Findings Of Fact In early 1979, the Department of Administration, Division of Personnel, prepared for the Governor a document entitled Recommended Salaries and Benefits for Career Service Employees for the Biennium July 1, 1979, to June 30, 1981. The purpose of this document was to assist the Governor in making recommendations to the 1979 Legislature regarding salaries and benefits for the State's Career Service employees. Approximately one month after publication of its initial recommendations, the Department of Administration published a supplement to those recommendations to reflect the results of collective bargaining negotiations with various bargaining units and to clarify certain points. With respect to merit salary increases, it was recommended that all funds not distributed as guaranteed merit increases in accordance with specific collective bargaining agreements be "distributed at the discretion of management" to employees with six months satisfactory service as of September 1, 1980. For the supervisory bargaining unit of which all Petitioners are members, all merit funds were to be distributed at the discretion of management. The Governor's recommendations contained in the document prepared by the Department of Administration were furnished to legislators and all State agencies prior to adoption of the Appropriations Act. In 1979, in the Appropriations Act for the Biennium 1979-81, as supplemented in 1980 by the 1980 Supplemental General Appropriations Act, the Legislature appropriated certain funds to be used for merit salary increases for Career Service employees. These raises were to become effective September 1, 1980. Funds were allocated in a total dollar amount for each collective bargaining unit within each state agency. The Legislature, in appropriating funds for salary increases and benefits for Career Service employees, specifically provided that such funds were to be distributed in accordance with the Governor's recommendations. Ch. 79-212, Sec. 21, Laws of Florida. The Department of Environmental Regulation received merit increase monies for its Career Service employees within the following bargaining units: supervisory-professional, professional, administrative clerical, operational services, and managerial/confidential. Petitioners Leslee A. Williams, Sylvia E. Sakamoto, and Rosemary Bottcher are Career Service employees employed in the Bureau of Water Analysis, Division of Environmental Programs. Leslee Williams is a Microbiologist III. Sylvia Sakamoto and Rosemary Bottcher are Chemist III's. Petitioners are employees within the Supervsory/professional collective bargaining unit. On July 31, 1980, the Secretary of the Department of Administration sent a memorandum to all Department heads with attached instructions for implementation of salary increases for employees in all affected bargaining units, including the supervisory unit. The instructions for distribution of merit salary increases to employees in the supervisory unit provided that the distribution of funds to eligible employees was discretionary with management, subject only to a cap on the maximum amount any employee could receive. This cap of 10, 7.5, or 5 percent of an employee's salary is determined by the employee's official performance evaluation rating. With regard to "discretionary merit salary advancements", the instructions noted that: These increases are provided to reward current employees based upon their performance. These increases are intended to allow employees to progress within the salary range in recognition of their increased worth to the State as an employee. The proper implementation of merit salary advancements is critical to the State's ability to reward tie most competent, qualified and productive employees. While the funds are discretionary as to the actual amount any one employee may receive, management has no discretion as to whether the Funds may or may not be distributed. These instructions were received by DER in early August of 1980, and DER immediately began taking steps necessary to implement the salary increases in time for inclusion in employees' September paychecks. In August, 1980, the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation authorized each of the directors of the three principal divisions within the Department (the Divisions of Environmental Programs, Environmental Permitting, and Administrative Services), as well as the offices of General Counsel and the Secretary, individually, to establish or determine the methods, standards for determining employee merit and employee performance and performance to be used within each division or office for identification of those Career Service employees eligible to receive a merit salary increase. By memorandum dated August 2, 1980 the Director of the Division of Environmental Programs requested that all Bureau Chiefs in his division and certain supervisors meet with him to establish a ranking of employees within the division to be used in determining the amount of merit salary increase each eligible employee would receive. This memorandum provided, in part, as follows: . . . We have available a certain amount of "discretionary" money which can be given as merit raises. This will be over and above those pay increases through pay adjustments or cost of living increases, which are mandated by the Legislature. The discretionary amounts are small; but they are significant enough that we should make every effort to insure fairness recognition of outstanding service and encouragement of those whom the Department needs to keep. The final decision on all increases will be mine alone, but the preliminary ranking and classification of the various persons will be done in collaboration with all of you. We will begin with the personnel evaluations. However, since grading standards for the evaluations differ among various supervisors, we will attempt to bring all evaluation ratings to comparable scales. We will then try to emphasize those qualities, both within the ratings and those not included in the particular categories, which most contribute to the mission of the Department. We must all try to eliminate our personal biases in this process and the biases inherent in the evaluation system. If we succeed, the raises will be both fair and perceived as fair and will be a help to Division and Department morale. I ask your complete cooperation in this process. (Emphasis added) On September 2, 1980, the Director of the Division of Environmental Programs sent a memorandum to all employees of the division explaining the process used in computing merit salary increases for division employees. The September 2, 1980, memorandum contained the following provisions: The raises were awarded based on relative scores given to each employee. This scoring was done by the Director, Deputy Director and Bureau Chiefs (together with independent office heads for those classes which contained their subordinates) in joint session. First, each employee's evaluation was considered and then related to that of ether employees in the class. The employee's other attributes and contribution to his program and the Department was then discussed. His immediate supervisor's rating tendencies were considered (and we, incidentally, gained a very good idea of how different were the different scoring scales used) and the supervisor was called and consulted if there was difficulty in reaching a consensus. In almost every case one or more of the Bureau Chiefs, other than the employee's own, had experience and opinions on that employee to share. We repeatedly examined each other on the possibility of bias and favoritism. Finally, the employee was given a weighted percentage score. Although some discussions were more protracted than others, complete consensus was reached in every case. The Director and Deputy Director then translated the relative scores into both the base salary and the dollars available within the class. Some small further subjective judgements were necessary because of rounding and some inexactness in the formula but they were extremely minor - no more than $1.00 per person and usually much less. The raises given reflect very closely the relative scores from the joint sessions. There is considerable agreement between the curve of the merit raises and the curve of the evaluations. They are far from congruent, however. Some employees with relatively high evaluations got no merit raises; others relatively low got substantial ones. In each case the discussions were very extensive and the decision was made only after all were convinced that an injustice would otherwise result. Such inflated and deflated evaluations will be the subject of much additional scrutiny in the coming year. Merit salary increases for all 192 Career Service employees within the Division of Environmental Programs were determined pursuant to the methods, standards for determining employee merit and employee performance, and procedures contained in the memoranda of August 25, 1980, and September 2, 1980. The three Division directors, the General Counsel, and the Secretary of DER each used different methods to award merit salary increases to employees in their respective offices. The method used by the Director of the Division of Environmental Programs to award merit salary increases for 1980 was different from the various methods used by DER in the past to distribute similar appropriations. Since at least 1975, DER has made a separate determination each year that funds appropriated for merit increases of the manner in which those funds would be distributed. A decision made one year was not prospectively applicable to future appropriations. Since at least 1975, the Department of Environmental Regulation has evaluated the job performance of its Career Service employees on an annual basis pursuant to procedures applicable to the entire Department. Currently, the Department follows the employee performance evaluation procedures contained in Section 3.2, Department of Environmental Regulation, Administrative Services Internal Management Policies and Procedures Manual ("ASIMPP") including exhibits attached thereto. These procedures and criteria were adopted by the Department pursuant to Rule 22A-9.02(1), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 110.201, Florida Statutes, but have never been adopted as "rules" through Section 120.54, Florida Statutes rulemaking proceedings. The policy of the Department, as stated in the ASIMPP, is to use performance evaluations ". . . to award or deny salary increases . . ." In 1976, 1977 and 1978, merit salary increases were awarded to career service employees in the Department based solely upon performance evaluations. In each of those years, the "merit" of employees was determined by the annual performance evaluations, but a differing method of computing the dollar amount was used for each year. However, within categories of employees having the same performance evaluation rating, the method of calculating the dollar amount was uniformly applied. These standards and procedures for awarding merit salary increases in 1976, 1977, and 1978 were in written form, were established by the Secretary of the Department, and were communicated to all employees. There were no merit raises in 1979. Since at least June 19, 1978, the Department of Environmental Regulation has also had in effect a written policy statement which provides in part: The personnel Rules and Regulations provide that merit/anniversary increases be based on performance evaluations Petitioners were given performance evaluations in the summer of 1980 pursuant to the procedures in Sec. 3.2, ASIMPP and each Petitioner was rated "above satisfactory." Petitioners each had at least six months continuous and satisfactory service on September 1, 1980, and were otherwise eligible to receive a merit salary increase on September 1, 1980, but were denied such a salary increase. Neither of the methods and procedures used by the Division of Environmental Programs to distribute merit salary increases to division employees for 1980, as outlined in the memoranda of August 25, 1980 and September 2, 1980, nor the methods used by the other two divisions and the General Counsel and Secretary were adopted through formal rulemaking in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. In each case, the procedures used applied only to Career Service employees within that division or office who were eligible for a merit increase and were used only to determine the distribution of those funds appropriated by the Legislature for the biennium 1979-81. Counsel for Petitioners and Respondent stipulated that the methods used by the Division of Environmental Programs to determine merit salary increases affect the private interests of Petitioners, and further, that Petitioners have standing to bring this petition pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Counsel for both Petitioners and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such findings of fact are not adopted in this order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed his petition and request for formal hearing approximately December 1, 1992. The attachments thereto suggest that he began requesting redress June 19, 1992. The agency referred his December 1, 1992 petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S. The Petitioner alleges that Petitioner's substantial interests are adversely affected by his employing agency paying other employees similarly situated more than Petitioner is paid. The Petition's attachments also obliquely put at issue the agency's refusal to process a special pay increase request for an individual exception in Petitioner's pay rate to the Department of Administration (now Department of Management Services). Such an application was refused by the agency approximately May 21, 1990. (See Petition attachments and Petitioner's Exhibit P-6.) Petitioner has not formally petitioned to invalidate any agency rule. Petitioner was hired by the Department of Corrections on April 6, 1965 in the position of guard. On September 1, 1965, he was promoted to Road Prison Officer I (RPO I), and his salary was increased. On October 27, 1989, he was promoted to Correctional Officer II (CO II). At the time of his promotion to CO II, his biweekly salary was $1,029.07. The maximum biweekly salary for that class was $1,004.14. Salary ranges for a job-class are posted on the job vacancy notice for that position. Petitioner had constructive, if not actual, knowledge of the pay grade range (maximum and minimum) at the time he accepted his October 27, 1989 promotion to CO II. Petitioner remained in the CO II class as of the date of formal hearing, however CO II is now known as Correctional Officer-Sergeant. The Petition herein has not affirmatively put at issue the Respondent agency's failure to promote Petitioner since 1989, however it is noted that at all times material, Petitioner met or exceeded all job performance requirements of a CO II. Petitioner, like all other employees similarly situated, has received salary adjustments and pay raises as appropriated by the legislature since October 27, 1989, even though he exceeded the maximum salary for the class he was occupying at the time. The testimony is clear that, as a CO II, Petitioner's salary is negotiated with the Respondent agency by a bargaining representative of the Police Benevolent Association, and that Petitioner was aware, at least by May 21, 1990, when he was denied an individual pay adjustment above the maximum for his pay grade, that he could file a grievance. He has never done so. From the foregoing, the only reasonable inference is that Petitioner has, at all times material, been subject to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement for State of Florida career service employees which provides for a grievance procedure. The terms of the collective bargaining agreement are not in evidence, however. As of the date of formal hearing, Petitioner also has filed no action before the Public Employees Relations Commission. The maximum authorized annual salary for a Correctional Officer- Sergeant as of the date of formal hearing was $29,479.84. At the present time, six employees ranked as Correctional Officer-Sergeant receive salaries in excess of Petitioner's salary. These employees in the same class are James Vaughn, Charles Williams, John C. Norman, Glynn H. Dunham, James Newsome and James Hamilton. Some of these employees have been employed by Respondent fewer years total than Petitioner. James Vaughn was promoted to CO II (now Correctional Officer-Sergeant) on April 19, 1974; Charles Williams on November 28, 1975; John C. Norman on February 20, 1976; Glynn H. Dunham on November 9, 1975; James Newsome on January 9, 1976; and James Hamilton originally on December 1, 1975 and then after a separation from employment, rehired as a CO II on January 1, 1985. As of January 1, 1987, all six of these employees were granted an across the board pay raise which equalized their salaries. The excess raise was given to the employees in a lump sum payment. Employees working in certain geographical regions of the state were granted a set pay adjustment for that region, up to $5,000. This amount may cause an employee's salary to exceed the maximum of the pay range for the CO II class. The Petitioner does not work in one of these geographic regions. By the time Petitioner was promoted to the position of CO II on October 27, 1989, the other six employees were earning $1,120.04, biweekly. Although their salaries exceeded the maximum salary for that class ($1,004.14), their pay raises were appropriated by the legislature across the board, regardless of whether the maximum range would be exceeded. Petitioner was also being paid in excess of the maximum for his class (RPO I) and in excess of the promotional class (CO II). Petitioner's biweekly salary at that time was $1,029.07. He also was given a raise in salary whenever it was authorized by a legislative appropriation bill. (See Finding of Fact 5). In early 1993, Petitioner brought to Respondent agency's attention that another employee, Richard E. Cobb, was making a salary in excess of what was permissible. Once the Department became aware of the error, it forwarded the information to the State of Florida, Office of the Comptroller for review. The error was corrected, and Richard E. Cobb's salary was reduced prospectively and the retroactive recovery of the overpayment was begun through deductions to Mr. Cobb's salary. Petitioner also complained about employee Blendage Weeks being promoted on September 1, 1989 with a 3.5 percent pay raise. Mr. Weeks is not a similarly situated employee because he is in a different job class than Petitioner. Also, although Petitioner believed that Mr. Weeks was given a raise in excess of the maximum for his class (Correctional Officer Chief I), in fact, the evidence shows that Mr. Weeks received a raise that brought him up from his then salary of $1,209.55 biweekly to the maximum for his class of $1,253.31 biweekly. 17. Rule 60K-2.002(5), F.A.C. (formerly 22A-2.001) provides: An employee shall not be paid in excess of the maximum of the salary range for a class, unless such payments are authorized by these rules or legislation. 18. Rule 60K-2.004(1)(b), F.A.C. (formerly 22A-2.004) provides: The agency head is authorized to grant a promotional appointment to an individual at a base rate of pay from the minimum to the maximum of the salary range for the class to which promoted provided such increase does not exceed 10 percent of the employee's base rate of pay prior to promotion. Pursuant to the foregoing rules, promotional pay raises are treated differently than legislatively appropriated pay raises and the agency may grant a promotional pay raise as long as it does not exceed the maximum of the salary range for the class into which the employee is being promoted. Petitioner does not fall into any of the protected classes governed by Section 760.10, F.S. and has filed no charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the relief sought be denied and the petition therefore dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of December, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7417 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-2 Accepted, except as to month and day. Accepted as to content of Rule 60K-2.002(5) [not 60K-1.002(5)] F.A.C. The remainder of PFOF 3 is not properly cited. Accepted. Accepted as to what the salaries are and their names. The remainder of PFOF 5 is rejected as mere argument. Respondent's PFOF: 1-7,9-11,14-15 Accepted. 8,12 Accepted as modified to more accurately reflect the record evidence. 13 Covered in FOF 8; otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as mere argument. Covered except as cumulative; see FOF 16. Rejected as evidentiary rulings or cumulative; see FOF 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian T. Hayes, P.A., Esquire 245 East Washington Street Monticello, Florida 32344 Laura S. Leve, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Harry K. Singletary, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, including June 28, 1993, through January 27, 1994, an employee of the Department working in the economic services unit of the Department's District XI (hereinafter referred to as the "District"). In 1990, Petitioner occupied a PAS (Public Assistance Specialist) I position that, in or around June of that year, was one of 182 such positions in the District to be reclassified to a PAS II position as part of the Department's implementation of the new FLORIDA computer system. 2/ Those employees occupying these reclassified positions (hereinafter referred to as the "upgraded employees") whose salaries were below the minimum salary for a PAS II received a salary increase to raise their salary to the minimum. Petitioner was among the employees who received such a salary increase. Such action was taken in accordance with the following Department policy set forth at page 11 of HRSP 60-1: When an employee is promoted, a salary increase to at least the minimum salary of the higher level position will be made. How- ever, an increase of up to ten percent above the current base salary or ten percent above the minimum for the new class may be approved. An increase of up to ten percent of the current base salary is normally used when the employee's salary is the same or nearly the same as the minimum for the new class. An increase of up to ten percent above the minimum for the new class may be granted when an employee possesses training or experience substantially above the minimum training and experience required for the higher class and it is determined that the employee is exceptionally well qualified for the position. These increases must be approved by an assistant secretary or district administrator. Because of funding constraints that existed at the time, no other salary increases were given to the upgraded employees. Funds for such additional salary increases became available toward the end of the 1992-1993 fiscal year. The increases were approved at both the Department and District level. Petitioner and the other upgraded employees were advised of the increases by a memorandum dated July 7, 1993, from the District XI District Administrator. The District Administrator's memorandum read as follows: Your position has been identified as one which was upgraded as a result of the FLORIDA implementation in 1990/1991. At the time, our records indicate that you received a partial increase, or none at all, because of budgetary constraints. Due to the identification of available monies prior to the end of the Fiscal Year, we are pleased to inform you that you will be receiving a pay increase in your salary war- rant on July 9, 1993. The amount of the in- crease will be either 10[percent] or the difference between what you received in 1990/1991 and 10[percent], and was effective June 28, 1993. Should you have any questions about this in- crease or how it was calculated, please call Arelis Valero at 377-5197. Your continued dedication and service to HRS is sincerely appreciated. District personnel miscalculated the amount of Petitioner's approved salary increase (which was "the difference between what [she had] received in 1990 . . . and 10[percent]" of her pre-reclassification base salary). As a result, following June 28, 1993, the effective date of the increase, for the pay periods ending January 27, 1994, Petitioner was overpaid a total of $769.39. The District discovered the error and revised its payroll records to reflect Petitioner's correct salary. In addition, by memorandum, it notified Petitioner of the mistake that had been made and advised her that it was her responsibility to repay the amount she had been overpaid. By letter dated November 1, 1995, the District XI District Administrator informed Petitioner that the overpayment would be recovered through payroll deductions beginning January 12, 1996, amounting to "10[percent] of [her] gross salary each pay period, unless [she] prefer[red] a single lump sum, until the balance [was] paid." The letter further provided, in part, as follows: If you do not dispute the overpayment, but feel that the repayment schedule of 10 [percent] of your gross salary per pay period is overly burdensome, please call Thomas Franklin at 377-5055 Number135 and he will review with you what must be documented and submitted to the Comptroller's Office (Capitol Building, Suite 1201, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350) to request a modification. While the total amount eventually repaid to the State cannot be adjusted, the Comptroller may be convinced to lengthen the repayment schedule by lessen- ing the percentage withheld each pay period. If you do not agree that you were overpaid this amount, you have the right to an adminis- trative hearing under 120.57(1) or (2), Florida Statutes, and Rules 10-2.036 and 28-5, Florida Administrative Code. You may request a formal or an informal hearing. If a request for a formal hearing is made, your petition must be in compliance with Rule 28-5.021, Florida Administrative Code. Please note that Rule 28-5.201(2) specifies that your petition should contain a concise discussion of the specific item in dispute. Informal hearings are governed by Rules 28-5.501-503, Florida Administrative Code. Your request for either a formal or informal hearing must be received by this office, attention Thomas Franklin, within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this letter, in accordance with Rule 10-2.036, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to request a timely hearing shall be deemed a waiver of your right to hearing. By letter dated November 6, 1995, Petitioner advised the Department that that she was not in agreement with the "content" of the District Administrator's November 1, 1995, letter, and that she desired to have a hearing on the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department: find that, from June 28, 1993, until January 27, 1994, Petitioner was overpaid a total of $769.39; notify the Department of Management Services of this finding; and refer the matter to the Comptroller so that the Comptroller may take appropriate action to recover these moneys owed to the state. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1996.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to training and education at Respondent’s expense in order to return him to suitable gainful employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Respondent or Department), is the agency of the state of Florida charged with administration of medical care coordination and reemployment services that are necessary to assist employees injured in the workplace to return to suitable gainful employment. Petitioner, Nathan Lavon Florence, is a 37-year-old man residing in Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner received his Graduation Equivalent Diploma in 2001, and held a number of different jobs between 2001 and 2007, including line cook, sales associate, construction laborer, and warehouse worker. Petitioner began an electrician apprenticeship program in 2007, which he completed in May 2012. Petitioner began working for Barnes Electrical Company, Inc. (Barnes), as an electrician’s helper in August 2013. Barnes paid Petitioner biweekly at the rate of $13 per hour for regular work and $19.50 per hour for overtime. On July 16, 2014, Petitioner suffered an on-the-job injury in which his right hand was crushed by a light pole. A workers’ compensation claim (the underlying claim) was filed with Amerisure Insurance Companies, Barnes’ workers’ compensation carrier. Petitioner’s authorized treating physician was Dr. Steven Kronlage. On October 22, 2015, following three surgeries and a period of treatment, Dr. Kronlage determined Petitioner had attained maximum medical improvement and referred Petitioner for pain management. Dr. Kronlage assigned Petitioner a permanent impairment rating of 15 percent and assigned the following work restrictions: medium-level work, no use of power tools with right hand, and no lifting more than 20 pounds with right hand. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, medium-level work limits lifting to a maximum of 50 pounds. Barnes was unable to offer Petitioner employment that met his work restrictions. The parties to the underlying claim entered into a joint stipulation on January 14, 2016. The joint stipulation “resolv[ed] all issues” and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The parties agree that the Claimant’s average weekly wage shall be amended upward by $7.59 resulting in a new average weekly wage of $386.09. The Employer/Carrier shall recalculate Claimant’s past indemnity benefits utilizing the average weekly wage of $386.09 and shall pay past due benefits utilizing this average weekly wage plus penalties and interest. Petitioner was represented by counsel in the underlying claim. On November 8, 2015, Petitioner applied to the Department for a vocational assessment to determine the best way to return Petitioner to suitable gainful employment. On November 19, 2015, the Department issued Petitioner a decision letter determining that the best way to return Petitioner to suitable gainful employment was through job placement assistance. Cynthia Baker was the vocational rehabilitation consultant assigned to Petitioner’s case. Ms. Baker based her recommendation for job placement assistance on Petitioner’s educational background, his pre-injury average weekly wage (AWW), his work restrictions, and the “transferable skills” Petitioner could bring to the job market (e.g., knowledge of the English language; knowledge of materials, methods, and tools used in construction and repair of housing; and knowledge of machines and tools). Ms. Baker conducted a labor market survey to identify job openings appropriate for Petitioner’s skill level and work restrictions. Her goal was to identify jobs which could return Petitioner to employment at, or close to, his pre-injury AWW. The labor market survey identified a variety of jobs available in the Pensacola area which Ms. Baker deemed suitable to Petitioner’s skill level and work restrictions. Potential jobs included customer service representative for Florida Pest Control, retail sales associate for T-Mobile, asset protection/loss prevention specialist for Home Depot, and vehicle transporter for Hertz. Ms. Baker prepared a résumé for Petitioner to utilize in applying for jobs identified in the labor market survey, and she connected Petitioner with Michelle Godson at CareerSource, the customer service specialist who would further assist Petitioner with employment opportunities in the area. Petitioner did not apply for any of the jobs identified by Respondent through the labor market survey. Rather, Petitioner found employment on his own and sought no further assistance from Respondent. Petitioner began work in December 2015 with WIS International (WIS) as an inventory associate. The job entails traveling to, and conducting inventory for, a variety of retail stores in the region. Petitioner utilizes a hand-held scanner to complete retail inventories. Petitioner’s rate of pay is $8.50 per hour and he is paid on a weekly basis. Petitioner works part-time for WIS, thus his earnings are below his pre-injury AWW. Petitioner has no plans to apply for a full-time position with WIS, although full-time work has become available with WIS during his employment. Petitioner invested significant time and effort toward his electrician apprenticeship, and desires a career in a field he enjoyed as much as electrician’s helper. Petitioner has requested the Department provide him with a training and education program to become a radiology (x-ray) technician. Specifically, he would like to attend Pensacola State College’s Radiography Program. Mary Cilek is a senior management analyst supervisor with the Department and reviewed Petitioner’s request for training and education. Ms. Cilek researched information on the internet regarding the personal qualities of, and physical demands on, radiology technicians, as well as the educational requirements to become a radiology technician. No competent evidence was introduced on which the undersigned could make a finding as to the particular educational requirements to become a radiology technician, or whether Petitioner would be able to perform the duties of a radiology technician within his work restrictions.1/ Petitioner’s argument in this case is twofold: First, the Department should assist him to obtain a career, rather than “any old job” that would allow him to earn at or near his pre- injury AWW. Second, Petitioner objects to the Department’s reliance on his pre-injury AWW as the basis for a labor market survey. Petitioner maintains that his pre-injury AWW was artificially low because he was out of work, or working part- time, during some of the weeks prior to the injury due to an illness. Section 440.491(1)(g), Florida Statutes, defines “suitable gainful employment” as employment . . . that is reasonably attainable in light of the employee’s age, education, work history, transferable skills, previous occupation, and injury, and which offers an opportunity to restore the individual as soon as practicable and nearly as possible to his or her average weekly earnings at the time of injury. While Petitioner maintains that none of the jobs identified was reasonably obtainable, given Petitioner’s work history, education, and work restrictions, Petitioner introduced insufficient evidence on which the undersigned could make that finding.2/ In this case, Petitioner’s AWW was established by the stipulation. Petitioner introduced no evidence that he had moved to set aside the stipulation or otherwise challenge the determination of his AWW. Petitioner did not claim that the stipulation was obtained by either fraud or duress, or based on mistake of fact.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order determining that Petitioner, Nathan Lavon Florence, is not eligible for training and education services at Respondent’s expense. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Suzanne Van Wyk 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 1st day of July, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, including June 28, 1993, through January 27, 1994, an employee of the Department working in the economic services unit of the Department's District XI (hereinafter referred to as the "District"). In 1990, Petitioner occupied a PAS (Public Assistance Specialist) I position that, in or around June of that year, was one of 182 such positions in the District to be reclassified to a PAS II position as part of the Department's implementation of the new FLORIDA computer system. 2/ Those employees occupying these reclassified positions (hereinafter referred to as the "upgraded employees") whose salaries were below the minimum salary for a PAS II received a salary increase to raise their salary to the minimum. Petitioner was among the employees who received such a salary increase. Such action was taken in accordance with the following Department policy set forth at page 11 of HRSP 60-1: When an employee is promoted, a salary increase to at least the minimum salary of the higher level position will be made. How- ever, an increase of up to ten percent above the current base salary or ten percent above the minimum for the new class may be approved. An increase of up to ten percent of the current base salary is normally used when the employee's salary is the same or nearly the same as the minimum for the new class. An increase of up to ten percent above the minimum for the new class may be granted when an employee possesses training or experience substantially above the minimum training and experience required for the higher class and it is determined that the employee is exceptionally well qualified for the position. These increases must be approved by an assistant secretary or district administrator. Because of funding constraints that existed at the time, no other salary increases were given to the upgraded employees. Funds for such additional salary increases became available toward the end of the 1992-1993 fiscal year. The increases were approved at both the Department and District level. Petitioner and the other upgraded employees were advised of the increases by a memorandum dated July 7, 1993, from the District XI District Administrator. The District Administrator's memorandum read as follows: Your position has been identified as one which was upgraded as a result of the FLORIDA implementation in 1990/1991. At the time, our records indicate that you received a partial increase, or none at all, because of budgetary constraints. Due to the identification of available monies prior to the end of the Fiscal Year, we are pleased to inform you that you will be receiving a pay increase in your salary warrant on July 9, 1993. The amount of the increase will be either 10[percent] or the difference between what you received in 1990/1991 and 10 [percent], and was effective June 28, 1993. Should you have any questions about this increase or how it was calculated, please call Arelis Valero at 377-5197. Your continued dedication and service to HRS is sincerely appreciated. District personnel miscalculated the amount of Petitioner's approved salary increase (which was "the difference between what [she had] received in 1990 . . . and 10[percent]" of her pre-reclassification base salary). As a result, following June 28, 1993, the effective date of the increase, for the pay periods ending January 27, 1994, Petitioner was overpaid a total of $1,144.72. The District discovered the error and revised its payroll records to reflect Petitioner's correct salary. In addition, by memorandum, it notified Petitioner of the mistake that had been made and advised her that it was her responsibility to repay the amount she had been overpaid. By letter dated November 1, 1995, the District XI District Administrator informed Petitioner that the overpayment would be recovered through payroll deductions beginning January 12, 1996, amounting to "10[percent] of [her] gross salary each pay period, unless [she] prefer[red] a single lump sum, until the balance [was] paid." The letter further provided, in part, as follows: If you do not dispute the overpayment, but feel that the repayment schedule of 10 [percent] of your gross salary per pay period is overly burdensome, please call Thomas Franklin at 377-5055 Number135 and he will review with you what must be documented and submitted to the Comptroller's Office (Capitol Building, Suite 1201, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350) to request a modification. While the total amount eventually repaid to the State cannot be adjusted, the Comptroller may be convinced to lengthen the repayment schedule by lessening the percentage withheld each pay period. If you do not agree that you were overpaid this amount, you have the right to an adminis- trative hearing under 120.57(1) or (2), Florida Statutes, and Rules 10-2.036 and 28-5, Florida Administrative Code. You may request a formal or an informal hearing. If a request for a formal hearing is made, your petition must be in compliance with Rule 28-5.021, Florida Administrative Code. Please note that Rule 28-5.201(2) specifies that your petition should contain a concise discussion of the specific item in dispute. Informal hearings are governed by Rules 28-5.501-503, Florida Administrative Code. Your request for either a formal or informal hearing must be received by this office, attention Thomas Franklin, within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this letter, in accordance with Rule 10-2.036, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to request a timely hearing shall be deemed a waiver of your right to hearing. Petitioner subsequently requested, by memorandum, a formal hearing on the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department: find that, from June 28, 1993, until January 27, 1994, Petitioner was overpaid a total of $1,144.72; notify the Department of Management Services of this finding; and refer the matter to the Comptroller so that the Comptroller may take appropriate action to recover these moneys owed to the state. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of April, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. was a subcontractor in the construction of the regional juvenile detention center located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The contracting authority for this facility was the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Contract for the construction let by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is in excess of $5,000.00 and pursuant to the provisions of Section 215.19(1)(b), the Division of Labor established a prevailing wage to be paid different crafts and occupations in construction of said project. The prevailing wage established for plumbers on this project was $10.07 per hour. During the course of this project, Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. acknowledged by affidavit that all persons in its employ were being paid the prevailing wage as required by law. Between July 17, 1977 and January 1, 1978, John W. Culp was employed by Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. on this project as a plumber. During this period of time, Culp was paid at the rate of $7.00 per hour for regular time and $10.50 per hour for overtime. From January 1, 1978 until April 30, 1978, John W. Culp was employed as a plumber at the rate of $7.50 per hour for regular time and $11.25 per hour for overtime. While making $7.00 per hour, Culp was paid $3.07 per hour less than the prevailing wage for regular time hours worked and $4.60 less than the prevailing wage for overtime hours worked. During the period January 1, 1978 until April 30, 1978, Culp received $2.57 less than the prevailing wage for regular time hours worked and $3.95 less than the prevailing wage for overtime hours worked. The figures presented by the Respondent and those of the Petitioner do not agree concerning the number of hours worked. Exhibit 7 reflects that Culp worked a total of 856 hours at $7.00 per hour and 8 hours of overtime at $10.50 per hour. Exhibit 7 further reflects the Culp worked 683 hours at $7.50 per hour and 47.5 hours at $11.25 per hour. The amount Culp was underpaid prior to January 1 is equal to the sum of the regular hours worked times $3.07 and the overtime hours worked times $4.60 per hour. The amount Culp was underpaid subsequent to January 1, 1978, is equal to the sum of the number of regular hours worked times $2.57 and the number of overtime hours worked times $3.95. The amount that Culp was underpaid prior to January 1 is $2,664.72 and subsequent to January 1, $1,942.94 for a total of $4,607.66. The Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 215.19(3)(a)1 and 2 by filing an affidavit with the contracting authority stating the number of hours worked and the amount of money paid for said hours. This affidavit was filed within the time prescribed by statute. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 215.19(3)(b), Florida Statutes, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is currently withholding $4,779.74 from Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. while awaiting the decision of this administrative hearing.
Conclusions Petitioner has established that he was hired by and worked for Acco, Inc. as a plumber and that he was paid $7.00 per hour from July 17, 1977 until January 1, 1978 and that he was paid $7.50 per hour from January 1, 1978 until April 30, 1978. The prevailing wage for plumbers on the Juvenile Detention Center project was $10.07 per hour. Petitioner John W. Culp is entitled to the difference between what he was paid and the prevailing wage for the total number of hours worked by Petitioner at less than the, prevailing wage. The Hearing Officer, in his Recommended Order, addressed the difference in pay between the regular time worked and overtime worked. However, Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, is void of any statutory language concerning overtime. The statute only requires that the employer be paid "not less than the prevailing wage". Absent a legislative directive in Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, concerning overtime, the employee is only entitled to the difference between what he was paid and what he should have been paid at the prevailing wage rate for the total number of hours worked at a rate less than the prevailing wage. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to $4,383.23. Respondent's argument that the Division of Labor failed to properly adopt prevailing wage rates has been considered by the First District Court of Appeals of Florida in Vernon Neff, et al. vs. Biltmore Construction Company, Inc., 362 So.2d 442, (1st DCA Fla. 1978) and State of Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Labor vs. Matthews Corporation, 358 So.2d 256 (1st DCA Fla. 1978). The Court, in both cases, upheld the process by which the wage rates are adopted. Respondent argues that additional insurance benefits should be included in the wage rate, but such benefits are not "wages". The amount paid by the employer to provide insurance benefits should not be included in Petitioner's wage nor deducted from the amount owed to the Petitioner based upon this claim. It is, therefore, hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the contracting authority, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, pay to the Petitioner, from the amount it is withholding in this claim, the amount of $4,383.23 and that the remaining amount held by the contracting authority, pursuant to this claim, be paid to Acco, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of December 1978 at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEVEN H. CAMPORA, Director Division of Labor Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 200 - Ashley Building 1321 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone No.: (904) 488-7396 COPIES FURNISHED: Dewey H. Varner, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Petitioner 3003 South Congress Avenue Palm Springs, Florida 33461 L. Byrd Booth, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Respondent O'Neal and Booth, P.A. Post Office Drawer 11088 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 Luther J. Moore, Administrator of Prevailing Wage Division of Labor 1321 Executive Center Drive, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Koval, Esquire Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security 401 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer Department of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Division of Labor enter is order directing the contracting authority to pay the employee the sum of $4,607.66 and the remaining amount held by the contracting authority pursuant to this claim be paid to Acco Mechanical Contractors, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dewey H. Varner, Jr., Esquire Culp and Fisher 3003 South Congress Avenue Palm Springs, Florida 33461 L. Byrd Booth, Jr. Esquire Post Office Drawer 11089 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION OF LABOR JOHN W. CULP, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1281 ACCO, INC., Respondent. / FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER Upon due notice to all parties in the above-styled cause, an administrative hearing was held on September 15, 1978, in West Palm Beach, Florida before Stephen F. Dean, the assigned hearing officer. STATEMENT OF CLAIM: This cause was presented on a claim filed by John W. Culp against Acco, Inc. alleging that he had been hired by Acco, Inc. in the capacity of a plumber and that Acco, Inc. had failed to pay him the prevailing wage for plumbers as required by Section 215.19, Florida Statutes. The question presented in this case is how many hours the Petitioner, John Culp, worked, the wage paid the Petitioner, and what, if any, difference exists between the wage paid the Petitioner and the prevailing wage. FINDINGS OF FACT: Acco, Inc. was a subcontractor in the construction of the regional juvenile detention center located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The contracting authority for this facility was the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The contract for the construction let by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is in excess of $5,000.00 and, pursuant to Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, the Division of Labor established a prevailing wage to be paid different crafts and occupations in construction of said project. The prevailing wage established for plumbers on this project was $10.07 per hour. During the course of this project, Acco, Inc. acknowledged by affidavit that all persons in its employ were being paid the prevailing wage as required by law. Between July 17, 1977 and January 1, 1978, John W. Culp was employed by Acco, Inc. on this project as a plumber. During this period of time, Culp was paid at the rate of $7.00 per hour. From January 1, 1978 until April 30, 1978, Petitioner was employed as a plumber at the rate of $7.50 per hour. Exhibit No. 7, the Weekly Time Reports of John W. Culp, establish that Culp worked a total of 856 hours at the rate of $7.00 per hour and 8 hours at $10.50 per hour. Furthermore, the Reports establish that Culp worked 683 hours at the rate of $7.50 per hour and 47.5 hours at $11.25 per hour. Prior to January 1, 1978, the difference between what Petitioner was paid end the prevailing wage was $3.07. After January 1, 1978, the difference was $2.57. The total difference between what Petitioner was paid and the prevailing wage for the time Culp was employed by Acco, Inc. is equal to 856 hours multiplied by $3.07, plus 683 hours multiplied by $2.57. The total difference is $4,383.23. Petitioner has complied with the provision of Section 215.19(3)(a) 1 and 2, Florida Statutes, by filing an affidavit with the contracting authority stating the number of hours worked and the amount of money paid. This affidavit was timely filed. Pursuant to Section 215.19, Florida Statutes, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is withholding $4,779.74 from Acco, Inc. pending the outcome of this claim.
The Issue Whether Petitioners received salary overpayments from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners Ileana Toledo, Norma Pedraza, and Lil Guerrero have been career service employees of Respondent. The Department of Management Services (“DMS”) has a classification and pay system that is used by Respondent, and DMS is responsible for designating employment positions within Respondent. A position is either included for overtime pay or excluded from overtime pay. At issue is whether Petitioners erroneously received monetary compensation for overtime hours worked after their position was reclassified from an included career service position to an excluded career service position. Prior to March 28, 2013, Petitioners held the position of Human Services Counselor III, which was designated by DMS as an included career service position. On March 26, 2013, Respondent proposed to reclassify Petitioners’ position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, which is designated by DMS as an excluded career service position. The proposed reclassification resulted from a reorganization of Respondent’s regional offices, and an effort by Respondent to standardize its functions, services, and types of positions in its regional offices. In a letter dated March 26, 2013, Petitioners were advised by Respondent’s Human Resources Director, Dale Sullivan, that if they accepted an offer to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, their “current status and salary will remain unchanged.” Notably, the March 26, 2013, letter makes no specific mention of overtime. On March 28, 2013, Petitioners accepted Respondent’s offer of employment to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst. Typically, employees of Respondent who are appointed to new positions are placed in probationary status, as opposed to permanent status, and are required to review and execute new position descriptions. However, the reclassification of Petitioners’ position by Respondent was not typical. As part of the reclassification of Petitioners’ position to Human Service Program Analyst, Respondent provided Petitioners with a new position description. However, Petitioners’ job duties, salaries, and permanent status remained the same as they had been in their prior position of Human Services Counselor III. Petitioners read and acknowledged their receipt of the new position description on March 28, 2013. On the first page of the position description, there is a heading titled “Position Attributes”. Under this heading, the term “Overtime” is shown, followed by two boxes, “Yes” and “No.” The “No” box is marked, indicating that Petitioners are not eligible to work overtime hours. The position description further indicates that Petitioners would be career service employees. However, the position description does not specifically include the terms included or excluded. Prior to the reclassification, Petitioners were paid bi-weekly based on an 80-hour pay period. If they worked more than 80 hours in a pay period, they received additional monetary compensation for their overtime hours. Payment for Petitioners’ regular and overtime work hours was based on employee timesheets submitted to the People First leave and payroll system. After the reclassification of their position, Petitioners continued to work overtime in excess of their bi-weekly contractual hours, despite the prohibition in the position description. Petitioners were required to obtain approval by their supervisors before being allowed to work overtime. Petitioners’ overtime was approved by their supervisors after the reclassification despite the prohibition on working overtime hours as indicated in the position description. During the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-June 23, 2013, Petitioner Ileana Toledo worked a total of 28 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $464.63 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Norma Pedraza worked a total of 32.25 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $624.14 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Lil Guerrero worked a total of 25.50 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $426.65 from Respondent for these overtime hours. Respondent’s payment of monetary compensation to Petitioners for the overtime hours worked after the reclassification of their position to Human Service Program Analyst occurred due to an administrative coding error, thereby resulting in the overpayment of monetary compensation to Petitioners by Respondent in the amounts the Respondent seeks to recover from Petitioners. The administrative coding error occurred because of Respondent’s failure to note the change from included to excluded on the People First system following the reclassification of Petitioners’ position. The error occurred due to an honest mistake, and resulted in the overpayments at issue. Petitioners should not have received monetary compensation for their overtime hours in the Human Service Program Analyst position because a Human Service Program Analyst position is an excluded career service position. An excluded career service employee must earn and receive regular compensation leave credits for overtime work, but cannot receive monetary compensation for overtime work. On the other hand, included career service employees, such as those persons in Petitioners’ previous position of Human Services Counselor III, must receive monetary compensation for overtime hours worked, rather than regular compensatory leave credits. Neither Petitioners nor their supervisors were aware at the time that the overpayments were made that Petitioners could not receive monetary compensation for their overtime hours, but must instead receive regular compensatory leave credits. At hearing, Petitioners did not dispute the amounts and hours of overtime worked as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. In accordance with the Department of Management Services’ Bureau of Payroll Manual, the amount of salary overpaid, and the amount sought to be repaid, was calculated as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. When an agency has determined that a salary overpayment has occurred, it is required to follow procedures set forth in the above-referenced manual, to seek repayment. Respondent followed those procedures in making the calculations relevant in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities determining that: 1) Petitioner Ileana Toledo was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $464.63; 2) Petitioner Norma Pedraza was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $624.13; 3) Petitioner Lil Guerrero was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $426.65; and 4) Petitioners are entitled to be compensated by Respondent through compensatory leave credits for the overtime hours worked as reflected in paragraphs 12-14 above. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 25th day of November, 2013.
The Issue The only remaining count, Count I, attacks Rules 11B-14.01 and 11B-14.02, Florida Administrative Code. The attack is twofold: (1) the agency's rule is not applicable to the Petitioner; and (2) the rule is an invalid exercise of validly delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a local school board and political subdivision of the State employing school security officers who meet the definition of Chapter 943, Florida Statutes, of law enforcement officers. Respondent is the Department of Criminal Law Enforcement, Police Standards and Training Commission which has adopted Rules 11B-14.01 and 11B- 14.02, Florida Administrative Code, following the procedures required by law, and applies them to the Petitioner and its law enforcement employees. Those rules substantially affect the Petitioner by mandating, in part, the salary which it must pay its school security officers. The Petitioner has standing to challenge the rules in question under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petition herein was filed by Petitioner with PERC on December 29, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). The hearing in this case was scheduled by Notice dated January 22, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2). The City of Sunrise is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes s447.002(2). (Stipulation, Transcript page 7) 1/ The Petitioner is an association which is seeking to represent public employees in matters relating to their employment relationship with a public employer. The Petitioner requested recognition from the Public Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative for employees in the Public Employer's Utilities Department. The request was denied by the Public Employer. There is no contractual bar to holding an election in this case. (Stipulation, TR 7, 8). There is no pertinent collective bargaining history that will affect this case. (Stipulation, TR 8). PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner is a duly registered employee organization. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner filed the requisite showing of interest with its petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. The Public Employer operates under the form of government commonly referred to as the "strong Mayor-Council form of government". The City Council serves as the legislative body of the Public Employer, and the Mayor is the Chief Executive Officer. Public Employer's Exhibit 1 accurately describes the organization of the Public Employer. The Public Employer is roughly divided into twelve different departments, excluding the Police and Fire Departments. Each department is headed by a department head who answers to the Mayor. The Public Employer employs approximately 200 persons, approximately 25 percent of whom are clerical employees. There are approximately 55 to 60 persons in the bargaining unit proposed by the Petitioner, 12 to 15 of whom are clerical employees. The department heads are generally responsible for the day-to-day functioning of their department. The department heads will initiate hiring, firing, discipline, and promotion of employees; however, such action must be approved by the Mayor. Respecting hiring and firing, the Mayor goes against the recommendations of the department heads approximately 30 to 40 percent of the time. With respect to disciplinary action, the department head submits recommendations to the Mayor in the form of a memorandum. In the Water and Sewer Department the recommendation would go from the Director of the Utilities Department to the City Engineer to the Mayor. The department head will make all decisions respecting shift changes, lunch hours, and vacations; however, an aggrieved employee can always go to the Mayor. The department heads regularly evaluate employees in their department, and make recommendations respecting merit pay increases based upon the evaluations. The Mayor has a practice of always approving recommendations for merit pay increases if money is available in the budget. The Mayor is responsible for preparing a proposed budget to be submitted to the City Council. The department heads provide the Mayor with information respecting the budgetary needs of their departments. The department heads meet on a monthly basis as a group to discuss safety programs. Safety policies are formulated at these meetings. The department heads are responsible for granting leave time; however, this responsibility is apparently delegated to the chief operator in the Water and Sewer Department. Public Employer's Exhibit 2 is a computer read-out of all of the Public Employer's employees other than those in the Police and Fire Departments. Those employees who the Public Employer considers to be managerial, confidential, or professional employees within the meaning of the Public Employees Relations Act are designated respectively on the exhibits by the hand written letters "M", "C", or "P". The hand written numbers on Public Employer's Exhibit 2 refer to the page number where the job description of the employee appears in Public Employer's Exhibit 3. Public Employer's Exhibit 3 is a compilation of the job descriptions of all of the Public Employer's employees other than those in the Police and Fire Departments. The descriptions were prepared in January, 1976, and accurately describe the duties, responsibilities, and day-to-day activities of the employees. All employees of the Public Employer other than those in the Police and Fire Departments are compensated under the same pay plan, and receive the same benefits. All employees are given eleven paid holidays, ten paid sick days, and ten paid vacation days annually. All employees participate in the same hospitalization and pension plans. All employees are issued uniforms and safety equipment by the city; however, clerical employees are responsible for maintaining their own uniforms. Christmas parties and other social functions for the employees are open to all employees of the city. There are no functions open to the employees of only one department. Transfers of employees from one department to another are fairly common. Job openings and promotions in a department are always advertised and made available to employees in all departments before they are advertised or made available to non-employees. The departments of the Public Employer generally work together. Many employees in the Public Works Department have the same job description as employees in the Utilities Department. When necessary, employees in one department will assist in performing the functions of another department. The Utilities Department is divided into the Gas Department, the Water and Sewer Field Maintenance Department, and the Water and Sewer Treatment Plants. These departments produce services for a fee to the inhabitants of the City of Sunrise, as do the Spring Hill Country Club and the Recreation Department. Employees in the Water and Sewer Departments are on duty 24 hours daily. Each employee works a fixed 8-hour shift. Most other employees of the Public Employer work a day-shift only. Employees in the Water and Sewer Department do not generally work in one place. Clerical employees generally work full time at City Hall. It is apparent that transfers between manual positions and clerical positions are rare, and have probably never occurred. The work performed by clerical employees is different than the work performed by employees in the Water and Sewer Departments. The only testimony presented at the hearing respecting the desires of the employees was that employees in the Water and Sewer Departments would like to have their own bargaining unit. The Utilities Department is separately budgeted, and the only employee who testified expressed an interest in using the revenue of the department for the benefit of the employees in the department. All employees of the Public Employer are eligible for membership in the Petitioner. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of April, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
