Date: September 8, 1995
Case No.: 94-SCA-2
In the Matter of:
JOHN S JANITORIAL SERVICE, INC.,
( JJS ), JJS Services, Inc.,
JOHN WOMACK and BRENDA CHOUINARD,
Respondents
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the Secretary:
Gail E. Glick, Esq.
U.S. Department of Labor
Office of the Solicitor
One Congress Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
On behalf of the Respondents:
Denzil D. McKenzie, Esq.
McKenzie & Edwards, P.C.
U. S. Trust Building
141 Portland Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139
Before:
Joel F. Gardiner
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Law
Judges for determination under the provisions of the McNamara-
[PAGE 2]
O Hara Service Contract Act of 1965, as amended, 41 U.S.C. §
351, et seq., (hereinafter the Act) and the regulations at
29 C.F.R. Parts 4 and 6. The Complaint was issued on October 6,
1993. A Pre-Hearing Order was issued by Judge Vittone on November
29, 1993.
A Notice of Hearing was issued by Judge Rosenzweig on July 6, 1994,
setting a hearing date of October 11, 1994. On August 30, 1994,
Judge Rosenzweig issued a Notice of Re-Assignment and Pre-hearing
Order. Pursuant to this Order the instant matter was re-assigned to
the undersigned. On November 18, 1994, pursuant to the agreement
of the parties, a Notice of Re-Scheduled Hearing was issued which
postponed the Hearing until February 27, 1995. On February 15,
1995, again pursuant to the mutual agreement of the parties, an
Amended Notice of Re-Scheduled Hearing was issued which postponed
the Hearing until March 28, 1995.
A hearing was held on March 28, 1995, in Boston,
Massachusetts. At the hearing, Administrative Law Judge s exhibits
1 through 16 and Complainant s exhibit s 1 through 11 were admitted
into evidence.[1] Subsequent to the hearing, on June 1, 1995,
both parties filed briefs.[2] This decision is rendered after
full consideration of the entire record herein.
BACKGROUND
Respondents first began providing cleaning and janitorial
services and the company was incorporated in 1979 as Shaw s
Janitorial Services. (TR 179) In 1987 the corporate name was
changed to JJS Services. Respondents received their first
government contract in 1980, and their first United States Air
Force contract in 1987. (TR 180)
Respondents have performed a number of different contracts for
various government agencies. The instant matter concerns work
performed at Hanscom Air Force Base and Fort Devens in
Massachusetts.
FACTS
Since 1986, Respondents have been investigated by the
Department of Labor on eight separate occasions.[3] These
investigations were the result of employee complaints. (TR 56-
58,80) In the first investigation in 1986 no violations were
found. (TR 68) The January, 1987 the investigation disclosed
prevailing wage violations, fringe benefit violations, and some
[PAGE 3]
overtime violations. (TR 68) These violations involved
approximately 300 employees and required that the Respondents pay
approximately $30,000.00. (TR 69) The Respondents gave assurances
of future compliance. Debarment was not recommended, even though
the violations were considered serious, in view of the fact that
this was the first investigation to disclose any violations. An
April, 1987 investigation found prevailing wage violations.
Approximately 185 employees were involved and the Respondents
agreed to pay approximately $19,000.00. Once again the Respondents
assured future compliance. (TR 70) Debarment was not recommended
as the investigation covered an interim period after the second
violation. (TR 71) In January, 1988, an investigation found no
violations. (TR 71-72) The next investigation took place in 1989
and disclosed fringe benefit violations. Approximately 7 employees
were involved and the Respondents agreed to pay approximately
,000.00. Again the Respondents pledged future compliance. No
debarment was recommended as the violations were of a somewhat
different nature, and a relatively small number of employees were
involved. (TR 72-73) In January, 1990, an investigation involved
fringe benefits, and vacation and holiday pay violations.
Approximately 10 employees were involved and Respondents agreed to
pay approximately $4,400.00. (TR 73) Again, Respondents assured
future compliance and again, in view of the relatively small
violations, no debarment was recommended. (TR 74)
In January, 1992, the next investigation found violations
concerning prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits involving 150
employees. The investigation covered the period from October, 1990
to January, 1992. Respondents agreed to pay approximately
$40,000.00. (TR 51,75) The investigation was not completed until
February. Respondents agreed to conduct a self audit for the months
of January and February. (TR 28) Respondents agreed to pay the
$40,000.00 by June 1, 1992. (TR 29,77, CX 11) The payments were
not made by June, 1992. The self audit disclosed that Respondents
owed an additional $14,000.00 for violations which occurred in
January and February, 1992. These violations involved
approximately 102 employees. (TR 32-33,50,87, CX 8) Respondents
agreed to pay this amount by the end of June, 1992. (TR 29,54)
This amount was not paid by the deadline. (TR 31) As a result of
Respondents failure to pay the agreed upon amounts by the date set,
a re-investigation was conducted in December, 1992. (TR 30,55) In
February, 1993 respondents agreed that all payments would be made
by May 1, 1993. (TR 35) Not all of the payments were made on time
and Respondents were given a final deadline of July 30, 1993. The
final payment was received by this date. (TR 53) As a result of
the seventh and eighth investigations the Department of Labor
decided to seek to have Respondents debarred. (TR 39)
[PAGE 4]
Colette Hanlon worked for the Respondents as the payroll and
human services administrator from November, 1991 to March of 1992.
(TR 92) Her responsibilities included maintaining employee records
and processing the payroll. She was supervised by Brenda
Chouinard. (TR 94) Ms. Hanlon testified that when she was being
trained for her job she was told that the Respondents did not pay
overtime and that overtime hours were to be entered onto the
payroll and paid at straight time. She stated that she brought
this matter to Brenda Chouinard s attention and Ms. Chouinard
stated that it was Respondents policy not to pay overtime. (TR 98-
100) Ms. Hanlon also testified that in January, 1992, John Womack
told her to make it difficult for the Department of Labor
investigators to find anything. (TR 102) Ms. Hanlon stated that
she was asked to perform an audit of the government contracts at
Hanscom Air Force Base for 1990 and 1991. The results of her audit
showed that the Respondents owed in excess of $70,000.00. The
audit results were given to Brenda Chouinard. (TR 103-104) She
also testified that in February 1992 she was provided with wage
increases for Hanscom Air Force Base and Hanscom Commissary. She
calculated what the wage increase would be for each employee and
entered this information onto the payroll spreadsheet. Brenda
Chouinard, in the presence of John Womack, reprimanded her for this
and told her to reinstate the original rates. (TR 110-111)
Finally, Ms. Hanlon testified that in 1992 the DOL investigator
asked for employee W-2 forms. The forms were compiled, but Brenda
Chouinard asked her not to send them out. The forms were left on
a table for several weeks. (TR 114-115)
On cross examination, Ms. Hanlon stated that she was owed back
wages by the Respondents under the Fair Labor Standards Act. (TR
118) She stated that she was told that she was expected to work
overtime, but would not be paid for it. (TR 119) She was also told
that the Respondents were experiencing financial difficulties. (TR
141-142)
Brenda Chouinard, Respondents vice president of
administration, testified that Respondents lost the payroll records
covering several of the periods when DOL conducted investigations.
(TR 155-156) She stated that Respondents did not attempt to impede
the DOL investigations and supplied the requested documents. (TR
156-157) With respect to Ms. Hanlon s testimony about employee W-2
forms, she did not specifically recall what had happened, but
stated Respondents policy would be to allow the investigator to
come and look at them. (TR 157) Ms. Chouinard testified that
Respondents needed a wage determination letter before raising
employee wage rates under a government contract. She testified
[PAGE 5]
that these letters should come from the contracting officer, but
that they were not received on time. Respondents first learned of
the new rates from the DOL investigator. Once the rates were
raised, Respondents had to apply to the appropriate agency to
recover the deficiency. This process took between three and nine
months. (TR 159-162) Respondents were in poor financial condition
and had to use a line of credit to pay the wage increases until
they were reimbursed. She testified that Respondents did pay
overtime. Respondents only had a policy against working overtime
without prior approval. (TR 174-175) Respondents never tried to
avoid any laws or regulations. (TR 165-166)
John Womack, Respondents president, testified that he did not
tell anyone to frustrate the DOL investigation. He stated that
Respondents did some things wrong but this was not intentional and
that corrective action had been taken. (TR 183-184) Respondents
did not have the wage determination letters at the right time, and
that it took from three to nine months to get reimbursed.
Respondents had to advance the money for these wage increases and
pay interest until the reimbursement was received. (TR 185-186) He
testified that the Hanscom Air Force contract was valued at
,600,000.00 and the violations found totaled ,049.00. The Fort
Devens Commissary contract was for $600,000.00 and the violations
were $520.00. (TR 187) The United States Air Force Academy
contract was valued at $300,000.00 and the violations were
$4,400.00. The 1992 Commissary contract was $300,000.00 and the
violations were $25,000.00. (TR 187) Mr. Womack stated that
Respondents had received very confusing information on wage rates
but had agreed to pay whatever the government said was due.
Respondents always placed the welfare of their employees first as
shown by the fact that the annual employee turnover rate in the
industry was 150% whereas the Respondents turnover rate was under
100%. Respondents had received many community awards and
citations. (TR 189-190, 194-195) Some of Respondents managers had
allowed employees to work overtime without paying time and one
half. As a result Respondents had instituted a policy in 1990
which required prior approval for overtime. (TR 190-191)
Respondents have a very low profit margin. Respondents are
struggling financially and recently had their first layoff. (TR
192-193) Mr. Womack also pointed out that Respondents employees
were totally unionized. (TR 194)
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIESSecretary s Position[PAGE 6]
Respondents should be debarred. The most recent
investigations disclosed violations of the Service Contract Act.
The violations involved prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits.
Respondents failed to pay the amounts involved until more than a
year after the original deadline.
Respondents have a history of violations under the Service
Contract Act. The Wage and Hour Division has conducted eight
investigations since 1986. These investigations disclosed six
violations. At the conclusion of each investigation, the
Respondents paid the back wages which were due and promised future
compliance. Respondents have repeatedly been given the benefit of
the doubt with respect to debarment but it has become clear that
the Wage and Hour Division would have to be policing Respondents on
a regular basis. Further, Respondents administrator of payroll
and human services testified that she was told to make it difficult
for Wage and Hour investigators.
In such circumstances a violator can only avoid debarment by
showing unusual circumstances . A to Z Maintenance Corp. v.
Dole, 710 F.Supp. 853 (D.D.C. 1989); 29 C.F.R.
§4.188(b)(3). Respondents have demonstrated no unusual
circumstances. A history of repeated violations precludes a finding
of unusual circumstances. Washington Moving & Storage Co.,
SCA 68 (August 16, 1973, March 12, 1974). The fact that
Respondents paid the back wages does not weigh against the
debarment sanction. A determination must be made as to
Respondents good faith and cooperation in the resolution of the
issues, its desire to comply with the requirements of the Act and
the promptness with which employees were paid. In view of the
Testimony of Ms. Hanlon there is little evidence of good faith and
cooperation. Further it is determinative whether Respondents
conduct in permitting the violations is willful, deliberate or
aggravated. Washington Storage & Moving, supra.
Respondents put forth several reasons why they should not be
debarred, but each of these is without merit. Respondents
argument that disbarment would lead to stringent consequences for
the company is contradicted by the fact that the Respondents could
only cite one contract involving 35 employees out of Respondents
total of 300 employees. Financial difficulties will not merit
relief from debarment, particularly where the have been recurrent
violations. Custodial Guidance System, Inc., SCA 1235 (April
9, 1981). Respondents referred to problems getting timely
notification of wage determination adjustments, but did not
describe in detail any examples of this. Respondents will argue
that the amount of each violation is a small percentage of each
contract amount. It would be more appropriate to compare the
[PAGE 7]
amount of back wages to each employee s rate of pay.
Respondent s Position
As Respondents have conceded that they violated the Act, the
only remaining issue is whether unusual circumstances exist which
warrant relief from debarment. In Matter of Bradt d/b/a Aaron
Ambulance Service, No.82-SCA-35 (March 20, 1984), a number of
factors were found to constitute unusual circumstances. Such
factors include a bona fide legal issue, factors outside the
employer s reasonable control, erroneous advice from the
government, and whether the employer made a genuine effort to
assure full and prompt payment to employees despite financial
hardship. Further it has been held that an unusual circumstance
exists where the total amount of the violation is de minimis
when compared to the total contract price. Matter of Action
Systems, Inc. et al, Nos. 82-SCA-81, 85-SCA-15, 86-SCA-37
(January 25,1991); Federal Food Service, Inc. v. Donovan,
658 F.2d 830, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1981). A violation of approximately
3% has been found to be de minimis. U. S. Dept. of Labor
v. Dickerson, 28 WH Cases 1255 (September 2, 1987).
In the instant case, the January, 1990 violation constitutes
only 1.10 to 1.47% of the total annual Air Force contract award and
thus is de minimis. No violations were found in the June
1986 and the January, 1988 investigations. In January 1987 and
April 1988 the investigations disclosed violations of $30,000.00
owed to approximately 300 employees. The contracts involved were
not placed in evidence and therefore it is unknown if these
violations were de minimis. However there were unusual
circumstances that lead to the violations in that the wage
determination letters were not delivered in a timely fashion.
Similarly, the April, 1987 violations were approximately $19,000.00
involving 155 employees. Once again the contracts are not in
evidence so it is not known if these violations were de
minimis. The January and April, 1987 violations should be
disregarded because the record suggests unusual circumstances
underlying the violations. The Court must consider the totality of
the circumstances in determining whether unusual circumstances
exist which warrant relief from debarment. In re Quality
Maintenance Co., Inc., 21 WH 1094 (1975); Matter of Jerry C.
Rankins, No. SCA-965 (December 21, 1978).
There is no showing that Respondents actions were willful,
deliberate or of an aggravated nature. Respondents have
demonstrated a good compliance record and fully cooperated in the
investigations. There in no evidence of falsification of records
[PAGE 8]
and debarment would jeopardize Respondents ability to remain in
business. These factors must be considered in determining whether
debarment is appropriate.
The October, 1989 violations are clearly de minimis.
The January, 1990 violation is de minimis and was based on
factors outside Respondents control or involved a bona fide
legal issue.
The January, 1992 investigation disclosed violations of
approximately 2.1% of the value of the contracts. Further the
Respondents did not receive wage determination letters until the
time of the investigation. Respondents also received erroneous
advice from the government in that Mr. Womack received wage
determination letters that contained incorrect rates. The
December, 1992 investigation was simply a follow-up to the January
investigation. Payments were not made to employees because of
Respondents financial situation. As to the overtime violations,
Respondents had instituted a freeze , and upon learning that this
had not been followed, corrective action was immediately taken.
The Court should also consider Respondents precarious
financial situation. As of November, 1994, Respondents had a
negative income level of $100,000.00. During the year ending
November 1993 government contracts accounted for 44% of Respondents
total revenues. Almost 40 employees would be put out of work by
debarment. Finally, the government entities involved have failed
to pay the increased wage rates for three to nine months after the
effective date of these raises. There is broad discretion is
deciding on debarment which should be used to grant the Respondents
relief in this case. Matter of Lance Security Patrol
Agency, No. SCA-1069 (September 20, 1989); Matter of Space
Age Engineering, Inc., No. SCA-1164 (January 23, 1980);
Associated Security Specialists, No. SCA-1062 (October 5,
1979).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 5 of the Act provides that any person or firm found by
the Secretary to have violated the Act shall be debarred in the
absence of unusual circumstances , 29 C.F.R. §4.188. The
1972 amendments to the Act limited the area of discretion to
relieve violators from being placed on the debarred list. In the
instant case Respondents conceded that they violated the Act as
alleged by the Secretary. The Respondents have thus agreed that
they committed at least six violations over a period of
approximately six years. (RX 1, pages 2-3, TR 8)
[PAGE 9]
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §4.188 (b)(1) the burden of
establishing unusual circumstances is on the violator. The
criteria developed by the Department of Labor for determining when
there are unusual circumstances are set forth in 29 C.F.R.
§4.188 (b)(3)(i). This section provides that relief cannot be
granted where a contractor has repeatedly violated the Act or prior
violations are serious in nature. A good compliance history,
cooperation in the investigation, repayment of moneys due and
sufficient assurances of future compliance are prerequisites to
relief from debarment. However, even when all of these conditions
are present relief cannot not be granted when the respondent has a
history of repeated violations. Thus Respondents, who admittedly
committed six violations, are not entitled to relief from debarment
even assuming they could establish a number of factors which, in
the absence of repeated violations, might constitute unusual
circumstances .
A second prerequisite to the consideration of the issue of
unusual circumstances is a finding that the respondent has not
engaged in any willful, deliberate or aggravated violations.
The Secretary called Colette Hanlon, Respondents payroll and
human services administrator from November, 1991 to March, 1992, to
establish that Respondents conduct in causing the violations was
willful or deliberate and that Respondents attempted to evade
compliance and thwart the investigation. Ms. Hanlon testified that
Brenda Chouinard told her that the Respondents did not pay overtime
and that this decision had been made by John Womack. She testified
that in November, 1991, just prior to a DOL investigation, John
Womack asked her to make it difficult for the investigators to find
anything. Ms. Hanlon stated that in February 1992 she put new wage
rates into the payroll computer for the Hanscom Air Force
contracts. Shortly after this she was reprimanded by Brenda
Chouinard in the presence of John Womack and told to reinstate the
old pay rates. In connection with a DOL investigation, Ms. Hanlon,
pursuant to the request of the investigator, compiled a number of
employee W-2 forms. Rather than forwarding them to the
investigator as requested, these forms, pursuant to Brenda
Chouinard s instructions, were simply allowed to sit in the office
for several weeks. Ms. Hanlon testified that she left the employ
of Respondents because she was uncomfortable with their employment
practices.
Ms. Chouinard testified that she did not attempt to impede any
DOL investigations and produced the documents which were requested.
With respect to employee W-2 forms, Ms. Chouinard did not recall
the incident testified to by Ms. Hanlon. She testified only to
Respondents general practice and the large number of W-2 forms.
As to overtime, she testified simply that Respondents policy since
[PAGE 10]
1990 was that each employee had to have prior approval from
Respondents president. She stated that prior to the 1992
investigation, there were some violations of Respondents overtime
policy that got by .
John Womack testified that he never told Ms. Hanlon to
interfere in any way with the DOL investigation. He also testified
that overtime needed prior approval, but that employees who worked
overtime, even in violation of this policy, would be paid at the
appropriate rate.
Ms. Hanlon testified in a very forthright, honest and open
manner. Her testimony was very specific as to dates, persons, and
subject matter. She no longer works for the Respondents and has
only a small amount of overtime pay due her. In several instances,
for example the incident involving the W-2 forms, her testimony was
not specifically disputed by Respondents witnesses. Respondents
witnesses have, of course, a clear financial interest in the
outcome of this case. Under all these circumstances, including my
observations of the demeanor of these witnesses while testifying,
I credit the testimony of Colette Hanlon over that of Respondents
witnesses. Accordingly, I conclude that at least with respect to
overtime pay, Respondents did wilfully violate the Act. As to the
failure to timely submit the W-2 forms and making it difficult for
the investigators, I find that this negates Respondents assertions
that they fully cooperated in all DOL investigations. Once again,
in view of these findings, I conclude that I am unable to proceed
to a finding of unusual circumstances as Respondents have not met
the legal prerequisites for such a finding. Washington Moving
& Storage Co., SCA 68 (August 16, 1973, March 12, 1974).
Respondents, nevertheless, argue that they have demonstrated
unusual circumstances . A number of these factors such as payment
of the wage deficiencies, cooperation in the investigation, a good
compliance history, and assurance of future compliance are
prerequisites to relief from debarment, but are only considered in
the absence of repeated violations. Factors such as the absence of
evidence of falsification of records or a showing of willful or
deliberate violations, do not detract from or counteract a history
of repeated violations. Further, my findings supra on some
of these points, contradict the position taken by Respondents.
Similarly, arguments that Respondents are in a precarious financial
situation, debarment will place in jeopardy the jobs of some of
Respondents employees, and the fact that government agencies took
from three to six months to repay the Respondents for wage
deficiencies are not factors that are determinative or even to be
considered in deciding whether debarment is appropriate under the
[PAGE 11]
Act. Custodial Guidance System, Inc., SCA 1235 (April 9,
1981).
Respondents argue that many of the violations, or at least
portions of the violations, when considered as a percentage of the
applicable contracts are de minimis violations. However,
the case law is clear that a finding of de minimis will
prevent debarment only where there is no history of prior
violations. For example, Matter of Action Systems, Inc., et
al, Nos. 82-SCA-81, 85-SCA-15, 86-SCA-37 (January 25, 1991),
involved a single prior start up incident on Respondents first
government contract.
Respondents also assert that they did not receive the wage
determination letters in a timely fashion and that this constitutes
an unusual circumstance. Although Respondents made repeated
references to this topic, the evidence introduced at the hearing
fails to detail how this caused a series of violations. Moreover,
after this had occurred on more than one occasion, Respondents
would be on notice that they needed to make extra efforts to obtain
this information. Respondents had made repeated promises of future
compliance. It was incumbent upon them to take whatever steps were
necessary to obtain wage determination letters promptly and
implement the new wage rates. Respondents cannot repeatedly say
they were not notified in a timely fashion, promise future
compliance, take no action in this regard and then assert that this
situation is an unusual circumstance which precludes debarment.
Finally there is no precedent for considering this situation to be
a special circumstance, and as noted supra in the face of
repeated violations the legal analysis does not proceed beyond that
point.
Respondents contend that this is a case wherein a bona
fide legal issue is being litigated and this is a special
circumstance. It appears the legal issued referred to it the
asserted late delivery of the wage determinations. As discussed
supra, I do not find sufficient record evidence to justify
a conclusion that Respondents actions were the result of any
negligence or inactivity of a contracting officer. Once again, the
concept of raising a genuine legal issue can only have merit in a
case without a history of prior violations.
As a final argument, Respondents state that there is broad
discretion in determining if debarment is appropriate. As
previously noted such discretion only exists in situations free
from repeated violations.
In view of all of the above, I find that the Respondents have
engaged in repeated violations and therefore under the analysis set
forth in 29 C.F.R. §4.188 (b)(3)(i) and (ii) my inquiry ends
and I do not go on to consider whether unusual circumstances
exist.
[PAGE 12]
Accordingly, an order of debarment is appropriate. A to Z
Maintenance Corp. v. Dole, 710 F.Supp. 853 (D.D.C. 1989);
Federal Food Service Inc., v. Donovan, 658 F.2d 830 (D.C.
Cir. 1981).
ORDER
John s Janitorial Service, Inc., JJS Services, Incorporated,
John Womack, and Brenda Chouinard, including any firm in which the
named individuals have a substantial interest, shall be debarred in
accordance with the provisions of 29 C.F.R. §5.12(a)(1) for a
period of three years and shall be ineligible to receive any
contract or subcontract subject to any of the statutes listed in 29
C.F.R. §5.1.
_____________________________
JOEL F. GARDINER
Administrative Law Judge
Boston, Massachusetts
JFG:gcb
SERVICE SHEET
Case Name: John s Janitorial Service, Inc., et al
Case No.: 94-SCA-2
[PAGE 13]
Title of Document: DECISION AND ORDER
This is to certify that a copy of the above-named document was
mailed to the following interested parties on __________________.
Administrator John Womack
Wage and Hour Division John s Janitorial Service
U.S. Department of Labor/ESA 197 Washington Street
Room S-3502, FPB Peabody, MA 01960
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210 Brenda Chouinard
John s Janitorial Service
Douglas J. Davidson, Esq. 197 Washington Street
Counsel for Trial Litigation Peabody, MA 01960
Division of Fair Labor Standards
Office of the Solicitor Denzil D. McKenzie, Esq.
U.S. Department of Labor McKenzie & Edwards, P.C.
FPB; Room N-2716 U.S. Trust Building
200 Constitution Avenue, NW 141 Portland Street
Washington, DC 20210 Suite 8200
Cambridge, MA 02139
Regional Solicitor
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
One Congress Street, 11th flr.
P.O. Box 3896
Boston, MA 02114
ATT: Gail E. Glick, Esq.
INTEROFFICE MAIL
Library
_______________________
GAYLE C. BONIA
Legal Technician
[ENDNOTES]
[1]
ALJX refers to the Administrative Law Judge s exhibits, CX
refers to the Secretary s, the Complainant s exhibits, RX refers
to Respondent s exhibits, and TR refers to the official
transcript of this proceeding.
[2]
These briefs are hereby received as Complainant s exhibit 12 and
Respondent s exhibit 1 respectively.
[3]
The facts disclosed by these investigations were not disputed by
the Respondents. (TR 10-11, RX 1 p.3)
