I shared the outcome of a BALCA appeal with a client who was delighted by its similarity to his own situation; he suggested I share the published decision (now in the public domain) with others who might benefit from the ruling. I demurred until I received this email: Mr. Kidambi, I am an AILA member [...]
BALCA found that when an employer requests review by BALCA, rather than filing a MTR, BALCA is only bound to consider information before the CO upon denial and the employer is prevented from supplementing the record with information. (Matter of University of California-Berkeley, 8/30/18) Read BALCA decision(PDF).
BALCA found that while a single ad may be used for more than one position, it does not sufficiently apprise U.S. workers of an opportunity if it does not include the position’s title and includes a careless summary of duties and requirements. (Matter of Igate Global Solutions, 8/30/18). Read BALCA decision(PDF).
BALCA Overturns Denial, Says Advertisement of the Occupation Rather than Particular Position is Acceptable
BALCA upheld denial where the employer submitted a recruitment report signed by its agent, as opposed to itself, in direct violation of 20 C.F.R. §656.17(g)(1) which requires either the employer or its representative to sign the recruitment report. (Matter of DMPRO, Inc., 3/24/16). Read Balca decision(pdf)
BALCA overturned the denial, holding that a minor typo in the employer name on the SWA job order did little to confuse potential applicants about the employer's identity or undermine the employer's §656.10(c)(8) attestation. (Matter of SWDWII LLC, 1/29/16). Read Balca decision(pdf)
BALCA ordered certification to be granted despite a divergence of duties between Form ETA 9089 and the SWA job order, finding that 656.17(f) only applies to the required newspaper or professional journal. (Matter of Pinnacle Technical Resources, Inc., 1/21/2016). Read the Balca case here.
After denial solely for failing to list non-experience based qualifications in Section K, BALCA ordered the matter remanded for certification, which the CO supported. See three factually similar cases: 2014-PER-00224, 2014-PER-00260, and 2014-PER-00262. (Matter of The Cadmus Group, 1/15/16). Read Balca decision(PDF)
After employer failed to provide dated website postings and the text of the radio ad, BALCA held that screenshots are "dated copies" and that an audio recording and contract from the radio station confirming when the ad ran was sufficient. (Matter of Waldorf School of Orange County, 11/6/15). Read the BALCA decision.
BALCA determined that employer verified sponsorship upon signing the statement certifying the conditions of employment on the mailed-in application. The application was remanded to CO for further processing on the merits of the application. (Matter of La Hacienda Meat Market, Inc., 11/4/15). Read the Balca decision here.
Denial affirmed where prevailing wage validity period on 9089 was less than 90 days. Validity was actually "90 days from date of determination" but dates were entered incorrectly on 9089. (Matter of Guilbert Tex, Inc., 10/14/15). Read the Balca decision here.