Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Marshall T. Hazlewood, was an employee of respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), from April 12, 1972 until July 14, 1983 at the Pinetta Toll Plaza in Satellite Beach, Florida. He served in the positions of toll collector, shift supervisor and manager I at that facility. In April, 1983 Hazlewood advised his supervisor that he would retire in July, 1983. By this time, Hazlewood had accumulated annual leave in excess of 240 hours, as well as an undisclosed amount of compensatory time and sick leave. His supervisor asked him not to use his annual leave in excess of 240 hours until July, or just prior to his retirement, because of a shortage of other personnel services (OPS) money for that fiscal year. In other words, if Hazlewood used his leave in April, May or June, the supervisor would necessarily have to use current fiscal year OPS funds to hire a temporary replacement. Hazlewood acquiesced and continued to work until June without taking annual leave. On June 16, 1983 Hazlewood put in an annual leave slip requesting annual leave (except for July 4, a holiday, and his personal holiday) from June 27 through July 14, 1983, his retirement date. This brought his total annual leave down to 238.50 hours as of the close of July 14, his date of retirement. The leave slip was approved by his supervisor and forwarded to the bureau chief in Tallahassee. He also spoke by telephone with the coordinator for the Tampa section and the assistant bureau chief in Tallahassee concerning his retirement. Whether he told them of his plans to use annual leave the last few weeks of employment was not disclosed. In any event, no one questioned his leave slip. When he retired on July 14, 1983 Hazlewood received his normal pay plus compensation for unused sick leave. He also received a warrant in the amount of $1,005.68 which represented compensation for 238.50 hours of unused annual leave. Because the pay system at DOT is computerized, and not manually checked until several weeks later, Hazlewood received his final pay without a hitch. Later on, after a manual review of his file was made, it was learned that Hazlewood's final pay had been improperly computed. DOT requested a return of the warrant, and apparently reissued a second warrant which was $324 less than the first. That prompted the instant proceeding. According to Rule 22A-8.10(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, promulgated by the Department of Administration (DOA), and which must be adhered to by DOT, an employee cannot be paid for leave after his "last official day of employment." An employee's last official day of employment is interpreted to mean when he is physically present on the job. The parties have stipulated that Hazlewood's last official day of employment was June 26, 1983, when he actually reported to work. The DOA also interprets the rule to prohibit the taking of annual leave in conjunction with an employee's separation from service. This includes the taking of such leave merely to use up sick leave or to bring one's total annual leave down to the maximum reimbursable amount of 240 hours. These interpretations were disseminated by DOT to all of its field offices, including the chief of toll facilities, as early as October, 1981, and are generally described on page 21 of the DOT Employee Handbook which Hazlewood had. They are also expressed in "Interpretation of Attendance and Leave Rules" issued by the DOA. After determining Hazlewood's last date of employment to be June 26, his balance of annual leave was properly reduced to 176 hours rather than 238.50 hours. This balance was arrived at by deducting those hours of leave improperly used during the pay period ending July 14, 1983, and for which he had already been paid, from the 240 maximum hours one can accumulate at date of retirement. The DOT accordingly reissued Hazlewood a check for 176 hours of unused leave, which was $324 less than the amount previously given to him. This was actually less than the amount DOT should have deducted, for it did not seek to recover excess payments during the two-week pay period ending June 30, 1983. Petitioner contends that because no one advised him that taking leave in the manner he did was improper, it is unfair to now penalize him for doing so. He also points out that his supervisor approved the leave slip and was the one who suggested he delay taking leave until July because of budgetary problems. He considers it morally wrong for DOT to treat him in the manner that it has. The DOT acknowledged that the leave slip was approved, but stated the supervisor was apparently unaware of existing Department policy. It contends that all non Tallahassee offices are periodically advised of personnel rules, and that the Hazlewood case was one of a few that sometimes occurs. After the Hazlewood error came to light, DOT issued another memorandum on September 1, 1983 to all personnel explaining the policy for leave time upon separation from service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Marshall T. Hazlewood to have reinstated $324 in payments for unused annual leave be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Marshall T. Hazlewood 333 McLeod Drive Cocoa, Florida 32922 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul N. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent was a career-service employee of Respondent. She served as a health service representative assigned to the Seminole County Public Health Unit. Her specific task was to investigate and follow up on contacts for sexually transmitted diseases. Petitioner's Employee Handbook, which Respondent received when she was hired, states: You may request annual leave for any purpose desired, but you must obtain Your supervisor's approval before taking annual leave. If an emergency develops, tell your supervisor of the emergency and ask for verbal approval to use annual leave. When you return to work, complete the leave request form for your supervisor's signature. The Handbook also Provides that certain employees are entitled to one eight-hour personal holiday "at a time which is mutually agreeable to the individual and the immediate supervisor." The local policy of the Seminole County Public Health Unit required each employee to request leave by filling out the back of a timesheet. In this manner, the employee would show the type of leave requested, the date and time of the leave, the employee's initials. The form provided spaces for the signature of the supervisor and the date described in detail in the Paragraph 5 below. The back of the timesheet states: "All Leave and Overtime must be requested and approved in advance." The Handbook requires advance approval of annual leave. Although the blanket statement on the back of the timesheet requires advance approval of all leave and overtime, the Seminole County Public Health Unit routinely did not require advance approval for all types of leave. For instance, sick leave, overtime, and annual leave for less than a few hours were normally approved after the fact. On at least two occasions, including one involving Respondent, annual leave for an entire day was also approved after it had beef taken. However, the Seminole County Public Health Unit normally requires advance approval of annual leave for a Period of one day or more. The instructions on the timesheet direct that the date next to the supervisor's signature indicate the date of the request for leave. Consistent with the varying policies governing leave, the date beside the supervisor's signature on the timesheet was used to show the date of approval of a request for annual leave and the date of the request for sick leave and certain other types of leave. By negative implication, the Handbook also requires written approval of annual leave for nonemergencies because it expressly permits "verbal approval" for annual leave for emergencies. There are no requirements in the Handbook or the timesheets for written approval of requests for other forms of leave, and the Seminole County Public Health Unit did not maintain enforceable policies to that effect. Two persons were authorized to approve requests of Respondent for annual leave. The first person was Charlotte Blades, who was the coordinator of the sexually transmitted disease program of the Seminole County Public Health Unit. Ms. Blades was Respondent's immediate supervisor The other person authorized to approve requests for annual leave was Bernice Duncan, who was the senior community health nurse of the Seminole County Public Health Unit and Ms. Blades' supervisor. In practice, the written approval of Ms. Blades could be revoked by Ms. Duncan. On one occasion, Respondent requested eight hours' annual leave to attend her son's high school graduation on June 9, 1989. Ms. Blades signed the timesheet on May 23, 1989. Between that date and the date of the leave, Ms. Duncan told Respondent that, although Ms. Blades had signed the timesheet, the leave was not approved. Ultimately, Respondent received approval for leave through 2:30 p.m., rather than 5:00 p.m., on the day of the graduation. In late July or early August, 1989, Respondent submitted a timesheet requesting 32 hours' annual leave from August 28-31, 1989. About one week later, before Ms. Blades or Ms. Duncan had acted on the request, Respondent changed the request to September 1, which was the Friday before Labor Day weekend, and September 13-14, 1989. In addition, she requested leave with pay for September 15, 1989, as her personal holiday. According to the timesheets, Ms. Blades approved the September 1 leave request on August 25, 1989, which was a Saturday. She assured Respondent that she would discuss with Ms. Duncan the remaining requests for leave. Respondent followed up with Ms. Blades several times, explaining that she wanted the leave to attend her son's graduation ceremonies from military basic training in South Carolina. Despite her assurances, Ms. Blades had not mentioned Respondent's request to Ms. Duncan before Ms. Blades became sick and missed work from September 6-9. On the second day of Ms. Blades' absence, Respondent took her request to Ms. Duncan, who said that she had not been aware of Respondent's request. Ms. Duncan told Respondent that Ms. Blades was on sick leave and did not respond further. The following day, Respondent spoke again with Ms. Duncan, who this time assured her that if Ms. Blades were not at work on Monday, September 11, Ms. Duncan would sign the timesheet approving the leave requested for September 13-15. Ms. Blades returned to work on Monday, September 11. When Respondent asked her in the morning to sign the timesheet, Ms. Blades refused to do so and told her that it had not yet been approved. Consistent with her prior conversations with Respondent, though, Ms. Blades did not say that the request had been disapproved. Respondent then left the office for much of the day. When she returned, Ms. Blades and Ms. Duncan were both out. The next day, Tuesday, September 12, Ms. Blades spoke with Respondent, but still declined to say whether the request was approved or rejected. She continued to say merely that the request had not yet been approved. Tuesday afternoon, Respondent told a coworker to tell Ms. Blades that Respondent was going to South Carolina and would be back the following Monday morning. While still in town, Respondent telephoned both supervisors shortly after 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, but they had not arrived at work yet. Respondent asked the receptionist to remind Ms. Blades that Respondent had gone to South Carolina and would return the following Monday morning. Both messages were delivered to Ms. Blades, who relayed them to Ms. Duncan. Respondent then departed for South Carolina, where she remained through at least September 15. At the time of her departure, Respondent knew that her request for annual leave had not been approved and that she was taking unauthorized annual leave. When she arrived back in the office on September 18, Respondent received a copy of a letter dated September 15 that had been mailed to her the prior Friday. The letter states that Respondent had been separated from State service for abandonment of position, effective at the close of business on September 15, 1989. The second paragraph of the letter contains material misstatements of fact. It states that Respondent had been advised that, due to the present work situation, her leave could not be approved. The letter also states that she did not contact her supervisor that she would be absent. No one ever advised Respondent that her leave could not be approved or in fact was rejected until after her return from South Carolina. Also, Respondent informed both supervisors, directly and through third parties, that she would be absent, where she was going, why, and when she would return. However, she did not contact them during the three-day absence. Concerning the request for leave for a personal holiday, neither Ms. Blades nor Ms. Duncan ever informed Respondent that the date was inconvenient. Under the circumstances, Respondent could reasonably infer that the date was agreeable with Ms. Blades. At no time did Respondent intend to abandon her career-service position. The facts do not support a reasonable inference that Respondent abandoned her job during the three days in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has not abandoned her position in Career Service employment with the State of Florida. ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda L. Parkinson Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 701 Orlando, FL 32801 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Alva J. Barfield 1010 Locust Avenue Sanford, FL 32771
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
Findings Of Fact From July 1946 until his retirement from the state career service system on June 30, 1983, Petitioner was an employee of the Department of Labor and Employment Security or its predecessor agencies (the Florida Industrial Commission, the Department of Commerce, and the War Manpower Commission), hereinafter collectively referred to as the Department. The Department, at the time of Petitioner's initial employment, established and administered its own leave policies. Subsequently, the Florida Merit System was expanded to cover all state agencies, including the Department, and uniform personnel policies and practices, including the accumulation of annual leave, were established. Effective July 1, 1957 the accumulation of annual leave for employees of the Department, as with employees of all state agencies, was limited to 240 hours. Initially, Merit System leave regulations provided that leave accumulated by employees of agencies with existing leave regulations, such as the Department, would be credited to their accounts as of July 1, 1957, but any accumulated leave in excess of 240 hours would become void after December 31, 1959. At the behest of the Department, the deadline within which excess accumulated leave had to be utilized was extended to December 31, 1961. Essentially employees were afforded four and one-half years within which to utilize their excess accumulated annual leave or forfeit it. Upon his retirement June 30, 1983, Petitioner was paid for, and had computed as part of his Average Final compensation; the annual leave he had accumulated up to a maximum of 240 hours in accordance with Rule 22A-8.10, F.A.C. That rule, or its predecessor, has contained the same 240-hour limitation since December 31, 1961. Petitioner asserts that he had accumulated leave in excess of 240 hours on December 31, 1961. While the evidence does establish Petitioner had excess leave on that date, there was no competent evidence presented from which his actual leave balance could be established. The actual amount of Petitioner's excess leave is not, however, significant since any annual leave he had in excess of 240 hours was void after December 31, 1961. Notwithstanding the voiding of his excess annual leave, Petitioner asserts that his entitlement to such leave still exists because of certain assurances he received from his supervisors. According to Petitioner, he was unable to utilize his excess leave between July 1, 1957 and December 31, 1961, because he was on "special assignments" for the Department which precluded his absence from work. Consequently, Petitioner says, `his supervisors "assured" him that they would see to it that he "got his excess leave." It is worthy of note that the supervisors who purportedly gave such assurances have been dead for over a decade, that there exists no corroborating evidence of Petitioner's assertions, and that at no time during the ensuing 23 years did Petitioner raise any issue concerning, or attempt to use, the leave which had been forfeited. It is further worthy of note that while purportedly assured he would "get his excess leave," Petitioner received no assurance he would be paid for it upon retirement. It is unnecessary to decide whether such assurances were in fact given. The evidence is clear that the supervisors in question had no authority, real or apparent, to bind the State by such assurances. Further, any reliance Petitioner may have placed on such assurances would not have been reasonable, since such assurances were contrary to existing regulations.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was absent from work without authorization for three consecutive workdays so that she is deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned as a Career Service employee.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Viola D. Cooper began her employment with Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on October 19, 1987. She held the position of Support Service Aide at the Landmark Learning Center in Opa Locka, Florida. When she was hired, she was given a copy of the Department's Employee Handbook which contains attendance and leave policies. She signed a receipt for the handbook which acknowledged that she understood it was her responsibility to review the handbook in detail. On several occasions, Petitioner was counseled by her immediate supervisor regarding the proper procedures to follow when Petitioner would be late reporting to work and when Petitioner wanted to use some of the leave time available to her. Additionally, on August 8, 1988, Petitioner received a written reprimand from her supervisor for being absent from work without authorized leave. That written reprimand recited that Petitioner was scheduled to work on July 5, 1988, and that she failed to come to work and failed to call. She was, accordingly, assessed eight hours of leave without pay for that particular day and was advised that a future violation of absence without authorized leave would result in disciplinary action ranging from a 10-day suspension to dismissal. She was further reminded in that written reprimand that she was required to request leave when she was going to take time off from work. On May 3, 1989, Petitioner advised her then supervisor Barbara Butler that she intended to take off some time to visit her sick mother, that she did not know exactly when she would be doing that, and that she did not know how long she would be gone. She told Butler she did not want to use any of her annual leave (vacation) time available to her; instead, she wished to take leave without pay so as to not use her annual leave time for that purpose. Her supervisor again advised her as to the proper procedures and further advised her that if she wished to take leave without pay such a request must be presented in writing in advance to Edward Dixon, the Food Service Director at Landmark. Petitioner understood the instructions given to her by Butler. She advised Butler that she would attempt to finish working the rest of that week but that if she found out that she needed to go even in the middle of the night, she would do so. Petitioner worked May 4 and May 5, 1989. During the time period of May 3 when Butler advised her to follow the proper procedures and informed her, once again, as to what the proper procedures were, through May 5, her last day of work, Petitioner submitted no request for leave to her supervisor and made no request of Dixon for authorized leave without pay. Petitioner was not scheduled to work on May 6 and 7, a Saturday and a Sunday. From Monday, May 8, 1989, through Thursday, May 11, 1989, Petitioner failed to report to work. Petitioner had not requested that she be permitted to take leave from her work assignment, and no authorization had been given to her by anyone to not report for work on those days. Butler advised Dixon that Petitioner had stated that she might be taking time off to visit her mother, and Dixon's subsequent attempt to contact Petitioner to ascertain why she had failed to report to work for four consecutive days was unsuccessful. By certified letter dated May 11, 1989, Dixon and Ulysses Davis, Superintendent at Landmark Learning Center, advised Petitioner that she had not called in or reported to work on May 8 through May 11 and, therefore, she had abandoned her position and was deemed to have resigned from the Career Service. They further advised Petitioner that her resignation would be effective on the date she received the letter or on the date that they received the undelivered letter directed to her. Petitioner received that letter on May 19, 1989. Between May 8, 1989, and May 19, 1989, Petitioner had made no contact with anyone at Landmark Learning Center. By May 19, 1989, Petitioner had been absent without leave for 10 consecutive workdays. On May 19, Petitioner appeared at Landmark Learning Center to pick up her pay check. Although she went to the food service area while she was at Landmark, she did not speak to Butler, Dixon, or anyone else regarding her lengthy unauthorized absence or her failure to request leave in advance of failing to appear for work. Similarly, she failed to speak to anyone in Landmark's personnel office regarding her failure to request leave time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner was absent without authorized leave for three consecutive workdays and is therefore deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of December, 1989. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 19th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3538 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact contained in her paragraphs numbered 1-3 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, and 7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Judd-Edwards Assistant Regional Director 2171 Northwest 22nd Court Miami, Florida 33142 Julie Waldman and Caridad Planas, Esquire 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue 5-424 Miami, Florida 33128 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel 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 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Aletta L. Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a clerical worker, a permanent career service position, at all times material hereto. Prior to October 3, 1988, Petitioner experienced back problems which prevented her attendance at work. Dr. Brian M. Mitteldorf, a chiropractic physician, treated Petitioner beginning September 25, 1988, and continuing through all times material hereto. On October 3, 1988, Theresa (Terry) Bartelmo, Petitioner's supervisor, advised Petitioner in writing that Petitioner would be out of sick leave and annual leave the following day. Mrs. Bartelmo enclosed two copies of the form used to request a leave of absence and advised Petitioner that it was necessary to fill in all blanks and to return the form to her by no later than October 10, 1988. Respondent does not authorize any type of leave for unspecified or unlimited duration. Ms. Bartelmo further advised Petitioner that "... If I do not hear from you by that date, (October 10,1988) then I will assume you wish to terminate your employment with the Department and will process the necessary documentation." On October 3, 1988, Petitioner's husband, Edmund DeSilva, met with Ms. Bartelmo. During the meeting, Ms. Bartelmo gave to Mr. DeSilva the letter she had written to Mrs. DeSilva, together with the forms for the leave of absence. The form for leave of absence was signed by Petitioner on October 3, 1988. Mr. DeSilva hand delivered the form to Ms. Bartelmo prior to the deadline of October 10 set by Ms. Bartelmo. This form was forwarded by Ms. Bartelmo to Martha (Marty) Anderson, Respondent's district personnel manager. Ms. Bartelmo recommended that the leave of absence be granted. Ms. Anderson approved the leave of absence on October 13, 1988. The leave of absence form submitted by Petitioner and approved by Respondent contained a tentative return-to-work date of November 23, 1988. On October 3, 1988, the date Petitioner signed the leave of absence form, it was uncertain when Petitioner would be able to return to work because of her medical condition. On or about October 18, 1988, Ms. Bartelmo telephoned Petitioner to check on her progress. After Petitioner told Ms. Bartelmo that she did not feel well enough to talk, Ms. Bartelmo asked Petitioner to call her when Petitioner felt better. Ms. Bartelmo did not talk with Petitioner again until after Petitioner's employment was terminated. Dr. Mitteldorf called Ms. Bartelmo on November 22, 1988, at approximately 3:30 p.m. Dr. Mitteldorf told Ms. Bartelmo during that telephone conversation that Petitioner was too ill to return to work. Ms. Bartelmo asked Dr. Mitteldorf for a letter stating his opinion as to when Petitioner could return to work. Dr. Mitteldorf's letter was dated December 13, 1988. During their telephone conversation on November 22, 1988, Ms. Bartelmo did not tell or indicate to Dr. Mitteldorf that their conversation was tantamount to an extension of Petitioner's leave of absence. Ms. Bartelmo did not tell Dr. Mitteldorf that she was mailing to him the forms Petitioner needed to submit to request an extension of her leave of absence. Ms. Bartelmo can recommend approval of a request for leave of absence, but she does not have the authority to grant the approval. Ms. Bartelmo did not tell Petitioner or anyone acting on Petitioner's behalf, that Petitioner had any form of authorized leave after November 22, 1988. Other than having Dr. Mitteldorf call Ms. Bartelmo, Petitioner made no effort to have her leave of absence extended. Petitioner's authorized leave of absence ended on November 22, 1988. Petitioner was absent without authorized leave of absence beginning November 23, 1988, and continuing for more than 3 consecutive work days. By certified mailing on December 2, 1988, Petitioner was advised that her career service position was terminated as of December 1, 1988. Petitioner had been given a copy of Respondent's Employee Handbook on December 16, 1986, which provides in part: After an unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policies. Petitioner's request for a formal hearing was timely filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order concluding that Petitioner has abandoned her position with Respondent in the career service due to her unauthorized absence from employment for three consecutive workdays beginning November 23, 1988. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 9, 10, 15 and 16 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are unsupported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Administration Office of the General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Colomba DeSilva 2019 Southwest 29th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
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 Michael J. Rodgers abandoned his position and resigned from the career service within the contemplation of Rule 22A-7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact V. G. "Jerry" Collins, a DOT maintenance engineer for 14 years, was Michael Rodgers' supervisor in June of 1987, when DOT employed the latter as a highway maintenance technician II at its Perry yard. While recovering from a job-related injury, Mr. Rodgers had been assigned to pump gas there. After Mr. Rodgers began work for DOT, he was furnished a copy of DOT's employee handbook. DOT's Exhibit No. 6. On page 12, the handbook states: If, for any reason, you are going to be late or absent when prior approval has not been obtained, you must notify your immediate supervisor within one hour of your regular authorized starting time. This will allow the Department to effectively schedule your work assignments on a daily basis. When you call in, you should give the reason(s) for your absence, type of leave requested and date and time you expect to report back to work. If you are unable to report back to work on the date and time given contact your supervisor, again, to explain why and request an extension of leave as needed. If you fail to contact your supervisor or other authorized person, within the first hour of absence, you will be placed on unauthorized leave of absence without pay for the entire period of time absent from work. If there were extenuating circumstances to keep you from making such contact, this will be taken into consideration at a later time. If you do not indicate on the first day of absence that you will be absent more than one day, then call in on each successive day to report your absence. Failure to provide such notice will result in your being charged unauthorized leave without pay for all days absent where proper notification is not given. DOT's Exhibit No. 4. On page 43, the handbook discusses the abandonment rule: JOB ABANDONMENT After an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policy. DOT's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Rodgers signed a form acknowledging receipt of the handbook on December 16, 1983. DOT's Exhibit No. 5. At about four on the afternoon of Monday, June 22, 1987, Mr. Collins asked Mr. Rodgers when his next doctor's appointment was. Mr. Rodgers replied, "I need to see him tomorrow." (T. 35) He did not "state that it would be for illness" (T. 53) or specify the reason for the visit. (T. 74) Believing Mr. Rodgers had an appointment to see his doctor the following day, Mr. Collins said, "That's fine, when you come back to work bring a doctor's certificate." (T. 17) But the leave Mr. Collins authorized Mr. Rodgers to take was "not a leave of absence for illness." (T. 53) On Tuesday, June 23, 1987, A DOT employee marked Mr. Rodgers absent for the day on "authorized leave" (T. 18) without pay. Mr. Rodgers, who lives about 60 miles from Perry, travelled to Dr. Hauser's office in Old Town on Tuesday morning "to sit down and talk with him about some information [he] needed," (T. 36-37) concerning an automobile accident's forensic sequelae. He was told to return later that day, because the doctor could not see him immediately. Although he returned at noon, and on four different occasions that afternoon, the doctor gave other patients priority. Mr. Rodgers then telephoned DOT's Perry yard, and "gave the secretary . . . the message that [he] was unable to see the doctor and . . . would still need to be off . . . to attempt to see him again on Wednesday the 24th." (T. 24, 38) When Mr. Collins learned of Mr. Rodgers' conversation with the secretary, he asked William S. Clark to telephone Dr. Hauser's office, at the Tri-County Medical Center. Betty in Dr. Hauser's office told Mr. Clark that, although Mr. Rodgers had in fact visited the office, he had no appointment. On Wednesday morning, DOT's attendance records were marked to reflect that Mr. Rodgers was absent on authorized leave without pay, although Mr. Collins testified that leave never was authorized for that day. (T. 19, 80) Later Wednesday, Mr. Collins, under the impression that Mr. Rodgers "had lied about going to the doctor for a doctor's appointment," (T. 82) ordered that the attendance records for Tuesday and Wednesday be altered to show that Mr. Rodgers' leave was not authorized on those days. (T. 19, 80, 82) On the afternoon of Wednesday the 24th, Mr. Rodgers, who had inquired at the office about Dr. Hauser's availability on two occasions earlier in the day, saw Dr. Hauser, discussed effects of the automobile accident, and made an appointment for the following day to have his back examined. (T. 38) On Thursday, the 25th, he kept the appointment, and obtained a slip of paper attesting the fact. But, in Mr. Collins' view, Mr. Rodgers' employment had ended before he saw the doctor that day: "He was considered to have abandoned his position by 9:00 a.m. Thursday morning since he had not called in [after Tuesday afternoon.]" (T. 79) When Mr. Rodgers returned to work on Friday, June 26, 1987, Mr. Collins read, then returned, the note from the doctor, informed Mr. Rodgers of the changes in the attendance records, and advised him that his employment had terminated.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DOT reinstate Michael J. Rodgers as a highway maintenance technician II at its Perry yard, with back pay since June 26, 1987. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Aaron A. Green, Esquire P. O. Box 1265 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Adis Vila Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether or not the School Board of Madison County, Florida may terminate Respondent as one convicted of a crime of mortal turpitude in 1988 or 1989:, pursuant to Section 231.36(4)(c) F.S. [The Petition for Discharge also alleges that a "pattern" of issuing worthless checks over a period of years has been engaged in by Respondent but the "prayer" or charging portion of the Petition is silent as to whether the Petitioner intends this allegation to constitute a specific, separate charge.] Whether or not the School Board of Madison County, Florida may, pursuant to Section 231.44 F.S., terminate Respondent for absence without leave during the period he was incarcerated for passing worthless bank checks.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Gene Stokes, is the duly elected Superintendent of Schools of Madison County, Florida. Respondent, Doctor Randall Choice, III, is a member of the instructional staff of the district School Board of Madison County, Florida, employed by the Board under a continuing contract entered into on May 7, 1981. The Respondent was charged in an information filed by the State Attorney of the Third Judicial Circuit on June 27, 1988 with passing a worthless check, the payee being the Madison Inn, drawn upon The North Florida Education Credit Union, Tallahassee, Florida, in the sum of $106.00. There were not sufficient funds in the account to cover the payment of this check, and it was dishonored when presented to The North Florida Education Credit Union for payment. The Respondent was charged in an information filed by the state attorney of the Third Judicial Circuit on September 12, 1988 with passing a worthless check, the payee being Perry Coca Cola, drawn upon The North Florida Education Credit Union, Tallahassee, Florida, in the sum of $61.60. There were not sufficient funds in the account of the Respondent to cover the payment of this check, and it was dishonored when presented to The North Florida Education Credit Union for payment. The check given to the Madison Inn was for lodging and the check to Perry Coca Cola was for products which the Respondent had received. Neither transaction had anything to do with Respondent's professional activities as a school teacher. The Respondent appeared before the Honorable Wetzel Blair, County Judge of Madison County, Florida, on November 2, 1988 and entered a plea of "guilty" to the two informations noted above. The court at that time gave the Respondent the opportunity to make restitution on the two checks and to pay court costs of $46.00 within 30 days. If the Respondent made the restitution and paid the court costs within the prescribed time, the court agreed to withhold adjudication. The Respondent executed the offer of a plea of "guilty", but nonetheless, the court set the matter for trial on December 2, 1988 upon a plea of "not guilty." This "Order Setting Trial" was signed by the judge on November 2, 1988, and stated: Order setting trial date upon the above and foregoing plea of not guilty, trial of this case is set for non-jury trial, on `Friday, December 2, 1988 at 9:00 a.m. [Tr-51-72]. The Respondent did not pay the restitution or court costs within the 30-day period as directed by the Court, and, accordingly, the Respondent was ordered to appear before the Court on January 4, 1989. At that time, the court entered another order reciting that the Respondent had entered a plea of "guilty" on November 2, 1988 and had been directed to pay restitution for the checks in the cases within 30 days. The latter order further recited the fact that the Respondent had paid the restitution, but not within the stipulated time, and that Respondent was therefore sentenced to 30 days in the Madison County Jail. Upon the testimony of Madison County Judge Wetzel Blair, it is found that as of the date of formal administrative hearing, September 20, 1989, Respondent had not been adjudicated guilty of the crime of passing a worthless bank check, even though he was incarcerated in the Madison County Jail from January 4, 1989 until about 4:00 p.m. on January 23, 1989. (TR- 78) On January 4, 1989, the Respondent teacher immediately notified his principal, Mrs. Colleen Campbell, by telephone that he was in jail and that he needed to be granted leave for the period he would be incarcerated, predicted at 30 days. She informed Respondent that he had six days of accrued leave due him and agreed to sign she form requesting/approving that period of leave. She also informed Superintendent Stokes that Respondent was in jail, but she provided no written request for leave for Respondent beyond tee six days to which he was entitled. The superintendent did not know of Respondent's oral request for additional leave until Respondent was released from jail. The principal and superintendent have the authority to approve personal leave up to a teacher's accrued limit, but if insufficient personal leave time has been accumulated, the school board must approve the overage. It is unclear from the record whether preprinted forms are provided for this purpose, but apparently such requests must be made in writing. It is also unclear whether such requests are always submitted directly to the school board or if principals and the superintendent act as conduits for such requests to the school board. However, such written leave requests are usually taken up at each monthly school board meeting, which is often "after the fact" of the requesting teacher's physical absence. Sometimes, the applicant appears at the school board meeting in person. Respondent was released from jail or January 23, 1989 at 4:00 p.m.. On January 24, 1989, the Respondent reported personally to the superintendent, reported his release from jail, and sought to determine his leave status, At that time, the superintendent informed the Respondent that the superintendent was suspending the Respondent with pay until the next school board meeting. Also, the superintendent then informed the Respondent that the superintendent was reporting Respondent's conduct to the Education Practices Commission. The superintendent did then specifically inform the Respondent that he had been absent without leave, as it was presumed the Respondent had been incarcerated for passing worthless bank checks, and that was the thrust of their conversation. At all times during his incarceration of 19 days, the Respondent believed that he had taken the necessary steps to obtain authorized leave, and he assumed, without any affirmative action by the principal, superintendent, or school board that he had been approved for leave with pay up to his accrued six days and for leave without pay for the remainder of the incarceration period. Respondent was incarcerated January 5-23, 1989, inclusive. Resort to a calendar reveals that only 12 of Respondent's 19-day incarceration were week days or work days (One was Martin Luther King's Birthday Holiday.) Respondent was, in fact, approved for his six accrued leave days. Therefore, the balance that Respondent was actually absent without leave amounted to only six days. Neither Superintendent Stokes nor the school board, as a collegiate body, approved Respondent's oral request for leave without pay during the six days in question. Indeed, the school board did not convene until February, when, at the superintendent's request, it altered his suspension of Respondent with pay to a suspension without play. Respondent did not file any after-the-fact written request for leave without pay and present it to the school board when it met in February 1989 to consider the suspension request, although it may be inferred that the school board's suspension of Respondent had the retroactive effect of denying his oral leave request. The citizens of Madison County believe that the passing of a worthless check is morally wrong. The incarceration of the Respondent was not reported in any of the newspapers in the circulation area. There is evidence in the record that Respondent's absence created administrative problems for the superintendent and school board and interfered with the orderly education of students, although most of this disorder relates to the period after the Respondent's suspension, not during his short incarceration period.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that: The school Board of Madison County enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has not violated Section 231.36(4)(c) F.S., in that he has not been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, and that Respondent has violated Section 231.44 F.S., by being willfully absent from duty without leave, and suspending him without pay from the first day of his absence without leave until the conclusion of the current school year. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of January 1990 at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE 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 Hearing this 2nd day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-1445 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, 6 and 7 are accepted as modified to more closely conform to the record evidence as a whole and to eliminate subordinate and/or unnecessary-material. is rejected as a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact. Further, this has not been established as set forth in FOF 17- 19. is rejected as mostly legal argument. Otherwise the record differs as set out in FOF 6-10. is rejected as a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact. Further, this has not been established as set forth in FOF 6-10 and COL 4. 8 is rejected as a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact. Respondent's PFOF: 1-16 and 18-24 are accepted as modified to more closely conform to the record evidence as a whole and to eliminate subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative material. 17 is rejected because it is contrary to the record as stated. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin B. Browning, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32340 John R. Weed, P.A. 605 South Jefferson Street Perry, Florida 32347 Gene Stokes, Superintendent Madison County Schools 213 North Duval Madison, Florida 32340
The Issue Whether the petitioner abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service System under the circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed as a permanent full-time employee in the Bureau of Workers' Compensation within the Division of Risk Management in the Department of Insurance. Her job title was Secretary Specialist. Her immediate supervisor was Lawrence Sharp, Chief of the Bureau. However, on February 6, 1985, Mr. Sharp was on annual leave, and Ms. Peggy Veigas was the acting supervisor. On February 6, 1985, Petitioner took two hours of authorized leave from work from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., in order to attend a Leon County Court hearing on charges of cashing bad checks. The checks had been repaid in advance of the hearing: however, petitioner was immediately adjudicated guilty of writing bad checks, sentenced to 12 days in jail, and taken into custody. Petitioner was due to return to work at 10:00 a.m., but was unable to do so because of circumstances beyond her control. She was taken directly from her court appearance to the Leon County Jail. However, prior to being transported to the jail, she was able to ask her husband, who had accompanied her to court, to call her employer and ask for emergency leave to cover the 12 days she would be serving her sentence. Mr. Penney called petitioner's office at about 2 p.m. on February 6, 1985, and in the absence of Mr. Sharp the call was referred to Ms. Veigas, the acting supervisor. Mr. Penney explained that Mrs. Penney would not be at work for the next eight to ten days and requested emergency leave for that period of time. Mr. Penney was very vague about the nature of the emergency and Mrs. Penney's whereabouts. He did not explain that Mrs. Penney was in jail because he felt it would be embarrassing to Mrs. Penney. Ms. Veigas stated that emergency leave could be granted but she would have to talk to Mrs. Penney. She told Mr. Penney to have Mrs. Penney call her. Mr. Penney stated that Mrs. Penney could not call in and implied that Mrs. Penney was out of town. Ms. Veigas explained that Mrs. Penney needed to call her as soon as she could get to a phone and, if necessary, for her to call collect. Mr. Penney interpreted Mrs. Veigas' statement, that she could grant the leave but Mrs. Penney would have to call as soon as possible, as meaning that the leave was approved and that Mrs. Penney had to call work as soon as she was able to do so. However, in making the statement, Mrs. Veigas meant only that there was a possibility that leave would be granted and Mrs. Penney needed to call and explain the nature of the emergency. The subsequent actions of both Mr. Penney and Mrs. Veigas were consistent with their respective conceptions of the conversation. That afternoon, after the telephone call, Ms. Veigas went to the personnel office and discussed the matter with Ms. Cooper. Ms. Veigas wanted to find out how she should handle the request for leave and whether she should wait for Mr. Sharp to return from his vacation. Mr. Yohner, the Chief of Personnel Management, was consulted, and he stated that when Mrs. Penney called, Ms. Veigas would have to determine whether she would approve the leave or not. Ms. Veigas was told by Ms. Cooper to wait until Ms. Veigas heard from Mrs. Penney "so we would know whether it was an illness or whatever it was." (T-47) However, the nature of the emergency was determined without the necessity of a call from Mrs. Penney. Within a short period of time after the call from Mr. Penney, Ms. Veigas mentioned the request for emergency leave to Ms. Benefield. Ms. Benefield told Ms. Grissom about the call from Mr. Penney, and the two speculated that Mrs. Penney might be in jail. They were aware that Mrs. Penney had financial problems. While Ms. Grissom stood by, Ms. Benefield telephoned the jail and was told that Mrs. Penney was in jail for passing bad checks. They immediately communicated the information to Ms. Veigas, and the three of them, along with a woman named Edna, discussed the situation for about five or ten minutes. Ms. Veigas then conveyed the information to Mr. Yohner, Ms. Cooper and Mr. Beardon, the Director of the Division of Risk Management, who had previously been informed of the call from Mr. Penney. The following day Mr. Sharp returned to work and was informed of the entire situation. Mr. Sharp discussed the matter with Mr. Beardon. Mr. Beardon had his assistant call the State Attorney's Office to verify that Mrs. Penney was in jail. Thus, by the end of the workday on February 7, 1985, Mrs. Penney's co-workers, her immediate supervisor, the Chief of Personnel Management, and the Director of the Division of Risk Management were all aware that Mrs. Penney, through her husband, had requested emergency leave, and they were all aware that the emergency leave had been requested due to Mrs. Penney's incarceration. On either February 6th or 7th, Mr. Yohner notified Mr. Gresham, the Director of the Division of Administration and Mr. Yohner's supervisor, that a possible abandonment of position situation existed. Mr. Gresham was not informed that petitioner had requested emergency leave. On Friday, February 8th, or on the following Monday, Mr. Sharp called a friend of his in the Department of Administration, Don Bradley, to gain advice on application of the rule relating to abandonment of position. He was told that when someone missed three days of work without having authorization, it was the same thing as resigning and required termination. Mr. Sharp relayed the information to Mr. Beardon. Mr. Sharp did not consider petitioner's leave request and did not know whether he had the authority to approve the leave since at least a portion of the leave requested would have been without pay.2 After three days expired and Mrs. Penney had neither reported for work nor called the office, Mr. Beardon contacted Mr. Yohner to discuss the situation. He also discussed the situation with his superior in the Department. Though Mr. Beardon was aware that Mrs. Penney had requested leave through her husband and was aware that she was absent from work only because she had no choice, Mr. Beardon did not consider her request for leave. His reason was that Mrs. Penney did not personally request the leave. He did not consider the possibility that Mrs. Penney was not able to call in person. Mr. Beardon felt that a call from Mrs. Penney was necessary to find out "all of the pertinent facts and why the request was needed." However, it is apparent that Mr. Beardon already knew why the requested leave was needed and had already discovered the pertinent facts. Nevertheless, Mr. Beardon determined that, under the abandonment rule,3 petitioner had abandoned her job and her employment should be terminated. He recommended that the personnel office proceed with the action in accordance with the rule. Mr. Yohner informed Mr. Gresham of Mr. Bearden's recommendation that petitioner be terminated from the Career Service via the abandonment rule. A letter was prepared for Mr. Gresham's signature, notifying Petitioner of her termination from the Career Service. Mr. Gresham signed the letter and mailed it to petitioner at her home address. By the letter dated February 11, 1985, and then by an amended letter dated February 12, 1985, petitioner was notified that she had been absent without authorized leave for three consecutive days, and therefore she was deemed to have abandoned her position pursuant to Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and to have resigned from the Career Service. Meanwhile, Mr. Penney was under the impression that the emergency leave had been granted. He was able to speak with his wife for the first time on February 9, 1985, and the first question petitioner asked her husband was whether the leave had been granted. He told her that it had been, and she displayed visible signs of relief at the knowledge. Petitioner's husband also told her that she should call Ms. Veigas at her earliest opportunity. Mrs. Penney made diligent attempts to contact her employer both before and after she spoke with her husband on February 9, 1985. On each day of her incarceration she made written requests to the Captain at the jail for permission to use the telephone to call her employer. However, she received no response. In accordance with jail policy, which allowed one phone call per week at a set time, she was permitted use of the telephone on only one occasion, on February 11, 1985 at about 11 p.m. in the evening. Mrs. Penney's sentence was reduced by Judge McClamma and she was released from jail on February 14, 1985. She received the termination letter that evening when she got home. The next morning she called Mr. Yohner and stated that she wanted to return to work. Mr. Yohner informed her that she was no longer an employee of the Department. Mrs. Penney's position was advertised on February 19th and readvertised on March 4, 1985. Sometime after March 4, 1985, a replacement was hired. Although the workers compensation bureau had a very heavy case load, Mrs. Penney's work performance had been satisfactory. Indeed, she had been promoted to the position of Secretary Specialist from her previous position of Clerk-Typist III with the bureau. Petitioner had no intent to abandon her position in the Career Service, and she had no intent to resign her position. The Department had actual knowledge of the petitioner's whereabouts during her absence from work, and had actual knowledge that she intended to return to work as soon as she could. Further, the Department was aware that petitioner had requested leave to cover the period of time she would be gone. However, instead of taking action on the request, one way or the other, the Department left the request in limbo. A decision was never made to approve or disapprove the request. The only explanation given for not considering the request was that Mrs. Penney had not made it personally. However, it is quite clear that at the time of Mr. Penney's call the Department considered the call a legitimate request for leave from Mrs. Penney even though the call was not made by her. Ms. Veigas did not tell Mr. Penney that the leave could not be granted because Mrs. Penney had not called in person. Indeed, the first thing Ms. Veigas did after the telephone call was go to the personnel office to find out how she should "process the request". The only reason that the Department wanted to talk to Mrs. Penney personally, prior to determining whether leave should be granted, was to discover the nature of the emergency. Although Mr. Penney explained that there was an emergency, that Mrs. Penney was unable to call, and that leave was being requested to cover the period of time that Mrs. Penney would be unable to work, he was very vague about the nature of the emergency. The Department understandably wanted to know the reason for the request before deciding to grant leave. However, once the Department discovered Mrs. Penney's circumstances, it was in a position to make an informed decision on the leave request, and there was no rational basis for its failure to do so. Although the granting of leave is discretionary, the discretion must be exercised. Apparently, the Department officials believed that Mrs. Penney's absence from work for three consecutive days mandated termination notwithstanding the pending request for leave. Because the Department failed to take any action on the leave request, Mrs. Penney was never notified that her request for leave had been denied. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, it must be concluded that Mrs. Penney did not abandon her position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered ruling that the circumstances presented by this case do not constitute abandonment of position as contemplated by Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a) and directing that the petitioner be reinstated to her former position as of February 15, 1985. DONE and ENTERED this ;26th of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of December, 1985.
