Rene Callobre, an Assistant District Administrator with the United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, who, like Velasquez, is fluent in both English and Spanish, conducted the federal investigation. A short time after beginning his investigation on the day of the accident, Velasquez went to the Okeelanta property and asked to speak with Respondent. After being told that Respondent had left for the day, Velasquez proceeded to Respondent's home, where he interviewed Respondent. Velasquez and Respondent conversed in Spanish during the interview. Respondent was still emotionally upset at the time of the interview, but not to the extent that she was irrational or unable to effectively communicate with Velasquez. At no time did she provide an inappropriate response to his inquiries. During the interview, Respondent freely and voluntarily gave a statement in Spanish to Velasquez. Velasquez had not warned Respondent before she gave the statement that what she said could be used against her in an administrative proceeding such as the instant one. 1/ Velasquez wrote down in English what Respondent had told him in Spanish. This written, English translation of the statement, which accurately reflected Respondent's discussion with Velasquez, was then read back to Respondent in Spanish. Respondent thereupon signed the written statement, which read as follows: I am a farm labor contractor with cert # 29482 & expiration date of Nov. 1992. At present I am employed by Okeelanta Sugar Corp. My duties are to recruit & supervise farm workers to plant sugar cane. My fee for this task is $1.10 per row of cane planted by the crew. I recruited my crews by word of mouth. They know I am a contractor, so they come to my house to ask for work. The first thing I tell any worker that comes here to my house is that they must go the Job Service Office in Belle Glade and register. When they are properly registered, they go to the Okeelanta parking lot and there they are transported by company bus to the work site. I tell all the workers they must provide their own transportation to the Okeelanta parking lot. I tell all my workers this because I do not own a vehicle big enough to transport them from their home and back. I tell them that if they want to work, they must come on their own. I recruited 4 crews consisting of 8 workers each crew. Three of the crews were coming from Indiantown (Guatemalans) and one crew from this area (Mexicans). These crews, the ones from Indiantown, worked with me last year. I usually give the driver or the owner of the vehicle $100 per week for gasoline. I did this last year and was intending to do this this year also. The three crews from Indiantown came by car (station wagon) and a van. The station wagon carried 1 crew (8 workers) and the van carried 2 crews (16 workers). On this date, only one crew leader showed up, the station wagon. The van with the 2 crews did not show up. These crews started to work on Tuesday October 15, 1991. I do not pay the workers, Okeelanta does. The statement was in all respects factually accurate. Respondent had not yet during the 1991-92 planting season paid or loaned or agreed to pay or loan anyone "$100 for gasoline" in connection with the transporting of her crews. At no time did Respondent tell any state or federal investigator, including Velasquez or Callobre, otherwise. 2/ On Monday, October 21, 1991, Velasquez went out in the field to visit with Respondent and the members of her crews. Velasquez was accompanied by Compliance Officer Jeudy. Jeudy was being trained by Velasquez. Velasquez and Jeudy observed a 1977 Chevrolet van in the field. The van's V.I.N was CGL257U218651. Neither on the van nor anywhere else in the field was there posted a copy Respondent's application for a certificate of registration or a statement, in English and Spanish, showing Respondent's and her crews' rates of compensation. Velasquez asked Respondent if any of the members of her crews had been transported in the van. Respondent responded in the affirmative and indicated that two of her crews from Indiantown had travelled in the van. Velasquez then asked to speak to the driver of the van. Respondent thereupon retrieved Miguel Paiz, who was working in the field. Although he was 17 years of age and it was during normal school hours, Paiz was at work and not in school. Velasquez asked to see Paiz's driver's license and his farm labor contractor's certificate of registration. Paiz showed Velasquez his driver's license and the "yellow" card he had received from the Department. Paiz advised Velasquez that he did not have, and therefore was unable to produce, a farm labor contractor's certificate of registration. Paiz told Velasquez that Juan Lopez was paying him $10.00 a day for driving the van. During his conversation with Velasquez, Paiz erroneously identified Lopez as the owner of the van. The actual owner of the van was Julio Puentes. After speaking with Paiz, Velasquez interviewed Lopez. Based upon what he understood Lopez to have said during the interview, Velasquez prepared a written statement for Lopez's signature which provided as follows: I borrowed the (vehicle) van that this date transported 16 workers to Okeelanta Sugar Corp. to work in the planting of sugar cane. I was recruited by Araceli Rivera. I am paid $100 per week for the gasoline I use in the vehicle. I am also paid $1.00 per row of sugar cane planted by Okeelanta. I am not registered as a F.L.C. Lopez refused to sign the statement. To the extent that the statement suggests that Lopez was then being paid by Respondent for "the gasoline [Lopez] use[d] in the ['transporting'] vehicle," it is inaccurate. No such payments were made by Respondent to Lopez during the 1991-92 planting season.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) imposing upon Respondent a civil penalty in the amount of $100.00 for having violated Section 450.33(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 38H-11.008, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in paragraph (4)(h) of the Administrative Complaint, as amended, by displaying in the area where her crews were working on October 21, 1991, neither a copy of her application for a farm labor contractor certificate of registration nor the requisite statement concerning the compensation that she was receiving from Okeelanta for her recruitment activities, and (2) dismissing the remaining allegations advanced in the Administrative Complaint, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of February, 1993. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1993.
The Issue This proceeding was initiated on June 27, 1985, when Petitioner filed its complaint for $51,680.00 with the Florida Department of Agriculture. Respondents were Dade Tomato and its surety, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. of Columbus, Ohio. After payment of $38,880.00 was received, Homestead Tomato reduced its claim to $12,800.00 in an amended complaint dated July 22, 1985. Dade Tomato responded with a timely request for formal hearing. The issue at hearing was whether $12.00 or $16.00 was the price per box of 5 x 7 tomatoes purchased by Dade Tomato from Homestead Tomato on January 13th and 21st, 1985. Homestead Tomato presented the testimony of two witnesses and nineteen exhibits; Dade Tomato presented seven witnesses and thirteen exhibits; State Automobile Insurance Company was noticed, but did not appear. Both parties submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. These have been carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order, and an outline of the adoption or rejection of each proposed finding is included in Appendix A, attached to, and incorporated in this order. A document styled Reply Brief of Petitioner Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc., was filed on January 9, 1986. It was not authorized and was not considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Homestead Tomato is agent for Strano Farms of Florida City, Florida, a producer of tomatoes. Rosario Strano is president of Homestead Tomato and co-owner of Strano Farms. (R. Strano) Dade Tomato, a tomato repacking company, is located in Miami, Florida. Its president is Joe Lococo. It is licensed as a dealer in agricultural products and is bonded by State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company. (J. Lococo, Amended Complaint dated July 22, 1985) The week of January 20-26, 1985, was a memorable week for the Florida tomato industry: a savage freeze hit south Florida, crops were devastated and the market awoke from its earlier torpor. For days prior to the 20th, Rosario Strano had carefully watched the weather services. By the 15th, when the freeze forecast appeared to be a sure thing, Strano Farms worked night and day and into the weekend harvesting tomatoes. (T. Banks, R. Strano) On January 19th, a representative from Dade Tomato contacted Tom Banks, an employee of Homestead Tomato, and asked for a load (1600 boxes) of 6 x 7 tomatoes. Banks explained that they were ready to sell, but not ready to price, since they expected a high demand as a result of the impending freeze. It was established that the "following week's price would control." The load was shipped that same day. On Monday, the Dade Tomato called for another load the same size. Prices still had not been established, but the load was shipped, again the same day. (T. Banks) After the freeze, around the middle of the week, Rosario Strano called together Tom Banks and a few other key employees and established a price for their tomatoes: $20.00 box for 5 x 6 (largest) $18.00 box for 6 x 6 (next size down) $16.00 box for 6 x 7 (medium) $12.00 box for 7 x 7 (small) Banks was instructed that the buyers were to be notified the price was set. Anyone "booked in" didn't have to take the order or could back out. Strano wanted to be told immediately of any problems with the tomatoes on the other end, and he would take them back. He was confident that he had a good market for his unique, pre-freeze tomato supply. Several buyers backed out, some tomatoes did come back, but the entire supply was sold (approximately 40-48 loads). (T. Banks. R. Streno) In setting his prices for the week of the freeze, Strano obtained information from the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Report, a daily publication of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, out of Winter Park, Florida. (R. Strano) The sheets include price quotations for a wide variety of commodities in different parts of the state obtained by telephone survey of packing houses and producers the prior date. (Petitioner's Exhibits #15-19) It is a guideline rather than an "official" market price indicator. (J. Strother, R. Cohen) In some eases the prices quoted to the survey are later adjusted by the producer. (R. Cohen) The issue dated January 24, 1985, reflected for #1 quality tomatoes a price of $20.00, $18.00 and $16.00 for 5 x6, 6 x 6, and 6 x 75 respectively. The following two days showed the same. Prior days, January 22 and 23 quoted no prices but stated "practically all sales prices to be established later". (Petitioner's Exhibits #15-19) After hearing the prices established by Strano, some of his customers, including Joe Lococo and his broker, began to protest. (T. Banks, J. Lococo) While refusing to budge, end arguing that he was charging the same price to his other customers for his pre-freeze, quality tomatoes, Strano resorted to offering rebates of 2.00 a box for prompt payment and, later, for settlement of cases that otherwise would have gone to court. (T. Banks) In short, Strano had difficulty getting some of his customers to pay the price he had set. Not all of Strano's customers bought and had tomatoes shipped on a price to be settled basis. Of the ten invoices admitted as Petitioner's Exhibits #5- 14, three represented sales on the same basis as the sales to Dade Tomato: Exhibits 5, 6 and 7. The remaining invoices represented sales to customers who had the price established prior to sale. Each of the invoices reflect the price of a box of 5 x 7 tomatoes to be $15.00. The invoices do not reveal which may have received the $2.00 rebate. Dade Tomato purchased ten loads of tomatoes during the week of the freeze. With the exception of the two loads from Homestead Tomato, the highest price for 6 x 75 was $12.00. Most of the tomatoes picked prior to the freeze were priced from $10- 12.00, with tomatoes picked after the freeze (salvage) going for as low as $6.00 for 6 x 7s. (J. Lococo, Respondent's Exhibits #1- 12) "Market price" is a highly fluid, highly subjective standard. During the course of a tomato season from 25-30% of sales are made on a "market price" basis, that is, the parties do not establish a firm price prior to sale, but wait to see what the market does. The market can be settled in a few days in a normal condition or longer in an abnormal condition, such as after a freeze. Market relates to supply and demand. A price is tried, then accepted or rejected, depending on whether the buyer in turn can find a market to sell at this price. Failure by a seller to adjust downward, or overpricing can result in animosity and the refusal of customers later to purchase at reasonable prices in a different season. (J. Strother, R. Cohen, F. Campisi) Various agents and brokers testified at the hearing on behalf of Dade Tomato as to what they felt was the market during the week of January 20-26th, 1985. James Strother, with thirty- three years in the produce business, came out that week with prices of $16.00, $14.00 and $12.00, and $16.00, $15.00 and $12.00, with $12.00 for the 6 x 75. He told his customers, "You're looking at the low and I expect to get paid for it." He had heard rumblings of a higher market, but set his market price to insure that he would get paid, and he moved his tomatoes. While he avowed respect for Strano, he testified that their thoughts on the market that week differed. He knew others were quoting higher than $12.00, he just wanted to be sure he sold. Florida Tomato Packers, Inc., is one of the largest packers in Florida. They initially sold 6 x 7 tomatoes during the freeze market at $16.00, but later adjusted the invoices down to $12.00. (D. Holden, Respondent's Exhibit #1) No one explained exactly how or why this was done by Florida Tomato Packers. Other exhibits produced by Respondent showed adjustments downward to varying prices. (Respondent's Exhibits # 7 and 8) After the initial complaint was filed by Homestead Tomato, Lococo made two payments for a total which amounts to $12.00 a box, the level which he insists the proper price should be. He does not dispute the quality or condition of the tomatoes sold by Homestead Tomato. (J. Lococo)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered requiring that the balance of $12,800.00 be paid by Dade Tomato to Homestead Tomato. In the absence of payment, Co-Respondent, State Automobile Insurance Company, should be required to pay said sum in accordance with Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1986, in MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-3487A The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in paragraph 1, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 2, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 5, except that instead of a set number of loads of tomatoes sold, the testimony of R. Strano was a range from forty to forty-eight loads. Adopted in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. The names of the buyers and total amounts of each purchase are immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 6, Findings of Fact. The substance of this paragraph relating to Florida Tomato Packers, Inc., is adopted in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. The sentence relating to the market price is incorporated in essence in paragraph 5, Conclusions of Law. These facts are covered in the "Issues and Procedural Matters" preceding the Findings of Fact, and in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. The substance of this paragraph relating to when the market settles is adopted in paragraph 9, Findings of Fact. The bias of witnesses who testified as to when the market settled is irrelevant as the time that the market settled is irrelevant. The statement that " Respondent agrees that the contract for the tomatoes was at a price to be established during the week of January 21-26 1985' . . . " is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The first sentence is adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. The second sentence is substantially modified in paragraph 4 by a finding that the agreement was that the following week's price would control". Same as paragraph 1, above. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 7, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. The second sentence, relating to all of the sales at $16.00 as being a set price, is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The remaining sentences are adopted in paragraphs 5 and 7, Findings of Fact. Partially adopted in paragraph 8, Findings of Fact. The basis of the price paid is immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as a misconstruction of the testimony. James Strother testified that his price was 12.00 a box. Adopted in paragraph 6, Findings of Fact. 14 - 16. The substance of these paragraphs have been adopted. However, they are presented here as simply testimony of witnesses rather than findings of fact. The "market price" description is rejected for reasons set out in paragraph 4, Conclusions of Law. Adopted in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: David V. Lococo, Esquire LOCOCO, KLEIN, TOUBY & SMITH 901 Northeast 125th Street Suite C North Miami, Florida 33161 Joe W. Kight, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 416 - Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 State Automobile Insurance Company 515 E. Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 Alexander Pires, Esquire SCOTT, HARRISON and McLEOD 2501 M. Street N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20037 Robert Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513 - The Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners sold nursery plant materials to Respondent U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. for which the latter did not pay.
Findings Of Fact On May 24, 1990, Jon's Nursery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. 460 Juniper plants, for $731.40 including tax. The plants were picked up by U.S. Lawns employee Mark Rosetta. U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. does not dispute the validity of the claim arising out of the May 24 sale. However, U.S. Lawns has never paid for these plant materials. On June 6, 1990, Jon's Nursery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. 40 Juniper plants and 50 grass plants for $166.95 including tax. These plants were picked up by Jeffrey Miller, who was an employee of U.S. Lawns. U.S. Lawns disputes the validity of the June 6 sale. However, the owner of U.S. Lawns, Glen Jaffee, never responded to numerous telephone calls from Pen Smith of Jon's Nursery, Inc. concerning the unpaid invoices. Nor did anyone respond to a certified demand letter that Mr. Smith mailed to U.S. Lawns on August 29, 1990, or the numerous monthly statements reflecting the unpaid balances. An officer and employee of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., Pat Oyler, had ordered the plant materials by telephone from Jon's Nursery, Inc. Mr. Oyler had previously ordered plant materials on behalf of U.S. Lawns from Jon's Nursery, which had always been paid. On two occasions subsequent to the sales in question, Mr. Oyler ordered plant materials from Jon's Nursery, Inc. on behalf of U.S. Lawns, but paid for them with his personal check, and Mr. Smith told him that he would need, in such cases, to order the plants in his name. On May 31, 1990, Concepts in Greenery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns ten 15-gallon crepe myrtles for $318 including tax. These items were picked up by Jeffrey Miller driving a U.S. Lawns truck. These plant materials had been ordered by Mr. Oyler of U.S. Lawns. Concepts in Greenery, Inc. had also previously done business with U.S. Lawns and been paid. In a sale which had taken place on March 25, 1990, Mr Oyler had ordered about $400 worth of plant materials on behalf of U.S. Lawns. Additionally, in its application for credit with Concepts in Greenery, Inc. dated April 11, 1988, Mr. Jaffee, as president of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., had certified that Mr. Oyler was vice president of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. Repeated telephone calls and monthly statements from Concepts in Greenery, Inc. to U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., as well as a certified letter dated September 19, 1990, to Mr. Jaffee, were unsuccessful in obtaining any response whatsoever from the latter company. Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. made several sales of a variety of plant materials to U S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. Including tax, these sales were as follows: March 13, 1990, for $131.18; March 26, 1990, for $544.05; April 5, 1990, for $12.24; April 6, 1990, for $90.10; April 17, 1990, for $593.60; April 18, 1990, for $55.65; and April 27, 1990, for $92.75. An eighth invoice dated June 4, 1990, for $581.15 has been excluded because it bears the names of Oyler Construction Company, Inc., Bentley Green, and Pat Oyler as the persons invoiced and nowhere mentions U.S. Lawns. The total of the seven sales to U.S. Lawns is $1519.57. Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. repeatedly tried to contact Mr. Jaffee and U.S. Lawns, including by letter dated August 27, 1990, but never received any response to its demand for payment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order requiring U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. to pay the above-indicated sums to the respective parties. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 9th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Pen Smith, Sales Manager Jon's Nursery, Inc. 24546 Nursery Way Eustis, FL 32726 Charles Brown, Nursery Manager Concepts in Greenery, Inc. 16366 Old Cheney Highway Orlando, FL 32833 David Rubright, President Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. 1921 Hill Drive Apopka, FL 32703 Glen Jaffee 612 Bryn Mawr Orlando, FL 32804 Bankers Insurance Company 10051 5th Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33702
The Issue Does Respondent Horizon Produce Sales, Inc. (Horizon) owe Petitioner Richard Sapp, d/b/a Sapp Farms (Sapp Farms) $5,484.50 as alleged in the Amended Complaint filed herein by Sapp Farms?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Sapp Farms was a "producer" as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes, of agricultural products in the State of Florida. Tomatoes come within the definition of "agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes. Horizon is a Florida Corporation, owned entirely by Donald E. Hinton, and located in Sydney, Florida. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Horizon was licensed as a "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Horizon was issued License Number 10584, supported by Bond Number 58 84 19 in the amount of $16,000 written by Gulf Life Insurance Company, as Surety, with an inception date of September 26, 1998, and an expiration date of September 25, 1999. By Invoice numbered 1262, Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 6, dated June 18, 1999, with a shipping date of June 16, 1999, Sapp Farms sold and delivered to Horizon several varieties and sizes of tomatoes in 25-pound cartons at an agreed-upon price of $9.00 per 25-pound carton for 267 cartons and $8.00 per 25-pound carton for 104 cartons for a total amount of $3,235.00. Horizon was given the opportunity to inspect the tomatoes before or during loading and to reject those tomatoes not meeting the standard or condition agreed upon. Horizon furnished the truck driver and truck upon which the tomatoes were loaded. By check dated July 3, 1999, Horizon paid Sapp Farms $1,415.00 on these tomatoes leaving a balance owing of $1,820.00. By Invoice numbered 1263, Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 10, dated June 22, 1999, with a shipping date of June 22, 1999, Sapp Farms sold and delivered to Horizon 122 25-pound cartons of extra large pink tomatoes at $8.00 per 25-pound carton, 51 25- pound cartons of large pink tomatoes at $8.00 per 25-pound carton, and 296 25-pound cartons of 125-150 count Roma tomatoes at $8.00 per 25-pound carton for a total invoiced price of $3,752.00. Horizon was given the opportunity to inspect the tomatoes before or during loading and to reject those tomatoes not meeting the standard or condition agreed upon. Horizon furnished the truck driver and truck upon which the tomatoes were loaded. Sapp Farms has not been paid for these tomatoes. By Invoice numbered 1272, Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 15, dated June 24, 1999, with a shipping date of June 23, 1999, Sapp Farms sold and delivered to Horizon 70 25-pound cartons of extra large tomatoes at an agreed upon price of $8.50 per 25- pound carton for a total price of $595.00. Horizon was given the opportunity to inspect the tomatoes before or during loading and to reject those tomatoes not meeting the standard or condition agreed upon. Horizon furnished the truck driver and truck upon which the tomatoes were loaded. Sapp Farms has not been paid for those tomatoes. Sapp Farms agrees that it owes Horizon $682.50 in freight charges. See Sapp Farms’ Exhibit numbered 12 and the Amended Complaint filed by Sapp Farms. Horizon contends that it did not agree to purchase the tomatoes at an agreed upon price per 25-pound carton but agreed to "work" the tomatoes with Horizon’s customers and to pay Sapp Farms based on the price received for the tomatoes from its customers less any freight charges, etc. Additionally, Horizon contends that it made contact or attempted to make contact with Sapp Farms regarding each of the loads and was advised, except possibly on one load, by either Mark Davis or Richard Sapp that a federal inspection was not necessary and to "work" the tomatoes as best Horizon could. The more credible evidence is that neither Mark Davis nor Richard Sapp was timely advised concerning the alleged condition of the tomatoes. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to show that the condition of the tomatoes when delivered to Horizon’s customers had deteriorated to a point that resulted in rejection by Horizon’s customers. The more credible evidence shows that neither Mark Davis nor Richard Sapp advised Horizon that there was no need for a federal inspection or that Horizon could "work" the tomatoes with Horizon’s customers. The more credible evidence is that Horizon agreed to purchase Sapp Farms’ tomatoes at an agreed-upon price and that upon those tomatoes being loaded on Horizon’s truck, Horizon was responsible to Sapp Farms for the agreed-upon price. Sapp Farms timely filed its Amended Complaint in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes, and Horizon owes Sapp Farms for tomatoes purchased from Sapp Farms on Invoice numbered 1262, 1263, and 1272 less the partial payment on Invoice numbered 1262 of $1,415 and freight charges of $682.50 for total amount due of $5,484.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order granting Sapp Farms relief by ordering Horizon Produce Sales, Inc. to pay Sapp Farms the sum of $5,484.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Sapp Sapp Farms 4720 Gallagher Road Plant City, Florida 33565 Donald E. Hinton, Qualified Representative President, Horizon Produce Sales, Inc. 1839 Dover Road, North Post Office Box 70 Sydney, Florida 33587 Michael E. Riley, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk and Caldwell A Professional Association Post Office Box 1050 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
