Manufacturing Jewelers and Suppliers of America, Inc. v. USDOL, 2001-WTW-1 (ALJ Apr. 2, 2001)
U.S. Department of
Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N Washington, DC 20001-8002
Date Issued: April 2, 2001
Case Number: 2001-WTW-00001
IN THE MATTER OF:
MANUFACTURING JEWELERS AND SUPPLIERS
OF AMERICA, INC.,
Complainant
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondent
BEFORE: THOMAS M. BURKE
Associate Chief Judge
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter arises under the Welfare-to-Work grant provisions of Title IV, Part A of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 603(a)(5), and the implementing regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part 645.
On October 16, 2000, the Community Development Department of the City of Los Angeles issued a final determination terminating Complainant Manufacturing Jewelers & Suppliers of America, Inc.'s (MJSA) Welfare-to-Work funding. On November 3, 2000, a request for hearing was filed and docketed with the above case number.
On December 4, 2000, this Office issued a Notification of Receipt of Request for Hearing and Prehearing Order which required both parties to file certain information relating to this matter.
On December 1, 2000, the City of Los Angeles filed an objection to Complainant's request for a hearing pursuant to 20 CFR § 645.800. In support thereof, the City of Los Angeles states "that this matter is not ripe for assignment to an Administrative Law Judge because the petitioner has not begun the local hearing process." The City of Los Angeles further states that: "such an assignment is premature and would circumvent the Welfare-to-Work grievance policy enacted by the City of Los Angeles pursuant to State and Federal regulations."
[Page 2]
On December 21, 2000, the U. S. Department of Labor, through its Grant Officer, filed a Motion to Dismiss stating that the Department has taken no action against the Complainant which would make it subject to an appeal with this Office. The Grant Officer further argues that this matter should be dismissed as this Office has no jurisdiction to hear this case. See 20 C.F.R. § 645.800(a).
On January 8, 2001, this Office issued an Order to Show Cause within thirty days (30) of the date of this Order why the objection of the City of Los Angeles and the Motion to Dismiss of the Grant Officer should not be granted and the request for hearing dismissed.
On February 8, 2001, Complainant advised this Office that a scheduled hearing on March 20 and 21, 2001 between Complainant and the City of Los Angeles may resolve the differences concerning this proceeding. Complainant requested that this proceeding be stayed pending resolution of the matter before the Los Angeles Hearing Officer.
On February 14, 2001, the Grant Officer opposed the continuance stating that as this Office does not have jurisdiction to hear this case, no action from the Los Angeles hearing will have any effect on this proceeding and requested that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In light of the failure by Complainant to assert any basis for a finding that this Office of Administrative Law Judges has jurisdiction over Complainant's appeal from the final determination of the Community Development Department of the City of Los Angeles, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Grant Officer's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
