Findings Of Fact Respondent Jerry O. Bryan began working for the State Road Department in 1968. In 1983, he started his most recent assignment with the agency, now called the Florida Department of Transportation, as an engineering technician III, in a career service position. An employee handbook respondent was furnished in 1983 had this to say about "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. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, at page 43. Perhaps with this in mind, respondent requested leave without pay when he learned he faced six months' incarceration, as a result of his criminal conviction for cultivating marijuana on federal property. Respondent's supervisor, Robert Edward Minchin, Jr. denied his request for leave without pay, in accordance with a DOT policy against granting leave to DOT employees who are incarcerated. Mr. Bryan did not request annual leave, although some 220 hours' entitlement had accumulated. Asked whether he would have granted Mr. Bryan's leave request absent "a policy of not authorizing leave while someone was incarcerated," Mr. Minchin answered in the negative, saying Mr. Bryan "was going to be needed during ... [the time] he would be out. T.22. At no time did petitioner ever take disciplinary action against respondent, who received satisfactory or higher job performance ratings, the whole time he worked for petitioner. Aware that Mr. Bryan did not desire or intend to resign, relinquish or abandon his career service position, Mr. Minchin took steps to remove him from the payroll solely on grounds that he was absent without authorized leave for three consecutive workdays.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner reinstate respondent and award back pay, but without prejudice to instituting any appropriate proceedings before the Public Employees Relations Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 27th day of November, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry O. Bryan Federal Prison Camp Post Office Box 600 Eglin AFB, Florida 32542-7606 William A. Frieder, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Robert Scanlon, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment filed October 17, 2008, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Valou Enterprises is a Florida corporation located in Miami, Florida, which does business under the fictitious name of "Mr. Rooter Plumbing" ("Mr. Rooter"). Leslie McMillan is part- owner and the President of Valou Enterprises. Pedro Rolle is part-owner and the Treasurer of Valou Enterprises, and he is responsible for the business's day-to-day management. Welthial McMillan is part-owner and the Secretary of Valou Enterprises. Mr. Rooter is a franchise that engages in the business of providing plumbing services and repairs. According to franchise documents, among the services offered by Mr. Rooter are HydroScrubbing™ sewer lines to remove blockages; water heater installation; kitchen and bath installation and repairs, including faucets, sinks, tubs and toilets; and leak detection and water line repair and installation.2 On its website, Valou Enterprises advertises that Mr. Rooter provides full-service plumbing, including bath sinks, bathtubs and showers, drain pipes, faucets, floor drains, gas meters, gas vents, kitchen sinks, pipe repair, sewer lines, and water softeners.3 Mr. McMillan is a Florida-certified plumbing contractor, and he is the qualifier for Mr. Rooter. Mr. and Mrs. McMillan and Mr. Rolle, have elected, as officers of a corporation engaged in the construction industry, to be exempt from Florida's workers' compensation law, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 440.02(15)(b)2. and 440.05(3), Florida Statutes. Valou Enterprises hires plumbing technicians to provide plumbing services to Mr. Rooter's customers. These plumbing technicians are not licensed; rather, they work under Mr. McMillan's plumbing contractor's license. They do not receive a salary and do not have regular hours during which they must be at the Mr. Rooter office or at a jobsite. The plumbing technicians are paid commissions based on the work they perform, and they are required to supply their own tools. The plumbing technicians are on-call with Mr. Rooter at all times, but they only perform services for Mr. Rooter when actually dispatched to a job. When a plumbing technician is called and notified of a job, he is free either to accept or to reject the job. Mr. Rooter also dispatches plumbing helpers when a plumbing technician needs assistance. Valou Enterprises employs Catia Duque, who takes calls and dispatches plumbing technicians to Mr. Rooter jobs. Kenneth Mecure runs errands for Valou Enterprises part-time when needed, on a part-time basis. Late in the afternoon on Friday, June 27, 2008, a compliance investigator working for the Division of Workers' Compensation stopped at the Mr. Rooter office, which was located in a warehouse district. The visit was random, initiated when the investigator saw white vans parked in front of the office, with the name "Mr. Rooter Plumbing" and logo on the sides of the vans. When the investigator entered the office, she observed four men wearing shirts with the "Mr. Rooter Plumbing" logo. When the investigator requested information about Valou Enterprises's workers' compensation insurance coverage, Mr. Rolle referred her to Ms. Duque. Ms. Duque told the investigator that she would send whatever information she had regarding workers' compensation insurance coverage by facsimile transmittal, but the investigator did not receive any information from Ms. Duque. After her visit on June 27, 2008, the compliance investigator conducted research through the Coverage and Compliance Automated System database, which provides information on workers' compensation insurance coverage and exemptions. The investigator's research revealed that Mr. McMillan, Mrs. McMillan, and Mr. Rolle had exemptions from the workers' compensation law as officers of a corporation engaged in the construction industry and that none of the persons she observed in the Mr. Rooter office on June 27, 2008, were covered by a workers' compensation insurance policy. The investigator confirmed the lack of workers' compensation insurance coverage by consulting the website for the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. ("NCCI"). The compliance investigator returned to the Mr. Rooter office on Monday, July 1, 2008, and spoke with Mr. McMillan. Mr. McMillan was unable to provide her with proof that Valou Enterprises had workers' compensation insurance coverage. The investigator then prepared a Stop-Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment, which she hand-delivered to Mr. McMillan on July 2, 2008, and posted at the Mr. Rooter office. At the same time, the investigator served Mr. McMillan with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculations. The Stop-Work Order required Valou Enterprises to "cease all business operations for all worksites in the state." An Order of Penalty Assessment was included in the Stop-Work Order, in which Valou Enterprises was advised that a penalty would be assessed in an amount [e]qual to 1.5 times the amount the employer would have paid in premium when applying approved manual rates to the employer's payroll during periods for which it failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation required by this chapter within the preceding 3-year period, or $1,000, whichever is greater. Section 440.107(7)(d), F.S. In addition, the Order of Penalty Assessment also advised Valou Enterprises that a penalty of "[u]p to $5,000 for each employee who the Employer misclassified as an independent contractor" would be imposed pursuant to Sections 440.10(1)(f) and 440.107(7)(f), Florida Statutes. On July 3, 2008, the compliance investigator returned to the Mr. Rooter office. The office was closed, but she observed a white van turning out of the office parking lot. The van had the "Mr. Rooter Plumbing" name and logo on the side, and it was driven by Michael Dassell, a plumbing technician the investigator had met during her visit to the Mr. Rooter office on July 27, 2008. The investigator questioned Mr. Dassell, who told her that he was on-call that day. Mr. Dassell had not been dispatched on a job or called into the office but had gone to the office to pick up a commission check. Mr. Dassell had not been told that the Mr. Rooter office was closed on July 3, 2008. Mr. McMillan provided the compliance investigator the payroll and other records requested in the business records request. Based on these records, the compliance investigator calculated the penalty to be imposed on Valou Enterprises for its failure to have workers' compensation insurance coverage in the amount of $59,652.93. The investigator also imposed a penalty of $1,000.00 for a one-day violation of the Stop-Work Order and a penalty of $35,000.00 for "misrepresenting the status of the employee(s) as an independent contractor(s)." The total penalty of $95,652.93 was set forth in an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment that the investigator hand-delivered the order to Mr. McMillan on July 9, 2008. Valou Enterprises obtained workers' compensation insurance coverage effective July 4, 2008, and, on July 9, 2008, Mr. McMillan entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, remitting at the time a down payment of 10 percent of the penalty, or $9,566.00. As a result, an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order was entered on July 9, 2008. The compliance investigator subsequently recalculated the penalty assessment and prepared a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated October 17, 2008. The $35,000.00 penalty assessed for misclassifying employees as independent contractors was deleted for lack of evidence, and the final penalty assessment was in the amount of $60,652.93, which consisted of a $59,652.93 penalty for failure to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for Valou Enterprises employees and a $1,000.00 penalty for violating the Stop-Work Order.4 The compliance investigator looked to the NCCI SCOPES Basic Manual of Classifications ("SCOPES Manual") for classification codes attributable to the various workplace operations of the persons working for Valou Enterprises. The classification code assigned by the compliance investigator to the plumbing technicians and plumbing helpers performing work for Valou Enterprises was Code 5183.5 According to the SCOPES Manual and to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1)(r), Code 5183 is a code applicable to the construction industry and covers "Plumbing NOC and Drivers." The description of the scope of Code 5183 is stated in the SCOPES Manual in pertinent part as follows: Applicable to gas, steam, hot water or other types of pipe fitting. Includes house connections and shop operations. * * * Code 5183 is applicable to plumbing operations provided that the work performed is "not otherwise classified" (NOC). Insureds contemplated by Code 5183 may install, remove, or repair equipment that is used to direct gas or water supplies to a destination. This equipment includes but is not limited to piping and related fixtures, appliances, and accessories. No limits have been established as to the size of the pipe being repaired or installed. The operations contemplated by Code 5183 also include "the cleaning of building sewer connections using portable equipment" and "the installation or service of domestic water softener systems." The approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2006, for Code 5183 was $10.04 per $100.00 of payroll; the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2007, for Code 5183 was $8.13 per $100.00 of payroll; and the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2008, for Code 5183 was $6.75 per $100.00 of payroll.6 The classification code found in the SCOPES Manual assigned to Ms. Duque and to Paul Anderson, who was a clerical worker in the Valou Enterprises office in 2006, was Code 8810. According to the SCOPES Manual, Code 8810 covers "Clerical Office Employees."7 The description of the scope of Code 8810 is stated in the SCOPES Manual in pertinent part as follows: "The duties of a clerical office employee include . . . telephone duties." The approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2006, for Code 8810 was $.58 per $100.00 of payroll; the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2007, for Code 8810 was $.48 per $100.00 of payroll; and the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2008, for Code 8810 was $.37 per $100.00 of payroll.8 The classification code assigned by the compliance investigator to Kevin Mecure, a part-time employee who ran errands for Valou Enterprises, was Code 7380.9 According to the SCOPES Manual, Code 7380 covers "Drivers, Chauffeurs & Their Helpers NOC - Commercial." The description of the scope of Code 7380 is stated in the SCOPES Manual in pertinent part as follows: "The term "drivers" refers to employees who engage in duties on or in connection with vehicles " The approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2006, for Code 7380 was $12.20 per $100.00 of payroll; the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2007, for Code 7380 was $10.18 per $100.00 of payroll; and the approved NCCI Manual rate in Florida effective January 1, 2008, for Code 7380 was $8.74 per $100.00 of payroll.10 The compliance investigator calculated the total penalty attributable to Valou Enterprises's failure to provide workers' compensation insurance coverage for the plumbing technicians, clerical workers, and drivers using the Department's Penalty Worksheet. She obtained the names of each of the individuals included in her calculations and the amount of the gross payroll for each individual from the payroll information provided by Mr. McMillan in response to the business records request. The compliance investigator calculated the penalty as follows: She listed Valou Enterprises's employees on the Penalty Worksheet; assigned each employee a classification code based on the definitions of workplace operations that most closely described the work they performed for Valou Enterprises; set out the dates during which Valou Enterprises did not provide workers' compensation insurance coverage11; entered the annual or pro-rated gross payroll for each employee during the period of non-compliance; divided the gross payroll for each employee by 100; set out the approved manual rate for each employee during the period of non-compliance in accordance with his or her classification code; determined the premium that Valou Enterprises would have paid for workers' compensation insurance coverage for each employee during the period of non-compliance by multiplying the approved manual rate and one one-hundredth of the gross payroll for each employee; calculated the penalty attributable to each employee during the period of non- compliance by multiplying the premium for each employee by 1.5; and, finally, calculated the total penalty owed by Valou Enterprises attributable to its failure to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding that Valou Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a/ Mr. Rooter Plumbing, failed to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees in violation of Section 440.38(1), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty in the amount of $59,652.93 for the failure to provide the required workers' compensation insurance coverage. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should reimburse Petitioner for the attorneys' fees and costs Petitioner expended in its successful defense of Respondent's Stop-Work Order.
Findings Of Fact Hernandez, Inc., was a contractor based in the Jacksonville, Florida area, and was in the business of installing dry wall, among other construction-related activities. Its principal owner, Jorge Hernandez, founded the company in 1981. The Department of Financial Services is the state agency responsible for enforcing the Workers' Compensation Law. This duty is delegated to the Division of Workers' Compensation. The Division is a state agency. It is not a nominal party. On February 5, 2004, Hernandez, Inc., was engaged in installing drywall in the Bennett Federal Building in Jacksonville, Florida, using its own personnel, who were leased from Matrix, Inc., an employee leasing company, and two subcontractors, GIO & Sons (GIO), of Norfolk, Virginia, and U&M Contractors, Inc., (U&M), of Charlotte, North Carolina. The leased employees were properly covered by workers' compensation insurance provided by the lessor. Prior to contracting with GIO and U&M, Hernandez, Inc., asked for and received ACORD certificates of insurance, which on their face indicated that the subcontractors had both liability coverage and workers' compensation coverage. It is the practice of Hernandez, Inc., to ensure that certificates of insurance are provided by subcontractors. The office staff of Hernandez, Inc., at all times prior to going out of business, tracked the certificates and ensured that they were kept current. Hernandez, Inc. had relied on hundreds of these ACORD certificates in the past. During times pertinent, neither GIO or U&M maintained workers' compensation insurance on their employees that complied with the requirements of Section 440.38(7), Florida Statutes. On February 5, 2004, Katina Johnson, an investigator with the Division's Jacksonville office, made a routine visit to the Bennett Federal Building with another investigator. She observed personnel from Hernandez, Inc., and its subcontractors GIO and U&M, installing dry wall. She also determined that Hernandez, Inc., had a contract to install dry wall as a subcontractor participating in the construction of the Mayport Naval Station BEQ. U&M worked at both the Bennett Federal Building site and the Mayport BEQ site as a subcontractor of Hernandez, Inc. Ms. Johnson discovered that neither U&M nor GIO had workers' compensation coverage for its employers. Ms. Johnson asked for and received the certificates of insurance that Hernandez, Inc., had obtained from GIO and U&M, which facially suggested that Hernandez, Inc., had determined that its subcontractors had appropriate coverage. Nevertheless, she issued a SWO on February 26, 2004, to Hernandez, Inc., as well as GIO, and U&M. By the SWO, Hernandez, Inc., was charged with failure to ensure that workers' compensation meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Insurance Code, was in place for GIO and U&M. She also issued an Order of Penalty Assessment that eventually became an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated March 19, 2004. The SWO stated, in bold print, that Hernandez, Inc., was, "Ordered to Stop Work and Cease All Business Operations in the State." Hernandez, Inc., was, at the time, also engaged in construction at the new Jacksonville Library and at the Carlington Apartments, both of which were located in Florida. By the terms of the SWO, Hernandez was required to stop work in those sites also. The Division had no evidence that might cause it to believe that Hernandez, Inc., was operating in violation of the law at those sites. The SWO contained with it a Notice of Rights advising that a formal or informal administrative hearing might be had and required that a petition for a hearing be filed within 21 days of receipt of the SWO, if a hearing was desired. Hernandez, Inc., was not informed that it had the right to an immediate hearing. Hernandez, Inc., timely filed a petition demanding a formal hearing. In an effort to get back to work, Hernandez, Inc., entered into an agreement with the Division, whereby it paid a partial penalty of $46,694.03, but admitted no liability. The formal hearing did not take place until August 16, 2005. Ms. Johnson had the power to issue a stop-work order. She did not have to get approval from a neutral magistrate or from the Division. Because she was a recent employee of the Division, she conferred with her supervisor Robert Lambert before taking action, and he approved her action in writing. In February 2004, it was the policy of the Division to issue SWO's for all work sites even though it concluded that a violation had occurred in only the site or sites visited. The Division policy did not require an investigation into all worksites as a prerequisite to shutting down all worksites. The policy requiring a contractor to cease work at all worksites was not adopted as a rule. In February 2004, the Division asserted that compliance with Section 440.10(1)(c), Florida Statutes, required a general contractor to look beyond an ACORD certificate of insurance to determine if subcontractors had complied with the requirement to maintain the required workers' compensation coverage ". . . under a Florida endorsement using Florida rates and rules pursuant to payroll reporting that accurately reflects the work performed in this state by such employees." This policy was not adopted as a rule and was subsequently abandoned. The Division, in implementing this policy, asserted that a general contractor must actually review the policy of a subcontractor presenting an ACORD certificate and determine if it was in effect and if it complied with Florida law. This policy was not adopted as a rule and the policy was subsequently abandoned. The Division further asserted that the employees of the subcontractor of a general contractor were to be viewed as if they were employees of the general contractor, when contemplating workers' compensation coverage. This policy was not adopted as a rule. Ms. Johnson acted in conformance with the Division's policies in effect at the time the SWO was issued. The net worth of Hernandez, Inc., was a negative $1,821,599, on December 31, 2003. Hernandez, Inc., was struggling financially in February 2004, but was on the way to recovery until the SWO was issued. On November 30, 2004, the net worth of Hernandez, Inc., was a negative $1,161,865, and this figure included the sum of $978,000 that Mr. Hernandez put into the business. Accordingly, Hernandez, Inc., was a small business party for purposes of Subsection 57.111(4)(a), Florida Statutes, during times pertinent. The SWO, which terminated work at all Hernandez work sites, torpedoed any chance the company had to continue in business. Mr. Hernandez mortgaged his house, which he subsequently lost to creditors, in an effort to keep Hernandez, Inc., in business. All of his efforts failed. The failure was a direct result of the actions of the Division. The Division's interpretations of the law that precipitated their policies, and thus the failure of the business, were both wrong and unreasonable. Subsequent to the hearing and Recommended Order in Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Hernandez, Inc., Case No. 04-1174 (DOAH October 3, 2005), the Chief Financial Officer entered a Final Order styled, In the Matter of: Hernandez, Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 75492-05-WC (Florida Department of Financial Services, January 25, 2006). The Final Order noted that the contractor, Hernandez, Inc., complied with the extant law when it, ". . . demanded and received proof of insurance. . . . " The Final Order also noted that there was no authority produced by the Division that would permit the imposition of a fine on Hernandez, Inc. The Final Order further recited that there was no statutory duty on the part of a contractor to ensure (emphasis supplied) that its subcontractors had secured workers' compensation coverage for its employees. It noted that, ". . . without some formal delineation of the specific obligations of a contractor in ascertaining proof of insurance from a subcontractor, the Department cannot impose a penalty upon the facts presented in the instant case." The Division was ordered to rescind the SWO issued February 26, 2004, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated March 19, 2004, and was further ordered to repay the amount of $46,694.03, which had been paid to persuade the Division to abate the SWO. The action was initiated by the Division, which is a state agency. At the time the SWO was initiated, there was no reasonable basis in law and fact to do so. The actions of the Division were not "substantially justified." Hernandez, Inc., prevailed in the hearing because the Chief Financial Officer entered a Final Order in its favor and the Order has not been reversed on appeal and the time for seeking judicial review of the Final Order has expired. Hernandez, Inc., is, therefore, a "prevailing small business party." Hernandez, Inc., paid its law firm, Holbrook, Akel, Cold, Stiefel & Ray, P.A., $51,815.50 in attorneys' fees, and paid $8,837.00 in costs, in its successful defense of the Division's actions.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent violated Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, as alleged, by its refusal to allow Petitioner to rescind a resignation.
Findings Of Fact Ardie Collins, a Black female, lives in Rockledge, Florida, and is currently self-employed as a beauty salon owner. She began working for the State of Florida in 1973, as a salon inspector with the Cosmetology Board. She maintained her title of investigator and continued employment after reorganization with the Department of Occupational and Professional Regulation and the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), as the agency is now known. During the relevant period Ms. Collins worked out of the DPR Regional Office in Orlando. In August 1982, Ms. Collins was terminated by DPR. The case went to arbitration, and by order of the arbitrator dated December 17, 1982, she was reinstated with full back pay. She reported back to work on February 10, 1983. In January 1983, before she reported back to work Ms. Collins went to see the AFSME union representative, Eric Tait, in Cocoa. The union had represented her in the 1982 proceeding and Tait had assisted the union. In that January meeting, two letters were drafted, later typed by a clerk and signed by Ms. Collins. These letters were characterized by both Ms. Collins and Eric Tait as "intent to resign" and a letter of resignation. The "intent to resign" is dated, in error, January 12, 1982, and is addressed to Howard Kirkland, Personnel Officer. It provides, This is to inform you that it is my intention to submit my resignation from State Employment, effective June 6, 1983. This resignation is now held by Eric D. Tait, AFSME President, Local 3040. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) The second letter is dated June 6, 1983, is also addressed to Howard Kirkland, and provides: Kindly accept this as my resignation as Investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation effective June 6, 1983. The Department of Professional Regulation has informed me that as of June 6, 1983 I will have completed 10 years creditable service in the Florida Retirement System. (Petitioner's Exhibit #11) The first letter was mailed to DPR in Tallahassee and the second was held by Eric Tait. The January 12th letter was stamped received in the DPR Personnel office on January 24, 1983. Howard Kirkland took this letter to be a resignation. He discussed it with the Division Director and with the Assistant Secretary and was authorized to accept the resignation. He then sent a letter to Ardie Collins, dated January 25, 1983, stating: Please be advised that we have accepted your resignation from employment with this agency effective June 6, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit # 3) Later, on January 31, 1983, in response to a contact from Eric Tait, James Kirkland sent a letter to Ms. Collins explaining that, if necessary, her date of resignation would be extended to insure that she had the necessary ten years of creditable service. DPR commenced advertisement and recruitment to fill the anticipated vacancy. Sometime in early May 1983, Eric Tait mailed the second letter dated June 6, 1983. The letter was stamped received in the DPR Office of Personnel on May 5, 1983. On May 6, 1983, Ms. Collins wrote to Howard Kirkland informing him: Notice is hereby given that proposed or intended resignation is cancelled until further notice. (Petitioner's Exhibit #7) Between January and May, DPR received no word from Ms. Collins or her representative about her resignation. Kirkland again discussed the matter with his supervisor and responded by letter to Ms. Collins dated May 25, 1983, that her voluntary resignation had already been accepted in good faith. (Petitioner's Exhibit #8) There is no written policy or rule at DPR regarding the rescinding of resignations. The agency follows the general personnel management principle that until the resignation is accepted, withdrawal is negotiable; after acceptance, withdrawal is solely within management prerogative. Generally it is considered bad personnel management to permit an employee to rescind a resignation once it is accepted, and in particular, once the position is advertised. Ms. Collins claims that DPR has allowed other employees, white males and females, and black males, to rescind resignations. In his personal knowledge, and after reviewing DPR personnel files, James Kirkland found one individual who was allowed to rescind a resignation - a clerk, who had given probably only an oral notice and shortly later asked to withdraw it. In that case, nothing had been done to act on the resignation. The individuals named by Ms. Collins: Robert Fleming, Edward Bludworth, and Will Merrill, were not allowed to rescind resignations. Rather, they each reapplied after leaving DPR. Each was hired again on probationary status. Ms. Collins claims that she reapplied by mail to DPR sometime in late June 1983. However, neither the Tallahassee office nor the Orlando regional office have a record of her application. If she had reapplied for a vacant position, she would have been considered with the rest of the applicants. DPR has received resignations from employees in a variety of forms and in various ways. Sometimes resignations are submitted directly to an immediate supervisor; other times they are directed to the personnel officer. It is not uncommon to have a resignation expressed as an "intent to resign". DPR acted in good faith and consistent with established personnel practices when it accepted Ms. Collins' letter dated January 12th as a resignation and when it refused to allow her to rescind that resignation when requested some four months later. DPR determined that Ms. Collins had obtained her ten years of service as of June 6, 1983. This was the only condition regarding her date of resignation of which it was on notice. The agency received both the "intent to resign" and the "resignation" letter prior to receiving Ms. Collins' "cancellation". The agency simply ratified its acceptance in its response to Ms. Collins.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, pursuant to Rules 22A-7.010(2)(a) and 22A-8.002(5)(a)3, Florida Administrative Code, abandoned her position and resigned from the State of Florida Career Service System.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Emily D. McGee, was employed by the Respondent, Department, as a Public Assistance Specialist II in the Department's Medically Needy Unit #87 in New Port Richey, Florida. In that assignment, Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Public Assistance Specialist Supervisor Dorothy White. It is established policy at the HRS facility in question for employees who will be absent to notify their supervisors as soon as possible when they know they will be absent. During her employment, Petitioner had received printed copies of this general policy and of the State rules governing the presumption of abandonment of position in cases where an employee is on unexcused leave for three consecutive workdays. On April 13, 1990, Petitioner was overcome with job stress and was admitted to a residential mental health care facility for four days, which was drawn against Petitioner's earned sick leave. Subsequent to her release, she received outpatient psychological therapy at the Center for the Treatment of Depression in New Port Richey, Florida, with Howard L. Masco, M.D., as her treating physician. On April 20 and again on April 25, 1990, Petitioner was advised by White that in order to properly draw against earned sick leave she must provide a doctor's statement that she was disabled and unable to perform her duties and the projected date of her return to work. On April 25, 1990, a doctor's statement was received, but it did not contain a projected date of return. On April 26, 1990, Petitioner applied to draw against the District V Sick Leave Pool, beginning on May 1, 1990 for an indeterminate period of time. This request was denied by the Committee Administrator. On May 9, 1990, White advised the Petitioner, telephonically and in writing, that her request to draw against the sick leave pool was denied. If she was unable to return to work, Petitioner must submit a written request for leave without pay for her current absence from work, with a beginning date of May 4, 1990 and a projected date of return to work. A physician's statement would also be required. After a period of misunderstanding, a written request with a physicians' statement was submitted by the Petitioner and Leave Without Pay was approved on June 18, 1990 retroactive to May 4, 1990. The physician's statement, dated May 18, 1990, stated that Petitioner has been unable to work since her hospitalization on April 13, 1990 and was still unable to work at the present time. Dr. Masco indicated that he was unable to determine when Petitioner would be able to return to work but that the present diagnosis was depression. Petitioner was advised, in writing, that additional leave could not be granted beyond July 17, 1990 and that Petitioner was required to return to work with medical certification at that time as to her ability to perform her assigned job functions. On the dates between July 18 and July 20, 1990, inclusive, Petitioner neither appeared at work nor informed her supervisor or anyone at HRS that she was going to be absent or was medically unable to return to work. No leave was authorized for her. This period constitutes in excess of three consecutive workdays of absence without approved leave. By letter dated July 27, 1990, Petitioner was advised in writing by the District Administrator that her failure to return to work on July 18 and thereafter constitutes abandonment of position. At the hearing, Petitioner attempted to show that her disability continued beyond July 20, 1990 and up to the present day, and that she had no intention of abandoning her position. That in fact she was physically unable to perform her duties due her continuing stress and depression.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner, Emily D. McGee, abandoned her position with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and resigned from the Career Service when, on July 18, 19 and 20, 1990, without authority, she absented herself from her workplace for three consecutive days. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Emily D. McGee Post Office Box 1223 Port Richey, Florida Thomas W. Caufman, Esquire Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 701 94th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida John Pieno, Jr. Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Linda Stalvey Acting General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Glen L. Hessler (Petitioner) is entitled to participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is employed by the Indian River County Property Appraiser and is entitled by virtue of such employment to membership in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). For all purposes material to this case, it is undisputed the Petitioner began such employment (and thereby participated in the FRS) on November 9, 1992. The Petitioner was born on August 9, 1938. For purposes of this case, the Department has not disputed the accuracy of such date. In July 2000 an amendment to Section 121.021 took effect whereby employees within the FRS were "vested" after six years of service. This change in the law reduced the time to vest for retirement purposes from the 10 years previously set forth in the statute. As a result of the change, the Petitioner, who immediately became vested with the change, was eligible to apply for DROP on August 1, 2001. It is undisputed the Petitioner did not apply for DROP within 12 months of such date. The Petitioner maintains he was not given notice of the need to apply for DROP. The Petitioner maintains he was not timely notified of the change in the law affecting the time of his vesting. Finally, the Petitioner maintains he applied for DROP after 10 years of service. The Petitioner maintains that such application was timely filed as it was filed when he would have been eligible to apply but for the change in the statute. The Department disputes all assertions raised by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's request for participation in DROP. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Monesia Taylor Brown, Acting General Counsel Division of Retirement Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Eric Barkett, Esquire 2165 15th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Respondent properly secured the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage, as delineated by Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and, if not, what penalty for such failure is warranted. Whether Respondent conducted business operations in violation of a stop-work order, and, if so, what is the correct penalty for such violation, pursuant to Subsection 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the business of roofing, which is a construction activity. On December 21, 2004, Petitioner's investigator, Hector Vega, visited 951 North Park Avenue, Apopka, Florida, the site of a church, on a referral from his supervisor. Five men were observed engaged in roofing work. William Sims, Respondent's president, agreed to meet at the worksite. Sims, upon inquiry, informed Petitioner's investigator that he had not secured the payment of workers' compensation for the workers. However, Sims testified that for Respondent to re-roof the Apopka Church of God, Sims had to calculate the amount of roofing shingles needed, which proved to be difficult due to the architecture of the church's specialty roof. The amount of shingles needed for the job was overestimated in order to avoid running out of shingles during the job. As of December 21, 2004, the Apopka Church of God roofing job was done, so Respondent sold the extra, unused shingles to D&L Trucking, owned and operated by David Lorenzo, who was paying the five men found working on the roof on December 21, 2004. A check of Petitioner's Compliance and Coverage Automated System ("CCAS") database, which contains information on all workers' compensation insurance policy information from the carrier to an insured, determined that Respondent did not have a State of Florida workers' compensation insurance policy to provide workers' compensation coverage of the five workers. Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, allows an individual to apply for an election to be exempt from workers' compensation benefits. Only the named individual on the application is exempt from carrying workers' compensation insurance coverage. Petitioner, which maintains a database of all workers' compensation exemptions in the State of Florida, found a current, valid exemption only for William R. Sims in December 2004. On December 21, 2004, Petitioner issued and served on Respondent a stop-work order for failing to obtain coverage that meets the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Insurance Code. Also at that time, a Request for Production of Business Records was issued to Respondent. Employers employing workers on job sites in Florida are required to keep business records that enable Petitioner to determine whether the employer is in compliance with the workers' compensation law. At the time the Stop Work Order was issued, and pursuant to Subsection 440.107(5), Florida Statutes, Petitioner had in effect Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015, which requires employers to maintain certain business records. Respondent failed to comply with the Request for Production. Florida law requires that an employer who has employees engaged in work in Florida must obtain a Florida workers' compensation policy or endorsement for such employees which utilizes Florida class codes, rates, rules, and manuals that are in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, as well as the Florida Insurance Code. See § 440.10(1)(g), Fla. Stat. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.019(2) requires that in order for an employer to comply with Subsections 440.10(1)(g) and 440.38(7), Florida Statutes, any policy or endorsement used by an employer to prove the fact of workers' compensation coverage for employees engaged in Florida work must be issued by an insurer that holds a valid certificate of authority in the State of Florida. 12. Subsections 440.107(3) and 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes, authorize Petitioner to issue stop-work orders to employers unable to provide proof of workers' compensation coverage. Failure to provide such proof is deemed "an immediate serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare " § 440.107(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Following the follow-up efforts by Sims that extended until February 2005, Respondent believed that the Stop Work Order had been lifted by February 2005. Later in 2005, after Sims understood the Stop Work Order to be lifted, he pulled some permits from Orange County. The permits were called "a permit to work" and this supported, in Sims' mind, the conclusion that the Stop Work Order had been lifted. On November 1, 2005, Petitioner received a referral to investigate Respondent. Petitioner's investigator visited Respondent's worksite on November 1, 2005, and observed six men engaged in roofing work. Sims, upon inquiry, informed the investigator that he secured the payment of workers' compensation coverage for the workers through Emerald Staffing Services, an employee leasing company. Chapter 468, Part XI, Florida Statutes, governs employee leasing companies. Respondent contracted with Emerald Staffing for its services in October 2005 and became the client company of Emerald Staffing. Respondent paid invoices for its employees, thus indicating that it was engaged in business activities in October 2005 and November 2005. On November 2, 2005, Petitioner issued a Request for Production of Business Records to Respondent. The request was for business records from December 21, 2004, through November 2, 2005. Respondent remained under the belief that the Stop Work Order had been lifted until Sims was approached by Petitioner's inspector, Robert Cerrone, on November 4 or 5, 2005, and was told by Cerrone that Respondent was still under the Stop Work Order. Respondent thereafter stopped working at Cerrone's request. Although Respondent asserts it did not know the Stop Work Order was in place between December 21, 2004, and December 19, 2005, and therefore Respondent believed it appropriate to continue working during that time, Sims testified there was a health problem in his immediate family that slowed down his business from working in 2005. His wife was diagnosed with cancer, and this made him very distracted from work. Although Sims pulled a few permits in 2005, he reviewed all those permits in his testimony, and it became clear to him that all those permits were for work previously done during the hectic clean-up from the hurricanes. This testimony is not credible. Respondent acknowledges the issuance and receipt of the Stop Work Order, but alleges in its petition that the Stop Work Order should never have been issued because the men at the worksite were not performing roofing work. On November 10, 2005, however, Sims provided a statement to Petitioner's investigator wherein he admitted to having employed four individuals on December 21, 2004, without securing the payment of workers' compensation for any of them. However, Respondent admitted, through its president, by letter, dated November 10, 2005, and signed in the presence of Cerrone that four of the persons observed on the Apopka Church of God work site on December 21, 2004, were Petitioner's employees and they were not covered by workers' compensation insurance. Sims' testimony that he was forced to sign the letter or that he was tricked or mislead into signing it, is not credible. From the evidence presented, the four identified men found on the roof of the Apopka Church of God on December 21, 2004, were the employees of Respondent, and Respondent had not complied with the requirements of the workers' compensation law. Therefore, the Stop Work Order was not erroneously issued against Respondent on December 21, 2004. After learning from Cerrone that the Stop Work Order was in place, Respondent worked with Petitioner to come into compliance and agreed to the Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order that Cerrone signed on December 19, 2005, under it, Respondent has been making payments to Petitioner to satisfy the penalty Petitioner has levied against Respondent. On November 16, 2005, Petitioner issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment, in which Petitioner requested business records from Respondent for the period of December 21, 2001, through December 21, 2004. Respondent complied with the records requests and provided Petitioner with tax ledgers and documents for the years 2002 through 2004, along with permits. Subsection 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes, provides: "The department shall assess a penalty of $1,000 per day against an employer for each day that the employer conducts business operations that are in violation of a stop-work order." Documentation specifically showed Respondent was engaged in business activities after December 21, 2004. The Orange County building department records indicate that a number of roofing permits that had been pulled by Respondent after December 21, 2004, the date the Stop Work Order was issued. Sims also stated that he was aware of the need to pull permits as part of his job as a roofer in Orange County, Florida. He alluded at the hearing that Orange County should have informed him of the existing Stop Work Order. Darlene Elaine Talley, contractor certification coordinator with the Orange County building department, testified that Respondent, through Sims, pulled a number of permits after December 21, 2004. Some of the permits were pulled for work performed prior to December 21, 2004. Although Respondent alleges that much of the actual roofing work was done prior to pulling permits and, thus, prior to the issuance of the Stop Work Order, the act of pulling a permit is considered "conducting business operations," which is prohibited by Subsection 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes, when a stop-work order is in effect. A-1 Construction ("A-1"), a Georgia company, performed roofing services for Respondent in Orlando, Florida, from September 2004 to November 2004, and was paid remuneration for those services. Although Respondent sought to prove that A-1 had Florida workers' compensation coverage through its Georgia workers' compensation and should not be included in the penalty calculation, the credible evidence showed that Georgia workers' compensation coverage, with Key Risk, did not extend to Florida, nor did A-1 purchase extra Florida coverage. Subsection 440.10(1)(c), Florida Statutes, states, "A contractor shall require a subcontractor to provide evidence of workers' compensation insurance." Respondent did not request evidence of workers' compensation coverage from A-1, and Respondent was not aware whether A-1's Florida workers' compensation coverage was purchased or not. Under the Workers' Compensation Law in effect during the penalty period, a subcontractor becomes an "employee" if the subcontractor has not validly elected an exemption as permitted by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, or has not otherwise secured the payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor. § 440.02(15)(c)2., Fla. Stat. The entities listed on the Amended Order's penalty worksheet, including the employees of A-1, were Respondent's employees during the relevant period, all of whom Respondent paid, and all of whom had neither valid workers' compensation exemptions nor workers' compensation coverage. To determine the number of days that Respondent was in violation of the Stop Work Order, the payroll records for Respondent were obtained from Emerald Staffing, and the permits pulled by Respondent were gathered. The investigator further discussed the matter with Respondent to determine the number of days Respondent worked in violation of the Stop Work Order. It is determined that Respondent worked for 10 days in violation of the Stop Work Order. Utilizing the records provided, in evidence, the penalty is calculated for Respondent by assigning a class code to the type of work utilizing the SCOPES Manual, multiplying the class code's assigned approved manual rate with the wages paid to the employee per one hundred dollars, and then multiplying all by 1.5. The penalty for violation of the Stop Work Order is $1,000.00 per day for each day of violation, which for 10 days amounts to $10,000.00. The Amended Order, which assessed a penalty of $49,413.18, was personally served on Respondent on December 19, 2005. Sims was not personally calculated into the penalty because he had a current valid workers' compensation exemption. On December 19, 2005, Respondent entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and was issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order by Petitioner. Respondent made a down payment of 10 percent of the assessed penalty; provided proof of compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by securing the payment of workers' compensation through Emerald Staffing; and agreed to pay the remaining penalty in 60 equal monthly payment installments.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and that assesses a penalty of $49,413.18. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th of November, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Graham is employed by USF as a police officer at the Tampa campus and was so employed on December 18, 1976, at 1:30 a.m. On that date it was the policy of the campus police department that prior authorization be obtained from immediate supervisors prior to the taking of any time off from scheduled duties. Graham was fully aware of this policy. Graham was scheduled to appear for duty at 1:30 a.m., on December 18, 1976. At 8:46 p.m., December 17, 1976, Graham telephoned the dispatcher on duty and advised him to relate to Graham's supervisor that he would not be in for work at 1:30 a.m., the following day. Graham then failed to appear at the appointed hour and performed no duties during that scheduled shift. During his employment with USF, Graham has been disciplined five (5) previous times for being absent without authorized leave.
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether the Petitioner abandoned an employment position with the Florida Parole and Probation Commission, and whether she was properly separated from employment with the Commission based upon abandonment. Petitioner contends that her failure to report for work with the Commission did not constitute an abandonment because the Commission's offer of employment was presented in such a manner as to make it impossible for the Petitioner to appear for work. The Commission contends that the Petitioner failed to report for work with the Commission for three consecutive workdays, that her failure to report was not authorized, and that she therefore abandoned her position with the Commission.
Findings Of Fact Prior to 1980, Petitioner had been employed with the Florida Parole and Probation Commission at its Pensacola office as a Parole Agent. Her employment was terminated, and she pursued a proceeding before the Florida Career Service Commission. The Career Service Commission ordered that the Parole and Probation Commission reinstate her to her former position and that she receive back pay and benefits. The Petitioner had moved to Tallahassee, and the Commission sought to accommodate her by offering her a position in Tallahassee. There were no immediate vacancies. The Petitioner was offered a position as Administrative Assistant to the Chairperson of the Commission. The position was at a lower pay grade than Petitioner had been in, and she declined the position. The Commission considered itself to be under an obligation to place Petitioner in a position similar to the one she had held previously. The 1980 session of the Florida Legislature authorized ten new positions to the Commission. Although the effective date of the authorization was July 1, 1980, the positions were only funded to commence in October, 1980, and to run through the remainder of the fiscal year. The Commission concluded that an emergency existed for filling two of the authorized positions. The Commission decided to take steps to fill a "Parole Examiner I" position and, a "Revocation Specialist" position immediately, rather than to wait until October In order to accommodate the immediate filling of those positions, the filling of other newly authorized positions would be delayed until subsequent to October. The Commission advertised for the Parole Examiner I and Revocation Specialist, positions by Job Opportunity Announcements dated July 7, 1980. The application deadline was July 18, 1980. These were the first professional level vacancies that the Commission had had in its staff other than the Administrative Assistant position since the time that the Career Service Commission ordered that Petitioner be reinstated. Commission personnel commenced to interview qualified applicants after July 18. At some point, consideration was given to offering one or both of the positions to the Petitioner. Commission personnel contacted Petitioner on July 28, 1980, and offered her the Parole Examiner I position. Petitioner was also advised that she could be considered for the Revocation Specialist position, which was at a higher pay grade than the position that Petitioner previously held. A letter confirming this was sent by the Commission to the Petitioner. The letter was dated July 28, 1980. By letter dated August 1, Petitioner stated that she would like to be considered for the Revocation Specialist position. On Wednesday, August 6, 1980, the Commission's Personnel Manager advised Petitioner that she was being offered the Revocation Specialist position and that she would be expected to report to her supervisor the following Monday, August 11, 1980, at 8:00 A.M. A letter confirming the offer and the conditions, dated August 6, 1980, was delivered to Petitioner by hand delivery on August 7. These letters formally confirmed conversations that had taken place among Petitioner and various employees of the Commission. On August 8, 1980, the Petitioner contacted the Commission's Personnel Manager and expressed a desire to take annual leave so that she could report to work in the new position subsequent to August 11. The Personnel Manager informed Petitioner that she would need to make her leave request directly to Harry P. Dodd, the Commission's Revocation Administrator, who would be Petitioner's supervisor. The Petitioner was able to contact Mr. Dodd in Starke, Florida, where he was performing Commission duties. She initially indicated that she would like to take two weeks' annual leave commencing on August 11. During the conversation, she scaled this request down to three days. Mr. Dodd was unclear as to the extent of his authority to grant or deny the leave request. He contacted the Commission's Personnel Manager and legal counsel and was advised that the decision of whether to grant or deny the leave request should be made by Mr. Dodd as a management decision. Mr. Dodd concluded that the leave request should be denied, and he contacted the Petitioner by telephone and advised her of that. Petitioner did not at that time advise Mr. Dodd that she would not report for work on August 11. By letter dated August 8, 1980, Petitioner advised the Chairperson of the Commission that she would not be able to report on August 11. She did not state her intentions to report at any future date. Petitioner did not report for work on August 11, 12, or 13, 1980. By letter dated August 13, the Commission advised Petitioner that it regarded her failure to report on August 11 as a refusal of the position. Thereafter, by letter dated October 15, 1980, the Commission advised Petitioner that if she were considered an employee rather than a prospective employee in view of the Career Service Commission's reinstatement order, that she had been absent without authorized leave for three days, and deemed to have abandoned her position. She was advised of her right to seek review of that decision through a petition to the Department of Administration. Petitioner filed such a petition, and this proceeding ensued. During July and August, 1980, the petitioner was employed on a part- time basis with the Federal Public Defender's Office in Tallahassee. Petitioner did not take any steps to advise anyone at her office as to the possibility of her accepting a position with the Parole and Probation Commission. While Petitioner testified that it would have been appropriate for her to give at least two weeks' notice before leaving the Federal Public Defender's Office, it does not appear from the evidence that her failure to give such notice would have unduly burdened her employer. Furthermore, if Petitioner had immediately advised her employer when she became aware that she may obtain full-time employment with the Commission, adequate notice could have been given. Petitioner and her husband had planned a vacation for August 11 and 12, 1980. While reporting to work on August 11 would have frustrated those plans, it does not appear that Petitioner would have incurred any significant expense or unhappiness from frustration of the vacation plans other than disappointment. It would have been difficult for the Petitioner to make arrangements for day care for her children in order to report for full-time employment with the Commission on August 11. It does not appear that those difficulties were insurmountable, however, and Petitioner could, albeit with difficulty, have made such arrangements. It was not impossible for the Petitioner to report for work with the Commission on August 11, 1980. The Commission's Revocations Section was severely understaffed during the summer of 1980. Legislation had been enacted which dramatically increased the number of parole revocations, and the Commission's staff had not been increased to handle the increase. During July and August, the Revocations Section had a severe backlog. It is for this reason that the Commission decided to take immediate steps to fill a newly authorized Revocation Specialist position. In addition to the increased workload and backlog, the Revocations Section had some peculiar personnel difficulties which increased the need to immediately fill the newly authorized position. One of the Revocation Specialists was seriously ill and frequently absent. Another was scheduled for military leave, which was not discretionary. Mr. Dodd had made plans to be on annual leave which could not be changed because he was using the leave to close a real estate transaction. In view of these difficulties, Mr. Dodd's refusal to grant the Petitioner's annual leave request was justified. It does not appear that the refusal of the leave request was made on any basis other than a sound management decision. After the Petitioner failed to report for work by August 13, the Commission took immediate steps to fill the Revocation Specialist position. While there were unexplained delays in accomplishing that, the position was filled effective August 26, 1980. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that the Commission's offer of the Revocation Specialist position to the Petitioner was other than a bona fide offer. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that any of the persons involved in offering the position to Petitioner felt any ill will toward her. The denial of the Petitioner's request that she not be required to report on August 11, as she had been directed, was based on a sound management decision. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that the denial was generated by any ill feeling toward Petitioner or any desire that she not take the position. Taking the position on such short notice undoubtedly would have caused the Petitioner some inconvenience in leaving the position that she had held with the Federal Public Defender's Office and arranging child care. The frustration of vacation plans would have been disappointing. These factors do not, however, justify the Petitioner's failure to report as directed, nor could it be concluded that it was impossible for the Petitioner to report as directed. In view of the fact that the petitioner was offered the Revocation Specialist position in order that the Commission could comply with its responsibility to reinstate the Petitioner and the fact that the Petitioner was receiving back pay from the Commission, the Petitioner should be viewed as having been employed by the Commission. Her failure to report for work for three consecutive days as she had been directed to do constitutes an abandonment of her position with the Commission.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner, Patricia Fountain, was employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a Direct Services Aide working with the District Four Children, Youth, and Families (CYF) Services. For some time prior to July 24, 1987, the Petitioner was under medical treatment and had been absent from work on one form or another of approved leave. On July 24, 1987, the Petitioner's physician released her from medical treatment to return to light duty. The physician's release was subsequently amended to effect the Petitioner's release to return to work on July 27, 1987. The Petitioner's supervisor, in consultation with the Petitioner's physician, arranged a schedule of light duty work for the Petitioner to perform during the week beginning July 27, 1987. On July 27, 1987, the Petitioner reported to work as scheduled and submitted a written statement from a physical therapist to the effect that it would be in the Petitioner's best interest to have a leave of absence from work. The Petitioner was advised that the statement from the physical therapist was insufficient, and that the Petitioner would be expected to perform her duties. On July 28, 1987, the Petitioner resubmitted the statement from the physical therapist with some additional information added to the statement. On that same day, the Petitioner left a written request for leave without pay on the program administrator's desk and, without anyone's knowledge, left work without authorization. The Petitioner did not thereafter return to work. Her request for leave without pay was never approved. The Petitioner's supervisor made several unsuccessful efforts to have the Petitioner attend a conference to discuss her unauthorized absence. On August 4, 1987, the Petitioner was contacted at home and served written notice that her absence was unauthorized and that she was expected to return to work on August 5, 1987. The Petitioner did not report to work on August 5, 6, or 7, 1987, nor did she report thereafter. The Petitioner did not contact her supervisor on August 5, 6, or 7, 1987, to explain her absence. A letter was mailed to the Petitioner advising her that by reason of her failure to report to work on August 5, 6, and 7, 1987, she was deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service, effective 5:00 p.m. on August 7, 1987. During August of 1987, the Petitioner did not have any sick leave or annual leave balance.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend the entry of a Final Order concluding that the Petitioner, Patricia Fountain, was properly terminated for abandonment in accordance with Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 17th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Ms. Patricia Fountain 2533 Wilmot Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32218 Pamela Miles, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
