The Issue Petitioners' alleged liability for sales tax, interest and penalties under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the stipulation of facts entered herein, the following facts are found. Petitioners are Florida corporations having their principal place of business at Palm Beach International Airport, West Palm 8each, Florida. Petitioners conduct a fixed base aircraft operation by which they provide services to both aircraft owners and aircraft users. Petitioners are licensed, qualified and certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the State of Florida, and Palm Beach County to conduct its operation. Petitioners employ qualified mechanics, technicians, flight instructors, pilots, and consulting and sales personnel for conducting these services, which are described in detail below. Petitioners lease and occupy facilities appropriate for the storage, use, and repair of aircraft. Petitioners have written contractual agreements with aircraft owners in which Petitioners obtain the use of the aircraft. Petitioners pay the owners an agreed amount per hour for the use of the aircraft, which amount varies with the aircraft age and type. (Examples of said agreements are attached to Joint Exhibit number 1.) These agreements use the term "lease" to describe the Petitioners' rights to use the aircraft. The agreements provide that Petitioners will have exclusive supervision, control, and custody of the aircraft during the term of the agreement. The agreements permit the owner of the aircraft to use the aircraft for personal needs, however, so long as such use does not conflict with Petitioners' scheduled use thereof. Petitioners use the aircraft to conduct approved flight instruction for the public, to engage in charter transportation of passengers and property, and to rent to qualified pilots. Petitioners charge the third parties for instruction, charter, or rental and report the proceeds as "income" on their federal tax returns. Petitioners' payments to the aircraft owners are reflected as an "operating or overhead expense" for federal tax purposes. When using the aircraft, Petitioners employ and pay qualified flight instructors, pilots, crews and mechanics to fly and service the aircraft. The aircraft owners have no contractual agreement with these persons. Petitioners are responsible for providing all required inspection, maintenance, and repair services to the aircraft, subject to reimbursement by the owners. The aircraft owners pay the costs of fuel and lubricants used during Petitioners' use of the aircraft. Petitioners provide property damage insurance on the aircraft and liability insurance for the pilots, crew, and third parties who charter or use the aircraft. Petitioners are responsible, at the expiration of the agreement, to return the aircraft to the owner in substantially the same condition as at the commencement of the agreement, except for normal wear and depreciation. Petitioners advertise themselves to the public as a charter flying service and flying instruction service and actively solicit customers for these services. Petitioners are also in the business of selling aircraft and are authorized dealers for Cessna and Piper aircraft companies. Some of Petitioners' purchasers enter into agreements like those attached hereto, granting Petitioners exclusive use and control of the aircraft. Petitioners' purchasers properly pay sale tax under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, when they purchase aircraft. They do not, insofar as Petitioners are aware, furnish Petitioners with resale certificates which certify that the purchase is solely for resale, in the manner designated by Rule 12A-1.38, Florida Administrative Code. Some of the purchasers have furnished exemption certificates, however, so those purchases were not taxed. Petitioners contend that they are an integrated business for the selling, storing, maintenance, and servicing of aircraft for aircraft purchasers and the provision of chartering and instruction services for third parties. Petitioners contend that their experience and expertise in providing all these services to owners and the general public is economically feasible only through an integrated operation of this nature, or through a substantially greater capital investment. Petitioners assert that the agreements by which they obtain exclusive use of the aircraft are agreements to provide expert management services to the owners, and are not subject to sales tax under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Respondent contends that the agreements by which Petitioners obtain exclusive use of the aircraft are separate and distinct from the rest of Petitioners' business, for sales tax purposes. Respondent also contends that the remainder of Petitioners' business is immaterial to the incidence of the tax. Respondent asserts that the agreements described herein are agreements to lease tangible personal property which are taxable as "sales" under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Petitioners also assert that certain of the agreements are not taxable because the aircraft owner paid sales tax on the initial purchase of the aircraft, as described in Paragraph 13 above. The Respondent contends that the prior payment of tax at the time of purchase is immaterial, since the purchase was not for resale. The issues thus presented herein are: whether the agreements are taxable transactions, as disputed in Paragraphs 14 and 15; and whether certain of the agreements are specifically nontaxable by virtue of the owner's payment of tax at the time of purchase, as disputed in Paragraph 16. The Respondent originally assessed Petitioners for tax, penalty, and interest in the amount of $19,149.08. It then appeared that in certain of Petitioners' transactions, the aircraft owners were already remitting sales tax. Respondent thereupon revised its assessment. The Respondent now alleges that the following amounts were due on March 15, 1978: Tax $11,144.68 Penalty 557.22 Interest 1,652.86 Total $13,354.76 The penalty and interest figures are subject to revision with the passage of time. The Respondent will update those figures upon issuance of a final order. Petitioners have paid no part of the foregoing assessment. Petitioners have not placed the computation of the amount due in issue, however, in the event they are held to be liable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties, and Interest under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, dated March 15, 1978, be asserted against Petitioners pursuant to applicable law, with interest computed to reflect the passage of additional time. ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Gentry, III, Esquire David K. Miller, Esquire Moyle, Gentry, Jones, Flanigan Assistant Attorney General & Groner, P.A. Department of Legal Affairs Post Office Box 3888 The Capitol, LL04 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for registration as a funds transmitter should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a scheduled, commercial airline, certified by the Federal Aviation Administration. Its base of operations in the United States is Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. Its passenger flights depart from and arrive at Fort Lauderdale International Airport, traveling to Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the Bahamas. Petitioner transports passengers, which constitutes ninety percent of Petitioner's business, and transports cargo and mail, which constitutes seven to eight percent of Petitioner's business. Petitioner also acts as a funds transmitter, which constitutes approximately one to two percent of Petitioner's business. Petitioner has performed funds transmittal since 1989 when Petitioner was founded. It started that service at the request of a Haitian who lived and worked in the United States and wanted to send money to his family in Haiti. Since then and currently, Petitioner only transmits funds to Haiti. Petitioner has in place detailed procedures for funds transmittal. Petitioner receives such funds in cash. Petitioner then writes a check made payable to the recipient. The check is then placed in an envelope, which is placed in a courier pouch, which is then placed on the aircraft. The pilot signs a receipt for the funds and delivers the pouch to Petitioner's receiving agent in Haiti, who signs for the pouch. Petitioner's agent then delivers it to a company Petitioner contracts with for giving out the pouches. The recipient of the check goes to that company, presents identification with a photograph, and is given the check. Petitioner charges only a three percent fee for this service, a cost which is substantially below the industry's prevailing charge. Petitioner deposits daily funds received for transmittal in a separate account in a different bank from the bank in which Petitioner maintains its operating funds. The majority of the customers for whom Petitioner transmits funds are repeat customers. The parties stipulated that Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, known as the Money Transmitter's Code, became effective on July 1, 1994. Petitioner had no knowledge of the existence of the Money Transmitter's Code or the effective date thereof. Petitioner's first knowledge of the requirement that a money transmitter pay a fee to, and register with, the Department occurred in May of 1996 when one of the Department's investigators made an unannounced visit to Petitioner's place of business. He advised Petitioner of the registration requirement and left an application form with Petitioner. Petitioner filed that application for registration with the Department on June 4. Question numbered 7 on that application reads as follows: "Provide a description of the corporate structure of applicant, including the identity of any parent or subsidiary of applicant." Petitioner's answer states: "Lynx Air International is the only corporation engaged in funds transmittal and is not owned by any other entity." Petitioner's senior vice president, who answered that question on behalf of Petitioner, misunderstood the question; he thought the question only sought information regarding subsidiaries involved in funds transmittal. As he understood the question, he answered it truthfully. Petitioner has no subsidiaries involved in the business regulated by the Department. However, Petitioner does have two subsidiaries which it owns and a third subsidiary in which Petitioner owns a fifty percent interest. The three subsidiaries own the aircraft which Petitioner leases. Petitioner's senior vice president, who is not an accountant, also filed with the Department monthly income statements since Petitioner's yearly financial statement was not yet completed. Petitioner's C. P. A. subsequently submitted to the Department Petitioner's annual financial statement which was prepared according to generally-accepted accounting principles. Petitioner's net worth is in excess of $100,000. The transmittal of funds is only ancillary to Petitioner's business as a commercial airline. The maximum amount of funds transmitted does not exceed $5,000 to $6,000 per flight. Petitioner wishes to continue serving as a funds transmitter because the service is beneficial to Petitioner and to the public. Petitioner benefits because offering the service is a method of bringing "the customer in the door." The customer who uses Petitioner's service is also likely to purchase a ticket from Petitioner when that customer needs to travel. When Petitioner properly performs the funds transmittal service, the customer obtains a level of trust in Petitioner. Similarly, the customer benefits because Petitioner offers a safe method for the customer to send money to help support his or her family in Haiti. Petitioner has not caused any problems or losses to, or received any complaints from, any persons who have used Petitioner as a funds transmitter. Petitioner has not yet posted the bond required for registration with the Department because the Department advised Petitioner it was not necessary for Petitioner to incur that expense until its application for registration was approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a final order be entered granting Petitioner's application for registration and requiring Petitioner to post the requisite bond prior to issuance of the registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Noto, Esquire 505 South Flagler Drive Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Robert Alan Fox, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street, Suite 526 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact In the Spring of 1978, Roach purchased 1965 Piper aircraft No. 3406W from an out-of-state broker. On the assumption that sales tax had been collected, and not being familiar with Florida's Sales/Use tax laws, Roach took no other action. This aircraft was sold in August of 1978 and 1972 Piper No. 5309T was purchased in September of 1978; this aircraft was purchased under the same circumstances. No records were kept of the purchase price of either aircraft. DOR wrote Roach in August and September of 1978 regarding 3406W, without result. Thereafter, DOR used the average book value of $19,000 to arrive at a tax due of $760.00 Roach paid $720 tax on July 15, 1979; he contended that 3406W had $1000 less equipment than the average book valued aircraft. Prior to this time Roach became aware that tax was due but indicated he was financially unable to pay. On July 18, 1979, DOR sent Roach the proposed assessment for $40.00 tax, $190.00 penalty and $83.60 interest. Meantime, DOR was writing Roach regarding the second aircraft, 5309T, with no response being received until August 8, 1979. A proposed assessment was issued for $1500 tax, $375 penalty and $394.93 interest on September 10, 1979. During the subsequent informal conference, Roach advised that the tax due was in fact $1520, which was paid on October 4, 1979. Revised assessment dated October 22, 1979, was for $380 penalty and $400.20 interest. DOR's witness, Assistant Area Supervisor, Collection and Enforcement Division, received the matter from higher headquarters in December of 1979. He merely indicated that someone else in DOR used the "blue book" to determine value; he presented no evidence contrary to Roach's estimated value of $18,000 for the first aircraft or regarding the imposition of the penalty.
The Issue Whether American Airlines committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the employment discrimination charges filed by Petitioners and, if so, what relief should Petitioners be granted by the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the extensive factual stipulations set forth in the parties' February 23, 2006, Corrected Joint Prehearing Stipulation2: Petitioners are both Hispanic. Hispanics represent a substantial portion of the workforce in American's maintenance department at Miami International Airport (MIA). Among these Hispanic employees in the maintenance department are those who occupy supervisory positions. American’s Vice-President for Maintenance, Danny Martinez, is Hispanic. As aviation maintenance technicians for American, Petitioners' job duties, as set forth in the written job description for the position, were as follows: In addition to the work specified for the Junior Aviation Maintenance Technician, an Aviation Maintenance Technician's responsibility also includes the following: troubleshooting, individually or with Crew Chief, management or professional direction, disassembly, checking and cleaning, repairing, replacing, testing, adjusting, assembling, installing, servicing, fabricating, taxing or towing airplanes and/or run-up engines, de-icing aircraft, required to maintain the airworthiness of aircraft and all their components while in service or while undergoing overhaul and/or modification. Certifies for quality of own workmanship, including signing mechanical flight releases for all work done on field work. In those work positions where stock chasers are not utilized and/or available at the time may chase own parts. May have other Mechanic personnel assigned to assist him/her in completing an assignment. Works according to FAA and Company regulations and procedures and instructions from Crew Chief or supervisor. Completes forms connected with work assignments according to established procedures and communicates with other Company personnel as required in a manner designated by the Company. Performs the following duties as assigned: cleaning of aircraft windshields; connection/removing ground power and ground start units; pushing out/towing of aircraft and related guideman functions, fueling/defueling, de-icing of aircraft. At all times material to the instant cases, Petitioners were members of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between American and the TWU (TWU Contract), which contained the following provisions, among others: ARTICLE 28- NO DISCRIMINATION, AND RECOGNITION OF RIGHTS AND COMPLIANCE The Company and the Union agree to make it a matter of record in this Agreement that in accordance with the established policy of the Company and the Union, the provisions of this Agreement will apply equally to all employees regardless of sex, color, race, creed, age, religious preferences, status as a veteran or military reservist, disability, or national origin. The Union recognizes that the Company will have sole jurisdiction of the management and operation of its business, the direction of its working force, the right to maintain discipline and efficiency in its hangars, stations, shops, or other places of employment, and the right of the Company to hire, discipline, and discharge employees for just cause, subject to the provisions of this Agreement. It is agreed that the rights of management not enumerated in this Article will not be deemed to exclude other preexisting rights of management not enumerated which do not conflict with other provisions of the Agreement. * * * Copies of the Peak Performance Through Commitment (PPC) Program will be available to all employees upon request. Any changes to the PPC Program will be provided and explained to the TWU prior to implementation. ARTICLE 29- REPRESENTATION * * * The Union does not question the right of the Company supervisors to manage and supervise the work force and make reasonable inquiries of employees, individually or collectively, in the normal course of work. In meetings for the purpose of investigation of any matter which may eventuate in the application of discipline or dismissal, or when written statements may be required, or of sufficient importance for the Company to have witnesses present, or to necessitate the presence of more than the Company supervisor, or during reasonable cause or post accident drug/alcohol testing as provided in Article 29(h), the Company will inform the employee of his right to have Union representation present. If the employee refuses representation, the supervisor's record will reflect this refusal. At the start of a meeting under the provisions of Article 29(f), the Company will, except in rare and unusual circumstances, indicate the reason that causes the meeting and then provide an opportunity for the employee and his Union representative to confer for a reasonable period of time. Following that period, the 29(f) meeting will be reconvened and continue until concluded by the supervisor. Before written notification of discipline or dismissal is given, an employee will be afforded the opportunity to discuss the matter with his supervisor. If he desires, he will have a Union representative in the discussion. . . . * * * ARTICLE 30- DISMISSAL An employee who has passed his probationary period will not be dismissed from the service of the Company without written notification of that action. The notification will include the reason or reasons for his dismissal. Appeal from dismissal will be made, in writing, by the employee within seven (7) calendar days after receiving the notification and will be addressed to the Chief Operating Officer, with a copy to the appropriate Human Resources Office. The Chief Operating Officer will fully investigate the matter and render a written decision as soon as possible, but not later than twelve (12) calendar days following his receipt of the appeal, unless mutually agreed otherwise. A copy of the written decision will be provided to the Union. * * * If the decision of the Chief Operating Officer is not satisfactory to the employee, the dismissal and decision will be appealed in accordance with Article 30(c), provided, however, the appeal must be submitted within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of the decision rendered by the Chief Operating Officer. An appeal from the decision of the Chief Operating Officer will be submitted to the appropriate Area Board of Adjustment in accordance with Article 32. . . . * * * ARTICLE 31- GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE An employee who believes that he has been unjustly dealt with, or that any provision of this Agreement has not been properly applied or interpreted, or against whom the Company has issued written disciplinary action, may submit his grievance in person or through his representatives within seven (7) calendar days. The grievance will be presented to his immediate supervisor, who will evaluate the grievance or complaint and render a written decision as soon as possible, but not later than seven (7) calendar days following his receipt of the grievance. . . . If the written decision of the immediate supervisor is not satisfactory to the employee whose grievance is being considered, it may be appealed within ten (10) calendar to the Chief Operating Officer, with a copy to the appropriate Human Resources Office. The Chief Operating Officer will fully investigate the matter and will render a written decision as soon as possible, but not later than twelve (12) calendar days, unless mutually agreed otherwise, following his receipt of the appeal. . . . If the decision of the Chief Operating Officer is not satisfactory to the employee, the grievance and the decision may be appealed to the System Board of Adjustment, as provided for in Article 32. * * * ARTICLE 32- BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT * * * Area Board of Adjustment, Discipline and Dismissal Cases * * * (2) Each Area Board will be composed on one member appointed by the Company, one member appointed by the Union, and a neutral referee acting as Chairman. . . . * * * Procedures Generally Applicable to the Boards * * * Employees and the Company may be represented at Board hearing by such person or persons as they may choose and designate. Evidence may be presented either orally or in writing, or both. The advocates will exchange all documents they may enter and the names of witnesses they may call in their direct case not later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date set for hearing. Nothing in this paragraph will require either advocate to present the documents or the witnesses provided above during the course of the hearing. The advocates will not be restricted from entering documents or calling witnesses that become known subsequent to the ten (10) ten calendar day exchange, provided a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours notice is provided to the other party and a copies are submitted to the other party prior to the presentation of the direct case. The party receiving the late document or witness has the option to postpone the hearing in light of the new document or witness. Upon the request of either party to the dispute, or of two (2) Board members, the neutral referee will summon witnesses to testify at Board hearing. The Company will cooperate to ensure that all witnesses summoned by the board will appear in a timely fashion. Reasonable requests by the Union for employee witnesses will be honored. The requests for witnesses will normally not be greater than the number, which can be spared without interference with the service of the Company. Disputes arising from this provision will be immediately referred to the Director of the Air Transport Division and the Vice President-Employee Relations, or their respective designees, for resolution. A majority of all members of a Board will be sufficient to make a finding or a decision with respect to any dispute properly before it, and such finding or decision will be final and binding upon the parties to such dispute. . . . * * * ARTICLE 36- MEAL PERIODS Meal periods will be thirty minutes, except when a longer period is agreed upon between the parties. Meal periods will be scheduled to begin not earlier than three (3) hours after commencement of work that day and not later than five hours after commencement of work that day. The commencement of work is from the start of the employee's regular shift. If an employee is not scheduled for a meal period within the foregoing time span, the meal period will be provided immediately before or after it. In the event that a meal period has not been provided in accordance with the foregoing, the employee is then free, if he so desires, to take his meal period. At all times material to the instant cases, American had Rules of Conduct for its employees that (as permitted by Article 28(b) of the TWU Contract) were applicable to TWU- represented bargaining unit members, including Petitioners. These Rules of Conduct provided, in pertinent part, as follows: As an American Airlines employee, you can expect a safe and productive workplace that ensures your ability to succeed and grow with your job. The rules listed below represent the guidelines and principles that all employees work by at American. Attendance * * * During your tour of duty, remain in the area necessary for the efficient performance of your work. Remain at work until your tour of duty ends unless you are authorized to leave early. * * * 17. Work carefully. Observe posted or published regulations. * * * Personal Conduct * * * 34. Dishonesty of any kind in relations with the company, such as theft or pilferage of company property, the property of other employees or property of others entrusted to the company, or misrepresentation in obtaining employee benefits or privileges, will be grounds for dismissal and where the facts warrant, prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. Employees charged with a criminal offense, on or off duty, may immediately be withheld from service. Any action constituting a criminal offense, whether committed on duty or off duty, will be grounds for dismissal. (Revision of this rule, April 10, 1984) * * * Violations of any of the American Airlines Rules of Conduct (listed above) . . . could be grounds for immediate termination depending of the severity of the incident or offense and the employee's record. . . . At all times material to the instant cases, American had a Peak Performance Through Commitment Policy (PPC Policy) to deal with employee performance and disciplinary problems. The policy, which (as permitted by Article 28(b) of the TWU Contract) was applicable to TWU-represented bargaining unit members, including Petitioners, provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Peak Performance Through Commitment (PPC) is a program that fosters ongoing communication between managers and employees. It encourages managers . . . to regularly recognize outstanding performance and to work together with employees to address and correct performance issues fairly. For the few employees whose performance does not respond to regular coaching and counseling, the following steps advise them that continued performance problems have serious consequences, ultimately leading to termination: -First Advisory for employees with problem performance or conduct who do not respond to coaching or counseling. -Second Advisory for employees whose performance fails to respond to initial corrective steps. -Career Decision Advisory for employees whose problem performance or conduct warrants termination. They are given a paid Career Decision Day away from work to consider their future and continued employment with American Airlines. -Final Advisory for employees whose problem performance or conduct requires termination, or those who have failed to honor the Letter of Commitment signed after their Career Decision Day. Please note that steps can sometimes be skipped, in instances where the nature of the conduct is very serious. It is your responsibility as an employee to know the company's rules of conduct and performance standards for your job, and to consistently meet or exceed those standards. In the event that your performance does not measure up to the company's expectations, your manager will work with you to identify the problem and outline steps to correct it. * * * SERIOUS INCIDENTS OR OFFENSES Some violations of our guiding principles and rules of conduct will result in immediate termination. For example, insubordination, violating our alcohol and drug policy, abusing travel privileges, aircraft damage, violations of the work environment policy, and job actions could be grounds for immediate termination, depending on the severity of the incident and the employee's record. Hate-related conduct and dishonesty will always result in termination. In cases when immediate termination may be appropriate but additional information is needed, the employee may be withheld from service while an investigation is conducted. At all times material to the instant case, Petitioners' regular shifts were eight and a half hours, including an unpaid, thirty minute "meal period" (to which TWU-represented bargaining unit members were entitled under Article 36 of the TWU Contract). Although they were paid to perform eight hours of work during their eight and a half hour shifts, TWU-represented bargaining unit members, including Petitioners, were, in practice, allowed to take up to an hour for their meals, without penalty. TWU-represented bargaining unit members "clocked in" at the beginning of their shift and "clocked out" at the end of their shift. They were expected to remain "on the clock" during their "meal periods" (which, as noted above, were to be no longer than one hour). During his eight and a half hour shift which began on July 30, 2004, Petitioner Castellanos was assigned to perform a "routine 'A' [safety] check" on a Boeing 757 aircraft, an assignment it should have taken a "well qualified [aviation maintenance technician] working quickly but carefully" approximately four hours to complete. At the time he left MIA that evening to go to the Quench nightclub, Mr. Castellanos was two hours and 15 minutes into his shift. During his eight and a half hour shift which began on July 30, 2004, Petitioner Pena was assigned to perform "PS checks" on two Boeing 737 aircraft, an assignment it should have taken a "well qualified [aviation maintenance technician] working quickly but carefully" at least six hours to complete. At the time he left MIA that evening to go to the Quench nightclub, Mr. Pena was three hours and 45 minutes into his shift. Walter Philbrick, an investigator in American's corporate security department, covertly followed Petitioners when they left MIA that evening and kept them under surveillance until their return almost four hours later. Petitioners did not clock out until following the end of their shifts on July 31, 2004. In so doing, they effectively claimed full pay for the shifts, notwithstanding that, during the shifts, they had been off the worksite, engaged in non-work- related activity, for well in excess of the one hour they were allowed for "meal periods." Mr. Philbrick prepared and submitted a report detailing what he had observed as to Petitioners' movements and conduct during the time that they had been under his surveillance. Mike Smith is American's maintenance department station manager at MIA. He is "responsible for the entire [American] maintenance operation in Miami." Mr. Smith assigned his subordinate, Anthony DeGrazia, a day shift production manager at MIA, the task of looking into, and taking the appropriate action on behalf of management in response to, the matters described in Mr. Philbrick's report. Neither Mr. Smith nor Mr. DeGrazia is Hispanic. Mr. DeGrazia met separately with both Mr. Pena and Mr. Castellanos. The meetings were held in accordance with the provisions of Article 29(f) of the TWU Contract. Before conducting the meetings, Mr. DeGrazia had reviewed Mr. Philbrick's report. Mr. Castellanos stated, among other things, the following in his meeting with Mr. DeGrazia: on the evening in question, he was trying to complete his assignment as fast as possible because he wanted to have an alcoholic beverage; that evening, he was "away from work" for approximately four hours, which he knew was wrong; and he and Mr. Pena had engaged in similar activity on perhaps six or seven previous occasions. Mr. Pena stated, among other things, the following in his meeting with Mr. DeGrazia: on the evening in question, he was "off the field" for three to four hours, which he knew was not "okay"; this was something he had done "sometimes" in the past; and American was a "great company" to work for. Based on his review of Mr. Philbrick's report and the information he had obtained from Petitioners, Mr. DeGrazia concluded that Petitioners had committed "time clock fraud" in violation of Rule 34 of American's Rules of Conduct and that they therefore, in accordance with American's policy that "dishonesty will always result in termination" (as expressed in the PPC Policy), should be terminated. Before taking such action, Mr. DeGrazia consulted with Mr. Smith and "someone" from American's human resources department, who both "concurred" with Mr. DeGrazia that termination was the appropriate action to take against Petitioners. On August 12, 2004, Mr. DeGrazia issued Final Advisories terminating Petitioners' employment. The Final Advisory given to Mr. Castellanos read, in pertinent part, as follows: On Friday, July 30, 2004, your scheduled tour of duty was 2230-0700. During your scheduled shift you were assigned to complete an A-check on a 757 aircraft. At approximately 0045, Corporate Security observed you leaving the premises and going into a nightclub in Coconut Grove. While there, you were observed at the bar drinking from a plastic cup. You were observed leaving the nightclub at 0315 and driving towards the airport. By your own account, you returned to the airport approximately 0400. During a company investigation, you admitted to leaving the premises, during your scheduled tour of duty and going to a restaurant/bar. Further, you admitted to consuming alcoholic beverages. Additionally, when asked how it was possible for you to complete your assignment in such a short amount of time you stated that you were, "trying to complete the job as fast as I can because I was getting the urge of getting a drink." Based on the above information I have concluded that your actions fall far short of that which may be reasonably expected of our employees and are a direct violation of American Airlines' Rules of Conduct, Rules 3, 4, 17, and 34 . . . . In view of the above rule violations your employment with American Airlines is hereby terminated effective today, August 12, 2004. * * * The Final Advisory given to Mr. Pena read, in pertinent part, as follows: On Friday, July 30, 2004, your scheduled tour of duty was 2100-0530. During your scheduled shift you were assigned to complete two PS-checks on 737 aircraft. At approximately 0045, Corporate Security observed you leaving the premises and going into a nightclub in Coconut Grove. While there, you were observed at the bar drinking from a plastic cup. You were observed leaving the nightclub at 0315 and driving towards the airport. By your own account, you returned to the airport approximately 0400. During a company investigation, you admitted to leaving the premises, during your scheduled tour of duty and going to a restaurant/bar. Further, you admitted to consuming alcoholic beverages. Additionally, when you[] were asked if it is acceptable to go to lunch for 3-4 hours you stated, "no, according to Company Rules, it's not OK." Based on the above information I have concluded that your actions fall far short of that which may be reasonably expected of our employees and are a direct violation of American Airlines' Rules of Conduct, Rules 3, 4, and 34 . . . . In view of the above rule violations your employment with American Airlines is hereby terminated effective today, August 12, 2004. * * * That Petitioners were Hispanic played no role whatsoever in Mr. DeGrazia's decision to terminate them. Mr. DeGrazia terminated Petitioners because, and only because, he believed that they had engaged in dishonesty by committing "time clock fraud." Mr. DeGrazia has never encountered another situation, in his capacity as a production manager for American, where an aviation maintenance technician over whom he had disciplinary authority engaged in conduct comparable to the conduct for which he terminated Petitioners. No one has ever reported to him, nor has he ever observed, any aviation maintenance technician other than Petitioners taking "meal periods" that were longer than an hour while remaining "on the clock." Petitioners both grieved their terminations pursuant to Article 31 of the TWU Contract. Neither of them advanced any allegations of anti-Hispanic discrimination in his grievance. Petitioners' grievances were ultimately denied on September 9, 2004, by William Cade, American's managing director for maintenance. Petitioners appealed the denial of their grievances to the American and TWU Area Board of Adjustment for Miami, Florida (Board), in accordance with Article 32 of the TWU Contract, which provided for "final and binding" arbitration of disputes arising under the contract. A consolidated evidentiary hearing was held before the Board on April 28, 2005. At the hearing, Petitioners were represented by counsel. Through counsel, they called and cross- examined witnesses, submitted documentary evidence, and presented argument. Neither of them testified. The Board issued a decision on June 27, 2005, denying Petitioners' grievances. The TWU Board member dissented. The Discussion and Opinion portion of the decision read, in pertinent part, as follows: There is no dispute that the rule violations by grievants['] actions on July 30, 2004 constituted time card fraud and violation of rules relating to remaining at work. This was not some minor taking of time, such as overstaying lunch for a shortened period. It was a well-planned event. They had with them a change of clothes - in effect "party clothes" apropos to a late night-early morning South Florida nightclub. They had even done this several times before. Once at this nightclub they actually drank very little. Grievant Pena had two drinks and grievant Castellanos appeared to have just one. In fact, when he was later tested after his return to work almost five hours later, the result was negative for drugs and alcohol. Clearly, they failed to remain at work for their tours of duty in violation of Rules 3 and 4. These rules, however, do not by themselves call for immediate discharge nor do any of the Company documents relating to rules, such as its PPC, refer to them as serious violations that would incur discharge. The seriousness here concerns the grievants' badging out after their eight-hour tour and being paid for eight hours, almost five of which they did not work. There is no question that this is time card fraud and as such it involves dishonesty that is covered by Rule 34's "dishonesty of any kind." Numerous arbitrators for the parties have found such conduct to be violative of Rule 34 and have concluded that stealing time from the Company is dishonesty that requires immediate dismissal. * * * [T]he grievants engaged in this misconduct on multiple occasions that involved more than half of their shift being spent at a nightclub. And they knew it was wrong as they readily admitted when finally caught. Mitigation based on the grievants' EAP involvement is insufficient to overcome and reduce in any fashion their core responsibility to be honest employees and abide by all Company rules and regulations. The Company made this clear enough in its current Drug and Alcohol policy, and, as seen, other Boards have found it reasonable, as does this Board. To all of this the Union argues that there are other mitigating factors - seniority, disparate treatment, failure to consider employment records and a common practice permitting employees to extend lunch breaks. As to the latter, there is no evidence that any employee has been allowed to stay away from work for almost five hours with the knowledge or consent of management at any level. There is some evidence of employees overstaying the break by 30 minutes, of employees going for food for the crew and arriving back late and even some two-hour absences. None of this is comparable to the grievants' conduct. Nor is the evidence concerning supervisor Delgadillo enough to warrant the finding of a practice. She was not Pena's supervisor. She called grievant Castellanos' cell, but that alone does not mean that she knew he was off several hours at that point socializing and drinking in Coconut Grove on July 30 or at other times. She may have gone out with them while she was a mechanic, but the evidence does not show that she went for these long journeys to drink and socialize at a night club. Most importantly, the grievants never claimed a practice existed but instead readily admitted at the 29(f)s that their conduct was wrong and they violated Company rules. As to the disparate treatment incidents, although the dishonesty issue appears similar, different treatment only becomes disparate when the employees being compared also have factual situations and records that are similar. The comparators here did not leave work on more than one occasion, or on any occasion, for four hours or more to drink and socialize in a nightclub. Thus, Mora's 45-minute late punch-in resulted from his retrieving his drivers' license; he then immediately informed management of what he did. He did not have to be put under security surveillance for this type of conduct occurring in the past. Although his 30-minute extended lunch was part of the practice referred to above, it hardly qualifies as like conduct when compared to the grievants' activities. The claim by Vizcaino that he was sick when he used his Company travel privilege is the type of violation referred to the Travel Abuse Committee under a rule penalizing employees by suspending their travel privileges. The facts of that incident and the reasoning of this committee are not known to make any clear and relevant comparison. Even if accepted as a valid comparison, it is only one employee incident that by itself is insufficient to show that management disparately treated these grievants. Nor is their any proof that Rule 34 was involved in either of these situations. Manager DeGrazia disclosed that he did not consider the grievants' prior record or their seniority. He explained that the seriousness of their conduct was sufficient for his decision. The Board fully recognizes that the grievants cooperated during the investigation, had no prior discipline, and had seniority from 1989 and 1996. Each of these factors is significant in assessing the suitability of the penalties. But it is well established by the parties and even in arbitration cases involving outside parties, that in light of the gravity of time card fraud, these factors need not be evaluated. The Chairman notes nonetheless, that seniority and work records cannot be entirely ignored. But here, the grievants' propensity in the past to engage in this same outlandish conduct, and to do so undetected, significantly minimized, for mitigation purposes, much of their good record and seniority. Petitioners subsequently filed employment discrimination charges with the FCHR, alleging for the first time that their terminations were products of anti-Hispanic discrimination. There has been no persuasive showing made, in support in these allegations, that the decision to terminate them was motivated by anything other than legitimate business considerations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding the American not guilty of the unlawful employment practices alleged by Petitioners and dismissing their employment discrimination charges. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 15th day of May, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The facts in this case are not in dispute. In October 1978 Herbert Grossman, a CPA, one of whose clients was Red Aircraft, Inc., and Spencer Gordon formed the corporation Southern Air Charter, Inc., for the purpose of taking title to an aircraft to be operated by Red. The bill of sale for $140,000 in September 1978 was from Red to Southern Air Charter, Inc., who financed the plane with a loan from Barnett Bank. Red, at all times here relevant, was registered with the Department of Revenue (DOR or Petitioner) as a dealer engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property. Southern Air Charter submitted application to DOR for a certificate of registration (Exhibit 1) bearing the typed date October 1978 scratched out, and inserted in handwriting 6-1-79. This application (Exhibit 1) was stamped received in DOR office February 1, 1979. Grossman's testimony, which was undisputed, was that Southern was formed as an accommodation to Red for the purpose of taking legal title to the aircraft to improve Red's balance sheet. Red continued to provide insurance coverage on the aircraft, charter the aircraft and perform all of their activities respecting the aircraft that would be done by an owner. Southern, having legal title to the aircraft, took depreciation and investment tax credit while Red used the aircraft. At the time of the sale of the aircraft to Southern, the latter was not a registered dealer, and Red did not collect sales tax on this transaction. On July 7, 1979, the tax, penalty and interest assessed on this transaction was $6,331.68 (Exhibit 2). The accuracy of this figure was not contested, nor was the assessment for rentals of aircraft in the amount of $1,704.34 (Exhibit 2). Red contended that no tax was due on the leasing of the aircraft but no evidence to support this exemption was presented.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation doing business and having its principal place of business in Broward County, Florida. It holds an operating certificate as an air taxi/commercial operator issued by the Federal Aviation Administration on April 4, 1977. The certificate states that Petitioner has met the requirements of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, and the rules prescribed thereunder for issuance of the certificate. The operating certificate was issued by the F.A.A. under 14 CFR 135. Petitioner is also registered as an air taxi operator with the Civil Aeronautics Board (C.A.B.) under 14 CFR 298. (Testimony of Jackson, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Stipulation) Respondent's auditor conducted an audit of Petitioner's records for the period June 1, 1975 through July 31, 1978, and, on August 15, 1978, issued a Notice of Proposed Assessment of tax, penalties and interest under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, in the total amount of $1,629.35 for alleged delinquent sales and use tax incurred during the audit period. The proposed assessment was based upon audit findings that Petitioner had purchased fuel, aircraft parts and repairs from a firm called Hansa Jet located at the Fort Lauderdale Hollywood Airport on which sales tax was allegedly due, but not paid thereon. Petitioner was not chartered as a corporation until March, 1977, and purchases prior to that time were made by Andy Jackson Yacht and Aircraft, Inc., which was a registered dealer under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Although the audit was based upon invoices in the possession of Petitioner, no effort was apparently made to check the records of the supplier, Hansa Jet, to ascertain whether it took tax exemption certificates from either firm. Several of the invoices reflected the sales tax number of Andy Jackson Yacht and Aircraft, Inc. Petitioner was not a registered dealer under Chapter 212, during the audit period. It was originally a division of Andy Jackson Yacht and Aircraft, Inc. and since 1977 has been a wholly owned subsidiary of that firm. (Testimony of Bravade, Jackson, Petitioner's Exhibit 7) By letter of September 12, 1978, Petitioner asked Respondent for an interpretation as to the applicability of the partial tax exemption of Section 212.08(9), Florida Statutes, to its operations. By letter of September 19, Respondent's audit bureau chief advised Petitioner that the exemption applied only to carriers holding certificates of convenience issued by the C.A.B. that establish routes, rates, and reports on operations on such routes. Petitioner thereafter requested a Chapter 120 hearing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Prior to obtaining federal authorization to operate as an air taxi carrier, Petitioner was obliged to meet such preliminary requirements as acquisition of aircraft, insurance coverage, and the preparation of a detailed operations manual for the F.A.A. specifying the structure of the firm, and detailed provisions relating to personnel and operations. Its pilots have the same training and meet the same basic qualifications as those employed by other airlines, and its aircraft are periodically inspected by the F.A.A. under federal standards. Petitioner's place of business is located at the Fort Lauderdale- Hollywood International Airport and it maintains gate and counter space at the terminal. Its aircraft carry both passengers and cargo at published rates. Although it formerly flew scheduled routes to the Bahama Islands, it found these to be unprofitable and discontinued them. Approximately 95 percent of its business is in interstate and foreign commerce, and all of the purchases for which the taxes are presently asserted were for flights in such commerce. Petitioner is listed in the local telephone directory under the heading "Airline Companies." The listing shows destinations in the Bahama Islands and further states "Charter rates on request to all Caribbean and U.S. cities." It accepts passengers without discrimination who are willing to pay the specified rate for passage. It is a member of the Warsaw Pact on limitation of liability for international carriers. Petitioner will quote specific charter rates to a group to a particular place but gives the same rate to any other group desiring transportation to the same destination. Its operations are controlled by the F.A.A. in accordance with Petitioner's plan of operations. It aircraft fly twenty-four hours a day throughout the week. It has no continuing contracts for cargo or passengers. Although it has printed passenger tickets, these are not customarily used. Fares are paid in cash or through national credit cards. Petitioner is free to decline to fly passengers and cargo to a particular destination and exercises its discretion in this respect. It files regular annual reports to the C.A.B. on all of its revenue operations. (Testimony of Jackson, Petitioner's Exhibits 3, 6) Although Petitioner, as an air taxi operator, does not hold a C.A.B. certificate of public convenience and necessity under Section 401 of the Act, it is nevertheless viewed as a "common carrier" by that agency. The C.A.B. does not issue "licenses" to any category of air carrier but construes registration with it to be the same as a license. (Testimony of Untiedt, Petitioner's Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent revise its proposed assessment against Petitioner to encompass only those transactions occurring after Petitioner's date of incorporation, and enforce the same in accordance with law. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Gaylord A. Wood, Jr. 603 Courthouse Square Building 200 South East 6th Street Fort Lauderdale,, Florida 33301 Maxie Broome, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John D. Moriarty Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Castelli originally applied for licensure as a physician in the state of Florida by application signed, notarized, and dated July of 1985. In conjunction with his application for licensure, Petitioner Castelli submitted a FLEX application that was signed and dated July 27, 1985. The 1985 application was accompanied by several documents, including Castelli's "Titulo" signed by him, dated September 15, 1972, and notarized by Norma Perez as a true and correct copy of the original. Petitioner Castelli was permitted by the Board of Medicine to take the December, 1985, FLEX, which Castelli did take and fail. By letter signed and dated August 30, 1986, Petitioner Castelli requested that he be allowed to re-take the FLEX examination in December of 1986. A notice dated October 15, 1986, was sent by the Board to the address provided by Castelli informing him that, among other things, he was required to complete a new application because his previous application was over one year old. Petitioner Castelli did not respond to that notification. On November 17, 1986, Petitioner Granado-Villar telephoned Respondent's employee Chandra Prine to inquire as to the status of her pending application to take the FLEX examination on December 5, 1986. Petitioner Granado-Villar was advised by Prine that her application was in order and that she should be receiving her admission card for the examination. Granado-Villar then asked Prine the status of the application of Petitioner Castelli. Prine told Granado- Villar that Castelli's application was incomplete because updated pages 2-5 had never been received and because no current ECFMG certificate was in his file. Prine further advised Granado-Villar that the deadline for applications for the December 5, 1986 FLEX examination had passed. In response to Granado-Villar's inquiries as to what could be done to help Castelli, Prine advised her that if his application file could be completed by 5:00 p.m. on November 18, 1986, Prine would discuss the matter with her supervisor and attempt to place Castelli's application on the agenda for the November 22, 1986 meeting of the Board of Medicine. Granado-Villar advised Prine that Castelli was a resident of Spain and that she would attempt to get an updated application form to Castelli by overnight mail. Prine told Granado-Villar to include copies of the receipts for overnight mail with Castelli's updated application. Petitioner Granado-Villar called Petitioner Castelli in Spain, and they decided to send the application to Castelli by commercial airlines in hopes of completing the round-trip in time to file it in the Board's office by 5:00 p.m. on November 18, 1986. During that conversation Castelli gave Granado-Villar the information she requested so that she could complete the updated application form for him. Granado-Villar typed some of the information on a photocopy of an application and subsequently filled in another portion by hand. Castelli advised Granado-Villar to write the name of Monserrat Compano, a former- stewardess for Iberia Airlines on the outside of the envelope so that the envelope might be accorded special treatment. Upon contacting Iberia Airlines, Granado-Villar discovered that there were no flights from Miami to Madrid on November 17 and that the only option was to utilize an Eastern Airlines flight from Miami to New York and then a connecting Iberia flight from New York to Madrid. Granado-Villar placed the updated application in a manila envelope bearing only the names of Monserrat Compano and Petitioner Castelli on the outside. She took the envelope to Carmen Rojas, an employee of Eastern Airlines and a friend of hers. She explained that the envelope must be placed on the Eastern flight leaving for New York at 1:00 p.m. on November 17 so that it could subsequently be placed on the Iberia flight from New York to Madrid. Rojas took the envelope to the flight crew for the Eastern flight to New York and gave it to one of the stewardesses, telling her to take the envelope and deliver it to the Iberia ticket counter at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. Rojas gave the stewardess no instructions other than to simply leave the envelope at the Iberia ticket counter in New York. No arrangements were made by Rojas, Granado-Villar, or Castelli for getting the envelope from the Iberia ticket counter in New York to the Iberia flight to Madrid. During the morning of November 18 Petitioner Granado-Villar arranged for a delivery service to pick up an envelope from her at the hospital where she is employed and deliver it to Respondent in Tallahassee with specific directions that the envelope must be on the Piedmont Airlines flight leaving Miami for Tallahassee at 5:00 p.m. on November 18, 1986. Also on the morning of November 18 Petitioner Granado-Villar made arrangements with Erma Shockley, an employee at Miami Children's Hospital and a notary public, for Shockley to notarize Castelli's signature on his application later that day. On November 18, 1986, Petitioner Granado-Villar took to Shockley a completed application form. She told Shockley that the signature on the form was that of Petitioner Castelli and that Castelli had signed the application form on the previous day at the airport in Madrid. Although both Shockley and Granado-Villar knew that Castelli was not present, Shockley notarized the signature on Castelli's application. Further, Shockley and Granado-Villar decided that Shockley would date her notarization as having been done on November 17 in order that the date of the notarization would be consistent with the date of the signature. After the document was notarized, Petitioner Granado-Villar went to the emergency room area to await the arrival of the courier that she had previously arranged. The courier arrived within 5 to 10 minutes thereafter. Edna Evenson, a courier for Crown Courier Services, Inc., picked up an envelope containing an application for Petitioner Castelli from Petitioner Granado-Villar at Miami Children's Hospital, 6125 Southwest 31st Street in Miami on November 18, 1986. She gave Petitioner Granado-Villar a receipt for that package. Evenson subsequently delivered it to Piedmont Airlines at Miami International Airport at approximately 3:49 on November 18, 1986, for transport on Piedmont flight number 814 from Miami to Tallahassee, departing at 5:00 p.m. Piedmont's airbill, which corroborates the testimony of Evenson and the records of Crown Courier Services, Inc., shows that Piedmont received the package from Evenson for shipment on flight 814 to Tallahassee at 3:47 p.m. on November 18, 1986. On November 19, 1986, at 9:00 a.m., C. Prine signed a Sonicair receipt for a package containing Castelli's 1986 licensure application. The Sonicair shipping form contained information including the shipper's name--'D Granado-Villar"; the recipient--"Department of Professional Regulation"; the date"11/18/86"; a job number/bill of lading number "A58408"; original airport code-- "MIA" and destination airport code "THL." The spaces provided for commercial value and declared value are blank, and other than the time of receipt written by C. Prine, there is no time indicated on the Sonicair shipping form. The signature and designation "#10" for the shipper's signature and pickup agent on the Sonicair air shipping form were written by Edna Evenson, the courier for Crown Courier Services, Inc. Accompanying the application from Petitioner Castelli was a hand written letter dated 11/18/86 from Petitioner Granado-Villar. Petitioner Castelli's application bears a signature which was notarized by Erma M. Shockley in Dade County, Florida, with a date of November 17, 1986. The notarization states that the document was subscribed and sworn to before Shockley on the date of the notarization. On November 20, 1986, Petitioner Castelli was notified that he was required to make a personal appearance before the Board at its November 22, 1986 meeting in Tampa. He failed to appear. Petitioner Granado-Villar was also notified on November 20, 1986, that she was required to make a personal appearance on November 22, 1986, and she did appear. At the proceeding on November 22 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director of the Board, specified the concerns of the Board's staff regarding Petitioner Castelli's application. The staff questioned whether the application had actually been received in Spain and completed by Castelli and returned to Granado-Villar for delivery in Tallahassee in such a short timespan. It also appeared that the signature of Castelli on the application did not match his signature on previous applications and documents. The staff further questioned how the application could have been notarized in Dade County, Florida, while Castelli was in Spain. Petitioner Granado-Villar testified under oath at that proceeding that the application did make the trip from Miami to New York to Madrid to Miami to Tallahassee and that the signature on the application was that of Castelli. She admitted completing part of his application and arranging for a notary public who was very familiar with Castelli to notarize his application in Miami after she received it from Castelli who remained in Spain. Although Granado-Villar testified before the Board that Shockley was "well acquainted" with Castelli, it was established at the final hearing in this cause that Shockley and Castelli knew each other only incidentally. Some months earlier, Shockley notarized a copy of a document belonging to Castelli to be a true copy of the original, and they once passed each other in the hall at Miami Children's Hospital. Shockley had never before notarized Castelli's signature. Petitioner Granado-Villar's testimony before the Board and testimony at the final hearing is corroborated by that of Petitioner Castelli at the final hearing. According to them, on November 17, 1986 Castelli drove from Seville, Spain, to Madrid, Spain, where he found the envelope containing his application waiting for him at the Iberia ticket counter in the Madrid airport. He signed the application, placed it back in the envelope, and gave it to a passenger on Iberia flight number 965. He instructed that passenger to give the envelope to a woman whom he described (Petitioner Granado-Villar). He advised the passenger that if the woman were not there to meet her when she "cleared customs," then the passenger was to take the envelope to the Iberia ticket counter in Miami International Airport. Castelli later telephoned Granado-Villar to inform her that the application would be on Iberia flight number 956 or 965 arriving in Miami at 4:00 p.m. Granado-Villar left the hospital to go to the airport at approximately 3:30 p.m. arriving there at approximately 4:00 p.m. She went to the Iberia ticket counter where she picked up the envelope which now bore her name. She drove back to Miami Children's Hospital, parked her car, and went directly to Shockley's office arriving there between 4:20 and 4:30 p.m. She had Castelli's signature notarized. She then went to the emergency room area and waited approximately 5 to 10 minutes for Evenson to arrive. Evenson arrived at the hospital at approximately 4:40 p.m., completed the necessary paperwork, and left. The testimony recited in this finding of fact is specifically rejected as being incredible. According to flight arrival information maintained by the United States Customs Service, Iberia flight number 965 had a "block time" in Miami of 4:05 p.m. on November 18, 1986. Block time signifies the actual time that an aircraft comes to a complete halt at its arrival gate, and that time is provided to the Customs Service by the airlines as required by the United States Government. Although Petitioners presented evidence that Iberia Airlines recorded in the form of a telex its "official" block time to have been 3:55 p.m., Iberia Airlines' "official" block time is specifically rejected in favor of the block time it gave to the United States Government on the general declarations form required by law to be filed by it. It normally takes from 15 to 30 minutes for a passenger arriving on an international flight to "clear" the customs area at Miami International Airport. That time frame is extended by whatever time it takes for a passenger to disembark from an aircraft the size of an international flight and is also extended if the passenger is not an American citizen and must also go through immigration clearance. No evidence was offered as to how long it took a passenger arriving at approximately 4:00 p.m. on November 18, 1986, to clear customs. Keeping in mind the fact that it took Granado-Villar one-half an hour to drive from the hospital to the airport, it is physically impossible for Granado-Villar's and Costelli's version of the movement of that envelope containing his application to be true. Except for the testimony of Granado- Villar and Costelli there is no evidence to show that the application ever reached Castelli in Spain. Carmen Rojas only sent it to the Iberia ticket counter at Kennedy Airport in New York. Even if the application reached Castelli, it is impossible that Granado-Villar retrieved the envelope containing the application from the Iberia Airlines ticket counter at Miami International Airport at the same time that the Iberia aircraft was arriving at the gate. There is no evidence that the unknown passenger was the first person off the aircraft, that she hastened to be the first in line at customs, that she was able to clear customs without going through the immigration check point in the minimum time of 15 minutes, or that she hastened to wherever the Iberia ticket counter might be in relationship to customs in order to have left the envelope in the custody of the persons at the Iberia ticket counter in order that Granado-Villar could retrieve that envelope and be back at Miami Children's Hospital and in Shockley's office by 4:20 or 4:30 p.m. Even if it could have happened as Granado-Villar testified, Evenson could not have picked up the package at 4:40 p.m. accomplishing the one-half hour drive to the airport in order to check in the package at Piedmont in time for that package to have been placed on an airplane which left at 5:00 p.m. The application which was delivered to Piedmont Airlines for transmittal to Tallahassee by Evenson prior to the arrival in Miami of Iberia flight number 965 was not the same application as the one Granado-Villar sent to Castelli in Spain for his signature. The application which the Board received contained information regarding Castelli's medical education and surgical residency that conflicted with the application submitted by Castelli in 1985 and was incorrect. Even Castelli's height was reported to be different on those applications. In addition to containing incorrect information, the application submitted on behalf of Castelli in November of 1986 did not contain his signature and was not properly notarized. Petitioner Granado-Villar submitted a fraudulently prepared application on behalf of Castelli and attempted to perpetuate the subterfuge by her testimony before the Board and by her testimony at the final hearing in this cause. Petitioner Castelli participated fully in the submittal of his fraudulently prepared application to the Board. Even if an application had reached him in Spain for his signature at the airport in Madrid as he testified, that application was not notarized and it contained incorrect information at the time that he signed it.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that Final Orders be entered denying the applications of Petitioner Guiseppe Castelli and of Petitioner Deise C. Granado-Villar for licensure by examination as physicians in the state of Florida. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of January, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 22nd day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-1594 and 87-2194 Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 11, and 15 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 4-8, 10, 12, 13, 24, and 25 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 9, 14, 16, 18, 23, and 26 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioners' proposed finding of fact numbered 17 has been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order except for the third sentence contained therein which is rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 19, 20, and 28 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 21 and 29 have been rejected as being subordinate. Petitioners' proposed findings of fact numbered 22 and 27 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as being either argument of counsel or mere recitations of the testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-34 have been adopted either in substance or verbatim in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Deborah J. Miller, Esquire One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2400 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Allen R. Grossman, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Shirley Arlene Cook, is currently licensed by Petitioner as a life agent, a life and health agent, and a general lines agent, and has been so licensed since February 17, 1982, February 17, 1982, and February 13, 1980, respectively. Respondent has been employed in the insurance business since 1954. She has operated her current agency, American Family Insurors, since January 1990. During times material, Respondent engaged in the business of insurance through the corporate entity, American Family Insurors, Inc. (Family Insurors). Respondent was the sole officer and director of Family Insurors, Inc. from May 25, 1990 through February 26, 1992. As corporate officer and director of Family Insurors, Respondent was personally liable and accountable for wrongful acts, misconduct, or other violations of any provision of the insurance code committed by herself or agents who worked under her direct supervision and control. During times material, Respondent maintained a business bank account No. 1263147295 at Barnett Bank, in the name of Family Insurors. Respondent and Richard Rock were the authorized signators on the Respondent's account. Sometime in 1990, Rock was taken from the account as an authorized signator. Richard Rock was employed by Respondent as an outside producer and primarily solicited new accounts and canvassed existing accounts to pick up deposits and insurance applications which were collected by auto salesmen. He paid such salesmen ten dollars for every property damage referral that materialized into a policy with Family Insurors. Richard and his wife, Michelle Rock, who was also employed by Respondent, left Respondent's agency during June 1992. They left Respondent's agency due to personal problems stemming from Richard's drug and alcohol abuse, and when Respondent learned that he was paying referral fees to auto salesmen. Richard paid the salesmen the referral fees from Respondent's petty cash account, an account which was maintained and controlled by his wife, Michelle. Respondent was not aware of the referral fees and other gratuities which Richard would give to outside salesmen from time to time. The gratuities consisted of gift certificates to various retail establishments which were primarily restaurants. Funds received by Respondent and deposited into bank account No. 1263147295, which were received from or on behalf of consumers, represented premiums for insurance polices and were trust funds received in a fiduciary capacity. As such, they were to be accounted for and paid over to an insuror, insured, or other persons entitled thereto in the applicable regular course of business. During times material, Onyx Underwriters, Inc. (Onyx) was the sole managing general agent for Orion Insurance Company, now known as Aries, and American Skyhawk Insurance Company (American Skyhawk). On January 16, 1990, Respondent entered into an Insurance Broker's Agreement with Onyx. The broker's agreement was cancelled on March 19, 1992. While the broker's agreement was effective, all insurance placed by Respondent with Orion/Aries or American Skyhawk was pursuant and subject to the provisions of the broker's agreement with Onyx and constituted brokerage business. Pursuant to the broker's agreement with Onyx, Respondent retained agency commissions on policies issued and was responsible for forwarding the net premium to Onyx. This procedure is known in the industry as "netting authority" and is a procedure whereby the agent deducts the commissions that he or she is entitled to from gross premiums received on policies and forward the net premium to, in this case, Onyx. THE BARBARA CECIL TRANSACTION On October 13, 1990, Barbara Cecil (Cecil) purchased an automobile from Tony Taylor of Taylor Automotive in Pinellas Park. In connection with the sale, Tony Taylor, an unlicensed individual, solicited automobile insurance from Cecil on behalf of Respondent. Cecil paid Tony Taylor eighty dollars ($80.00) as the premium down payment, and Respondent later deposited Cecil's payment into her bank account. Respondent represented to Cecil that she was bound on October 13, 1990; however, the insurance documents indicate that coverage was bound for Cecil on October 27, 1990, or approximately fourteen (14) days after the date that she purchased her auto from Taylor Automotive. Cecil was, however, given a binder on October 13, 1990. Respondent later completed a policy application and submitted it to Orion Insurance Company (Orion). Orion thereafter issued a policy to Cecil for the policy period of October 27, 1990 through October 27, 1991. Orion cancelled Cecil's policy on February 6, 1991, due to the absence of photographs of her automobile. In this connection, Respondent had previously submitted a set of photographs to Orion which did not clearly depict the automobile. Therefore, a second set of photos were requested by Orion. The second set of photos was not sent to Orion prior to the cancellation date. The cancellation of Cecil's policy resulted in an unearned premium of one hundred eighty dollars and ninety-two cents ($180.92), and an unearned commission of thirty-eight dollars and seventy cents ($38.70). Cecil was without automobile insurance from February 6, 1991 to October 27, 1991, and she was informed of the cancellation. During times material, Tony Taylor was not licensed in Florida as an insurance agent, customer representative, or solicitor. THE KIMBERLEY JONES TRANSACTION On June 20, 1991, Kimberley Jones purchased an automobile from Tony Taylor of Taylor Automotive. In connection with this automobile purchase, Tony Taylor solicited insurance on behalf of Jones from Respondent's agency. Kimberley Jones paid Taylor one hundred dollars ($100.00) as the premium down payment and Taylor issued a receipt to Jones. Respondent did not bind coverage with American Skyhawk for Jones until one week later, i.e., June 27, 1991. The Jones' policy ran its full term. THE KAREN KLEIN TRANSACTION On August 26, 1991, Karen Klein purchased an automobile from Keith Rice of Car Stop Automobile Sales. In connection with this purchase, Keith Rice, an unlicensed insurance individual, solicited automobile insurance from Klein on behalf of Family Insurors. Klein paid Keith Rice approximately one hundred dollars ($100.00) as a premium down payment for issuance of an insurance policy on her newly purchased automobile, which was to be effective on August 26, 1991. American Skyhawk issued a policy to Klein for the period effective August 27, 1991 through August 27, 1992. Onyx cancelled Klein's policy on December 3, 1991, for underwriting reasons. That cancellation resulted in an unearned premium of three hundred thirty-three dollars and thirty-one cents ($333.31), and an unearned commission of seventy-three dollars and sixty-eight cents ($73.68). THE EDITH PURCELL TRANSACTION On September 27, 1991, Edith Purcell purchased an automobile from Bill Hoskins of Taylor Automotive. In connection with that purchase, Hoskins solicited automobile insurance from Purcell on behalf of Family Insurors. Hoskins advised Purcell that her coverage would be effective September 29, 1991, upon receipt of her down payment of one hundred dollars ($100.00). Purcell paid Hoskins the premium down payment on September 29, 1991, and Hoskins issued a receipt indicating Family Insurors as the recipient. Hoskins, on behalf of Family Insurors, represented to Purcell that she had full coverage for the policy period, September 27, 1991 through September 26, 1992, pursuant to binder number P91-1022. American Skyhawk thereafter issued a policy to Purcell for the period of October 3, 1991 through October 3, 1992. Purcell's policy was cancelled on December 26, 1991, for underwriting reasons. That cancellation resulted in an unearned premium of four hundred forty-two dollars ($442.00), and an unearned commission of seventy-seven dollars and thirty-five cents ($77.35). THE JOHN J. NARKIN, III TRANSACTION On October 4, 1991, John J. Narkin, III (Narkin) purchased an automobile from Bill Hoskins of Taylor Automotive. In connection with that purchase, Hoskins, an individual who was not licensed as an insurance agent, representative, or solicitor, solicited an automobile insurance policy for Narkin on behalf of Family Insurors. Hoskins requested and Narkin paid him the one hundred dollar down payment for issuance of the policy. Hoskins issued Narkin a receipt from Family Insurors for the down payment indicating full coverage for the period October 4, 1991 through October 3, 1992, pursuant to binder number N91-1059. American Skyhawk issued a policy to Narkin effective for the period of October 7, 1991 through October 7, 1992. American Skyhawk issued a notice of cancellation for nonpayment of an additional premium of fifty-four dollars ($54.00), because Narkin failed to provide proof of holding a Florida Driver's License when he was requested to do so. Respondent notified Narkin of this request by letter dated December 7, 1991. Narkin was told that he had until December 27, 1991 to remit his payment. Narkin paid Respondent the additional premium by check on December 13, 1991, which deposit was entered into Family Insuror's business bank account on December 18, 1991. The additional premium was not forwarded by Respondent to Onyx prior to the December 27, 1991 cancellation date with the result that Narkin's policy was cancelled. Narkin was without insurance from December 27, 1991 through October 7, 1992, and he had no knowledge of this fact. The cancellation of Narkin's policy resulted in an unearned premium of six hundred fifty dollars and eighty-two cents ($650.82), and an unearned commission of one hundred forty-nine dollars and sixty-three cents ($149.63). THE WENDY WARDLE TRANSACTION On May 17, 1991, Family Insurors solicited an American Skyhawk application for automobile insurance from Wendy Wardle. Wendy Wardle paid Respondent ninety-eight dollars ($98.00) as the premium down payment, and the policy was thereafter issued to Wardle. On August 19, 1991, American Skyhawk cancelled Wardle's policy for underwriting reasons, resulting in an unearned premium of two hundred dollars and fifty-seven ($200.57), and an unearned commission of sixty-one dollars and seventy-eight cents ($61.78). THE MARY ANN MAFETONE TRANSACTION On October 28, 1991, Mary Ann Mafetone purchased an automobile for her daughter, Cindy Mafetone, from John Rosa of River Auto Sales. In connection with this purchase, John Rosa, an individual who was not licensed as an insurance agent, broker, or solicitor, solicited automobile insurance for the Mafetones from Family Insurors. Mafetone paid Rosa one hundred twelve dollars ($112.00) as the premium down payment for issuance of a policy in the name of her daughter, Cindy. In exchange for soliciting insurance on behalf of or from Family Insurors, Family Insurors, through Richard Stock, paid various automobile salesmen commissions, ranging from ten dollars to twenty per transaction. These commissions were based on specific coverage being purchased by the consumer. Respondent's Position Andrew Beverly, an expert in the field of insurance, is a chartered property and casualty underwriter, a chartered life underwriter and a chartered financial consultant. He is the owner and operator of the Florida Insurance School, a statewide firm that prepares individuals for entry level positions in the insurance industry. Beverly reviewed Respondent's binder books and practices respecting the subject insureds in this proceeding. The binder book and procedures utilized by Respondent are typical industry practices for agents and agencies writing policies with nonstandard companies. In the process of taking an insurance application to an actual hard copy policy, three sets of numbers are used. They are the binder number signed by the agent in numerical sequence as customers make application for coverage, the working number which is assigned by an underwriter until the actual (hard copy) policy is issued and the policy number which is computer generated by the company. Discrepancies between the binding date and the coverage date is normal within the industry and coverage is effective as of the binder date. Thus, in all of these transactions, the insureds had coverage the instant they received binders from Respondent. Respondent's files indicate that Barbara Cecil was timely notified that the pictures taken on her vehicle were not properly developed and she needed to return to the agency with her vehicle to take new pictures to be forwarded to her insuror. Mrs. Cecil did not return in a timely manner and her policy was therefore cancelled. Respondent's records respecting Edith Purcell indicate that Purcell was given a quote, and coverage for her was bound on October 3, 1991. An application for insurance was taken and she was provided the paperwork including a copy of the premium finance agreement. Purcell was notified on November 13, 1991, that her driver license information could not be verified. On November 21, 1991, Purcell visited Respondent's office and provided the necessary information. Respondent telecopied the information to the underwriting company; however, she was not reinstated. Respondent contacted the company about the cancellation, but the company refused to rescind the cancellation and underwrite that risk. Kimberly Jones was given a quote of $276.00 for insurance coverage by Respondent and she paid a $100.00 down payment. The balance was to be paid in installments. However, during the policy period, Ms. Jones was involved in an automobile accident which resulted in an increase in her premiums. Respondent advised Ms. Jones to pay the additional premium of approximately of forty percent as required by the company and add the balance of that additional premium to her contract. Ms. Jones complied and her policy remained in effect the full term. Ms. Mafetone paid Respondent a down payment of $112.00 and Respondent notified her that an additional $32.00 was required. Ms. Mafetone erroneously remitted the additional money to the (premium) finance company instead of the insurance company. As a result, her account was not properly credited and her policy was cancelled. Respondent thereafter notified the premium finance company and found that she had been given a credit on her monthly account statement. Respondent had not been provided a statement to reflect that credit when Mafetone's policy was cancelled. A portion of Respondent's statement was telecopied to her and she immediately remitted the $212.00 to the insuror to reinstate Ms. Mafetone's policy. Ms. Mafetone's policy was reinstated and remained in full force for its term. Respondent's files respecting Wendy and Douglas Wardle indicate that Mr. Wardle did not have a valid Florida driver's license at the time his policy was purchased. Based on Mr. Wardle's failure to provide proof of a driver's license, the company cancelled his policy. Karen Klein was provided a quote by Michelle Rock. An application was prepared for her on August 17, 1991, and coverage was bound on August 27, 1991. Klein's policy was cancelled because she did not have a valid Florida driver's license. Ms. Klein was notified in writing and she did not return to Respondent to handle the matter. As a result, the company cancelled her policy. Respondent's file relating to Narkin reveals that he was given a quote of $320.00, of which he paid $100.00 as a down payment. Narkin was billed the balance of the premium. Narkin's policy was issued on October 7, 1991, and he paid the balance. Respondent notified Narkin that the company was unable to ascertain that he had a valid Florida driver's license. This problem was ultimately resolved and his policy was reinstated. However, an additional premium was required from Narkin because of his license status at the time he made his application. The additional $54.00 was remitted by Narkin to the agency and Respondent forwarded it on to the company. Narkin was cancelled for failing to timely make the payment. Although Respondent maintains that it was the insuror's obligation to notify Narkin that his policy was cancelled, the records indicate that Narkin promptly paid Respondent and the amount was not timely remitted to the company which resulted in the cancellation. Respondent therefore did not timely remit the additional premium amount paid by Narkin to his policy was cancelled. Respondent utilizes a practice of binding coverages on applications the moment a completed application is filed. In each of the above referenced transactions, Respondent timely issued binder numbers and each applicant was bound the moment their application was completed and when the binder was issued. In each instance, Respondent promptly bound each of the above referred insureds. Respondent was unaware that Michelle and Richard Rock were providing kickbacks and other gratuities to automobile salesmen who are not insurance agents, customer representatives, or solicitors. When she did discover that this activity was ongoing, she took immediate steps to terminate this practice. As a result of that activity, she terminated her relationship with Michelle and Richard Rock.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine of $500.00 to be payable to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the entry of its Final Order for the violation derived in paragraph 50. In all other respects, Petitioner shall enter a Final Order dismissing the remaining allegations of the first Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 6th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, IN CASE NO. 93-7105 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 10 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraphs 37-46 recommended order. Paragraph 56 adopted as modified, paragraphs 36 and 46 recommended order. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondents proposed findings are in the form of a review of the testimony and written argument on that testimony. As such, although considered, no specific rulings are made with respect to Respondent's proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
