The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to hear this cause, alleging that Respondent Employer has committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Following a July 28, 2003, "Notice of Determination: No Jurisdiction," by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief as more fully described below. On or about September 3, 2003, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. It appearing on the face of the referral package that Respondent did not regularly employ 15 persons and that therefore Respondent did not qualify as an "employer" under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, a September 12, 2003, Order was entered scheduling a telephonic hearing for October 1, 2003, and permitting the filing of any documents in support of the parties' respective positions. Respondent's "Submission of Materials in Support of Dismissal of Petition and Supporting Memorandum of Law" was served by United States Mail on September 25, 2003. It contained a prayer for dismissal. Pursuant to Rule 28-106.204, Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner was entitled to respond in writing by October 6, 2003. Petitioner did not respond. Respondent's "Supplemental Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction" was served upon Petitioner by hand-delivery, by United States Mail, and by "e-mail" on September 26, 2003. Per Rule, Petitioner was entitled to file a written response by October 8, 2003. Petitioner did not respond. A Corrected Order entered September 26, 2003, permitted the parties until October 7, 2003, to submit any documents tending to support or refute jurisdiction by the Division of Administrative Hearings over this cause. This Order also rescheduled the telephonic hearing for October 9, 2003. Petitioner filed nothing in response to either the September 12, 2003, Order or the September 26, 2003, Corrected Order. At the October 9, 2003, telephonic conference call, Respondent appeared through counsel. The opening of hearing was delayed five minutes, but Petitioner did not appear. Thereafter, oral argument upon all Motions proceeded without Petitioner. Petitioner still had not called in to the meet-me telephone number after 15 minutes, and the telephonic hearing was concluded. In an abundance of caution, an Order to Show Cause was entered on October 10, 2003, giving Petitioner 10 days in which to show cause, in writing, filed with the Division, why this cause should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner has filed nothing. Therefore, Respondent's documentation, including but not limited to: Respondent's accountants’ affidavits and its payroll journals, unemployment tax returns, and a payroll schedule, may be presumed true and accurate. All the documentation supports a finding that Respondent never employed more than 14 people for any one week in the year 2001 and employed 15 or more employees for only one week (December 21-28, 2002) in the year 2002.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing this cause for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Truman Jeffery Mayfield 902 Phillips Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Robert G. Riegel, Jr., Esquire Ryan R. Fuller, Esquire Coffman, Coleman, Andrews & Grogan, P.A. Post Office Box 40089 Jacksonville, Florida 32203
Findings Of Fact By agreement with the prosecution Dr. Brown had sought to delay consideration of his procedural motion to dismiss DPR Case No. 91-06883/DOAH Case No. 92-1076, pertaining to the patients J.C., D.R., T.E. and K.J. The parties to that action anticipated considering the motion at the final hearing as part of the case on the merits. The hearing officer was persuaded that the procedural motion to dismiss had to be examined separate and apart from the consideration of the case on the merits as to those four patients. Consequently the motion to dismiss was entertained concerning its evidential and legal basis prior to a hearing on the merits. This led to the decision on June 9, 1992, to dismiss the action pertaining to treatment of the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E., with leave to refile at some future date. The decision to dismiss was based upon the pertinent facts and law when examined in accordance with Section 455.255(1), Florida Statutes. The motion to dismiss the action concerning treatment of the patient K.J. was denied. The reason for the dismissal was announced in the record on June 9, 1992, and memorialized in the transcript of the proceedings. It was concluded that there was not an adequate basis to institute an investigation concerning the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E.; that the Department of Professional Regulation, now the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, did not furnish Dr. Brown or his attorney with a copy of the complaint or the document that resulted in the initiation of the investigation pertaining to the three patients; and, that Dr. Brown did not have the statutorily mandated opportunity to respond to the accusations made against him related to the care that he provided those three patients. Therefore, the procedural requirements under Section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, had not been met and the case as it pertained to the three patients was dismissed with leave to refile. The procedural requirements related to the patient K.J. had been met and it was appropriate to present the K.J. case to the Probable Cause Panel for its deliberation, unlike the circumstance with the other three patients. It was determined that the quality of consideration by the Probable Cause Panel when voting to prosecute Dr. Brown for his treatment of K.J. was adequate. Based upon the ruling directed to the treatment of patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. the Department of Professional Regulation was not allowed to proceed against Dr. Brown for the care rendered those patients. A subsequent recommended order addressed in substance the prosecutions associated with DPR Case No. 91-06883/DOAH Case No. 92-1076 pertaining to the patient K.J.; DPR Case Nos. 011343 and 011344/DOAH Case No. 91-5325 and DPR Case Nos. 8901804, 0111385 and 0111353/DOAH Case No. 91-6358, traced the history of those cases in the preliminary statement to the recommended order and identified the prior ruling dismissing the actions pertaining to the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. That recommended order was not an invitation to the Board of Medicine to respond to a recommendation of dismissal. The recommended order in the cases pertaining to patients other than J.C., D.R., and T.E. was entered on December 30, 1992, based upon the formal hearing conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on various dates in June and July, 1992, and concluded on July 10, 1992, before the present hearing officer. On February 26, 1993, the Board entered its final order in the above- referenced cases and commented to the effect that it had approved the recommended dismissal by the hearing officer concerning the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. with leave to refile. Neither party appealed the hearing officer's decision dismissing those counts within DPR Case No. 91-06883/DOAH Case No. 92-1076 directed to the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. On March 8, 1993, Dr. Brown took an appeal from the final order of the Board of Medicine entered on February 26, 1993, which included the comment approving the actions by the hearing officer in dismissing the counts pertaining to the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E., but without prejudice to bring those actions again following compliance with Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. Robert C. Brown, Jr., M.D., is a licensed physician practicing in the state of Florida. He has held a license entitling him to practice in that state at all times relevant to the inquiry. At relevant times Dr. Brown has practiced medicine at 4519 Brentwood Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, 32206. He is the sole medical practitioner of an incorporated professional practice. He has had less than 25 employees and his net worth has been not more than 2 million dollars. Dr. Brown is the only share holder in his incorporated professional association. No one else has ownership interest in the incorporated professional association. At times Dr. Brown has drawn a salary from the professional association as an employee of the professional association. His request for attorney's fees and costs are directed to the actions of the Department of Professional Regulation for its procedural noncompliance with Section 455.225, Florida Statutes, and the subsequent decision of the Board of Medicine to find probable cause and to have the Department of Professional Regulation proceed against Dr. Brown for care rendered the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. The action to recover attorney's fees and costs not to exceed $15,000 was filed on April 27, 1993. The petition for attorney's fees and costs of April 27, 1993, was amended on July 15, 1993. Dr. Brown retained the law firm of Stowell, Anton and Kraemer to represent him in the aforementioned cases pertaining to the administrative prosecutions. His present attorney, Julie Gallagher, was principal counsel in those cases. No issue has been taken with the notion that $165.00 is a reasonable hourly rate for her services in defending Dr. Brown in the administrative prosecutions. Dr. Brown has paid all fees and costs charged by his lawyer in preparation for and participating in the proceedings related to the administrative prosecutions. To challenge the alleged procedural infirmities associated with the right to investigate, notice to the accused, opportunity for the accused to respond to the accusations and deliberations by the Probable Cause Panel contemplated by Section 455.225, Florida Statutes, it was not necessary for Dr. Brown to fully develop his defense on the merits of the accusations pertaining to patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. Dr. Brown's counsel in the exhibit associated with claims for attorney's fees and costs has highlighted the exhibit through color-codes in an attempt to assist the hearing officer in understanding the meaning of that exhibit. This color-code system attempts to identify those instances in which Dr. Brown claims that the work done on his behalf is associated only with patients with J.C., D.R. and T.E. and other occasions where a percentage is set forth in relation to work done in the entire DPR Case No. 91-06883/DOAH Case No. 92-1076, to include K.J. and in the other cases referenced before. The code is described in the August 16, 1993 cover letter from counsel for Dr. Brown. No attempt is made through the coding system to differentiate between those actions taken in moving to dismiss DPR Case No. 91-06883/DOAH Case No. 92-1076 pertaining to the patients J.C., D.R. and T.E. from other activities related to defending the accusations about those patients on the merits. The right to recover, if at all, is limited to those attorney's fees and costs associated with the motion to dismiss counts pertaining to the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E., together with the attorney's fees and costs associated with the present case. No other efforts by Dr. Brown's attorneys may be the proper subject for recovery. Not only was it not necessary to know information concerning the merits of the administrative complaint pertaining to patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. to pursue the motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, the decision that was made did not resolve the merits set forth in the administrative complaints directed to Dr. Brown's treatment of J.C., D.R., and T.E. The possibility exists that Dr. Brown could be called upon to defend against similar accusations to those set forth in the DPR Case No. 91-06883/DOAH Case No. 92-1076 at which time he could prepare himself to defend the merits and if successful that would be the appropriate moment to seek attorney's fees and costs for that aspect of the case. The arrangement by stipulation between the parties in the prior prosecution to delay consideration of the motion to dismiss until the place at which prosecution of the cases involving J.C., D.R., and T.E. were being examined on their merits was not appropriate. Consequently, Dr. Brown may not assert that he was required to prepare his motion to dismiss on procedural grounds simultaneously with his defense on the merits of the administrative complaint directed to the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. Within this context, taking into account a lack of opposition to the $165.00 hourly rate charged by Dr. Brown's counsel, the following amounts are found to be associated with the pursuit of the motion to dismiss those counts related to patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. and claims under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, to recover attorney's fees and costs: 3/11/92-$165.00; 3/14/92-$165.00; 3/16/92-$125.00; 3/31/92-$100.00; 4/2/92-$247.50; 4/6/92- $62.50; 4/6/92-$198.00; 4/10/92-$50.00; 4/16/92-$10.00; 4/17/92-$50.00; related to the motion to dismiss and 4/27/93-$165.00; 5/3/93-$33.00; 5/12/93-$15.00; 5/17/93-$82.50; 6/14/93-$165.00; related to the prosecution of the petition for attorney's fees and costs. No proof was offered concerning any special circumstances that point to any injustice in awarding attorney's fees and costs in the amount identified.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the pleadings and supporting documents, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Dr. Frank A. Brown, is a licensed psychologist having been issued license number PY-0002079. Respondent, Board of Psychological Examiners (Board), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of psychology pursuant to Chapter 490, Florida Statutes. The parties agree that Dr. Brown is a small business party as defined in Subsection 57.111(3)(d)1.a., Florida Statutes. On August 24, 1989, the Board issued an amended administrative complaint against Dr. Brown alleging that he had violated chapter 490 in three respects while treating patient R. B. during the period from 1978 until 1987. In general terms, the complaint alleged that: Petitioner had violated sections 490.0111 and 490.009(2)(k) by committing any act upon a patient or client, other than the spouse of the doctor, which would constitute sexual misconduct. (Count I) Petitioner had violated section 490.009(2) (s) by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (Count II) Petitioner had violated section 490.009(2)(p) by being unable to practice the profession for which he is licensed under chapter 490 with reasonable skill or competence as a result of a mental or physical condition or by reason of illness, drunkeness, chemicals or any other substance. (Count III) The complaint was later referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and was assigned Case No. 89-0599. An evidentiary hearing on the complaint was held on September 12 and 13, 1989. At the formal hearing the agency prosecutor voluntarily dismissed Count I, and the case was tried on the remaining two counts. On May 14, 1990, a Recommended Order was issued by Hearing Officer Diane Cleavinger recommending that all remaining charges be dismissed. Of significance to this proceeding is the allegation in Count II which charged Dr. Brown with failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Bearing on Hearing Officer Cleavinger's decision to dismiss that count was her determination that the psychologist-patient relationship ended prior to the beginning of any love affair between Dr. Brown and his former patient. Among others, the hearing officer made the following findings: 5. Respondent's psychologist/client relationship was with R. B. and did not include her husband. The interest demonstrated by R. B.'s husband in her therapy was that of a concerned husband. Dr. Brown saw him collateral to the therapy he was conducting with R. B. He met with R. B.'s husband in order to make R. B.'s termination of therapy more successful. The evidence did not show that Respondent had ever agreed to formulate a psychologist/ client relationship with R. B.'s husband and, although the husband paid R. B.'s therapy bills, he was never charged separately for the discussions he had with Respondent during R. B.'s therapy. The other contacts, referenced by R. B.'s husband's testimony as supporting a professional relationship between him and Respondent, occurred well after R. B.'s therapy had terminated. The contacts variously involved obtaining advice from Dr. Brown on the impending death of a relative during an otherwise social gathering at the B.'s home, asking Dr. Brown, during a lunch meeting, for help with sexual problems for which Dr. Brown referred him to another psychologist, and testing of the B's children for scholastic purposes. All such contacts appear to have been given in friendship and not in a professional capacity. (Emphasis added) The underscored portion of the findings was intended to make a determination that any contact between Dr. Brown and R. B.'s children was not made in a professional capacity and as to those contacts the psychological/client relationship did not exist. The recommended order was considered by the Board at a meeting held on June 7, 1990, and was adopted in toto without change. A final order was issued on July 2, 1990, dismissing all charges against Dr. Brown. During the meeting held on June 7, 1990, and while discussing an exception to the recommended order raised by the agency prosecutor, the following statement was made by Board counsel: I will express now what other concern I've had with reading this case. It does seem clear that a dual relationship was formed during that period of time when there was regulation, in that Dr. Brown gave psychological services to the children of his lover, and of her unsuspecting husband. I have - you know, I'm just going to be very honest with you. When I was reading through the transcripts, some of the thoughts that occurred to me were out of his own mouth. . . (emphasis added) This statement was made in the belief, albeit incorrect, that Hearing Officer Cleavinger's findings in paragraph 5 of her recommended order regarding a dual relationship pertained only to the husband and not to the children. Counsel's statement suggested that Dr. Brown's relationship with the children was done in a professional capacity and thus was unethical, given his romantic relationship with R. B. Accordingly, prior to the issuance of a final order in Case No. 89- 0599, on June 11, 1990, the Board's counsel authored the following memorandum to counsel for the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR): By Dr. Brown's own admission, he performed psychological services for the children of R. B. The facts surrounding the dual relationship were not included in the administrative complaint filed in Case No. 89-0599. They do, however, constitute a separate cause of action and should be brought to the attention of the probable cause panel. Responding to this memorandum, DPR counsel recommended on June 18, 1990, that DPR open a new investigation against Dr. Brown concerning the issue of a possible dual relationship, that is, the testing of R. B.'s children while Dr. Brown was engaged in a love affair with R. B. The DPR uniform complaint form described the alleged misconduct in the following manner: Subject stated during testimony in previous DPR case (89-0599 DOAH) that he had engaged in a love affair with a client whose children he was counseling. Possible violation of Section 490.009(2)(s), F. S. The matter was assigned DPR Case No. 9007566. By letter dated August 11, 1990, petitioner's counsel was advised that a complaint had been filed against his client. The letter gave the following pertinent reasons for initiating the matter: This complaint is based upon information obtained in formal proceedings in Department of Professional Regulation case number 0081809. It is alleged by the Department that during the time Dr. Brown was providing psychological services to the children of R. B., he was concurrently engaged in a love affair with her. This dual relationship is a possible violation of Section 490.009(2) (s), Florida Statutes, which prohibits a licensee from failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Dr. Brown, through counsel, put DPR on notice by letter dated September 5, 1990, that: It would be a violation of due process of law to charge Dr. Brown with a violation based upon the same set of facts previously adjudicated. The doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and bar and merger are applicable. By a second letter dated September 25, 1990, petitioner's counsel again advised DPR "that the Department does not have a basis in law or fact for any allegations." On October 18, 1990, petitioner's counsel authored another letter to DPR stating in part as follows: I reiterate that it would be a violation of due process of law to charge Dr. Brown with a violation based upon the same set of facts previously adjudicated. The doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and bar and merger are applicable. I respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the investigative file to be considered by the Probable Cause Panel. DPR counsel advised petitioner's counsel on September 28, 1990, that all factual and legal matters, including the objections raised in his letter, would be presented to the probable cause panel. Thereafter, DPR counsel submitted a suggested closing order to the panel proposing that a letter of guidance be issued based upon a belief of a violation of Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, as outlined in the August 17, 1990 letter sent to petitioner's counsel. By letter dated January 11, 1991, petitioner's counsel again placed the Board on notice that the subject matter of the new investigation was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The letter stated as follows: Dr. Brown was served with the notice of investigation in August, 1990. I have advised the department of Dr. Brown's position by letters dated August 13, August 20, September 5, September 25, October 1 and October 18, 1990. This investigation stems from matters resolved in favor of Dr. Brown in DPR Case number 0081809, DOAH Case Number 89-0599 in which Dr. Brown was charged with failure to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance in violation of Section 490.009 (2)(s), Florida Statutes (1981-86). Included in consideration of that charge was the scholastic testing of the children of (D. and R. B.) which is the subject of this pending investigation. The adopted finding of fact number 5 in the above case refers to the collateral relationships between Dr. Brown and (D. B.) and the children including "testing of the B's children for scholastic purposes." Finding of fact number 5 finds that: ALL SUCH CONTACTS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN FRIENDSHIP AND NOT IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY. I reiterate that it would be a violation of due process of law to charge Dr. Brown with a violation based upon the same set of facts previously adjudicated. The doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and bar and merger are applicable. The panel met on February 14, 1991, and considered DPR's recommendation to prosecute, the investigative report and all supplemental materials including a report from its expert consultant. The panel was also given a copy of the letter sent by Dr. Brown's counsel on January 11, 1991, which raised the collateral estoppel issue. After considering all of these materials, including the estoppel matter, the panel made a determination that respondent violated chapter 490 by providing therapy to the children while romantically involved with their mother and failing to disclose this relationship to the children's school and father. While the panel found probable cause to exist, it was advised by its counsel that the case was "weak," the chances of a successful prosecution were "minimal," and the best it could hope for was a reprimand. Accordingly, it followed the suggestion of counsel and recommended to DPR that the case be closed with a letter of guidance to the subject, which was then the most lenient form of discipline for a licensee. By the admission of counsel and panel members at that meeting, however, it was clear they knew the letter would become a part of Dr. Brown's disciplinary file, it was accessible by any member of the public examining his file, and the Board could use the letter against Dr. Brown in the event of future proceedings. In disposing of the contention by Dr. Brown that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied, DPR and Board counsel gave the following advice: Ms. Gaffney: There's a great big legal issue in this case. That is whether or not this has been litigated. If we pursue an administrative complaint, we're going to be considering whether or not he treated the children and whether or not that's below the standards. That's easily proved testimony. But we have a pending litigation for attorney's fees on that prior case and this one is a case in which Mr. Lambert, in the materials there, there's correspondence indicating respondent's attorney, Mr. Lambert, will make legal attempts to squash the case by argument and motions to dismiss, such as this has already been litigated and so forth. Possibly double jeopardy, all that. Res judicata and double jeopardy, I think, are the two issues he's raised. I don't know whether he would prevail on that or not. I have a point of view, which is that the actual issue here was not charged in the administrative complaint when it was at the final hearing before the Board. The Board took notice of and supplements, and he said well, that's not charged. You can't do anything about that. So I don't know but that would be already double jeopardy or res judicata. Ms. Daire: I would agree with you on that, that it was not charged in the initial administrative complaint. It only came out in the testimony of Dr. Brown, when he talked about having treated the children, as well, and we could not do anything about that issue that was raised during the proceedings except to issue a new administrative complaint on his own admission. Although the panel members themselves did not discuss the issue, by finding probable cause, they implicitly accepted their counsel's advice and rejected the contention that they were precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from issuing a second complaint on the stated ground. On March 27, 1991, DPR counsel, acting on behalf of the Board and in response to the panel's decision, sent a letter of guidance to respondent which read as follows: This letter is sent to inform you of the action taken in regard to the above-referenced complaint. This complaint concerned allegations that you failed to meet minimum standards of performance in professional activities in violation of Section 490.009 (2)(s), Florida Statutes. It has been determined that probable cause exists to believe that you have violated the provisions governing the practice of psychology. In light of the circumstances presented, however, this case is closed with issuance of this Letter of Guidance in lieu of further administrative action. It has been noted that your professional care for the patient's children while involved with the patient on a personal basis, without disclosure to the father and school falls below minimum standards. The Panel recommends that you review current literature regarding dual relationship issues. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the statutes and rules governing the practice of psychology and to abide by these provisions in the future. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. On March 19, 1991, or before the letter was issued, petitioner filed a motion to set aside the probable cause determination as improvidently found. After the letter was issued, he requested a formal hearing on four separate occasions. All requests were denied and a final order was issued by DPR on April 24, 1991, denying the petition in all respects. Thereafter, petitioner appealed the letter of guidance to the First District Court of Appeal. The court reversed the Board's action and remanded the matter with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Brown v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners, 602 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). In dealing with the estoppel issue raised by Dr. Brown, the court noted that Hearing Officer Cleavinger had made the following findings in her recommended order: . . . and testing of the B's children for scholastic purposes. All such contacts appear to have been given in friendship and not in a professional capacity. The court went on to say The above-quoted findings of fact establishes that the sole allegation of misconduct in the 1990 complaint was actually litigated in the 1989 case. The record in that case contains evidence that the results of testing the children were submitted to the school. The Department, the Board, and the Probable Cause Panel became bound by the determination of fact that Dr. Brown did not violate section 490.009(2)(s) because a nexus between Dr. Brown's conduct and his practice of psychology did not exist. The Department, Board, and Panel are thus collaterally estopped from reasserting any charge of professional misconduct predicated on these acts. Id. at 1341. The court also noted that a letter of guidance affected Dr. Brown's substantial interests within the meaning of section 120.57, and that Dr. Brown was thus entitled to a section 120.57 hearing as requested. The court added, however, that because the agency was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues raised in the second complaint, it was remanding the case with directions to dismiss the complaint. The parties are in agreement that the amount of attorney's fees and costs requested by petitioner is reasonable. Such fees and costs total $12,537.00.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award for attorney's fees for litigating the attorney's fees issue where the appellate court has determined the Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under the provisions of Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a multiplier enhancement to the lodestar in an award of attorney's fees and costs under Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In March, 1989, the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sought bids for 17,500 square feet of office space in central Orlando, for a period of seven years beginning in December, 1989, with two three-year option extensions. Petitioner and two others submitted bids. After committee review, the bid was awarded to another bidder on or about June 26, 1989. Petitioner timely filed his informal and formal bid protests, and the matter was heard at length before the Division of Administrative Hearings in August, 1989. The Hearing Officer found that Petitioner had sustained the burden of proof and demonstrated that the Department had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the bid process, and recommended that the lease be re-bid. The Secretary for the Department adopted the Recommended Order but also added an additional condition that the lease be re-bid only if necessary. Petitioner appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal which sustained the position of the Petitioner and, although disputed by the Department, granted attorney's fees and costs for all stages of the proceedings. This matter was remanded to the Department for re-bidding and to the Division for the determination of the amount of fees and costs to be awarded. Courtenay v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 581 So.2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The Law Office of Terrence William Ackert represented Petitioner through all stages of the administrative bid protest and appeal pertaining to the Invitation to Bid for 17,500 square feet of professional office space in the central Orlando, Florida area. Petitioner, a long time client of counsel of record, agreed to pay counsel at the rate of one hundred twenty-five Dollars, and later at one hundred thirty-five Dollars, per hour and for legal assistant charges ranging from twenty-five Dollars an hour to sixty Dollars an hour, and for costs. The Petition for Costs and Attorneys' Fees was timely filed on July 19, 1991. The parties were unable to reach a stipulation regarding the amount of reasonable attorney's fees to be awarded. A fair and reasonable fee for attorney and legal assistant time is as follows: For the period: 6/27/89-2/27/90 Trial attorney time...141.9hrs at $125.00hr =$17,737.50 Legal assistant time...66.0hrs at $45/50hr = $2,990.00 Total. $20,736.50 For the period: 2/27/90-6/30/91 Post-hearing appellate attorney time...92.4hrs at $125.00 =$11,550.00 Post-hearing appellate attorney time...50.6hrs at $135.00 = $6,871.50 Total. $18,421.50 Post-hearing appellate time for various legal assistants at $25/35/50/60hr. =$4,980 Total. $23,401.50 For the period: 7/1/91-to present Post-remand attorney time...48.2hrs at $135.00 = $6,489 Post-remand legal assistant time...50.1hrs at $25/35/60hr =$2,013.00 Total. $8,502 Costs expended for hearing, appeal and remand hearing Total. $8,548.10 Total due for reasonable attorneys' fee and costs. $61,188.10 During the administrative appeal, the Respondent vacated space previously leased from Petitioner and the consequent loss of income rendered Petitioner unable to make payments to counsel. Total payments to counsel of record have been limited to $5,785. Petitioner remains liable for all fees and costs, and has been billed regularly for the total due and owing. Challenge of a proposed award of bid by an agency is complicated, difficult and time consuming process because the litigation is focused primarily in the administrative arena, where few attorneys are willing to accept cases of this type. In order to attain a successful result, it required considerable skill by counsel to properly perform the service. Acceptance by counsel of this matter precluded the acceptance of other litigation because of the three stage administrative process in order to secure relief for his client.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner, by means of a three count Administrative Complaint, seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of subsections (2), (14), and of Section 475.624, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Beverly J. Merchant is currently a Florida state certified general appraiser, having been issued license number 000141 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a state certified general appraiser with a home address of 548 San Esteban Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33146. On January 14, 1994, Graimark/MIG Joint Venture and/or Crown Revenue, Inc., ordered Respondent to perform an appraisal of Sunrise Gardens, an adult congregate living facility (ACLF), in Miami, Florida. On March 31, 1994, the Respondent completed the appraisal of the property. The Respondent's appraisal report made several references to zoning "variances." The use of the term "variances" was reasonable under the circumstances of the subject appraisal. The Respondent's appraisal report stated that the highest and best use of the property was not as an adult congregate living facility (ACLF), but as some other institutional use. Under the circumstances of the subject appraisal, the Respondent provided adequate support to indicate that under the applicable zoning provisions "another institutional use" was probably permissible by variance. The Respondent's appraisal report included a cost approach that utilized a cost factor for "convalescent hospital space," even though the highest and best use was a use other than an ACLF. The use of that cost factor was reasonable under the circumstances of the subject appraisal.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 5th day of September, 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Insurance (the Department), has an unpromulgated agency rule not to reimburse routine defense fees at more than $85 per hour when providing for the defense of civil actions against state employees.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Richard L. Windsor (Windsor), was an attorney employed by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER, now called the Department of Environmental Protection, or DEP) when he and another DER employee were named along with the DER as defendants in a counterclaim filed in 1995 in a lawsuit (the Coxwell case) that had been brought by DER, through Windsor as its attorney of record, in state circuit court in Okaloosa County to remedy alleged intentional violations of state environmental laws and regulations. The "counterclaim" initially was not served on Windsor, and DER declined Windsor's request to defend him at that time. Instead, it was decided to ignore the "counterclaim" against Windsor until it was served on him. In 1996, after Windsor terminated his employment with DEP, the "counterclaim" was served on him. Windsor requested that DEP defend him, and DEP agreed to refer the matter to Risk Management. Risk Management agreed to defend Windsor and in September 1996 assigned the defense to an Okaloosa County attorney named Jim Barth, who agreed to an hourly rate of $75. Barth telephoned Windsor to discuss the case, and Windsor suggested that Barth investigate an out-of-state property rights organization Windsor said was sponsoring and financing the claim against him and the other DEP employee. Barth rejected Windsor's suggestion. Windsor was discomforted from Barth's decision but decided not to press the issue. In a subsequent meeting with Barth, Windsor suggested that Barth should assert the government employee defense of qualified immunity from suit. It seemed to Windsor that Barth accepted the idea. In May 1997, with trial set for July, Barth telephoned Windsor to tell him that trial was set for July 1997, and a court-ordered mediation conference was scheduled for June 1997. Windsor asked about the immunity defense and felt that Barth tried to avoid answering the question. At the mediation conference in June 1997, Barth and Risk Management made a nominal settlement offer, while DEP's lawyer refused to make any offer of settlement on the ground that the counterclaim was frivolous. Although Barth's settlement offer was rejected, Windsor became very concerned about the quality of Barth's representation. He also established through conversation during the course of the day that Barth had not asserted the immunity defense on his behalf. With trial set for July 1997, Windsor decided that he no longer could rely on Barth but would have to raise the defense on his own. Windsor consulted Davisson F. Dunlap, Jr., a Tallahassee attorney with the Carlton Fields law firm. Windsor knew Dunlap from Dunlap's representation of another DER employee who had been named along with DER as a defendant in a counterclaim filed in a previous lawsuit that had been brought by DER, through Windsor as its attorney of record (the Dockery case). Windsor was impressed with Dunlap's work on the Dockery case, including his filing of a motion for summary judgment on behalf of his client on the defense of qualified governmental immunity. Dunlap explained that his hourly rate at Carlton Fields was $175, and Windsor agreed to hire Dunlap at that rate to help get Windsor's defense where Windsor and Dunlap thought it should be. Based on this understanding, Dunlap immediately began preparing a motion for summary judgment. At Windsor's request, Dunlap presented his work product to Barth, who agreed to use it to file a motion for summary judgment. When Windsor learned that Barth missed the court's deadline for filing motions, Windsor became completely dissatisfied with Barth and eventually requested that Risk Management reassign his case from Barth to Dunlap. Risk Management agreed, contacted Dunlap, and entered into a Legal Services Contract with Dunlap's new law firm at the same $85 hourly rate in the Pennington law firm's contract. At some point (probably before Dunlap and the Carlton firm actually entered into the Legal Services Contract with Risk Management), Dunlap reported to Windsor that the contract would be for $85 an hour and that the Carlton firm would not allow Dunlap to undertake representation at that rate of pay. Windsor, who was happy just to have gotten Dunlap substituted for Barth, assured Dunlap that Dunlap would receive his full $175 an hour, as initially agreed between them, and that Windsor would pay Dunlap the difference of $90 an hour after payment of $85 an hour from Risk Management under the Legal Services Contract. Neither Dunlap nor Windsor advised Risk Management of the agreement for the payment of Dunlap's full $175-an-hour fee after Risk Management's Legal Services Contract with the Carlton firm at $85 an hour. However, Windsor had in mind that, at some point in the future, he would raise the issue and be able to persuade Risk Management to contribute more towards the payment of Dunlap's $175-an-hour fee. In October 1997, Windsor began an exchange of correspondence with Risk Management that went on for several months. While touching on a number of different topics, Windsor's primary initial concern in this correspondence was the payment of Dunlap's fees for work done on Windsor's case before Dunlap's Legal Services Contract with Risk Management. Risk Management agreed without much question (notwithstanding Windsor having retained Dunlap without notice to Risk Management), since Risk Management determined that Dunlap's work did not duplicate much of Barth's. When Risk Management indicated its intent to pay Dunlap for the work at the contract rate of $85 an hour, Windsor advised Risk Management for the first time that Windsor was obligated to pay Dunlap for the work at the rate of $175 an hour; Windsor requested that Risk Management "make him whole" by paying Dunlap's full fee of $175 an hour. However, Windsor did not make it clear to Risk Management in this correspondence that he also wanted Risk Management to pay Dunlap $175 an hour for work done after Dunlap's Legal Services Contract with Risk Management. Neither Windsor nor Dunlap made it clear to Risk Management either that Dunlap also had a contract with Windsor, in addition to the Legal Services Contract, for work done by Dunlap after Dunlap's Legal Services Contract with Risk Management, or that the additional contract was for $175 an hour, which obligated Windsor to pay Dunlap the difference of $90 an hour after payment of $85 an hour from Risk Management under the Legal Services Contract. By letter dated July 1, 1998, Risk Management's Director, R.J. Castellanos, advised Windsor that Risk Management would not pay Dunlap more than $85 an hour for the work done before the Legal Services Contract. The letter explained that review did not disclose support for Windsor's contention in correspondence that Risk Management was negligent, requiring Windsor to retain Dunlap at $175 an hour prior to the Legal Services Contract. It pointed out that Windsor retained Dunlap at the time without any notice to Risk Management and that Risk Management was "deprived of any opportunity to contract with a firm at a negotiated rate" for those services (as it was able to do for subsequent services when it entered into the Legal Services Contract with Dunlap's firm). For those reasons, the letter explained, Risk Management "reimbursed you at an $85.00 rate, which is the maximum amount we pay as routine defense fees." Windsor contends that the latter quotation is, or is evidence of, an unpromulgated Division rule. The intent of the statement in Castellanos' letter was to explain why, under the circumstances, Risk Management would not reimburse Windsor more than $85 an hour for the fees he incurred for work Dunlap did before the Legal Services Contract; it was not intended to even address Dunlap's fees after the Legal Services Contract. At the time the statement was made, Castellanos did not realize there was any issue as to payment of Dunlap's fees for work done after the Legal Services Contract. The statement in Castellanos' letter was not a statement of general applicability. Risk Management generally does not reimburse defense fees; rather, it negotiates contracts directly with lawyers to provide those services and pays the fees directly to the lawyer under contract. Rather, the statement in Castellanos' letter was intended to explain that, under the circumstances, Risk Management was not going to reimburse more than maximum amount it pays attorneys with whom Risk Management contracts directly. As a matter of fact, Risk Management has approximately 250 open-ended contracts for legal services with law firms all over Florida. (It is not clear from the evidence when these contracts were negotiated, or which are still in use.) The hourly rates for those contracts range from a low of $65 an hour to a high (in approximately five or six of the 250 contracts) of $85 an hour for routine defense cases. (Hourly rates for trademark and copyright specialties are $150 an hour.) These included the $85-an-hour legal services contracts with Dunlap, once as a member of the Pennington firm and again as a member of the Carlton Fields firm. The evidence also did not prove that Risk Management has an unpromulgated rule not to exceed a fee of $85 an hour in negotiating directly with attorneys for legal services contracts for routine defense cases. The evidence was that Risk Management considers itself to be bound by Section 287.059(7), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 2- 37 when contracting with attorneys for legal services. The maximum fees allowed by the statute and those rules exceed $85 an hour for routine defense cases. In addition, the statute and rules allow agencies such as Risk Management to exceed the maximum standard fees under certain circumstances. See Conclusion of Law 21, infra. Risk Management interprets Section 287.059(7), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 2- 37 to require it to negotiate fees below the maximum standard fees. Id. When negotiating with a lawyer or law firm, Risk Management attempts to utilize the leverage it enjoys from the ability to offer lawyers an open-ended contract with the possibility of volume business contract to negotiate for the lowest possible fee for quality services. To date, these legal services contracts have been for $85-an-hour or less for routine defense cases. But it was not proven that Risk Management has established an $85-an-hour maximum for routine defense in conflict with the maximum standard fees established in Rule Chapter 2-37. Windsor seems to make a vague argument that Section 111.07, Florida Statutes (1997), which requires an agency such as Risk Management to reimburse a prevailing employee a "reasonable" attorney fee when the agency declines to provide legal representation to defend the employee, and common law (which Windsor does not elaborate), requires Risk Management to reimburse him for Dunlap's services and that such reimbursement is not limited by Section 287.059(7), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 2-37. Windsor seems to further argue that the statement in Castellanos' letter was generally applicable to establish the amount of reasonable attorney fees reimbursable under Windsor's legal arguments. But it was not apparent that Windsor was making these arguments until post-hearing submissions in this case. Clearly, Risk Management does not agree with Windsor's arguments (the merits of which are not subject to determination in this proceeding); more germane to this proceeding, Risk Management never understood or considered such arguments at the time of the statement in Castellanos' letter, and Castellanos clearly did not intend the statement in his letter to be generally applicable to establish the amount of reasonable attorney fees reimbursable under Windsor's legal arguments.
The Issue Is the practice of the Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to decline Medicaid-funded compensation for emergency medical services provided to undocumented aliens once the patients have reached a point of stabilization an unpromulgated rule? The Petitioners' Proposed Final Order identifies the Agency's use of limited InterQual criteria to determine medical necessity as an issue in this proceeding. But the Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-Rule Policy does not raise this issue. Neither party's pre-hearing statement identifies it as an issue. Consequently, this Order does not consider or determine whether the Agency's limitation on the use of InterQual criteria is an "unpromulgated rule."
Findings Of Fact Proceedings Before the Division of Administrative Hearings and the First District Court of Appeal In the beginning this was an action by the Hospitals aimed at stopping Agency efforts to recoup reimbursement of Medicaid payments to the Hospitals for emergency services provided to undocumented aliens once the patients have reached a point of “stabilization.” The issue of whether the Agency could apply the “stabilization” standard to the Hospital claims for Medicaid payment for services provided indigent aliens recurred in Agency claims against hospitals throughout the state to recoup Medicaid payments. Hospitals challenged Agency claims in individual proceedings under section 120.569, which the Agency referred to the Division for disputed fact hearings. Duane Morris, LLP (Duane Morris), led by Joanne Erde, represented the hospitals in the individual proceedings. The Hospitals collectively engaged Duane Morris to represent them in this proceeding challenging the Agency’s stabilization standard as an unpromulgated rule. Joanne B. Erde, Donna Stinson, and Harry Silver were the Hospital’s lawyers in this proceeding. Ms. Erde is an experienced lawyer who has focused her practice in health care. Ms. Stinson is an experienced lawyer who concentrated her practice in health care and administrative law litigation before the Division. The Agency does not question their expertise. Mr. Silver is an experienced lawyer with no Florida administrative law experience. His role in the case was minimal. Depositions taken in one of the individual reimbursement cases were significant evidence in this proceeding. Those depositions make it clear that the Hospitals’ counsel was tuned into the unpromulgated rule issue and using discovery in that case to gather and identify the evidence that they would need in this case. Representation of the Hospitals in individual reimbursement actions provided Hospitals’ counsel the advantage of preparing with level of detail before filing the petition. The engagement letters recognize this stating: “We have an understanding of the facts underlying this matter and have substantial knowledge concerning the law governing the issues in this case.” This well-developed understanding of the facts should have minimized the need for discovery and preparation in this proceeding. Counsel were well positioned to prosecute this matter efficiently. Likewise, counsel’s “substantial knowledge concerning the law governing the issues in this case” should have minimized the need for time spent in research. This is not what happened. The pre-existing representation in the reimbursement cases provided another obvious and significant benefit to the Hospitals and their counsel. Since counsel represented the individual hospital in the separate reimbursement matters, the Hospitals could band together to jointly finance one case that would resolve the troublesome point of “stabilization” issue more consistently and more cheaply than if they litigated it in each and every case. As the basically identical engagement agreements between each hospital and counsel state: “Because many hospitals’ interests in [sic] are similar or identical as it relates to the Alien Issue and in order to keep legal costs to a minimum, each of the participants in the [hospital] Group will [sic] have agreed that it wishes this firm to represent them in a Group.” Because of counsel’s pre-existing relationships with the Hospitals, litigating this matter should have continued or enhanced the client relationships. The time required for this matter could not result in lost business opportunities. In fact, by consolidating the issues common to all the clients and their cases, counsel freed up time to work on other matters. Presentation of the issue for resolution in a single case also saved the Hospitals the greater cost of disputing the issue in each case where the Agency sought reimbursement. The Hospitals and counsel dealt with the only possible downside of the representation by including disclosures about joint representation and a waiver of conflict claims in the engagement letters. This was not a contingent fee case. The agreement provided for monthly billing and payment from counsel’s trust account. Each group member made an initial payment of $10,000 to the trust account. Any time the trust account balance dipped below $15,000, each group member agreed to contribute another $10,000 to the trust account. For counsel, this representation was about as risk free as a legal engagement can be. The Hospitals and their counsel knew from the outset that they would have to prove their reasonableness of their fees and costs if they prevailed and wanted to recover fees. The Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-Rule Policy seeks an award of fees and costs. They could have adjusted their billing practices to provide more detail in preparation for a fees dispute. An "unpromulgated rule challenge" presents a narrow and limited issue. That issue is whether an agency has by declaration or action established a statement of general applicability that is a "rule," as defined in section 120.52(16), without going through the required public rulemaking process required by section 120.54. The validity of the agency's statement is not an issue decided in an "unpromulgated rule challenge." Courts have articulated the legal standards for unpromulgated rule challenges frequently. See, e.g., Coventry First, LLC v. Off. of Ins. Reg., 38 So. 3d 200, 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Dep’t of Rev. v. Vanjaria Enters., 675 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); and the cases those opinions cite. The facts proving the “stabilization” standard were easy to establish. Many Agency documents stated the shift to the “stabilization” standard. Documents of Agency contractors did also. Two examples of how clear it was that the Agency was applying a new standard were the Agency’s statements in its 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 reports to the Governor on efforts to control Medicaid fraud and abuse. The reports describe the “stabilization” standard as “more stringent” and certain to recover millions of dollars for the Agency. As the Agency’s reports to the Governor indicate, the stakes were high in this matter. For the Hospitals and other hospitals collectively affected by the Agency’s effort to recoup past payments by applying the “stabilization” standard, $400,000,000 was at stake. This matter did not present complex or difficult issues, legally or factually. The Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions requiring parties to disclose documents and witnesses and update the disclosures alleviated the discovery demands present in other litigation. The Agency’s failure to fully comply with the pre- hearing instructions and unfounded Motion in Limine added some additional time demands for the Hospital’s counsel. Nonetheless the issues were narrow, and the facts were essentially undisputed, if not undisputable. This matter did not require extraordinary amounts of time for discovery or preparation. Ordinarily challenges to rules or unpromulgated rules impose time pressures on the attorneys because of the requirement in section 120.56 that the hearing commence within 30 days of assignment to the Administrative Law Judge. The time constraint was not a factor in this case. The Hospitals requested waiver of the time requirement to permit more time for discovery. The Agency agreed, and the undersigned granted the request. Thus the Hospitals had the time their counsel said they needed to prepare for the hearing. The appeal imposed no time constraints. Both parties received extensions of time for their filings. Seventeen months passed between filing the notice of appeal and oral argument. Time for the Administrative Proceeding The total number of hours claimed for the services of the three lawyers, their claimed hourly rate, and the total fees claimed appear below. Joanne B. Erde 458.20 hours $550.00 rate $252,010.00 Donna Stinson 136.20 hours $455.00 rate $61,971.00 Harry Silver 93.40 hours $550.00 rate $51,370.00 Total 687.80 hours $365,351.00 The Hospitals’ counsel’s billing records are voluminous. For the proceeding before the Division, the Hospitals’ counsel’s invoices list 180 billing entries for the work of three lawyers. A substantial number of the entries are block billing. In block billing, all of a lawyer’s activities for a period of time, usually a day, are clumped together with one time total for the entire day’s service. It is an acceptable form of billing. But block billing presents difficulties determining the reasonableness of fees because a single block of time accounts for several different activities and the invoice does not establish which activity took how much time. Here are representative examples of the block billing entries from the Division level invoices: August 20, 2012 (Erde) – Conference call with ALJ; telephone conference with AHCA attorney; telephone conference with newspaper reporters – 2.0 hours September 16, 2012 (Erde) – Review depositions; prepare opening remarks; develop impeachment testimony – 5.50 September 27, 2012 (Erde) – Intra-office conference; finalize interrogatories; work on direct – 8.50 October 2, 2012 (Stinson) – Review and revise Motion in Limine; Telephone conferences with Joanne Erde and Harry Silver; review emails regarding discovery issues - `2.60 October 19, 2012 (Erde) – Intra-office conference to discuss proposed order; Research Re: other OIG audits; research on validity of agency rules – 2.10 hours November 9, 2012 (Erde) – Conference with ALJ; Intra-Office conference to discuss status; further drafting of proposed order – 7.70 hours. November 19, 2012 (Stinson) – Final Review and Revisions to Proposed Final order; Telephone conferences with Joanne Erde to Review final Changes and comments; Review AHCA’s proposed order and revised proposed order – 3.20 hours. Many of the entries, block or individual, do not provide sufficient detail to judge the reasonableness of the time reported. “Prepare for deposition and hearing,” “review depositions,” “review new documents,” “review draft documents,” “intra-office conference” and “attention to discovery” are recurrent examples. Senior lawyers with more expertise and higher billing rates are expected to be more efficient. This, the fact that the matter was not complicated, the relative simplicity of the issue, and the fact that the Hospitals’ counsel already had a great deal of familiarity with the facts and law involved, all require reducing the number of hours compensated in order for them to be reasonable. For this matter, in these circumstances, the claimed number of hours is quite high. The claimed 687.80 hours amounts to working eight hours a day for 86 days, two of which were the hearing. This is not reasonable. A reasonable number of hours for the proceedings before the Division is 180. That is the equivalent of 22.5 eight-hour days. That is sufficient to handle the matter before the Division from start to finish. The number includes consideration of the worked caused by the needless difficulties presented by the Agency in discovery and with its Motion in Limine. Time for the Appellate Proceeding The fees that the Hospitals seek for the appeal are broken down by hours and rates as follows: Joanne B. Erde 255.10 hours $560.00 $142,856.00 Joanne B. Erde 202.80 hours $580.00 $117,624.00 Donna Stinson 88.50 hours $460.00 $40,710.00 Donna Stinson 67.10 hours $500.00 $33,550.00 W.D. Zaffuto 48.30 hours $435.00 $21,010.50 Rob Peccola 10.90 hours $275.00 $2,997.50 Rob Peccola 17.50 hours $300.00 $5,250.00 L. Rodriguez- Taseff 6.20 hours $520.00 $3,224.00 L. Rodriguez- Taseff 19.50 hours $545.00 $10,627.50 Rachel Pontikes 38.20 hours $515.00 $19,673.00 Total 754.10 hours $397,522.50 For the appellate proceeding, the invoices present 341 entries, a substantial number of which are block billing for work by six lawyers. Here are representative examples from the appellate level invoices: May 16, 2013 (Erde) – Reviewed AHCA’s initial brief; intra- office conference to discuss; preliminary review of record – 2.90 May 24, 2013 (Erde) – Intra-office conference to discuss response to brief; preparation to respond to brief – 2.50 May 30, 2013 (Erde) – Attention to Appeal issues; finalize request for extension; brief research re jurisdictional issues – 1.60 June 18, 2013 (Peccola) – Strategy with J. Erde regarding research needs; review/analyze case law cited in answer brief; conduct legal research regarding documentary evidence and exhibits on appellate review; write email memo to J. Erde regarding same – 2.00 July 19, 2013 (Zaffuto) – Revise/draft Answer Brief; discuss extension of time with H. Gurland; research appellate rules regarding extension of time and staying proceedings pending ruling on motion; review appendix to answer brief; instructions to assistant regarding edits and filing of answer brief and appendix prepare answer brief for filing; call to clerk regarding extension of time review initial brief by AHCA and final order by ALJ – 5.50 August 14, 2013 (Erde) – Intra-office conference to discuss brief; further revised brief – 5.80 August 15, 2013 (Stinson) Reviewed appellees' answer brief; discussed language in answer brief with Joanne Erde – 2.50 October 9, 2013 (Stinson) – Review draft motion to relinquish regarding admission of exhibit; exchange e-mails with Joanne Erde; telephone conference with Joanne Erde – 1.60 October 10, 2013 (Erde) – Attention to new motion re relinquishing jurisdiction; review of revisions; further revisions – 6.00 October 30, 2013 (Erde) – Research re: AHCA’s current behavior; intra-office conference to discuss status of action at DOAH - .70 November 7, 2013 (Peccola) – Strategy with J. Erde regarding Appellees’ response in opposition to Appellant’s motion for supplemental briefing; conduct research regarding same; draft same; look up 1st DCA local rule on appellate motions and email same to J. Erde – 3.60 December 5, 2013 (Erde) – Research Re: supplemental briefing issues; research to find old emails from AHCA re: inability to produce witnesses -.90 January 21, 2014 (Rodriguez-Taseff) – Working on Supplemental Answer Brief – legal argument re authentication and cases distinguishing marchines [sic]; editing facts – 6.70 February 3, 2014 (Erde) – Review and revise response to motion for further briefing; intra-office conference to discuss same – 2.20 May 2, 2014 (Pontikes) – Continue to review relevant case law regarding the definition of an unpromulgated rule; continue to analyze the briefs and the arguments; continue to draft an outline of the argument discussed – 5.00 June 5, 2014 (Erde) – draft email to group regarding AHCA’s settlement offer; reviewed supplemental settlement offer from AHCA; draft email to group re same – 1.70 June 11, 2014 (Erde) – Attention to finalizing response to AHCA’s notice of dismissal and filing of fee petition; memo to members of group – 8.00 July 21, 2014 (Erde) – completed motion for rehearing re: fees as sanctions; drafted status report for DOAH regarding status of DCA opinion; drafted status report in companion case; emails with AHCA re: withdrawing pending audits – 6.90 July 21, 2014 (Peccola) – Strategy with D. Stinson and J. Erde regarding motion for rehearing; revise/edit same; review/revise edit notices in trial court 1.20. The descriptive entries in the invoices for the appellate representation also lack sufficient detail. Examples are: “begin preparation to respond to AHCA”s brief,” “attention to appeal issues,” “preparation to draft answer brief,” and “research and draft answer brief.” For the appellate proceedings, Duane Morris added four lawyers, none with experience in Florida administrative or appellate matters. W.D. Zaffuto, L. Rodriguez-Taseff, and Rachel Pontikes are senior level lawyers in Duane Morris offices outside of Florida. Rob Peccola is a junior level lawyer from a Duane Morris office outside of Florida. The apparent result is those lawyers spending more time on issues than the more experienced Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson would. One example of this is a July 19, 2013, billing entry where a lawyer spent time researching “appellate rules regarding extension of time and staying proceedings pending ruling on motion.” The two lawyers primarily responsible for this matter, both laying claim to Florida appellate expertise, would only need to quickly check the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure to confirm their recollection of the rules, something that would probably take less time than it took to make the time entry and review the draft bill. Hospitals’ also filed a puzzling motion that presents a discreet example of needless attorney time billed in this matter. The Hospitals expended 21.8 hours on a Motion for Rehearing of the court’s order awarding them fees and costs. The court’s opinion and the Final Order stated that fees and costs were awarded under section 120.595(4)(a), Florida Statutes. Yet the Hospitals’ motion fretted that fees might be assessed under section 120.595(4)(b), which caps fees at $50,000. The court denied the motion. Two things stand out when reviewing the invoices for the appellate proceeding. The first is that the appeal took more hours than the trial proceeding. A trial proceeding is generally more time-consuming because of discovery, a hearing much longer than an oral argument, witness preparation, document review, and preparing a proposed order. The second is the sheer number of hours. Hospitals’ counsel seeks payment for 754.10 hours in the appellate proceeding. This is 66.3 more than for the Division proceeding. It included a two day hearing, trial preparation, research, and preparing a 37 page proposed final order. In eight-hour days the claimed hours amount to a staggering 94.26 days. That amounts to one lawyer working on the appeal for eight hours a day for three months. Of this time, 613.5 hours were spent by Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson, lawyers with expertise in the subject area, who had prepared the case for hearing, who participated in the hearing, who closely reviewed the entire record for preparation of their proposed final order, who researched the issues before the hearing and for the proposed final order, and who wrote the proposed final order. With all this knowledge and experience with the record and the law, handling the appeal should have taken less time than the proceeding before the Division.2/ One factor supports the appellate proceeding taking as many hours, or a few more hours, than the administrative proceeding. It is the Agency’s disputatious conduct over a scrivener’s error in the Final Order which erroneously stated that the Agency’s Exhibit 1 had been admitted. The Agency’s conduct increased the time needed to represent the Hospitals in the appeal. The Agency relied upon the exhibit in its initial brief, although it twice cited page 359 of the transcript where the objection to the exhibit was sustained. Also the Agency’s and the Hospitals’ proposed final orders correctly stated that Agency Exhibit 1 had not been admitted. The Hospitals’ Answer Brief noted that Agency Exhibit 1 had not been admitted. The transcript of the final hearing and both parties’ proposed final orders were clear that the exhibit had not been admitted. Yet the Agency argued in its Reply Brief that it had been. This required the Hospitals to move to remand the case for correction of the error. The Agency opposed the motion. The court granted the motion. The Final Order was corrected and jurisdiction relinquished back to the court. The Agency used this as an opportunity to trigger a new round of briefing about whether Exhibit 1 should have been admitted. This has been considered in determining the reasonable number of hours for handling the appeal. A reasonable number of hours for handling the appeal is 225. Converted to eight-hour days, this would be 28.13 days. For the appeal, Duane Morris attributes 28.4 hours of the work to a junior lawyer. This is 3.8 percent of the total time claimed. Applying that percentage to 225 hours, results in 8.6 hours attributed to the junior lawyer with the remaining 216.45 hours attributed to senior lawyers. Attorneys and Fees Each party presented expert testimony on the issues of reasonable hours and reasonable fees. The Agency presented the testimony of M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire. The Hospitals presented the testimony of David Ashburn, Esquire. As is so often the case with warring experts, the testimony of the witnesses conflicts dramatically. Mr. Bryant opined that a reasonable rate for senior lawyers, such as Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson, ranged between $350 and $450 per hour. The reasonable rate for junior lawyers was $200 per hour. Mr. Ashburn opined that the reasonable hourly rate for senior lawyers ranged between $595 and $700 and the reasonable rate for junior lawyers was between $275 and $300. The contrast was the same for the opinions on the reasonable number of hours needed to handle the two stages of this litigation. Mr. Bryant testified that the administrative proceeding should have taken 150 to 170 hours and that the appeal should have taken 175 to 195 hours. Mr. Ashburn testified that the Hospitals’ claimed 687 hours for the proceeding before the Division and 754.10 hour for the appellate proceeding were reasonable. The Hospitals argue that somehow practicing in a large national law firm, like Duane Morris justifies a higher rate. The theory is unpersuasive. A national law firm is nothing special. There is no convincing, credible evidence to support a conclusion that lawyers from a national firm in comparison to smaller state or local firms provide better representation or more skilled and efficient lawyering that justifies a higher rate. Based upon the evidence presented in this record, a reasonable rate for the senior lawyers participating in this matter is $425 per hour. A reasonable rate for the junior lawyer participating in this matter is $200.00. Fee Amounts A reasonable fee amount for representation in the proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings is $76,500. A reasonable fee amount for the proceeding before the First District Court of Appeal is $93,701.25. Costs Hospitals seek $6,333.63 in costs. The evidence proves these costs are reasonable. The Agency does not dispute them.
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent is guilty of misrepresentation, fraud, dishonest dealing, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction contrary to Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and Whether, if the above allegations are proven, the Respondent is so incompetent, negligent, dishonest or untruthful that the money, property transactions and rights of investors or others with whom he may sustain a confidential relation may not be entrusted to him by virtue of a second violation of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, contrary to Section 475.42(1)(o), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Robert E. McMillan, III, is and was at all times material to the administrative complaint a licensed real estate broker holding license number 0317361. The Commission is charged under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, with regulation of real estate brokers and salesmen. The Respondent was previously disciplined by the Commission by a Final Order dated September 2, 1992 in which the Commission found the Respondent guilty of violation of Sections 475.25(1)(b),(e),(k), and 475.42(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Dr. Manuel S. Couto and his wife desired to have a home built on Block 2, Lot 12 Marineland Acres, 1st Addition, Plat Book 5, page 50. They approached Respondent's business, which was a construction and real estate development concern, and spoke with Randy Joyner, a salesman employed by the Respondent and the brother of the Respondent's late wife, who had sold the Coutos the lot. The Respondent offered to build a particular house for the Coutos for $50,000. The Coutos counteroffered to purchase the house for $30,000 cash and to convey to the Respondent two lots described in the contract as: Section 29A, Block 7, Lot 4, Palm Coast, Florida, and Section 29A, Block 7, Lot 5, Palm Coast, Florida. Dr. Couto bought Lot 4 for $3,900, and Lot 5 for $4,900; however, he paid a total, including interest, of $15,264.80 for the two lots. Palm Coast is a real estate development located in the western portion of Flagler County in which the Respondent's business was located, and he was not particularly familiar with the area in which the Coutos' lots were located. The Respondent accepted the counteroffer, above, upon the recommendation of Joyner. The Respondent believed the lots in question to be valued at $10,000 each. The Coutos paid the Respondent $30,000, and the Respondent began construction. Shortly after commencement of the project, it was determined that the Respondent would have to do considerable site work in order to install a septic tank. The costs of this work, $5,400, was paid by the Respondent, and Dr. Couto wrote the Respondent an additional check in the amount of $1,900. In addition, Dr. Couto made numerous changes to the plans which raised the costs of the construction for which he was obligated to pay under the contract. Work progressed on the project until the Respondent became aware that the lots which were to be transferred were not valued at $10,000. A dispute arose between the Respondent and the Coutos regarding the Coutos paying the difference between the value of the lots and $20,000. When the dispute went unresolved, the Respondent ceased work on the project. Thereafter, the Respondent again began work on the project because of Dr. Couto constant badgering; however, the underlying disagreement about the value of the lots was unresolved. The Respondent finished the house at a cost to him of $55,004.82, and the Coutos paid him $38,425. When the second lot at Palm Coast was to be transferred, it was arranged to have the Coutos transfer the lot directly to the new purchasers, with the money, $4,690.37, due to the Respondent to be held in escrow pending payment of the subcontractors and materialmen building the Coutos' house. Dr. Couto prepared an affidavit that all the contractors had been paid for the Respondent to sign. It is this affidavit dated January 16, 1992, which purports to bear the signature of the Respondent notarized by Martha B. Bennett, Notary Public. The Respondent denies that the document bears his signature, and asserts that Dr. Couto signed the affidavit. Dr. Couto states that he saw the Respondent sign it, and the Respondent's secretary notarize it. The authenticity of this document was put in question by Respondent's answer to the administrative complaint, and the notary was not called as a witness. Dr. Couto and his attorney had attempted unsuccessfully to obtain similar affidavits from the Respondent, who had refused to sign them. At the time the affidavit was prepared, Dr. Couto was aware that materialmen had not be paid. The purported purpose of the affidavit was to release the funds retained by the title company. However, it was Dr. Couto who prepared the affidavit, and it was not presented to the title company to obtain the release of the funds. The affidavit was retained by Dr. Couto, and presented to the title company in June 1992, by Dr. Couto together with letters from Respondent stating that he was not going to pay the subcontractors. Upon the affidavit and letters, the title company paid the $4,690.37 to Dr. Couto. Given the background of the affidavit, the contradictory testimony about its execution, and the absence of additional authentication, the signature of the Respondent is not accepted as genuine. In spring 1992, various materialmen and subcontractors filed liens on the house being built for the Coutos. In order to clear the title to his home, Dr. Couto had to settle with the lienholders and pay them $14,878.18. As stated above, Dr. Couto received the proceeds from the sale of the second lot, $4,690.37. Subsequently, the matter was brought to the attention of the state's attorney. The Respondent paid the Coutos $3,000 in cash, and the state's attorney dropped the case against the Respondent after handwriting analysis was completed on the affidavit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX The Petitioner submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of the findings were adopted and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 5,6 Paragraph 8,9,10 Paragraph 7 Rejected as contrary to better evidence, See Paragraph 13 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 15 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 16 COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Clifford A. Taylor, Esquire 507 East Moody Boulevard Bunnell, Florida 32110 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in the case are whether or not the Respondent (1) during the course of an organizing campaign by the Union engaged in a course of conduct amounting to unlawful surveillance and/or creation of the impression of surveillance (2) whether or not Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain in good faith with the Union and (3) whether or not Respondent unlawfully refused to execute dues checkoff authorizations signed by its employees. By the alleged acts referred above, the Respondent allegedly engaged in unfair labor practices affecting the orderly and uninterrupted operations and functions of government within the meaning of Florida Statutes 447. As stated, these issues arise on a complaint issued October 16, by the acting general counsel of the Public Employees Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as PERC), as amended at the trial after PERC's investigation of-the charges filed by the Union on various dates. The Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. At close of the testimony all parties waived oral argument. A brief has been received by counsel for the general counsel and has been carefully considered by me in preparation of this hearing officer's report and recommended order which was signed and released by me on March 17, 1976, for distribution to the parties in the usual course. Upon the entire record in the case, observation of witnesses on the stand, and considerations of arguments of counsel, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact Respondent's operation and the status of the Union. The Respondent is now and has been at all times material herein, a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2) of the Act. The Union is an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(2) of the Public Employees Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Union was certified by the Commission on April 22, order no. 75E-6-31 and the parties commenced bargaining on or about April 23, 1975, and notice of negotiations was forwarded to the Commission's office on or about May 5, 1975. By way of background, the case was originally noticed for hearing to commence on October 29 and 30, 1975, in the Escambia County Courthouse. The Respondent, on October 29, applied for and obtained a temporary restraining order which had the effect of commanding the Public Employees Relations Commission to refrain from conducting or attempting to conduct the hearing based on the charges alleged in the subject complaint and notice of hearing. On the following day, the School Board filed a non-suit which had the effect of resolving the temporary restraining order. Prior thereto and subsequent to the non-suit, the Respondent filed numerous motions for continuance and dismissal based on alleged procedural violations. The basis of the procedural deficiencies were that (1) PERC failed to advise the Respondent of its investigation prior to issuing complaint and therefore the complaint was improperly issued. Additionally, the Respondent alleged that it has filed charges of a similar nature against the Union and that PERC has failed to expedite investigation of said charges which according to Respondent, amounts to violations of bad faith bargaining by the Union also in violation of Florida Statutes 447. Accordingly, Respondent asked that continuance be granted and that a period somewhere in the nature of 30 days be allowed to consider the charges alleged. Respondent also filed motions to dismiss alleging inter alia, that the charges filed by the Charging Party are false and groundless and that representatives of the Charging Party and PERC's agents have colluded to effectuate violations of its rules and enabling statutes as set forth in the complaint. Based thereon states the Respondent, it has been deprived of its opportunity for investigation and defense of the matters asserted in the administrative charges and the complaint and therefore the complaint should be dismissed. Aside from the fact that the hearing officer is without the authority to grant motions to dismiss, looking to the motion to dismiss and the motion for continuance, no evidence other than the bare claims were made to substantiate all of the allegations contained in both the motion to dismiss and the motion for continuance. Accordingly they are tentatively denied by the undersigned and the motion to dismiss is referred to PERC for final ruling. Respondent's counsel also made a motion for continuance on the final day of the hearing and as grounds therefor alleged that he had been recently retained. Aside from the fact that the testimony revealed that the law firm had been retained to represent Respondent months prior to the instant hearing, Dr. Moses, Respondent's chief negotiator under- took to represent Respondent at the hearing. Additionally, the motion was denied as being untimely filed. THE REFUSAL TO DEDUCT DUES ISSUE Guy Price, Special Education Teacher for approximately 4- 1/2 years, testified that he is a union member and that he signed a dues deduction authorization form in 1971. 2/ Price testified that the Respondent has refused to deduct dues since on or about July. He testified that the Respondent caused to be circulated in October, a notice which indicated it would only deduct dues pursuant to authorizations on a lump sum basis for the yearly dues which, according to the testimony, amounted to $110.00. He testified that inasmuch as he could not afford the lump sum deduction, he canceled his authorization go or about October 6. He testified that he was aware personally of approximately 10 other employees who canceled their dues deduction authorization based on the fact that according to his testimony, they were unable to afford a lump sum deduction. He testified that the Respondent permits piece meal deductions of other organizational and benefit drives whereas it refused to do so in this case. On cross-examination, he testified that during the months of March thru June, no deductions were made. On redirect examination, he reiterated his prior testimony that he canceled his dues deduction authorization based on the fact that he could not afford the lump sum payment as indicated by the Respondent's notice to employees. Carl Ledehman, an employee for approximately 18 months and a Union member indicated that he canceled his dues deduction authorization based on the fact that he too could not afford a lump sum deduction as testified to by Guy Price. He testified that the Respondent indicated sometime in early October that it would only deduct Union dues in a lump sum fashion and that based on this announcement, 3/ he then canceled his dues deduction. He testified that inasmuch as the Respondent indicated that it would only deduct dues pursuant to a lump sum method, he canceled his authorization and that he did so for no other purpose. He testified as did Mr. Price that to his knowledge, the Respondent deducts contributions for hospital, cancer and the united givers fund as well as other benevolent and humanitarian purposes. Albert M. Robuck, an employee for approximately 6 years, testified that he, signed a dues deduction authorization form yearly and that the employer refused, sometime in October, to deduct dues on a monthly basis. He testified that he received several memos citing in essence that Respondent would only deduct dues on a lump sum basis. Based on this statement, he canceled his dues deduction authorization on or about October 12, and that along with his cancellation, approximately three other teachers canceled their dues deduction authorization. He testified that he was aware that the employer is presently deducting health insurance, annuities and other deductions monthly. Jackie Barrineau, the Union's Chairperson and an employee for approximately three years as a teacher, testified that she has been a Union member throughout her employment with the Respondent. She testified that the Respondent submitted what she considered to be exorbitant proposals for the cost of processing the dues deductions and that the proposals ranged from $12,500.00 annually to its last offer which amounted to .05 per card per month for each employee utilizing the dues deduction procedure. On April 21, 1975, she testified that the Union agreed to pay $325.00 for dues deduction for the remainder of the school year, whereas the Employer on July 15, proposed the amount of $12,500.00 for dues deduction. She testified that the Employer amended its position and countered with the same figure it had originally proposed. Approximately two days later on July 17, the board reduced its cost for processing dues deductions and reduced the $12,500.00 figure to .50 per card per month for each employee utilizing dues deduction. In late July the parties declared an impasse and during the numerous proposals which were submitted during the impasse on or about September 4, the Respondent resubmitted the $12,000.00 figure as the cost for deducting dues. See for example Charging Party's Exhibit 7 received in evidence and is made a part hereof by reference. She testified that despite the adamant position taken by the Respondent on dues deduction, she did not cancel her dues authorization. On cross-examination she corroborated the fact that the parties tentatively agreed to a provision whereby the Respondent would deduct .05 per card for each member utilizing the dues deduction authorization procedure. The Employer advised that it had received legal advice regarding the legality of the notice given employees whereby it would only deduct dues in a lump sum and that a local attorney, William Davenport, advised that that procedure was permissible. She testified that she is charged with giving collective bargaining advice to all employees within the County School System. She testified as to a problem the Respondent advised that it had relative to incorrect signatures and improper amounts being recorded on dues authorization cards and that that was part of the stated motivation for the Employer cancelling the procedure of deducting dues on a monthly basis. She testified that as to the Respondent's release of its intention to deduct dues only on a lump sum basis, a substantial number of employees withdrew from the Union. The Respondent also claims that it refused to honor existing dues authorizations which were executed by its employees because numerous cards were either incorrectly executed or were undated. There is nothing in Section 447.303, F.S., which saddles Respondent with the responsibility of insuring that dues deduction authorizations are properly executed. Nor was there any credible testimony from any employee that dues deductions were being made without their express authorization. It thus appears that the Respondent's stated concern about the legality or propriety of the dues authorizations was nothing more than a pretext to effectuate its real desire of securing from employees mass cancellation of their dues authorizations and thus stifle the Union's ability to function. This becomes more apparent when consideration is given to the Respondent's attitude at the bargaining table relative to the amount that it proposed to the Union for the administrative costs for providing the dues deduction service. Respondent maintained the same basic "no give" position on this issue until the entry of the mediator into the negotiations. Although not specifically urged by Respondent as a defense to the refusal to deduct dues allegation, small mention was made of the fact that no contract was in existence between the parties when it (Respondent) ceased to deduct dues on a monthly basis as had been its practice during the remainder of the school year following the Union's certification as exclusive bargaining representative for Respondent's instructional personnel. Inasmuch as the statute which is pertinent to dues deduction (447.303, F.S.) at no point refers to the existence of a collective bargaining agreement as a prerequisite to dues deduction authorizations, the undersigned is constrained to conclude that the statute which is specific on its face, must be applied literally. Accordingly, even if Respondent had urged that as a defense for its actions stated above, the undersigned would recommend rejection of that ground as basis for its refusal to deduct dues pursuant to authorizations. 4/ THE SURVEILLANCE ISSUE Jack Bridges, who is the Employer's Director of Industrial Services and who is responsible for the media, news releases, etc., testified that he photographed pickets who picketed the Respondent's school administration building during the summer months of 1975. He testified that Charging Party's composite of approximately 17 pictures which the Respondent utilized in order to maintain a "historical" file. He testified that he was responsible for taking approximately 7 pictures and he recognized, after having been shown Mrs. Barrineau, Martha Smith and another teacher whom he described as being an active Union supporter. He testified that there was no blocking of ingress and egress into the school building and that the pickets picketed approximately 6 times. He testified that he had received advance notice from the news paper and TV advertisements that there would be a picket at the administration building. He testified that the photos were taken to the Director of Employee Relations, Dick Phillingem. 5/ He testified that the photos were taken with the school's camera and film. Bridges further testified that there were no blacks picketing during the time the photos were made and that to the best of his recollection there were only two pickets. On cross-examination he testified that he had received advance notice of racial picketing but that no photos were made nor was the division in which he headed asked to take pictures of such demonstration. On further recross, he testified that he was, contrary to his earlier testimony, asked to take pictures of racial matters. Thomas J. Le Master, the Respondent's Assistant Superintendent for approximately 5-1/2 years, testified that the pictures were taken to determine whether or not employees were breaking the law and to place such pictures in the labor files. He testified that Phillingem asked him if he had anyone to take pictures whereupon the answer was elicited that pictures were made such that there could be a record of labor relations. He testified that he was present at a school board meeting during mid September and that the pictures were discussed at such meeting and during a further conversation with Mr. Phillingem. He testified that he talked closely and worked closely with Phillingem on all matters relating to the operation of their division. When shown the pictures in Charging Parties Exhibit 11, he was able to identify the subjects in the pictures A,D,C,F and G. He testified that he presently serves on Respondent's bargaining team and has done so since January, 1975, when the pertinent divisions of Section 447, Florida Statutes, became operative. He testified that he had not witnessed a labor trial although he had seen Charging Party's Exhibit 2 which as stated was the notice to employees regarding dues deductions. The notice bears a date of October 2nd. On cross-examination, he also testified that the pictures were shown at a public board meetings and that few comments were made regarding the subjects contained on the pictures. He testified that the file which the pictures were part of, is used in collective bargaining negotiations between the Charging Party. He did not elaborate on this point. He testified that he obtained his advance notice for the picketing through either the news paper or the television. Dick Phillingem, Manager of Employee Relations for the past year, has been employed by the Respondent for approximately 24 years in various positions. He testified that he maintained records regarding employee relations and he referred to such correspondence a "blurb" sheets and Escambia Education Association fliers. He testified that he did not talk about his prior conversation regarding this hearing. He gave Le Master instructions to take the pictures. He testified that the instructions were to take pictures of bath the pickets and the legends contained thereon. Messr. Bridges called to inform him that the pictures were to be delivered to him via a courier and that he thereafter disbursed them at the Board meeting. He utilized the pictures to keep current his file which he uses to monitor Union activity. During the normal course of his work day he spends approximately 80 percent of his time visiting teachers, coordinators and checking records on disclosures at discussions of board meetings. When asked for the purpose for which he was collecting a "history" for his files, the witness was unspecific however, he did testify that no attempts were made to utilize the pictures for reprisals. Jackie Barrineau, who previously testified, was recalled and testified that she engaged in picketing on or about August 20, at approximately 3:30 p.m. She testified that there were approximately 25 pickets and that she confronted Jack Bridges and approximately 2 other photographers whose names she did not recall and that she approached Bridges and informed him that she did not like the idea of his taking photos of her. She testified that the Union obtained a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Respondent to disclose the budget and Dr. Moses' contract with the Respondent. The pickets expressed to her their fear of retaliation for engaging in such acts. There was no blockage of ingress or egress of the school's administration building where the picketing occurred. When shown the pictures, she was able to identify most of the subjects. She testified further that the picketing was at all times peaceful. On cross-examination she also stated that she is the Union's public relations official and reiterated her identification of Mr. Bridges as one of the photographers. 6/ Dr. Ruby Jackson Gainer, a counselor dean and an employee for approximately 20 or more years, testified that she engaged In the picketing and that she was also intimidated by a managerial employee taking pictures of her while she was picketing. She testified that despite this fear, she went along with the idea of picketing because she felt "committed to her task." She recalled an incident whereby she was discharged and her tenure removed due to her engagement in a walkout during school year 1968. She testified that the employer tried to discharge her for taking two days' sick leave and that this action was turned over to the professional practices committee. On or about August 28, she testified that she was demoted from administrative dean to counselor dean and that the difference being that as counselor dean, her work station is located in an isolated area removed from the other school facilities. William McArthur, the Respondent's Personnel Director, testified that the picketing occurred in front of the school building which is where his office is located. He is a member of the board's negotiating team and he testified that he was unaware of any employees being intimidated based on their engaging in picketing. He corroborated the earlier testimony that the pickets did not block any ingress or egress to the school's administrative building. He is the custodian of the instructional personnel records and to his knowledge, there was no data placed in the personnel files regarding the picketing. He also testified that the Respondent does not maintain any separate personnel file for pickets. He testified on cross-examination, that he viewed the picture in Mr. Odom's office which were lying on his desk uncovered. He was unable to witness pickets from the school's building as was previously testified to by other witnesses. In the private sector, the NLRB has consistently held that direct surveillance by company supervisory employees or executives is intimidating and coercive. However, the mere presence of a supervisor or agent of a Respondent is insufficient to prove surveillance where such presence is not out of the ordinary. In this case, evidence reveals that the occurrence of the picketing was a matter of common knowledge throughout the county. The picket was so well known that there was extensive media coverage. The evidence reveals further that the photos were passed around at a public School Board meeting and that since that time no reprisals have been practiced upon the subjects appearing in the photographs. There was no evidence that employees' job activities were more closely scrutinized than before the picture taking episode occurred. Jackie Barrineau, a chief spokesman for the Union testified that she engaged in picketing on or about August 20, at approximately 3:30 p.m. She testified that approximately 25 pickets gathered in front of the school's administration building and that Jack Bridges and two other photographers took pictures of the pickets. She as well as other witnesses testified that they feared reprisals would be taken against them for engaging in the picketing and that they were unable to discern any useful purpose as to why the pictures were being taken by Jack Bridges. The evidence also reveals that the Respondent's agents testified that the purpose for which the photos were made was to maintain "history" for their files. Further testimony on this point, however, reveals that the photos were openly discussed at a public meeting and that no attempts were made by the Respondent and/or its agents to utilize those photos for retaliation or for any other purpose unlawful under Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. The record was barren of any evidence that the Respondent attempted to use the pictures from the pickets to substantiate retaliatory motives. While one witness testified that she was demoted because she participated in a strike several years ago, such testimony standing alone is insufficient to base a finding that the Respondent during the picketing in 1975 utilized or planned to utilize the photos for some unlawful purpose. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the Respondent treated picketing employees any differently than it did any other employees who engaged in the strike following the time that the photos were taken. This tends to show the exact opposite of a surveillance situation or the creation of the impression of surveillance as alleged. It is true that there was scant evidence that the Respondent utilized the materials in a file relative to labor relations matters, no ulterior or unlawful motive was attached or shown by the evidence. While one might infer or surmise that the photos would be utilized for discriminatory purposes, there was no proof of that and mere suspicion is no substitute for proof. For these reasons, the undersigned hereby recommends that the surveillance issue be dismissed for lack of proof. THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ISSUE Fred Haushalter, the Charging Party's Executive Director for approximately 8 years and a consultant, testified that he requested access to budget information from the comptroller and for a copy of the contract given to the Respondent's labor negotiator, Ed Moses. He testified that the request was made on or about 5 different times during the month of July, 1975. He said when Respondent refused to honor his request for budget papers at the school board meeting, the mandamus suit was filed to compel disclosure whereupon the court ordered the Respondent to turn over those documents and, ill addition, the Union was awarded attorney's fees and cost for bringing the action. He testified that the school board plead that it was unable to pay any additional salaries since revenues were right and further, that there would be no economic improvements contained in the collective bargaining agreement that the parties were negotiating. He testified that all bargaining team members were notified that there would be no economic improvements forthcoming from the Respondent. On cross-examination, he testified that he requested the school board's budget work papers and a tentative budget. He testified that bargaining commenced in late July, 1975. Specifically, he testified that he asked the comptroller, Messr. Olden, for a copy of the tentative budget. Beginning in April, 1975, the Union formally began to formulate proposals and the procedure utilized was that of past practice when the employee organization had utilized in negotiating prior contracts. By letter dated September 8, Robert C. Mott, Deputy Superintendent, stated that he was supplying, (1) a copy of the tentative 75-76 budget; (2) a copy of Dr. Moses' contract; and (3) a copy of the administrative salary schedule. He testified that of the data which was requested by the union, some could not he supplied immediately as some of it needed to be assembled. As to the other request, Mott advised that "since it related so directly to the collective bargaining scene," he would need the "legal advice" from Dr. Moses concerning that data. He concluded by stating that he would submit the requested data when he was able to either assemble it or when Dr. Moses gave him the proper advice. 7/ He testified that Moses was Respondent's chief spokesman as of May 20, and that there were approximately 13 sessions. He phoned Dr. Moses on June 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24 and he (Moses) failed to respond to his phone calls. He had previously been advised by Dr. Moses on June 4 that a negotiating session could be arranged on June 9. He testified that when his phone calls to Dr. Moses were unanswered, he started calling the school board's secretary; Mr. Phillinger and a Mr. Davis, who according to his testimony is Dr. Moses' assistant. Davis took the message and informed him that he would give it to Dr. Moses immediately. When he spoke to Mr. Phillinger, he indicated that he would try to contact Dr. Moses as soon as possible. After approximately 10 or more phone calls, Moses returned his call on June 24, a Tuesday, and informed him that he was told that no one would be in the office until around 1:00 p.m. on that day, i.e., June 24. He testified that Phillinger, Director of Employee Relations, stated that he would contact Dr. Moses since he did not have the authority to arrange dates for collective bargaining negotiation sessions. The following day a Messr. Leper was called and he informed him of the difficulty that he had encountered in trying to contact Dr. Moses. He testified that during a two-week period he made approximately 22 phone calls to both officers of Educational Services Bureau, Inc., a consulting firm in which Dr. Moses is employed and serves as its Executive Vice President. He testified that when he finally made contact with Dr. Moses, they arranged a tentative date of July 1 to commence negotiations and that he requested dates of June 25 or 26 and to that request, Moses indicated July 1 would be the earliest date. He testified that at the July 1 session, Moses brought with him no proposals, but merely read a statement that the union's proposals were hastily prepared and irresponsible. He testified that the negotiating team which consisted of approximately 6 members began preparing the original proposal in October of 1974 and that special preparation lasted through April 1975 when formal proposals were submitted. He testified that Phillingem advised that the employer would only discuss the preamble and the following three articles, mainly (1) recognition; (2) association and teacher rights and (3) negotiation procedures. 8/ He testified that at that session, Respondent would only propose language regarding the recognition article. During that meeting the employer submitted its "guidelines for negotiation" and previously thereto on April 23, Respondent advised that it would have prepared at its next session, a counter proposal. The Union's proposal consisted of some 123 pages containing approximately 33 articles. The next meeting was held on May 19, and the parties agreed to payroll deduction for the remaining school year. He testified that Moses, at that meeting, advised that he wanted the Union's negotiating team to "localize the agreement." He testified that the next three sessions mainly consisted of questions by Moses, who informed the Union's bargaining team that "when we start bargaining, we will get. responses." 9/ On cross-examination, Moses asked the witness a number of questions regarding the Union's necessity of affiliation, the understanding as to why two whereases were included in Hue Union's preamble and other questions regarding language contained in provisions of its (the Union's) proposal. Moses inquired of him what his definition of good faith bargaining was and how the Union derived the one 1000th figure as the cost for dues deduction payments. He testified that Moses indicated to him that most of the Union's proposals were "non-bargainable items." The Respondent counter-proposed with a one page proposal. The Employer's initial counterproposal, which was submitted on July, in essence contained provisions that all offers were package offers which had to be either accepted or rejected as a package; that the contract term be two years and that the salary level be that level that was paid to instructional personnel the last school year. The proposal also contained provisions that all negotiable benefits be maintained at the funded level as contained ill the last contract and for existing benefits only; that final and binding arbitration be added to the present concept of grievance as is now in use in the Escambia County Schools.. The counterproposal ended with a provision which stated that all other bargainable items proposed by the union and identified as bargainable by the board were rejected. 10/ Mrs. Barrineau testified that the board's final proposal which was mailed to the teachers contained provisions whereby lunch hours were discretionary with the principal; a no strike provision; dues deduction and mileage allowance which was less beneficial than that contained in the predecessor agreement. The counterproposal also contained more restrictive provisions regarding maternity leave, personal leave and a two year contract term. There was a provision regarding association and teacher rights, three paid holidays, professional leave and procedures for reviewing personnel files. There was a provision controlling posting, voluntary transfers, class size, teacher's schedules, $60.00 bonus and that in her opinion, the salary proposal was regressive. She testified that the Respondent attempted to withdraw certain items which had been tentatively agreed to by the parties. The Respondent advised that this proposal which was submitted to the union on or about September 26, could only be accepted or rejected "in toto." On July 3, Mrs. Barrineau asked the Respondent for a counter and that its failure to do so would result in the Union's filing an unfair labor practice charge with PERC. Respondent's chief negotiator indicated that management's rights superseded employee rights except as specifically restricted by law. She testified that the only items which he considered negotiable were those items which were existing items or items which were covered by Respondent's policy. She testified that the principle area of discussion at that session dealt with grievance procedures and Dr. Moses informed the Union's negotiating team that their proposals were "so far out of line that they would not be either accepted or entertained." She testified that while the Union was willing to discuss item by item in their proposals and various counterproposals, the Employer indicated that all proposals had to be either totally accepted or rejected. The Union pressed for an informal grievance procedure and a more expeditious manner to resolve such but this was not forthcoming through negotiations. She expressed the opinion the "in toto" position urged by the Respondent was stifling the bargaining process and in her opinion, an attempt was being made to create an impasse. Regarding maternity and sabbatical leave, the discussion surrounding those areas were more regressive and restrictive than the existing policy. 11/ She testified that the Union agreed to accept the Respondent's dormant position regarding insurance in order to enable it to put insurance bids to various carriers. The Employer took a "no give" stance on the preamble and refused to allow employees a "choice of forums to resolve grievances." The next session which was held on July 9 was, according to Mrs. Barrineau, a discussion which largely centered around grievance procedure and sabbatical leave and that in the Unions opinion, the grievance procedure advanced by Respondent was "too detailed." For a detailed discussion on the grievance procedure, see Charging Party's Exhibit 31, which is a counter dealing with grievance procedure. During the next discussion, the witness testified that she expressed concern about the absence of insurance, sabbatical leave and teacher's retirement provisions, and that this was a subject to which the Employer refused to discuss.. The only items that the Employer would discuss were sabbatical leave and insurance. During the July 9 meeting, the Employer agreed to withdraw its insurance proposal. At the next session on July 14, the Union submitted its counterproposal no. 5, which was a regression from its earlier proposal regarding unpaid leave and grievance procedures and all other proposals were identical to its earlier submission and previously adopted position. 12/ Another session was held the following day, i.e., July 15, and the employer adopted the position of making responses only via written proposals and during that session, the Union changed its dues deduction proposal and incorporated a hold harmless clause for the Employer. Thereafter, the Union changed its position on the grievance procedure and advanced an informal one which in her opinion, provided for a more expedited procedure of resolving grievances. During that period from May 20 through mid-July, the parties had only agreed to three items. The Employer adopted a "no give" position regarding sabbatical leave. During a negotiating session on July 17, Dr. Moses appeared at the session approximately one and one-half hours late. At that meeting he submitted a counter which in essence stated that all issues which were "bargainable" had been discussed. She testified that the employer refused to submit counters on promotions, overtime, transfers, calendars, affect of class sizes and all other items. The Employer remained adamant regarding its position that dues deductions were subject to a $.50 deduction per card per employee and that she expressed the opinion that all other deductions were not subject to a like charge and, therefore, the administration charge for dues deduction was punitive in nature. She testified that at the July 17 meeting, the Respondent submitted its counterproposals 9 and 10 and that there were no changes regarding bargainable versus nonbargainable items. The proposals contained regressive language and that employees had to specifically state the reasons for taking personal leave. There were other changes in military and professional leave which deviated from and were more restrictive than existing policies. She testified that the dues deduction pursuant to the $.50 per card charge amounted to approximately $12,450.00 for the Union. The Employer submitted a proposal whereby the instructional personnel would work an 8-hour day which had the effect of increasing the normal work day and the lunch period was reduced to 20 minutes. The proposal contained no compensation allotments for overtime work and the Employer took the position that salary supplements were not negotiable. The Employer refused to change its attitude with regard to physical examinations, mileage allowances and the collective bargaining contracts would be printed at the Union's expense. There was no movement from the initial salary proposals submitted on April 23. During the period from July 1 through July 23, Respondent was unprepared approximately seven times and was late approximately nine times for bargaining sessions. On July 23, the Respondent submitted its counter no. 11 which changed the contract terms from one year to two years and the recognition clause also contained the provision deleting "the board and the association and added the State of Florida." On dues deduction, the employer agreed to recede from its earlier position adopted in its counter no. 10 by an amount totaling $50.00, i.e., the amount previously stated from $12,450.00 to $12,400.00. The proposal also contained a provision that Respondent reserved the right to establish those deductions which it considered to be voluntary deductions and that said right also included the "establishment of a reasonable set deduction, if in the opinion of the board such cost is necessary." All other items were consistent with those contained in its earlier counterproposal. 13/ On July 23 the Union declared impasse which was 60 days prior to the Respondent's budget submission date. At the time of the impasse, the parties had not reached agreement on: the insurance proposal, grievance procedures, sick leave, illness in line of duty, personal leave, sabbatical leave, general leave of absence, military leave, professional leave, visitation rights, dues deduction, preamble, maternity leave, as well as others. 14/ The parties scheduled their first mediation session on August 13, and it was scheduled to begin at 4:30 p.m. At that session, the Respondent's team was late by approximately two hours. The testimony is that the dues deduction costs submitted to the mediator was for a lump sum payable by the Union of $12,400.00. At that session, the Employer took the position that the subject of discharges was a nonnegotiable item. At the next meeting, on or about August 26, the Respondent's chief negotiator was late approximately two hours. On November 10, the Union requested a further session and Moses wired a message that he would not be available until November 15. The witness remained at the negotiating meeting on November 15 for approximately one hour and no negotiating official of Respondent appeared. The Employer remained adamant on positions wherein there was disagreement only as to language but not in principle. The parties agreed to a marathon bargaining session beginning November 28, and the sessions continued through November 30, at which time an agreement was tentatively reached by the parties, subject to ratification by the bargaining unit members. 15/ The unit members voted against ratification of Charging Party's Exhibit 46 which is the agreement entered into by the negotiating team and the Respondent's team on that same date. Included therein, is a salary proposal which amounts to a reduction in the previous school year salary of approximately 3.6 percent, i.e., $8,320.00 per annum versus $8,266.00. The Respondent refused to accede to most proposals submitted by the Union based on its stated claim that most were already provided for by law and thus that there was no need to incorporate such in a collective bargaining agreement. A member of the Respondent's negotiating team allegedly made the statement that "the teachers had nothing, that the school board had everything, that the school board could do what it desired regarding salaries. Additionally, it considered as nonnegotiable such matters as: dismissal, layoffs, evaluation, tenure, discipline for annual contract teachers and the scheduling of planning periods." Floating teachers, assignment of summer school teachers, problems regarding absence without leave and class size were also nonbargainable. Respondant's negotiating team also took the position that the effects of such items were also nonnegotiable. The chief spokesperson, Mrs. Barrineau, testified that her duties consisted primarily of carrying out speaking engagements regarding collective bargaining rights, effectuating collective bargaining policy for the Escambia Education Association, the certified bargaining agent, to settle disagreements within the collective bargaining team, to formulate policy, to issue news releases, to make civic speeches, to attend EEA workshops and to formulate a collective bargaining budget. She testified that the proposals resulted from a joint effort of EEA's collective bargaining team. She became actively engaged in the formulation of proposals on or about March 1. She testified that she made approximately seven phone calls during the period June 12 through June 26, in an effort to schedule a session with Respondent. At the August 14 meeting, the Respondent presented the impasse proposals to the FMCS mediator. As of September 25, the parties reached the figure of approximately $1300.00 for the cost of deducting dues pursuant to checkoff authorizations. Mr. Phillingem was called and testified that the file to which he earlier testified to contain Chapter 447 and the pertinent enabling statutes and the Department of Education Rules and Regulations in addition to proposals submitted by EEA, the certified bargaining agent, "blurb" sheets which are distributed and various other Union news letters. He testified that the school board's legal counsel is, to the best of his knowledge, associated with Muller & Mintz, a Miami law firm. Wallace S. Odom, the comptroller, testified that he is responsible for maintaining all financial data with regard to the school's budget. He is charged with maintaining accurate records and during fiscal year from October 1, thru September 30, there was a county wide reduction in teacher aides by approximately 110. He testified that there was no increase in salaries based on the status of incoming revenues. He testified that there has been an increase in the millage paid for property tax in and around Escambia County and that such increase is up to, according to his testimony, a full 8 mills. Fred Haushalter, EEA's Executive Director, testified that he monitors correspondence which comes through his office. He testified that the allowance for dues deductions during the months of June, July and August was achieved through negotiations and that the parties stipulated as to the amount of the cost for such deductions. He testified that the stipulation was reached on or about May 20, 1975. Thereafter during the remaining months of the school year, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby the cost of administration and dues deduction were set at a cost somewhere in the nature of $325.00 for the remaining three months. While the basic issues here can be simply stated, they are not susceptible of a short and simple answer: Did the Respondent negotiate with the Union in bad faith and with the intent of avoiding reaching agreement or conditioning agreement with the Union's acceptance of terms and conditions which the Respondent knew or should have known are unacceptable to any self respecting Union? The governing principles need not be set forth in exhaustive detail. Section 447, F.S., (the Act) defines collective bargaining and imposes upon the parties the duty to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment or the negotiation of and agreement, or any question arising thereunder... but such obligation does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession. " The Public Employees Relations Act which was largely patterned after the National Labor Relations Act, 29 USC 151 et seq, sets forth the yard stick which is contained in Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act and provides that the measurement of "good faith" is not rigid but, necessarily is an elastic concept having meaning only in its application to the particular facts of a particular case. See for example N.L.R.B. v. American National Insurance Company, 343 U.S. 395, 410 (1952). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the second circuit stated in N.L.R.B. v. National Shoes, Inc., and National Syracuse Corporation, 208F 2d. 688, 691-692 (1953), the problem is essentially to determine from the record the intention of the state of mind of [the employer] in the matter of [his] negotiations with the Union. In this proceeding, as in many others, such a determination is a question of fact to be determined from the whole record. See also N.L.R.B. v. Reed and Prince Manufacturing Company, 205F. 2d.131, 134-135 (C.A. 1, 1953), cert. denied 346 U.S. 887 (1954). The National Labor Relations Board has repeatedly held that it is without authority to either directly or indirectly compel concessions or otherwise set in judgement upon substantive terms of a collective bargaining agreement. A necessary corollary to this principal is that just as the Act contains no authority to force an agreement when the parties have reached an impasse (N.L.R.B. v. The United Clay Mines Corporation, 219F. 2d 120, 126 (C.A. 6, 1955), so also refusal to bargain cannot he equated with refusal to recede from an announced position advanced and maintained in good faith. Division 1142, Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motorcoach Employees of America, AFL-CIO (Continental Bus System v. N.L.R.B., 294F. 2d 264, 266 (C.A.D.C., 1961). Applying these principles to the facts here, it becomes apparent that based on the small movement and the repeated standoffs by Respondent, I am constrained to conclude that the Respondent here has failed to fulfill its obligation to bargain in good faith with the Union. Turning to the pertinent facts in this case, up to and including the point of "impasse", the Respondent refused to recede from its initial stand on inter alia, checkoff, seniority, grievance procedure, all types leave, assignment scheduling, shorter lunch periods, reduction in pay and longer work days. Based on this position, one would readily infer that the Respondent approached the table with a preconceived determination never to reach agreement on these issues and that it maintained this position during negotiations without doing anymore than listen to Union argument on those points. Thus, in effect it engaged in surface bargaining on those as well as other issues without any attempt to explore argument thereon with a sincere desire to reach agreement. The Respondent's chief negotiator approached the table with a cleverly concealed scheme of displaying a real and sincere attitude of negotiating which was carried on with sophistication and finesse and the mere making of concessions on some items was the very means by which he concealed a purposeful strategy to make bargaining futile or fail. Using this approach, the Respondent opened negotiations with an extremely high cost for the administration of dues deduction and then failed to recede from this position until the waining moments of the negotiating sessions and after the parties had gone through the lengthly process of calling in mediators which were costly to both parties. There was no meaningful change on its consideration of position on the mandatory subject of checkoff as provided in Section 447.303, Florida Statutes. Throughout the sessions, the Union brought out and repeated all its main arguments regarding checkoff, salary levels, scheduling assignments, grievance procedures, contract terms, health insurance coverage as well as other items which the record is replete with documentary evidence. The Respondent, according to the testimony, stood fast on various articles which it deemed to be nonbargainable throughout the negotiation and as the sessions progressed, its position hardened. These are mandatory bargaining subjects and the Respondent's failure to enter negotiations with an effort to reach agreement constitutes bad faith bargaining in violation of 447.501(c), Florida Statutes. One example of this unlawful conduct can be examined by consideration of the fact that during the previous school year, the Respondent agreed to deduct dues on a monthly basis and the cost of such deduction amounted to approximately $325.00 for a three month period whereas when it entered the negotiation table it started out with the "outrageous" figure of approximately $13,000.00 for the same service that it had earlier provided for a total cost of $1300.00 if projected over a one year period. The same can be said for the Respondent's adamant refusal throughout the negotiations to accede to minor language changes in the preamble and other matters which in its opinion, were matters already covered by other laws and therefore there was no need to incorporate such in a collective bargaining agreement. While not suggesting that the Act requires concession by either side during bargaining nor the surrender of convictions or alterations of philosophies provided such convictions or philosophies are not made operative in such manner as to foreclose bone fide consideration of bargainable issues, the repeated refusal to consider or counter when proposed with items which amounts to nothing more than language changes, such a position militates a finding that the employer approaches the bargaining table with the intent of reaching an agreement and/or to engage in good faith bargaining. While parties oft times approach the bargaining table and jockey for positions, there comes a time when there must be a sincere desire to reach agreement. Further support in this position can be found in the fact that the Union on numerous occasions made futile attempts to reach the Respondent's Chief negotiator. During one period during the negotiating sessions, the Union's chief spokesman testified that she made more than ten phone calls during a twelve day period and that at no time were her calls returned by the Respondent and/or its agents. This in the opinion of the undersigned evinces a practice on the part of the Respondent to engage in dilatory and evasive tactics designed to make the bargaining process a sham and fruitless process. For example, anti-discrimination clauses are customarily included in contracts whereas there are other specific laws which specifically provide for and cover such proscribed activity. The fact that a proposal is made to include such in an agreement does not detract from or otherwise modify from other existing laws covering the same procedure. Further support for the conclusion reached by the undersigned can he found in the fact that the Respondent's chief negotiator entered the negotiating sessions with the idea that all proposals submitted by the Respondent would be package proposals and that the Union could not accept part of a counter proposal put by the Respondent without completely accepting or rejecting the entire proposal. This is not to say that the parties cannot enter into negotiations and negotiate on an item by item basis but the adoption of an "in toto", or take it or leave it" policy is further indication of bad faith bargaining. This is of much significance here since Respondent refused to agree to insignificant or traditional items contained in collective agreements. See e.g., Big Three Industries, 201 N.L.R.B. No. 105. Another indicia of the negotiating process which is indicative of bad faith bargaining is the fact that after the Union had been certified for approximately 6 months, the Respondent without prior consultation with the Union, unilaterally indicated that dues deductions could only be effected on a lump sum basis which ultimately had the effect of forcing numerous employees to cancel their dues deduction authorizations. This statement is based on the credited testimony of several witnesses including Mrs. Barrineau and Mr. Price. Although the Respondent, during the course of the hearing, testified that the dues deductions were canceled or that attempts were made to get employees to execute new authorization forms, there is nothing in Florida Statutes which places such a burden on the Respondent. A careful reading of Section 447.303, Florida Statutes, indicate that such authorizations are revokable at the employee's will upon 30 days written notice to both the employer and employee organization. Based on the foregoing, I therefore conclude and find that the Respondent's negotiating team entered the table with no intent to fulfill their duty to bargain in good faith and that its actions in forcing employees to execute forms which call for the single deduction of Union dues was a deliberate attempt on its part to force mass withdrawals from the Union in an effort to undermine it.
