The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may lawfully discipline Respondent due to excessive absences from work.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employed Respondent as a police officer in the Operations Division of the Cape Coral Police Department (Department) from October 5, 1987, through approximately April 27, 1998, when Petitioner terminated her employment. As detailed below, Petitioner monthly provides its employees with a specified amount of leave, based on their years of service. Petitioner credits all leave in a single account. Employees then draw on their leave account by taking scheduled and unscheduled leave. This case involves Respondent's use of allegedly excessive amounts of leave. In 1989, Respondent used 125.76 hours of unscheduled leave. On May 23, 1989, she received an interim performance evaluation noting that she was "below acceptable" in unscheduled leave time and needed to improve her relations with other employees. On October 13, 1989, she received an annual performance evaluation stating that she had had 18 days "sick leave" in the preceding 12 months and was below "operational standard" in attendance and relations with others; all of her other categories were marked as meeting operational standard. The attached narrative notes a "slight improvement" since her May 1989 interim performance evaluation. In 1990, Respondent used 198.5 hours of unscheduled leave. Her October 12, 1990, annual performance evaluation states that Respondent was again below operational standard in attendance with 23.25 days of "sick leave." She had raised her relations with others to operational standard and work habits to above operational standard. The narrative attached to the evaluation states that the evaluator has spent a sizable amount of time conferring with Susan regarding causes to her illnesses and resulting time off due to illness. Officer Von Halla does have problems with migraine's and when she experiences one, she is [less than] an effective part of the shift in fulfilling her normal duties. I have tried to understand why she experiences so many migraines and have suggested different activities (i.e. physical exercise, stress reduction). I am confident that despite the significant amount of time taken due to illness, when this officer calls in sick, she is sick and does not use this time for other unknown reasons. I feel, currently, Officer Von Halla is attempting to minimize the amount of times she calls in sick. Despite some improvement recently, Officer Von Halla still is in need of progress in this area so her time reserved starts reflecting this. The narrative concludes that Respondent can improve her weak point, which is attendance, by "finding new ways to minimize the migraine potential and making a genuine effort towards this." Another evaluative document speaks in a very different tone from the annual performance evaluation, which is signed by a sergeant who was Respondent's immediate supervisor. On October 2, 1990--only 10 days before the 1990 annual evaluation-- a captain reviewed Respondent's use of unscheduled leave and warned: you are hereby notified that this level of unscheduled leave time usage will no longer be tolerated. You will be required to achieve a level of usage that is consistent with the national and department average which equates to approximately sixty hours per year, or five hours per month. If you fail to maintain this rate between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1990 I will request that the Chief of Police consider terminating your employment effective January 1, 1991. If you are successful, you will be expected to maintain this average with the exception of documented major medical complications that require the use of extended leave. By memorandum dated December 14, 1990, from the captain to the police chief, the captain stated: On October 2, 1990, I advised Officer Von Halla that she would be required to maintain an acceptable level of unscheduled leave usage through December 31, 1990. The level of usage was established at five (5) hours per month, or a total of 15 hours for the period of October 2, 1990, through December 31, 1990. . . . Since October 2, 1990, Officer Von Halla has chosen to utilize forty (40) hours of leave. Thirty-two (32) hours were for illness as noted by her chiropractor and eight (8) for unexpected visitors. The captain's memorandum reasons: "In analyzing Officer Von Halla's unscheduled leave, it is clear that her utilization of unscheduled leave far exceeds any norms and Officer Von Halla is clearly abusing this city benefit." The memorandum states that, after consulting with the city attorney and city manager, the captain was recommending that Petitioner initiate termination proceedings against Respondent. By memorandum dated January 17, 1991, the captain asked a lieutenant to convene a Command Review Board to evaluate Respondent's excessive absenteeism and her violation of three groups of general orders prohibiting feigning of illness and failing to perform duties, abusing sick leave, and engaging in any conduct adversely affecting the morale and efficiency of the Department. The memorandum explains the last alleged violation as noting that the department had had to use 66 hours of overtime, at a cost of $1125, to cover shift shortages caused by Respondent's unscheduled absences. The Command Review Board sustained the allegation that Respondent had abused her unscheduled leave, but rejected the allegations of feigning illness and failing to perform duties and engaging in any conduct adversely affecting the morale and efficiency of the department. Accordingly, the Command Review Board recommended that the police chief suspend Respondent without pay for one day. By memorandum dated February 2, 1991, the police chief adopted the findings and determinations of the Command Review Board and suspended Respondent for one day. By memorandum dated February 14, 1991, Respondent protested the proposed discipline and demanded a hearing. The arbitrator entered a decision on June 24, 1991, that the police chief had just cause for suspending Respondent for one day without pay. Respondent served this suspension. The next annual performance evaluation is dated January 25, 1992. Respondent earned marks of above operational standard in job knowledge, quality of work, initiative, work habits, and appearance. Her only mark of below operational standard was in attendance. In the preceding 15.5 months, Respondent had used 18 days of "sick leave" and had one day without pay, due to her exhaustion of leave. From May 1990 through April 1991, Respondent used 148 hours of unscheduled leave. The evaluations and memoranda from 1992 through 1994 are largely the same: average or above-average performance in all areas but attendance. The records note only the excessive use of unscheduled leave, but do not attribute the use to fraud. From January 13, 1994 through December 26, 1997, Respondent used 691.72 hours of unscheduled leave. On February 12, 1995, the former captain, now a major, recommended that the Department suspend Respondent without pay for three days due to excessive use of unscheduled leave. By memorandum dated February 27, 1995, the police chief, "with some reluctance," concurred with the recommendation of three days' suspension. On April 18, 1995, a Departmental disciplinary review board met and failed to agree on corrective action. The board recommended only that the Department remove Respondent from field duty and place her in a noncritical position. Upon further deliberations, the board agreed upon a two-day suspension. Respondent served this suspension in June 1995, and the following month a quarterly evaluation dated July 1, 1995, notes that she was still using unscheduled leave. A memorandum dated September 10, 1995, notes that Respondent used 213 hours of unscheduled leave in the first eight months of 1995. By memorandum dated September 20, 1995, the major and three of his subordinates, including the person with immediate supervisory authority over Respondent, recommended to the police chief that the Department terminate Respondent due to excessive use of unscheduled leave. Rejecting the recommendation for termination, the police chief imposed a 30-day suspension without pay, based partly on the assurance of Respondent's physician that the cause of her constant illness had been corrected. Respondent served her suspension from November 22- December 21, 1995. Quarterly evaluations in June 1996 and March 1997 note some improvement in the use of unscheduled leave. From October 1996 through September 17, 1997, Respondent used 180 hours of unscheduled sick leave. From October 1, 1997, through January 26, 1998, Respondent used 82 hours of unscheduled leave. By memorandum dated January 26, 1998, the major advised the police chief of Respondent's continued use of unscheduled leave and recommended termination. By notice to Respondent from the police chief dated February 13, 1998, the chief advised Respondent that he was considering disciplinary action, including termination. The notice cites the following grounds from Article Seven, Section C, Ordinance 50-94: excessive unauthorized tardiness or absence from work, violation of Department work rules or operating procedures, actions or conduct detrimental to Petitioner's interests, or any other properly substantiated cause that adversely affects Petitioner. The notice alleges that Respondent's conduct also violates department General Order D-1.IV.36, which prohibits excessive use of unscheduled leave. The notice summarizes Respondent's past use of unscheduled leave and the discipline that she had received. The notice asserts that she had used 96 hours of unscheduled leave in the past four months. By letter dated March 12, 1998, Respondent advised the police chief that her ear, nose, and throat physician had placed her on Predisone, which had eliminated her debilitating headaches. By letter dated March 16, 1998, the police chief provided Respondent final notice of proposed disciplinary action for the four grounds mentioned in the prior notice. Respondent has raised an issue of disparate treatment. However, the record fails to reveal other, similarly situated employees with comparable patterns of usage of unscheduled leave. The record contains a detailed record of Respondent's relevant payroll history from January 1, 1994, through May 1, 1998, on which date Petitioner terminated her. By year, these records disclose the following totals of hours for unscheduled leave and leave without pay, the latter of which is due to Respondent's exhaustion of her granted leave: 1994--190 and 48.22; 1995--201 and 148; 1996--94 and 42; 1997--174 and 58; and 1998 (four months)--32.72 and 0. The respective totals are 691.72 and 296.22 hours. Respondent's use of unscheduled leave and leave without pay far exceed the averages for the Department. Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit, which is represented by the Florida State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). Petitioner and FOP negotiated a collective bargaining agreement in effect from October 1, 1997, through September 30, 2000 (Agreement). Article 3, Section 1, of the Agreement provides: Except as specifically abridged or modified by a provision of this Agreement, City will continue to have, whether exercised or not, all of the rights, powers and authority heretofore existing, including, but not limited to, the following: . . . to hire, transfer, promote and demote employees; to direct employees, to take disciplinary action up to, and including, termination; to relieve employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons; [and] to issue rules and regulations . . .. Article 10, Section 2, of the Agreement describes the forms of discipline as follows: In accordance with Police Department General Order D-1 (as dated April 1, 1993), forms of corrective action will be utilized by City with the approval of the Police Chief shall include: Counseling or Re-Training--to correct and improve employee performance; Reprimand--a written statement warning the employee of the consequence of future misconduct of a similar nature; Suspension-- suspension from duty without pay; Demotion--a change to a position of lesser responsibility and salary; and Termination--dismissal from the Police Department. Article 10, Section 3, of the Agreement provides that Petitioner shall use "[p]rogressive corrective action," unless the severity of the offense dictates a more severe action. Article 11 of the Agreement provides that Petitioner may take disciplinary action against an employee for "just cause." Article 15, Section 1(a), of the Agreement grants employees with five or less years of continuous service 25 days of annual leave per year. Article 15, Section 1(b), grants employees with 6-10 years of continuous service 30 days of annual leave per year. The remaining subsections grant more leave based on years of service. Article 15, Section 1(g), of the Agreement provides: The use of annual leave for other than illness must be scheduled with the employee's supervisor. In case of illness, an employee must notify his/her supervisor not later than two (2) hours before the beginning of the scheduled work day or in accordance with Police Department Rules and Regulations. The Agreement provides that Petitioner may discipline covered employees for "just cause," but does not identify what constitutes "just cause." Ordinance 50-94 (Ordinance) sets forth the rules and regulations governing all of Petitioner's employees. Article One, Section B.2, states that the Ordinance covers employees who are parties to a collective bargaining agreement, "except that in the event of a conflict between the terms of this Ordinance and the collective bargaining agreement, the collective bargaining agreement shall govern." Article Six, Section E, provides that an employee may be dismissed for "just cause," but that the department head must comply with the procedures in Article Seven prior to termination. Article Seven, Section B, requires progressive discipline for "the same or similar conduct by the employee," although Petitioner reserves the right to impose the most severe discipline as an initial measure "when circumstances warrant." Article Seven, Section C, cites several grounds for discipline, including "[g]ross neglect of duty or specific serious failure to perform assigned duties"; "[m]ental or physical impairment, normally as supported by written documentation from not less than two licensed physicians, that prevents the employee, even with reasonable accommodation, from performing the essential functions of his or her position"; "[a]bsence without leave, or failure to give proper notice of absence"; "[e]xcessive unauthorized tardiness or absence from work"; "[v]iolation of Department work rules or operating procedures"; "[a]ctions or conduct detrimental to the interests of the City"; or "[a]ny other properly substantiated cause which adversely affects the City." Article Seven, Section D, requires that the employee proceed with a grievance for proposed discipline under the ordinance or collective bargaining agreement. Section E.5 describes the hearing conducted under the ordinance, which is the procedure that Respondent elected, and states, at Subsubsection 7, that the Administrative Law Judge is to determine if Petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence "just cause" for the discipline. Subsubsection 8 provides that the order is a final order. Subsubsection 9 provides for judicial review. Article Eleven describes attendance and leave. Section A.6.a provides that fulltime employees shall be present at their assigned jobs, "unless absence from duty is authorized by the Department Head as provided herein." Section A.6.c states in part: Excessive unscheduled absences or tardiness shall be grounds for disciplinary action. For purposes of this paragraph, "excessive unscheduled absences or tardiness" shall mean use which is in excess of the average number of hours and/or occurrences of unscheduled leave taken by other City employees in the same or similar positions . . .. Article Seven, Section E.3, defines unscheduled leave as that which the employee requests and the supervisor approves on the day that it is taken. This section states: "An employee's excessive use of unscheduled leave may be grounds for disciplinary action." Section E.1 contains a schedule for the accrual of leave, and the applicable monthly accrual rate, which increases with seniority, applies to the total of each employee's scheduled and unscheduled leave. Department General Order D-1 (General Order), as last revised on December 11, 1995, provides, at Section II, that it applies to [ALL] members of the Department. This section states that the police chief will use progressive discipline, "unless the severity of the offense dictates a more severe action." Section IV prohibits various acts, including feigning illness, avoiding responsibility, or failing to perform one's duties; "excessive use of unscheduled leave"; or engaging in conduct that adversely affects the morale and efficiency of the department. By memorandum dated July 20, 1987, a major in the Department advised all operations division personnel that absences, "regardless of cause," weaken the Department's ability to serve the public though personnel shortages, increase personnel costs due to overtime to cover absences, and increase burdens on other employees. The safety of the public and law enforcement officers requires a minimum staffing of law enforcement officers on each shift. The absence of a scheduled officer requires that the Department pay overtime for an unscheduled officer to report for duty. The record does not demonstrate that unscheduled absences of an officer, up to the total amount of granted leave, compromise the safety of the public or other officers. The contrary inference is precluded in part by the fact that, in the Agreement, Petitioner grants each officer a certain amount of leave and does not further restrict the officer's choice to use his or her granted leave as unscheduled leave. However, the use of unscheduled leave in excess of the granted leave is not anticipated by the Agreement and may compromise the safety of the public and other officers.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be treated as having abandoned his employment with the Respondent?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a Career Service employee with the Respondent. The Petitioner received a copy of an Employee Handbook upon his employment with the Respondent. The Handbook informed the Petitioner of the rules governing absences from work, including the rule providing that an employee will be treated as having abandoned his position if absent for 3 days without authorized leave. The Petitioner was employed as an Investigator in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent in Inverness, Florida. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Shirley Barker. In June, 1986, the Petitioner suffered a seizure. The Petitioner subsequently underwent surgery for the removal of a brain tumor in June, 1986. The Petitioner returned to work following his surgery on approximately September 15, 1986. Ms. Barker determined that the Petitioner's performance was not up to standard and discussed the need for additional leave with the Petitioner. The Petitioner's physician agreed that it would be beneficial for the Petitioner to have additional time to recover from his surgery and recommended an additional six months leave of absence. The Petitioner signed a Report of Personnel Action indicating that he was going to take leave without pay. The Petitioner's leave was effective October 13, 1986, "for a period of 6 months with return pending medical reevaluation." This leave of absence ended on April 13, 1987. During the Petitioner's 6 months leave of absence he was given a monthly medical evaluation by his physician. In December, 1986, the Petitioner met with Ms. Barker and told her that he planned on returning to his position with the Respondent when his physician approved his return. The Petitioner did not, however, tell Ms. Barker when he would return or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. In March, 1987, the Petitioner met with Barbara Jordan, a supervisor in the Child Support Enforcement Office of the Respondent. This was the Petitioner's only meeting during 1987 with any employee of the Respondent. During this meeting the Petitioner did not indicate when he would return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. By letter dated April 16, 1987, Herbert R. Hildreth, Sr., Human Services Program Manager, and Ms. Barker's supervisor, informed the Petitioner that his 6 months leave of absence had expired. The Petitioner was also informed that he should advise the Respondent by April 26, 1987, of his intentions concerning his employment with the Respondent. Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, was received by the Respondent on April 21, 1987. The Petitioner did not respond to Mr. Hildreth's letter of April 16, 1987, prior to April 26, 1987. By letter dated April 30, 1987, Judith Mesot, Deputy District Administrator of the Respondent, informed the Petitioner that the Respondent considered the Petitioner to have abandoned his Career Service position with the Respondent because the Petitioner had been on unauthorized leave since April 10, 1987. By letter dated May 27, 1987, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that his physician had informed him during a May 20, 1987, appointment that he could return to work on a part-time basis. At no time between October 13, 1986, and April 13, 1987, did the Petitioner inform the Respondent when he intended to return to work or request an extension of his 6 months leave of absence. The first time that the Petitioner informed the Respondent that he was ready to return to work was in his May 27, 1987, letter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Petitioner, John Blackford, has abandoned his position with the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2617 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 and 4 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence, see finding of fact number 3. 5 and 6 4. 7 5. 8 Hereby accepted. 9 and 10 6. 11 7. 12 Although the Petitioner testified that he met with Ms. Barker within one day after his monthly examina- tions, the weight of the evidence failed to support this testimony. See 8. Even if the Petitioner had met with Ms. Barker as often as the Petitioner indicated, the Petitioner still did not return to work or obtain approval of his absence after April 13, 1987. 13 and 14 To the extent that these proposed facts were proved by the evidence and are relevant, see finding of fact number 9. Most of these proposed findings of fact are not relevant, however. 15 10 and 12. 16 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 1. 2 6. 3 10 and 11. 4 Hereby accepted. 5 11. 6 12. 7 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Royston, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District III Building H 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 John Blackford 3199 East Quail Court Inverness, Florida 32652 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Agustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of insubordination for the use of excess leave and sleeping in his vehicle during working hours.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 21, 2004, Petitioner hired Respondent as a school custodian. Starting on December 11, 2007, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Toledo Blade Elementary School. One year later, Petitioner transferred Respondent to the Transportation Department, which is the building housing the transportation offices. As a custodian, Respondent is a "classified" employee. He is covered by the Classified Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association and Petitioner (the contract). Twice on the morning of April 25, 2008, during working hours and not while on a break, Respondent walked from his worksite to his vehicle, climbed into the vehicle, and nodded off to sleep. The first nap lasted for about one hour, and the second nap lasted about one and one-quarter hours. The second nap ended when Respondent's boss and the boss's boss walked out to the vehicle where they found Respondent, who had put the driver's seat down, laid out in the front driver's seat, with the radio on, sound asleep. They woke him and ordered him back to work. Respondent's defenses are: 1) he was not asleep; he was unconscious; and 2) he was suffering from extreme drowsiness due to medications that he was taking following his recovery from a three-month coma into which he had fallen two years earlier. Both of Respondent's defenses are makeshift. According to Webster's online dictionary, "sleep" is the "natural periodic suspension of consciousness during which the powers of the body are restored." (http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/sleep, as found on June 17, 2009) If he had suddenly lost consciousness at the worksite, no one would claim he was sleeping on the job. Instead, without reporting any difficulties to anyone, he walked out to his vehicle, made himself comfortable, and fell asleep. The problem was that his natural period of suspended consciousness coincided with time during which Petitioner was paying him. The requisite restorative effect is inferred. Nor is there any credence to the claim of a medical condition or effect of a medication that would leave Respondent unable to resist falling asleep while on duty. Although ample opportunity existed, Respondent failed, on the day in question, to bring to the attention of his supervisor any medical reason for sleeping on the job, which was exactly what he was doing. Article XXI of the contract authorizes discipline for "just cause." Sleeping while on duty, for over two hours prior to lunch, constitutes insubordination and just cause for discipline. The leave issue is more complicated. Petitioner is on a fiscal year starting July 1. For the entire year, classified, 12-month, hourly employees, such as Respondent, accrue six personal days on July 1. For sick days, these employees accrue one day at the end of July and three advance days. They then accrue a day at the end of each following month through March. Unused sick days rollover to the next year, but unused personal days do not. Personal days count against the sick days. In other words, if an employee has five sick days and six personal days and uses a personal day, he will then have four sick days and five personal days. Employees also earn vacation days. As explained by Petitioner's payroll supervisor, the payroll system facilitated recharacterizations between sick and personal days. However, the system did not incorporate vacation days in the same fashion. Thus, if an employee took off one day, without claiming sick leave, and lacked one day of personal time, the system would dock his pay, even though he might still have had sufficient vacation time to absorb the time that he had taken off. For the 2007-08 school year, Respondent used "personal leave charged to sick" as follows: September 12--8.0 hours; September 24--8.0 hours; December 20--8.0 hours; December 21-- 8.0 hours; January 30--0.5 hours; February 15--8.0 hours; and February 27--7.5 hours. On February 27, Respondent missed the entire day of work. Consistent with acceptable practices, on the next day, he submitted a form entitled, "Certificate of Absence." In it, Respondent requested approval for 8.0 hours of "personal leave charged to sick," rather than one of the other categories, such as sick leave or vacation leave. His supervisor signed the form. When the payroll supervisor checked his balances, she saw that he only had 7.5 hours of personal leave charged to sick, so, on May 2, 2008, Respondent had to sign a form entitled, "Request for Personal/Sick/Vacation Leave in Excess of Earned Leave." This form requested approval for the use of 0.5 hours of personal leave in excess of earned leave. The request was disapproved by the Director of Facilities Services with a signature bearing a date of March 13, 2008. The payroll department's practice was not to deduct personal leave charged as sick against vacation leave, if an employee consumed all of his personal leave charged as sick. On March 14, Respondent again requested 2.5 hours of personal leave charged to sick. His supervisor noted on the form that he "cautioned Tim to make sure he has the time available--Tim told me that he does. 3-14-08." By this time, it is unlikely that Respondent had received a new statement of leave balance reflecting the 0.5 hours that he had been short two weeks earlier. On May 2, 2008, Respondent signed another request for permission to use personal leave in excess of earned leave, and the Director of Facilities denied the request with a signature bearing a date of March 27, 2008. The same process took place again on April 11 for 8.0 hours on April 7. Petitioner notes that this request also violated policy regarding custodial leave on the day immediately after spring break, for which leave requests must be submitted well in advance of the leave sought. Article XVII of the contract requires a special procedure for leave on days immediately preceding and following a school holiday, but the emphasis in testimony was on the importance of adequate custodial staff on such days. However, the purpose of this policy is to address the needs of schools with respect to returning students. Because Respondent was not assigned to a school, nor had he been assigned to one temporarily for returning students, he was not undermining this policy by conforming to general policy, which allowed after-the-fact requests. In any event, as the payroll supervisor testified, it is possible that Respondent still had vacation time each time that Petitioner docked him for requesting personal leave charged as sick when he had already exhausted his personal leave. On these facts, Petitioner does not have just cause to discipline Respondent on the ground of insubordination or any other ground. There is no doubt that Respondent understood the interplay between personal leave charged to sick and sick leave, but there is considerable doubt as to, on the first two occasions on which he overdrew on his balance of personal leave charged to sick that he knew that he was doing so. Additionally, there is a reasonable possibility that he had available vacation leave, against which all of this time could have been charged; absent proof from Petitioner precluding this possibility, the entire dispute is reduced to the level of finding the proper account to debit these relatively few hours of missed work. This does not rise to insubordination, nor does it constitute just cause for discipline. Article XXI of the contract requires progressive discipline, which constitutes a verbal reprimand, written reprimand, suspension with or without pay, and dismissal. The next step in progressive discipline for Respondent is suspension with or without pay, not dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Sarasota County, Florida, enter a final order dismissing the charge of excessive use of leave and finding Respondent guilty of the charge of sleeping while on duty and suspending him, without pay, for five working days. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 18th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Hunter W. Carroll, Esquire Matthews, Eastmoore, Hardy Crauwels & Garcia, P.A. 1777 Main Street, Suite 500 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Lisa J. Kleinberg, Esquire Law Offices of Kleinberg, Ingram & Murphy, P.L. 2189 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34237 Mrs. Lori White, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231-3365 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Petitioner received a salary overpayment from the Respondent for leave usage to which she was not entitled, as set forth in amended correspondence dated October 2, 2009, and, if so, the amount of any overpayment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Ms. Anderson was employed by the Department as a full- time Career Service employee until her separation on August 11, 2009. She had one year and four months' service with the State of Florida. As an employee of the Department, Ms. Anderson was paid biweekly. Based on her years of service, Ms. Anderson accrued four hours of annual leave and four hours of sick leave each biweekly pay period. Ms. Anderson used the People First System to complete her timesheets, request approval of leave, and review her leave balances. At issue is the amount of annual and sick leave used by Ms. Anderson during the pay period beginning February 6, 2009 and ending February 19, 2009. Ms. Anderson entered her time in the computerized People First timesheet as follows: February 6, 2009 8 hours' worked February 9, 2009 8 hours' sick leave February 10, 2009 8 hours' sick leave February 11, 2009 3.25 hours' sick leave 4.75 hours' annual leave February 12, 2009 8 hours' personal holiday February 13, 2009 8 hours' annual leave February 16, 2009 7.25 hours' annual leave February 17, 2009 8 hours' worked February 18, 2009 8.75 hours' worked February 19, 2009 4 hours' sick leave 4 hours' annual leave The Pay Period Overview in the People First System for the pertinent time period reflected the following: Beginning balance 2/06/09: 0 hours' annual leave 0 hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday Accrual 2/19/09: 4 hours' annual leave 4 hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday Used N/A : (24.00) hours' annual leave (23.25) hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday Ending Balance 2/19/09: 0 hours' annual leave 0 hours' sick leave 0 hours' personal holiday The Department's Policies and Procedures for Attendance and Leave provides in pertinent part: III. Standards and Procedures * * * Annual Leave Method of Earning Annual Leave * * * Bureau of Personnel 1. Annual leave earned during any period shall be credited to the employee on the last day of that pay period or, in the case of separation, on the last day the employee is on the payroll. * * * Use of Earned Annual Leave Employee 1. Use of annual leave shall not be authorized prior to the time it is earned and credited and shall only be used with the prior approval of the proper authority. * * * Sick Leave Method of Earning Sick Leave * * * Employee * * * 4. Sick leave earned during any pay period shall be credited to the employee on the last day of that pay period, or in the case of separation, on the last day the employee is on the payroll. * * * Use of Earned Sick Leave Employee 1. Use of sick leave shall not be authorized prior to the time it is earned and credited to the employee and shall only be used with the approval of the proper authority. The Department keeps an official record of an employee's leave balances and accruals for each pay period, and it conducts audits of an employee's leave upon separation. The Department performed an audit of Ms. Anderson's leave and created an Employee Leave Record setting out annual and sick leave earned and used by Ms. Anderson up to her date of separation in August 2009. The audit revealed that Ms. Anderson had 20 hours of annual leave and 19.25 of sick leave available as of January 6, 2009, and that she accrued 4 hours of annual leave and 4 hours of sick leave on February 19, 2009, which could be used beginning February 20, 2009. As shown on the People's First timesheet prepared by Ms. Anderson and set out above, Ms. Anderson used 24 hours of annual leave and 23.25 hours of sick leave during the pay period beginning February 6, 2009, and ending February 19, 2009. Ms. Anderson, therefore, used four hours of annual leave and four hours of sick leave to which she was not entitled during the pay period extending from February 6, 2009, to February 19, 2009, and she was paid for these hours in the salary warrant issued February 27, 2009. In calculating the amount of the salary overpayment to Ms. Anderson, the Department made allowance for the one hour's annual leave balance Ms. Anderson had when she separated from the Department. The Department, therefore, calculated the salary overpayment based on seven non-compensable hours, and the balance owed by Ms. Anderson to the Department for the salary overpayment is $66.65.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order requiring Lillian Anderson to remit to the Department of Juvenile Justice the amount of $66.65. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 19th day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lillian Anderson 3617 Carambola Circle North Coconut, Florida 33066 Frank Peterman, Jr., Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue Whether Kennie W. McKay should be deemed to have abandoned his position and to have resigned from the Career Service on account of his absence from work on March 10, 13, 14, and 15, 1987?
Findings Of Fact Some 18 years ago, when petitioner Kennie W. McKay began working at the Dozier School in Marianna, he received a copy of the employee handbook the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) published at the time. A more recent edition, dated June 1, 1986, provides, in part: As soon as possible on the first day of absence, it is your responsibility to notify your supervisor that the absence is due to illness, injury, exposure to a contagious disease, or the illness or injury of a member of your immediate family. Your supervisor should also be given an estimate of the length of the absence. Medical certification may be requested. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, p. 19. It was not clear from the evidence either that this language appeared in the edition Mr. McKay was furnished when he began work, or that he had ever seen the edition which came into evidence without objection. On June 1, 1983, the Dozier School adopted "POLICY AND PROCEDURE #:035" requiring advance approval of leave, except when "illness or a bona fide emergency" occasions the absence. In that event, the policy specifies that the employee must contact his/her supervisor as soon as possible. If he/she is unable to contact his/her immediate supervisor, the employee must contact the next higher level supervisor or someone in his/her normal chain of command. Leaving messages with the switchboard, coworkers, or other uninvolved staff will not be considered adequate notice. The employee is to notify his/her supervisor and only in situations where the employee is unable to contact the supervisor himself/herself will a call/contact from another person be acceptable. * * * (6) Employees displaying a pattern of unplanned absences may be suspected of abusing their leave privileges and may be subject to appropriate corrective action in accordance with HRSP 60-1 State Personnel Rules (Chapter 22A-8 and HRSR 60-51). Respondent's Exhibit No. 5, pp. 1 and 2. HRS has not promulgated this "policy and procedure" as an administrative rule. Direct evidence did not establish to what extent, if at all, petitioner McKay was aware of its existence or its provisions. But his efforts to reach the man he thought to be his immediate supervisor, James R. Kersey, suggest he believed he was required to try to do so. In his letter of February 23, 1987, the Dozier School's superintendent, Roy C. McKay, no relation to petitioner, advised petitioner McKay that Mr. Kersey would become his immediate supervisor upon petitioner's demotion from carpenter to house parent. In part, the letter stated: This is official notification that you are being demoted from Carpenter, position number 01082, to Houseparent, position number 01188. You are to report to Friendship House on the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. shift, effective Friday, February 27, 1987, or the first day you return back to work. 1/ Your immediate supervisor will be Mr. James Kersey, Houseparent Supervisor I; and your days off will be Wednesday and Thursday. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Like Mr. Kersey, Mr. James Pyles and Mr. Jethro Pittman were house parent supervisors I assigned to Friendship House. Each supervised a different shift. Houseparent supervisors I reported to Norman Harris, who reported to assistant superintendent Pate, who reported to superintendent McKay. On every shift, an administrative duty officer has campus-wide responsibility. The administrative duty officer is also in the chain of command. Petitioner McKay did not learn until after he was told he no longer had a job that Mr. Harris was to be in the chain of command, because he did not see Mr. Harris' memorandum of March 10, 1987, until after March 16, 1987. In this memorandum, Mr. Harris advised: YOUR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR WILL BE JAMES PYLES, HOUSEPARENT SUPERVISOR I. YOUR NEXT HIGHER SUPERVISOR BILL BE ME, MR. NORMAN HARRIS. Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. Written communications addressed to petitioner McKay dated on and after March 10, 1987, were placed in "his box," but Superintendent McKay was aware that petitioner McKay did not see them on or before March 16, 1987. Before the superintendent's letter of February 23, 1987, gave "official notice" of the demotion, the two Messrs. McKay and others met in the Dozier School's conference room, on February 20, 1987. Petitioner McKay told those present that he had a doctor's appointment in Columbus, Georgia on March 10, 1987. As the superintendent understood it, the doctor had earlier warned against petitioner's overexerting himself, even against his walking too far. Everybody knew he was on leave on account of his medical condition at the time of the conference; he was, in fact, demoted because he was not physically able to discharge the duties of a carpenter. Evidently because he told the superintendent that he had a "sick slip through the ninth," the superintendent directed him to report on the tenth. Whoever drew the work schedule put him down as beginning his new assignment on March 9, 1987. As it happened, somebody in the doctor's office in Columbus called petitioner McKay's wife on March 9, 1987, and rescheduled the appointment for March 11, 1987. Deciding not to report for work before seeing the doctor, Kennie McKay telephoned the Dozier School on the tenth to let them know. Twice he reached Mr. Bridges, who was working the day shift as a house parent at Friendship House. He told Mr. Bridges he was not coming in to work that night. He asked each time to speak to Mr. Kersey. Each time Mr. Bridges told him Mr. Kersey was not there. Although Friendship House is the most secure cottage at the Dozier School and the locus of the school's "intensive supervision program," which is designed to calm boys down who are "in an uproar," the work on the night shift is not physically demanding. The boys are supposed to be asleep, and a house parent can call for reinforcements if problems arise. The houseparent can lock himself in a "crime cage" out of reach of the inmates, and could do his duty, which is mainly to observe, on crutches, if necessary. Nevertheless, when petitioner McKay visited the doctor in Columbus on March 11, 1987, he obtained a form from the doctor's office stating "out of work until next visit in 3 wks." Respondent's Exhibit No. 12. After he reached Marianna, he telephoned the Dozier School at 7:46 p.m. that evening. Charles Gardner, Jr., who was working as a house parent at Opportunity Cottage, took the telephone call. Mr. McKay told him he could not come to work that night, that he had been to see a doctor, that he had a doctor's excuse, and that he needed to talk to a night supervisor. While they were talking, Luther L. Spurlock, a house parent supervisor II in charge of a cluster that did not include Friendship House, entered the room, and took the phone from Mr. Gardner, who handed it to him. Petitioner McKay told Mr. Spurlock, "I'll be in tomorrow with a doctor's slip for Danny." After the phone call was over, Mr. Spurlock said to Mr. Gardner, "I'm not McKay's supervisor," or words to that effect. A form filled out toward the end of the shift stated: Kenny McKay called and said that he would be at the school tomorrow with a doctor slip to give Mr. Pate. Everything went well tonight no major problems. Respondent's Exhibit No. 10. Mr. Spurlock did not tell the petitioner that he ought to notify anybody else about his continuing absence. Kennie McKay had not been scheduled to work on March 11, 1987, in any event. His next scheduled work day was March 13, 1987. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. On March 13, 1987, he telephoned the superintendent's office but, when told he was in a meeting, asked to speak to Bruce Gambill, Dozier School's business manager , instead. Mr. Gambill answers directly to the superintendent. He told Mr. Gambill "that he had been to the doctor and had a sick slip to be out of work." Respondent's Exhibit No. 11. Mr. Gambill asked him to bring a copy of the slip to the business office for Workers Compensation purposes ... [and] instructed Mr. McKay to contact his supervisor concerning the sick slip and being out of work. [Petitioner] said he had tried to call, but there was no answer. [Mr. Gambill] told him he needed to let his supervisor know about the sick slip. Respondent's Exhibit No. 11. Petitioner had telephoned that morning at 10:24 from Marianna, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, but he had not reached Mr. Pittman, the supervisor, who testified he might have been on an errand then. Whether Petitioner tried again to reach a supervisor after speaking to Mr. Gambill is not clear. James Pyles, the man who, although petitioner did not know it at the time, became the latter's supervisor on March 10, 1987, asked superintendent Roy McKay's permission to use a state car about three o'clock that afternoon to find out if Kennie McKay was going to come to work. Mr. Pyles drove to Dothan, Alabama, where he found petitioner walking around without crutches in an establishment known as Shag's. He did not tell petitioner that he had been made his supervisor or suggest that, since he did not seem to need crutches, petitioner come to work. The following night, as well, Mr. Pyles saw Mr. McKay getting around without crutches. On that occasion, too, Mr. Pyles refrained from any discussion relating to work at Dozier School. When Kennie W. McKay brought the doctor's slip, Respondent's Exhibit No. 11, to Dozier School on March 17, 1987, he was informed he no longer had a job.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration rule that Kennie W. McKay has not abandoned his position with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and has never lost his membership in the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1987, in 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 28th day of September, 1987.
The Issue The issue in this case involves a consideration of whether the Petitioner has abandoned his job position with the Respondent as described in Rule 22A- 7.010, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact In the relevant time period which is associated with this case, Petitioner was employed by the Department of Revenue as an Appraiser II in the Jacksonville, Florida, office of the Northeast Region, Bureau of Field Appraisals, Division of Ad Valorem Tax. He worked with the Respondent agency beginning April 1980 until his dismissal from the agency on December 17, 1986, based upon the theory that he had allegedly abandoned his job within the meaning of Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. During his employment Petitioner operated out of his home, which was in Palm Coast, Florida. Douglas Drozd, an employee of the Respondent agency, was sent to the Jacksonville office of the Bureau of Field Appraisals, Division of Ad Valorem Tax to serve as a temporary Appraiser Supervisor for that office. This assignment occurred on October 6, 1986. On October 21, 1986, Albert Johnson, the former Appraiser Supervisor with the Jacksonville office, left that position. Following the departure of Johnson, Drozd became the permanent Appraiser Supervisor for the Jacksonville office. From October 6, 1986, through November 18, 1986, Drozd acted in the capacity as the immediate supervisor of the Petitioner. Beyond that date, Robert Worley, an Appraiser II in the Jacksonville office, took over the position of Appraiser Supervisor in the subject regional office. Worley served in the capacity of supervisor from November 19, 1986, until December 22, 1986, when he returned to his duties as Appraiser II. While Worley was serving as Appraiser Supervisor, Drozd took over the function of Property Appraiser, Duval County, Florida. On December 22, 1986, Drozd returned to his duties as Appraiser Supervisor for Respondent's Jacksonville office. On November 17, 1986, Petitioner asked the permission of his supervisor, Drozd, to take annual leave for days in December 1986. This request was not made in writing and was not responded to in writing. Although Rule 22A- 8.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, contemplates that leave shall be requested in writing, it gas the custom and practice of the Respondent agency for oral requests for annual leave to be made and approved orally. At the time of the conversation on November 17, 1986, between the Petitioner and Drozd concerning the request for annual leave, Drozd initially granted that request without any reservations or contingencies being applied to the permission given. Subsequently, on that same day, Drozd told Richards that he expected that all "field work" assigned to the Petitioner should be completed before leave was taken. This arrangement included work being done on vacant parcels of property as well as improved parcels. More particularly, "field work" includes: Completion of neighborhood analysis form Dr-549 Completion of structural elements form Dr-551 Measurements of all improvements Notes pertaining to subject property (condition of property, any unusual circumstances) Sketching and traversing (perimeter measurements for calculating square footage) Pictures Completion of factual change of physical characteristics forms. Worley was unaware on November 17, 1986, of the arrangement between Drozd and the Petitioner concerning conditions placed upon the permission for the Petitioner to take leave as set forth by Drozd. Petitioner's work assignment involved 180 parcels. Effective December 12, 1986, 27 parcels had "field work" which was incomplete, according to his flow chart of that date. Effective that date, Petitioner had turned in field folders for 88 of the 180 parcels. He kept 92 field folders for the remaining parcels. Thus, his supervisor was unable to verify whether Petitioner had completed his "field work" as summarized in his flow chart submitted on December 12, 1986. According to Petitioner's account set forth in his flow chart of December 12, 1986, which is part of Petitioner's Exhibit R submitted by the Respondent and admitted into evidence, the 27 parcels pertained to vacant land. Petitioner further conceded that other minor problems existed concerning the completeness of the "field work" pertaining to the improved parcels reported in his flow chart. Prior to Petitioner's departure from the Jacksonville office on December 12, 1986, Worley, who was then serving as the Appraiser Supervisor, did not have a detailed knowledge of the flow chart submitted by the Petitioner on that date. Worley had reviewed some of the Petitioner's files and noted shortcomings in the work; however, on balance, Worley took no issue with Petitioner's work progress. Worley acquiesced in the Petitioner's departure on the afternoon of December 12, 1986, as a prelude to the commencement of Petitioner's annual leave on December 15, 1986 This acquiescence was by a verbal expression to the effect that the Petitioner should have a nice holiday. By contrast, on December 12, 1986, Drozd became aware, upon examination of Petitioner's flow chart, that certain parcels had not been completed in terms of "field work." Drozd's observations about Petitioner's flow chart became significant when Worley and Drozd spoke to supervisors in Tallahassee, Florida, on the afternoon of December 12, 1986, in the person of Ben Faulk, Chief of the Bureau of Field Operations in the Respondent agency, and Eugene White, who was the Deputy Director of the Division of Ad Valorem Tax for that organization. In actuality, there were two conversations, and in the latter conversation Drozd participated in a discussion in which Faulk, White and Drozd determined that Petitioner should not be allowed to proceed with annual leave based upon his failure to comply with the contingency which Drozd had established on November 17, 1986, pertaining to Petitioner's wish to take annual leave, the contingency being completion of "field work." The latter conversation between Worley, Drozd, White and Faulk took place following Petitioner's departure from the Jacksonville office. At the time this conversation was held, Drozd was not a member of the Respondent agency. On the other hand, Faulk and White were appropriate officials within the Respondent agency with power to make determinations concerning the annual leave of a subordinate employee, in this instance, the Petitioner. Worley was also a proper source of policy in she management chain. It was decided that Worley should try to telephone the Petitioner and forestall the use of the annual leave by Petitioner. Emphasis is placed upon the fact that Faulk and White felt that this denial of Petitioner's annual leave based upon Petitioner's failure to meet a contingency concerning his "field work" was an appropriate disposition of the case. Around 6:00 p.m., Worley was able to reach Petitioner by telephone while Petitioner was at his daughter's home, preparing to leave for a trip to Washington, D.C. In placing the telephone call to Petitioner, Worley did not favor the revocation of leave opportunity. Nonetheless, he did revoke the leave while acting as supervisor for the Northeast Region, at the behest of Drozd and upon authority of Faulk and White. In the conversation with Petitioner on December 12, 1986, by telephone, Worley told Petitioner that his leave had been revoked and that Petitioner should report to his job assignment at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, December 15, 1986, or be considered on unauthorized leave. Further, it was explained to Petitioner that he would be considered to have abandoned his job position if he had not returned to work by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 17, 1986. These remarks by Worley were not equivocal, and Petitioner understood the significance of those instructions and the implications of his failure to attend his duties on the dates described. This understanding of the explanation of unauthorized leave and potential abandonment of his job position was held by the Petitioner at the point of the conversation at approximately 6:00 p.m. on December 12, 1986. Instead of reporting to work on December 15, 1986, at 8:00 a.m., Respondent absented himself from his job assignment on that date and on December 16 and 17, 1986. For those three consecutive days in which Respondent did not attend his job, his nonattendance was without authorization to take any form of leave and in the face of having been advised that he was in the posture of unauthorized leave. The days that Petitioner was missing from his job were work days. Petitioner's choice to go forward with his vacation plans and ignore the instruction of his supervisor concerning returning to his job position was made knowingly, with volition, with intent and showed willful disregard of a legitimate order of a superior. Petitioner had decided that since he had longstanding plans for taking annual leave in Washington, D.C., and given the fact that his wife was already there awaiting the arrival of the Petitioner and his daughter, he would go forward with his plan on the expectation that someone in his employment system would not allow a conclusion to be drawn that he had abandoned his job position. In furtherance of the assertion that the Petitioner would be considered to have abandoned his job position if he didn't return before the conclusion of the work day on December 17, 1986, a memorandum was sent to the Petitioner at his residence on December 15, 1986. A copy of that memorandum may be found as Respondent's Exhibit Q admitted into evidence. Petitioner did not become aware of this memorandum until returning from his vacation. When he returned, he signed for service of correspondence of December 18, 1986, which constituted the Respondent agency's notice of claimed abandonment and notice of rights to administrative hearing to contest that claim. A copy of that notification may be found as part of the Respondent's Exhibit M admitted into evidence, together with the return receipt signed by the Petitioner on December 29, 1986. A timely petition requesting consideration of the agency's claims of abandonment was filed by the Petitioner on January 5, 1987.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, William Thomas, was employed at times pertinent hereto as a permanent employee at the Duval Regional Juvenile Detention Center (Detention Center) operated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. His title was Detention Case Worker I. During the two week period beginning June 13, 1988, the time period relevant to this proceeding, he was working a so called "asymmetric workweek." This is a modified work schedule such that the Petitioner was working two work days on the weekends consisting of two sixteen hour shifts, one for each day, for a total of thirty-two hours of work scheduled to be performed by the Petitioner on June 18 and 19, 1988. Prior to the problem which arose in this situation, the Petitioner was also scheduled to work on Tuesday, June 21, but not on Monday, June 20. The Petitioner's immediate work supervisor was Wilson Reynolds, Jr., who testified on Petitioner's behalf. In addition to the Petitioner, Mr. Reynolds supervised twelve other employees who were working the asymmetric work week. This work week had been approved by the Department of Administration approximately two years previously, in 1986, at least as to this juvenile detention center. Pursuant to HRS rules, Mr. Wilson had authority to grant emergency leave when employees requested as, for instance, when an employee phoned in such a request when he was unable to come to work due to some emergency having arisen. Mr. Wilson also had authority to schedule employees to work shifts outside of their routine work schedule if the need arose. Mr. Wilson's employees, for instance, had been scheduled to work some extra duty in order to perform the duties of other employees who had to be absent from their normal work stations to attend training sessions. According to agency policy, in Mr. Reynolds' absence, the supervisor immediately on duty could grant tentative approval of emergency leave requests. In the event the supervisor on duty was unable to approve or deny the leave request, Mr. Reynolds had authority to approve leave requests "after the fact." It developed that some time during the week of June 13, the Petitioner became incarcerated. The Petitioner was unable to obtain access to a telephone for several days, and so, at his behest, his wife called the "Master Control" office at the detention center on June 16, 1988, to advise the Petitioner's employer that he would not be able to report to work, as scheduled, due to emergency reasons. On June 18, 1988, she again called that same "Master Control" office to advise that the Petitioner would be away from work until June 30, 1988, due to an emergency beyond his control. The Petitioner, after his last duty shift which he had performed, was not scheduled to work until June 18, 1988. He was then scheduled to work two eight hour shifts on June 18 and two eight hour shifts on June 19, which was a Sunday. On Monday, he was not scheduled to work. Then on June 21, Tuesday, he was scheduled to work an eight hour shift. Mrs. Thomas' reason for calling the employer's office was to put the employer on notice of his unavoidable absence from work. She was not aware of the rule requiring her to speak with the immediate supervisor. The immediate supervisor was not on duty on the day that she called in any event. She did speak with a staff member, a Mrs. Wavel Johnson, with whom she was acquainted, who advised her to have the Petitioner himself call in and request approval for the absences. Mrs. Thomas then revealed that her husband was incarcerated and would be incarcerated until June 30, 1988, which was why he was unable to call. This information was then conveyed to Mr. Reynolds, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor on June 19, 1988 at the beginning of the shift. On that day, during the morning, the Petitioner called and spoke with Mr. Reynolds, his supervisor. The Petitioner advised him of his incarceration and his anticipated release date of June 30, 1988, requesting that he use his accrued annual leave to cover this absence. Mr. Reynolds orally agreed to the request and approved it, pending the Petitioner's return to work and submittal of proof of the reason for the stated emergency basis for absence. Mr. Reynolds considered Mr. Thomas' incarceration as a sufficient justification for granting emergency leave. In the log book, Mr. Reynolds had a staff member, Mrs. Johnson, make a note that Mr. Thomas had called in requesting leave and that he "had no problem" granting emergency leave. He testified that he intended that notation to mean that he had approved the leave request. During Mr. Reynold's conversation with the Petitioner, he advised Petitioner that he would schedule him off duty for Tuesday, June 21, 1988, because he already had sufficient staff who would be present for duty to cover his assignment and would not need the Petitioner. Thus, for the eight hour shift he was originally scheduled to work on June 21, 1988, the Petitioner was not absent without approval either. The roster was changed so that he was not even scheduled to work that day. Andrea Cash is the superintendent of the Duval Regional Detention Center. On or about June 20, 1988, she read Mrs. Johnson's entry in the log book and concluded that Mr. Reynolds had not granted the necessary leave approval to cover the Petitioner's absence. Ms. Cash interpreted that entry to be that the leave approval was merely pending and that Mr. Reynolds had "no problem" with granting it. Ms. Cash, however, did not confer with Mr. Reynolds or Mrs. Johnson about what the entry meant nor seek any clarification as to the meaning of the entry or Mr. Reynolds' intentions with regard to the leave approval. Ms. Cash concluded that the leave had neither been approved nor denied, but did not communicate that position to the Petitioner. Instead, on June 23, 1988, she wrote the Petitioner advising him of his alleged job abandonment due to his absences of June 18th and 19th. She never discussed her plans to terminate the Petitioner, for alleged abandonment, with Mr. Reynolds. The approval granted during June or July 1986 to the Detention Center to implement an asymmetric work week was in accordance with Rule 22A-8.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. That rule provides that eight hours of work shall constitute a work day for all full-time employees, unless a different work day is specifically approved by the Secretary of Administration. The asymmetric work day had been so approved and implemented at times pertinent hereto. The Petitioner normally worked two 16 hour work days from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Saturday and on Sunday plus one other eight hour work day. Thus, three calendar work days constituted Petitioner's normal work week of 40 hours. The Detention Center has a "Facility Operating Procedure on Leave and Attendance" which provides that an employee must contact the supervisor on duty in advance of the beginning of his shift and advise that supervisor of the nature of any emergency concerning which he asks for leave. The duty supervisor then has authority to tentatively approve or deny the request. The employee must personally speak with the supervisor who is on duty. Thereafter, on the first day the employee reports back to work an "HRS Form 84" must be completed and the immediate supervisor must provide final approval if the annual leave is to be approved due to the stated emergency. The procedure does not provide that the employee's supervisor is to discuss the request with higher levels of supervision prior to granting approval for use of annual leave to cover such an absence. This procedure and policy does not require that higher level supervisors review the request and give final approval or denial. In other words, the employee in this situation is using his own annual leave to make up for his absence for emergency reasons and the facility's policy gives the immediate supervisor himself or herself the authority to approve it or deny it without recourse to higher supervisory authority. The Petitioner's wife contacted the person or office she believed was appropriate to report the Petitioner's impending absence and to explain that it was for emergency reasons, not knowing that she should speak to his immediate supervisor. In any event, before the Petitioner had missed three consecutive days of work he himself contacted his immediate supervisor, Mr. Reynolds, during the morning of June 19, 1988, and obtained Mr. Reynolds' verbal approval for absence due to emergency reasons, to be "covered" by Petitioner's annual leave. Mr. Reynolds did not tell the Petitioner that his request did not comply with the Facility Operating Procedure on Leave and Attendance. Mr. Reynolds, rather, accepted the Petitioner's justification for the emergency leave and approved it.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining that the circumstances presented in this case, found and discussed above, did not constitute abandonment of position, as contemplated by Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and directing that the Petitioner be reinstated to his former position with backpay and reimbursement of related benefits. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and to some extent immaterial. Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of material issues presented. Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of material issues presented. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Linoria Anthony, Esquire 345 South Magnolia Drive & Suite F - 21 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Scott D. Leemis, Esquire P. O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether or not Respondent has committed an unlawful employment practice by terminating Petitioner due to the "handicap" of manic depression and/or bipolar disorder.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner suffers from bipolar disorder, a psychiatric disorder manifested by mood swings from elation to depression. When experiencing an episode of mania, the Petitioner is incapable of attending to a task for any length of time. She is also overly excited and exercises poor judgment. Dependent upon how expert medical physicians characterize this condition at various stages, it is either a type of manic depression or a psychiatric condition very similar in symptomatology to classic manic depression. Petitioner began working for Respondent Mark III on March 20, 1985 as a seamstress. Her primary job function was running an industrial grade sewing machine for van conversions. She was a very good employee except for the occasions when she suffered bouts of mania. She was never subject to discipline, and during the periods of mania she experienced, her work-related problems were treated by the employer as a disability. The first episode of mania occurred in April 1986. Prior to her hospitalization for mania, the Petitioner was drinking excessively and staying out from work. She was hospitalized in Monroe Regional Hospital from April 22, 1986 to April 29, 1986. Thereafter, she returned to work, but again began to experience problems and had to be hospitalized again from June 7, 1986 to June 13, 1986. After she came-out of the hospital, Respondent employer permitted her to work part-time (that is, fewer hours) for a period of several months until she was able to resume full-time responsibilities. The employer's providing Petitioner part-time employment in 1986 was prompted by several factors. First, Petitioner was accorded the same accommodation any of Respondent's employees would receive under Respondent's general policy of allowing persons who have left for medical reasons to return to work if work is available. Second, this was also done personally and specifically for Petitioner at this time to accommodate her individual situation at that time. Third, the cyclical nature of Respondent's business of van conversions is such that June and July are a wind-down period toward the month of August when Respondent either closes down or lays off personnel for one to three weeks' duration. Fourth, Petitioner's team position had not been filled because "many girls," in the words of Respondent's representative Joe Krim, "float regularly." Respondent's method of payment of seamstresses in Petitioner's category bears some discussion because it does not equate in every respect with the street definition of "full-time" and "part-time" labor. Petitioner worked as part of a group or team on production work. Teams are paid when each van is completed, and payment for each van is then divided among the whole sewing room, based upon hours individually worked. The entire team is needed to construct each vehicle and in Petitioner's absence, if they did not replace her, the rest of the team had to pick up her slack. Petitioner's rate of pay was determined on a weekly basis depending upon the amount of work produced by the team/group she worked with. During her period of full-time employment just prior to November 1987, Petitioner's weekly net pay, if averaged, would be $534.74. Pursuant to the foregoing arrangement, Petitioner received no pay during any of the periods that she was out of work. The Respondent provided no sick leave or disability benefits and did not have a formal procedure for requesting a leave of absence. After the manic episode(s) in 1986, the Petitioner returned to work full-time on or about July 1986 and experienced no problems for over a year. In November 1987, Petitioner again experienced an episode of mania. She began staying away from her job and disrupting her coworkers with overt sexual solicitation and lewd remarks when she was present. Her immediate supervisor, Jon Lanning, requested a meeting with her sometime shortly before December 1, 1987. Petitioner's friend, Mark Wagner, accompanied her to that meeting. At that meeting, Mr. Lanning urged Petitioner to seek hospital treatment for her psychiatric problems. Mr. Lanning was unavailable to testify at formal hearing, having left Respondent's employment in October 1988. Petitioner's impression of Mr. Lanning's representations on behalf of Respondent were that her job would be held for her if she would seek medical help. Mr. Wagner's impression of this so-called "admission" on behalf of Respondent by its agent Lanning was that Lanning was saying Petitioner was a good worker and would be welcome to come back to work when she was able to work. It was obvious to Wagner from this meeting that "if [Petitioner] did not get the situation under control, they would have to let her go." Petitioner was hospitalized from December 1, 1987 to December 6, 1987 at Charter Springs Hospital. Upon her discharge, she continued to take Loxitane, a prescription medication which can cause drowsiness if taken in excess, at the wrong times of day, or with alcohol. The use of alcohol is contraindicated in the presence of Loxitane. Although Respondent established alcohol and drug mixing by Petitioner back in 1986, the uncorroborated hearsay and inconclusive and uncredible repetition by witnesses of so-called "admissions" by Petitioner do not permit or support a finding that Petitioner was abusing alcohol or mixing alcohol with prescription medications in 1987- 1988. Dr. Fred Miley, Petitioner's psychiatrist, signed a release permitting the Respondent to return to work on December 21, 1987. Petitioner returned to work on December 22, 1987 but exhibited signs of drowsiness around the heavy sewing machinery she had to operate and was told by a superior to go home. At formal hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that she "did not need to be on the machine" in that condition. Petitioner stated that after her December 22, 1987 work attempt she had decided that the decision to go back to work was one, "I and I alone would have to make." Petitioner did not report the problem of drowsiness to her psychiatrist at the time she had the Loxitane prescription renewed by him December 30, 1987 or at the time of her next office visit to him on January 12, 1988 except that she did complain to him on that date of being drowsy in the mornings. At formal hearing, Dr. Miley opined that there was really no reason physically or psychiatrically why Petitioner could not have returned to work for Respondent on January 12, 1988; he merely felt pressured by the patient to defer her return-to-work date since she did not want to go back to work then and therefore he felt she could not return to work successfully. Dr. Miley did not know prior to formal hearing in this case that Petitioner's inability to work precluded an award to her of unemployment compensation benefits. On January 12, 1988, Petitioner advised Dr. Miley she wanted to draw unemployment compensation and would receive it until June 1988; that Petitioner did not want to return to work at that time because Respondent had only part- time employment; and that Petitioner was working for herself, sewing free lance. In fact, Petitioner had filed an application for unemployment benefits on December 15, 1987, effective December 13, 1987. She had been denied unemployment benefits on January 4, 1988 because she was deemed by the unemployment compensation reviewer to be unable to work. "Unavailability for work" precludes the award of unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Chapter 443 F.S. On January 15, 1988, Dr. Miley filled out an unemployment compensation form stating that Petitioner had been unable to work from December 1, 1987 to January 15, 1988 and with the equivocal statement that Petitioner "may possibly be able to return to work in early February 1988" and it should be halftime (20 hours). Petitioner took the January 15 statement by Miley to Jon Lanning because Lanning had advised her he could not hold her job without a statement from her doctor. Sometime in January 1988 Petitioner approached Joe Krim, Mr. Lanning's superior, for help with Mr. Lanning about "getting on up." At some time between the December 1987 hospitalization and February 3, 1988, Petitioner sent her employer a note asking to work night shift instead of day shift. On February 3, 1988, the Petitioner initiated a meeting with Mr. Lanning for the purpose of inquiring whether she could return to work halftime. Mr. Lanning responded that she had been terminated the day before, February 2, 1988. Petitioner had received no prior notice of her impending termination, and Barbara Boos' and Joe Krim's direct testimony confirm Petitioner's understanding that her team position had not yet been filled as of February 3, 1988. At Petitioner's specific request, motivated by her intent at that time to pursue a social security disability claim, Mr. Lanning supplied her with a document dated February 3, 1988 stating: Due to health reasons, [Petitioner] was unable to perform her duties and has not returned to work since late November 1987. Petitioner later abandoned the social security appeal plan. According to Mr. Krim's testimony, Petitioner was actually not rehired because she had not returned to work between November 1987 and February 1988. He was apparently unaware at the time of her termination by Mr. Lanning on February 3, 1988 that she had tried to work for a few hours on December 22, 1987. Nonetheless, he emphasized that although December and January are not heavy production months, February is the month the Respondent must "gear up" for its heaviest production of the season and that he had to "get production up" at that time for that reason. Further, the purpose of Respondent's recent move to new quarters had been partly to eliminate a night shift which in 1986 had done little real production work and did mostly clean up and preparation for the day sewing teams. In February 1988, he had put all teams on full-time day work. He did not, therefore, have available part-time work (fewer hours) with which to accommodate Petitioner as he had in 1986. Respondent had full-time work available for Petitioner in January and February of 1988. By February of 1988, the new "season" had commenced, Respondent had moved into a new plant, and Respondent could no longer accommodate halftime or part-time work arrangements. On March 15, 1988 Dr. Miley completed an additional form stating that the Petitioner had been unable to work from December 1, 1987 to February 14, 1988. Petitioner admitted that in February 1988, she wanted to go back to work only part-time but that Respondent had not established a part-time crew, as such. Petitioner also admitted not knowing if there were any part-time work available then. In light of her several conflicting representations under the circumstances related supra., the undersigned is not persuaded by Petitioner's representations at the formal hearing in the instant case that if she had been told by Mr. Banning directly that part-time employment was unavailable, she would have agreed to full-time employment on February 3, 1988. Petitioner eventually received unemployment compensation from approximately March 1988 until September 1988. In November 1988, Petitioner secured employment very similar to that she previously held with Respondent, which employment she has continuously held with no further episodes of mania requiring psychiatric treatment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-0985 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are accepted. 4 is accepted with the exception of the last sentence, which rejected as not supported by the record. See FOF 7. 11 is rejected. This is legal argument which mischaracterizes both the burden to go forward and the burden of proof in this type of case. Except for sentence 1 of 12 which is rejected as not supported by the record for the reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Thaw, 12 and 13 are accepted as modified to more clearly reflect the record evidence as a whole. Respondent' s PFOF: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are accepted. 3 and 9 are rejected as stated as not supported by the record as a whole. 7 is immaterial. See FOF 8. 12 and 13 are subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Amatea Attorney at Law 500 Northeast Eighth Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670 Carla Franklin Attorney at Law Post Office Box 694 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Anthony McFarlane, was overpaid in the amount of $978.69 as a result of utilizing more administrative leave than that to which he was entitled.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was an employee of the Agency's Central Office during the pay periods of February 14, 2014, to February 27, 2014; February 28, 2014, to March 13, 2014; and March 14, 2014, to March 27, 2014. Although the exact dates of Petitioner's employment by the Agency are unknown, he was also employed by the Agency and its predecessor entities prior to, and subsequent to, those dates for a total of approximately eighteen years. Petitioner retired from the Agency on April 4, 2014. Petitioner, prior to his retirement, attempted to use the surplusage of leave time he had accumulated for which he would not be compensated upon retiring. The Agency uses the People First system for the submittal of employee time sheets and tracking of individual employees' accrued paid leave time. The system maintains the amount of Annual Leave, Sick Leave, and Special Compensation Leave available to each individual employee. Further, although Sick Leave can be used at any time, Annual Leave cannot be used until Special Compensation Leave is depleted. Administrative Leave--Other is not maintained on an individual level and employees are not automatically prohibited from using more Administrative Leave--Other than that to which they are entitled nor are they required to deplete their Special Compensation Leave prior to using Administrative Leave. Administrative Leave--Other is made available to employees only in special circumstances such as an office closure due to a hurricane, plumbing leak, or air conditioner failure, or an unscheduled paid holiday authorized by the Governor. During the pay period of February 14, 2014, to February 27, 2014, Petitioner used sixteen hours of Special Compensation Leave (Code 0055) and sixteen hours of Sick Leave (Code 0052). During the pay period of February 28, 2014, to March 13, 2014, Petitioner used seventy-two hours of Administrative Leave-- Other (Code 0056). No special circumstances entitling Petitioner to take Administrative Leave--Other hours occurred during this pay period. During the pay period of March 14, 2014, to March 27, 2014, Petitioner used five hours of Special Compensation Leave (Code 0055) and seventy-five hours of Annual Leave (Code 0051). In February of 2015, the Office of the Inspector General published an audit of the Agency's human resources practices at its Central Office. The audit showed that seventy-two hours of Annual Leave were miscoded as Administrative Leave--Other, resulting in a $1,059.84 leave balance overpayment. The Agency then determined that Petitioner was the individual whose Annual Leave time had been miscoded as Administrative Leave--Other and had therefore been overpaid $1,059.84. After adjusting the amount for taxes and benefits withheld, the Agency concluded that the amount overpaid directly to Petitioner was $978.69. During the hearing, Petitioner for the first time realized and admitted that in his attempt to deplete his Special Compensation Leave before using his Annual Leave, he made an error in using Code 0056 (Administrative Leave--Other) when he intended to use Code 0055 (Special Compensation Leave).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner repay $100.00 per month to the Agency until the $978.69 balance is repaid in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Kurt Eric Ahrendt, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Anthony McFarlane 7971 Northwest 11th Street Plantation, Florida 33322-5158 David De La Paz, Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Executive Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent resigned his position of employment with Petitioner and, if not, whether Respondent's position of employment with Petitioner should be terminated for cause, specifically, the Respondent's alleged absence without leave, his alleged abuse of sick leave, and his alleged theft of school property.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a painter pursuant to an annual contract from January 17, 1983, until January 29, 1993. Respondent was not a member of the instructional staff, a principal, or a supervisor. Respondent did not submit to the Petitioner a formal resignation of his employment, nor did he ever intend to do so. A School Board employee with an annual contract may be dismissed during the term of his contract for cause. Respondent had frequently taken leave during his term of employment with the Petitioner and he was aware of the School Board's policies pertaining to leave. Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 1277, AFL-CIO (IBFO). The collective bargaining agreement between the IBFO and the School Board contains terms and conditions of employment pertinent to this proceeding. Article IV, Section F pertains to "Return from Leave" and provides as follows: Failure to return to work at the expiration of approved leave shall be considered as absence without leave and grounds for dismissal. This section should be subject to extenuating circumstances preventing timely return, as determined by the Superintendent. Article IV, Section A of the collective bargaining agreement pertains to sick leave and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 3. Sick Leave Charged -- Sick leave shall be charged in no less than half-day segments. Each school or Department shall record absences on an hourly basis. When the appropriate half-day increment is reached, based upon the assigned employee workday, the employee shall have 1/2 day of accumulated sick leave deducted. . . . * * * 10. False Claim -- False claim for sick leave shall be grounds for dismissal by the School Board. Petitioner's Administrative Directive D-3.47(3) is a rule of the School Board and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (3) District employees shall not convert School Board property, including any equipment and supplies, for personal business or activity. CONVERSION OF SCHOOL BOARD PROPERTY In November 1992, Warren Haan, the paint supervisor for the Petitioner's Department of Maintenance and Operations, was told by Jacques Brisson, Respondent's foreman, that it appeared to him that Respondent was taking school property for his own use. Mr. Haan investigated the allegations and went to the area in the maintenance department where the employees parked their vehicles. Mr. Haan looked into Respondent's personal vehicle and discovered that Respondent had placed inside of his vehicle property of the School Board. The evidence established that Respondent intended to convert this property to his own use. The property, which was taken from the Respondent before he could remove it from school grounds, consisted of an empty paint bucket, painter's rags, a small quantity of caulk, and a caulking gun. Mr. Haan referred this matter to the school security department on January 4, 1993. Respondent had not been disciplined at the time of his alleged resignation because the matter was still under investigation at that time. Respondent testified that other painters regularly took items such as empty paint buckets and paint rags. This self-serving testimony does not establish that Petitioner routinely permitted painters to violate the clear school policies pertaining to unauthorized use of school property. To the contrary, the testimony of Mr. Brisson established that theft had been a problem that he had tried to stop. ABUSE OF SICK LEAVE The Respondent occasionally was employed as a painter by individuals and entities other than the Petitioner. Such employment was permissible, but an employee was not permitted to perform services for private individuals while out on sick leave. The Respondent reported to work on December 3, 1992, and left his employment in the late morning using sick leave for the remainder of the day. That same day, Mr. Haan received information that led him to believe that Respondent had taken sick leave, but that he was working as a painter at a house under construction in an area referred to as Boca Grove in Boca Raton, Florida. Mr. Haan went with Dave Traill, another school board employee, to this private residence at approximately 2:30 p.m. on December 3, 1992, where he observed Respondent's automobile. He went to the residence under construction and asked to see the Respondent. The Respondent thereafter came out of the house and talked with Mr. Haan and Mr. Traill. Mr. Haan and Mr. Traill did not see what Respondent had been doing inside the residence. Respondent testified that he had seen his doctor for a brief appointment earlier that day and had gone from his doctor's office to the residence at Boca Grove. Respondent admitted at the formal hearing that he had agreed to paint the house for the owner, but asserted that he had gone to the house to tell the owner that he would not be working that day. Respondent testified that he had taken vacation leave when he actually worked on the private residence. Respondent admitted that he had spent approximately two hours on December 3, 1992, while on sick leave going over with the owner items of work that he was to perform. This meeting was a necessary part of the painting job he was to do for the owner. From the evidence presented, it is found that on December 3, 1992, the Respondent performed services unrelated to his duties as a school board employee for his personal gain at this house in Boca Grove while absent from his employment with the Petitioner pursuant to sick leave. Respondent abused Petitioner's sick leave policy. ABSENCES WITHOUT LEAVE In January 1993, Petitioner took time off from his work to attend to his wife, who continued to experience physical problems resulting from a heel fracture on August 28, 1992. Respondent contacted his foreman, Jacques Brisson, at approximately 7:30 a.m. on Monday, January 25, 1993, to request that he be allowed to take that week off as vacation time. Mr. Brisson approved that leave, but he informed Respondent that he would have to contact Warren Haan, the painting supervisor, if he wanted to take any additional time off. Respondent was absent from his employment without approved leave on Monday, February 1, 1993; Tuesday, February 2, 1993; Wednesday, February 3, 1993; and Thursday, February 4, 1993. Friday, February 5, 1993, was not a scheduled work day since the paint department was on a four day work week. Respondent testified that he contacted Mr. Haan during the last week of January 1993 and told him he may need to be off work for a week or longer. Respondent also testified that Mr. Haan authorized his leave during the last week of January 1993. Mr. Haan testified at the formal hearing, but he was not questioned about this conversation or whether he authorized leave for the Respondent during any part of February 1993. Mr. Haan testifed that Respondent's employment was terminated because he was absent without authorization for the days in February and that Respondent would have contacted Mr. Brisson to obtain authorization for leave. Respondent later testified that he did not know why he had not contacted anyone prior to being absent on February 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1993. The apparent conflicts in Respondent's testimony are resolved by finding that while Respondent may have told Mr. Haan at some time during January 1993 that he needed to take some time off, he did not seek and he was not given authorization to be absent from his employment on February 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1993. On February 5, 1993, Warren Page, Coordinator of Petitioner's Department of Maintenance and Plant Operations, sent to Respondent by certified mailing a letter which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: This is to confirm that you have not reported to work since January 29, 1993. You have not contacted this office as required to report your intended absences. You have not requested or received approval for a short term leave of absence. Therefore, you are currently absent without approved leave. In the absence of any correspondence from you, I can only assume that you have decided not to continue working as a Painter for the Palm Beach County School Board. Please be advised that your name will be submitted to the Palm Beach County School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting for acceptance of your resignation from employment. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact this office. Respondent received the certified mailing on Saturday, February 6, 1993. On Monday, February 8, 1993, Respondent contacted Lawrence G. Zabik, the Petitioner's Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, and asked him what he should do about the certified mailing that he had received. Mr. Zabik told Respondent that he should meet with Mr. Page to see if he could work things out. Respondent did not contact Mr. Page, and he did not report to work. During a regularly scheduled meeting in February, 1993, the School Board voted to accept his resignation with an effective date of January 29, 1993. January 29, 1993, was the effective date of the acceptance of Respondent's "resignation" and the date his employment with the School Board was terminated because it was the last day Respondent was out on authorized leave. This action was taken pursuant to Petitioner's Administrative Directive D- 3.27(2)(c), which provides as follows: (c) When employees do not report for duty for three (3) consecutive days without notifying their supervisor, the principal/department head will initiate a certified letter to the employees stating that their resignations will be recommended to the School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting. By notice dated March 2, 1993, Respondent was notified that the School Board had accepted his resignation as a painter with an effective date of January 29, 1993. The notice dated March 2, 1993, contained an old address for the Respondent. Consequently, he did not receive a copy of the notice until May 24, 1993, when he was officially informed that his employment had been terminated effective January 29, 1993, the last day on which Respondent had been on approved leave. Respondent thereafter requested a formal hearing to contest his termination, and this proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order which terminates the employment of the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4233 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence established that the incident involving conversion of school board property occurred in November 1992, but that it was reported to Mr. Sapyta on January 4, 1993. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 2, 3, and 10 are rejected as being unnecessary as findings of fact, but the proposed findings are adopted either as preliminary matters or as conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since there is no contention that Respondent had exhausted his sick leave. The proposed findings in the second sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected. Specifically, Mr. Haan's credibility was not eroded as asserted by Respondent. The other findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 14 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since this is a de novo proceeding. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 17 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 18 are subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Hazel Lucas, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 381 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Glen J. Torcivia, Esquire One Clearlake Centre 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1504 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Isidro M. Garcia, Esquire 3501 South Congress Avenue Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Dr. C. Monica Uhlhorn, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
