Administrator v. Native Technologies, Inc., 96-LCA-2 (ALJ Nov. 3,
1997)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
800 K STREET, NW, SUITE 400N
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-8002
DATE: November 3, 1997
CASE NO: 96-LCA-2
In the Matter of:
ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Complainant
v.
NATIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Respondent.
Before: JOHN M. VITTONE
Chief Administrative Law Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
This proceeding arises under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§§1101(a)(15)(H)(I)(b), 1182(n), and 1184 (hereinafter "Act") and the
regulations promulgated thereunder which are found at 29 C.F.R. §507.1[Page 2]
1I find that Native Technologies, Inc.
(Respondent) timely filed a request for a hearing in this matter. The regulation at 29 C.F.R.
§ 815(a) contemplates service by alternative means where the respondent does not accept
service by certified mail. The Administrator in this case did serve the notice by regular mail, the
notice was received by Respondent on February 16, 1996, and a request for a hearing was filed
seven days later. Under these circumstance, the request for hearing was timely.
2Although the regulations at 29
C.F.R. § 507.835 and § 507.840 do not provide for the resolution of Labor
Condition Applications actions through motions for summary judgment, 29 C.F.R. §
507.825 provides that the Rules of Practice and Procedure for the Office of Administrative Law
Judges, 29 C.F.R. Part 18, shall be applicable to these proceedings in the absence of conflict.
Twenty-nine C.F.R. § 18.40 allows the submission of motions for summary decision,
which may be granted by an administrative law judge if there is no genuine issue of material fact.
3Although the Employment
Agreement (See EX-E (IM)), which was in effect commencing January 30, 1995,
describes Mr. Mordovskoi's position as that of "Senior Programmer and US-Russian
Software Development Coordinator," I find that he was in fact entitled to wages equal to
that of a Senior Engineer. The LCA submitted by Respondent on or about January 19, 1994
clearly states Mr. Mordovskoi's position to be that of "Sr. Engineer." Accordingly, I
find that it is in this capacity in which Mr. Mordovskoi was employed by Respondent. As I will
discuss below, the regulations do not provide for contingent funding of a position, nor do they
permit a probationary period where the alien's job skills will be assessed for assignment to an
appropriate position paid at a different rate than for the stated occupation on the LCA.
See 29 C.F.R. § 507.730(e)(1)(iii). Likewise, public policy clearly discourages
this type of action.
4While the Interim Final Rule and
the Final Rule are significantly identical, where changes in section numbering occurred, or where
the operative language is substantially different, these differences, if relevant, will be noted. All
citations in this Decision, unless specifically identified as referring to the Final Rule, are to the
Interim Final Rule.
5A prevailing wage rate supplied
by a SESA, before filing the LCA, if for the occupation listed on the LCA, will not be disturbed
by the Department of Labor. 29 C.F.R. § 507.760(e)(1)(ii)(C)(1). Any other source of
prevailing wage data must meet the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 507.760(e)(2)(iii)(C)(2)
and (3), which require extensive documentation of the methodology employed. The
documentation must be retained in a public access file for one year longer than the authorized
period of employment for the alien as requested on the LCA, or until a complaint with the
Department of Labor is resolved. 29 C.F.R. § 507.760(a) and (c), and 29 C.F.R. §
507.800(c).
6The regulations in effect at the
time of the investigation herein provide at 29 C.F.R. § 507.840(c) that the administrative
law judge is not authorized to review the validity of a SESA wage rate, or require source data
used in the compilation thereof. Thus, the SESA rate of $25.74/hour, as determined by the
Administrator to be the applicable one for the purposes of this proceeding, is not subject to
further challenge or review by the Respondent or the Court.
7With respect to this latter
category, all three requirements must be met.
8The unauthorized wage
deduction was made after the effective date of the Final Rule. As such, the Final Rule controls
Respondent's conduct with respect to this issue.